# Budget and Finance and Economic Development Committee - November 29, 2022 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 29, 2022 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5694 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5694?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2022-11-29 - **Last revised**: November 29, 2022 - **Length**: 14,539 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 Budget, Finance & Economic Development Committee convened on November 29, 2022, at 1:00 PM with Amanda Bledsoe presiding. The committee addressed four informational agenda items covering key financial and economic development matters for the city. The meeting included presentations on the monthly financial update, the Lexington Public Infrastructure Program, a Tax District Work Group report, and an update on the city's compensation study. During the session, the committee took six votes and heard from two members of the public who provided comments. All agenda items were presented for informational purposes, indicating the meeting focused primarily on updates and reports rather than policy decisions requiring formal action. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the November 29, 2022 meeting: **Present:** • Amanda Bledsoe • Steve Kay • Richard Moloney • Chuck Ellinger • Josh McCurn • James Brown • Fred Brown • Susan Lamb • Whitney Baxter • Liz Sheehan • Jennifer Reynolds • Hannah LeGris • Preston Worley • Kathy Plomin All expected attendees were present for the meeting. No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The committee took action on six items during the November 29, 2022 meeting [timestamp: 00:00]. **Approval of October 25, 2022, Special Committee Summary** Plomin motioned to approve the previous meeting summary, with Lamb providing the second. The motion passed unanimously [timestamp: 00:00]. **Support for the Lexington Public Infrastructure Program** Fred Brown motioned to support the Lexington Public Infrastructure Program. The motion passed by voice vote [timestamp: 00:00]. **Parcel Correction Schedule and Resolutions** Plomin motioned to approve the schedule and resolutions for identified parcels to be corrected. The motion passed by voice vote [timestamp: 00:00]. **Tax District Work Group Partial Report** Plomin motioned to approve a partial report to be made at the work session for the tax district work group report out. The motion passed by voice vote [timestamp: 00:00]. **Compensation Study Resources** The committee voted on supporting the administration's proposal for compensation study resources. This motion passed by roll call vote with 7 members voting in favor and 2 members voting against [timestamp: 00:00]. **Work Session Recommendation** A motion to move forward with the recommendation at work session passed by voice vote, with 1 member voting against [timestamp: 00:00]. All motions that came before the committee were approved, with the compensation study resources proposal receiving the most opposition with two dissenting votes in the roll call. ## Public Comment Two speakers addressed the board during the public comment period, both focusing on concerns related to the compensation study. **Rob Wilson** [timestamp: 00:00] spoke about the pay study and its potential impact on long-term employees. Wilson expressed concerns about how the compensation study would affect existing staff members and emphasized the importance of implementing a system that properly rewards tenure and experience. He advocated for ensuring that employees who have dedicated years of service to the organization are appropriately recognized and compensated for their loyalty and accumulated expertise. **Dani Wood** [timestamp: 00:00] also addressed the compensation study, but focused on a specific equity issue affecting certain employees. Wood highlighted the problem of staff members who have received title changes without corresponding pay adjustments. She urged the board to develop a more equitable solution that would ensure employees receive appropriate compensation when their job responsibilities and titles are updated. Wood's comments underscored the need for consistency between job classifications and compensation levels. Both speakers' comments centered on fairness and equity within the compensation structure, though they approached the issue from different angles - Wilson focusing on tenure-based considerations and Wood addressing title-pay alignment issues. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant area of contention regarding the implementation of a compensation study. **Compensation Study Implementation** A heated discussion emerged around the fairness and impact of the compensation study and its proposed implementation. The debate centered on concerns about how the study would affect current employees, particularly those with long tenure at the organization. Participants raised questions about the equity of the compensation adjustments and expressed worries about the potential negative impact on long-term employees who have served the organization for extended periods. The discussion highlighted tensions between implementing market-based compensation recommendations and maintaining fair treatment for existing staff members who may have been with the organization under different compensation structures. The nature of the disagreement appeared to focus on the methodology of implementation rather than the compensation study itself, with stakeholders debating how to balance competitive market rates with recognition of employee loyalty and service history. *Note: Specific participant names, voting outcomes, and detailed resolution information were not available in the provided meeting materials. Timestamp references could not be included as this information was not provided in the source data.* ## Monthly Financial Update The committee received a comprehensive financial update for November 2022, presented by Amanda Bledsoe [timestamp: 00:00]. The presentation highlighted significant positive financial performance compared to the previous year. **Key Financial Highlights:** • Revenue increased by 20% over the previous year • Personnel expenses were discussed as part of the overall financial review Bledsoe provided the committee with detailed financial metrics and comparisons to help members understand the organization's current fiscal position. The substantial revenue growth of 20% year-over-year represented a notable improvement in the organization's financial performance. The presentation included discussion of personnel expenses, though specific details about staffing costs, salary adjustments, or personnel-related budget items were not elaborated upon in the available summary. This monthly financial update served as an informational briefing for committee members, allowing them to stay current on the organization's fiscal health and performance trends. No action items or decisions were required as a result of this presentation, as it was purely informational in nature. The positive revenue growth trend presented in Bledsoe's update provided committee members with insight into the organization's financial trajectory and overall operational success during the reporting period. ## Lexington Public Infrastructure Program [timestamp: 00:00] Amanda Bledsoe presented information about the Lexington Public Infrastructure Program during this meeting session. The program is designed to support infill and redevelopment projects that fall within the city's urban service boundary. The presentation focused on the program's dual objectives of promoting economic development while simultaneously improving public infrastructure throughout Lexington. By targeting areas within the established urban service boundary, the program aims to encourage development in already-served areas rather than expanding into undeveloped territory. The infrastructure program specifically targets infill projects, which involve developing vacant or underutilized parcels within existing developed areas, and redevelopment projects that involve renovating or replacing existing structures. This approach aligns with sustainable urban planning practices by maximizing the use of existing infrastructure and services. Bledsoe's presentation was informational in nature, providing an overview of the program's structure and goals rather than seeking specific action from the meeting participants. The session served to update attendees on the program's framework and its role in supporting strategic development within Lexington's urban core. The program represents the city's commitment to encouraging responsible growth patterns that leverage existing public investments in infrastructure while supporting economic development opportunities. By focusing resources within the urban service boundary, the initiative aims to create a more efficient use of public resources while promoting development in areas already equipped with necessary services and infrastructure. ## Tax District Work Group Report Out [timestamp: 00:00] Kathy Plomin presented findings from the Tax District Work Group regarding discrepancies in how residents are being taxed for municipal services. The work group identified issues where some residents may not be receiving appropriate tax assessments based on the services they actually receive from the city. The presentation focused on proposed corrections to ensure residents are taxed appropriately for the services provided to them. The work group's analysis revealed inconsistencies in the current tax district structure that needed to be addressed to maintain fair and accurate taxation practices. This was an informational presentation, with the work group sharing their research and recommendations with the governing body. No formal action was taken during this agenda item, as the purpose was to report out the findings and proposed solutions developed by the work group. The presentation aimed to provide transparency about the tax district review process and inform officials about potential adjustments needed to correct the identified discrepancies in the taxation system. ## Compensation Study Update The committee received an informational presentation on the implementation of the compensation study [timestamp: 00:00]. Key speakers included Tammy Walters and Russell Campbell, who provided updates on the ongoing process. The discussion centered on the implementation of the compensation study, with particular attention paid to addressing concerns about pay equity within the organization. The speakers outlined the current status of the study and discussed how the findings would be applied moving forward. A significant portion of the conversation focused on the administrative review process that accompanies the compensation study implementation. Committee members and staff discussed the procedures being put in place to ensure proper oversight and evaluation of compensation adjustments. The presentation addressed concerns about pay equity, indicating that this remains a priority issue as the study moves through its implementation phase. The speakers provided context on how the study's recommendations would be used to address any identified disparities in compensation across the organization. This was an informational item, meaning no formal action was taken by the committee. The update served to keep committee members informed about the progress of the compensation study and to address any questions or concerns they might have about the implementation process. The discussion provided transparency about the ongoing efforts to ensure fair and equitable compensation practices within the organization, with the administrative review process serving as a key component of the overall implementation strategy. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of October 25, 2022, Special Committee Summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Support for the Lexington Public Infrastructure Program - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the schedule and resolutions for identified parcels to be corrected - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve a partial report to be made at the work session for the tax district work group report out - **Motion** — passed (7-2): Support the administration's proposal for compensation study resources - **Motion** — passed (0-1): Move forward with the recommendation at work session --- ## Full transcript Can I have a motion to approve? So moved. May I have a second, please? Second. Thank you. Any discussion on the motion on the floor? Thank you. Any opposed? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Now anyone opposed? Thank you. That motion passes. The second item on our agenda today is the monthly financial update. This is from November. Commissioner is here if anybody has any questions. What I'll just mention is that our revenue has continued to be increasing 20% over last year. And while we have less positions filled than last year, we have more personnel expenses because we're increasing salary and overtime. So you'll see those numbers in your packet. Seeing no one signed in for questions, I'm going to move on to item number three, which is the Lexington Public Infrastructure Program. I'm going to welcome Kevin Atkins, our chief development officer, to present the program. If you recall, council approved a $3 million allocation in the budget. and now we're going to hear about the program that we've put together to basically move this position forward. Mr. Atkins. Thank you, Chair. I want to start today by thanking a bunch of people before I run down the program because this has been truly a team effort from within the House. So we've had Dave Barbary, Evan Thompson, and Emily Butram from the Law Department, Commissioner Albright, who's on jury duty and couldn't be here with us, Craig Benz from my office, Nick Brock, you all saw the application that he was able to do for us, and Jim Duncan and Chris Woodall and others, but those were some of the main players. When we started this effort, we wanted to create something that could be used both not only by our larger developers, but by our smaller developers as well, and it could really make a difference, but could really make some nice community impact on projects. And we also wanted to have a process that wasn't overly burdensome to the applicant that could be pretty easy to use. So with that, as you just said, the 03 budget allocated $3 million for the program. We wanted an emphasis on underutilized, vacant, and mixed-use projects, but projects that also had an economic benefit and provided economic opportunities for the community. and the projects have to be located within the urban service boundary. Now, the program overview funding is intended to be last dollar in, so this is the dollars to really make the project go. Any of the funding from LFUCG would have to go toward the public portion of the project, So it could not only serve just that private portion, but it has to be for a broader public use. Funding under the program has to go toward the actual construction of the infrastructure that had been applied for. This program is set up to strictly be a reimbursement. So there's no money fronted. It's a reimbursement after cost. and reimbursement would be once we get the receipt or what other mechanism we have to prove actual cost. I also thought it would be a good idea to show you some of the eligible versus non-eligible expenses. As I mentioned earlier, our money would have to go to a public portion of the project so you can see public parking. If the parking only served that development and it was reserved for just that, in other words, if it was an office complex and it could only be used by the office personnel, that would not be public. But if it served other folks like a garage coming to buy at a shop or whatever, then that would be eligible under this program. program. The program is here to help provide for what we hope is an improved project for parts of the project maybe that would not have occurred otherwise. You can think about maybe putting in a transit stop where there might be, wouldn't be one. Or it can just be that money that helps the project go, what we typically would call gap financing. So the The application and the administration of the program would be somewhat shared by Commissioner Albright's office and myself. We would take the initial pass at the applications. We would then determine what staff we needed to come in and help us do the review, whether it be procedure or cost. For example, if it was an engineering question, we would probably want Director Burton involved. Planning we would want Director Duncan involved. quality we would want charlie martin in there to help us review you review the cost once that has been done and once we're comfortable with the project we would then have the applicant come in and address the economic development investment board and let them ask their general questions about it and determine whether it was approved if the board approves it then it would come to the council and any final action would occur at the council level. What we hope is we get projects and what our desire is we get projects where we're leveraging LFUCG funds against external LFUCG funds to make for the project. We also want projects that are essentially ready to go. We put a time limit. So the project has to start within a year of the council approving the funding, and it has to be completed within two years of that approval. Another key requirement, of course, is that any applicant, their project meets all the compliance of LFUCG zoning, all the other requirements. And finally, we ask the applicant to demonstrate how it leads to economic development and early economic development jobs. The application, again, we wanted to create something that was fairly streamlined. You can see the basic criteria up here. These are just the application general items. And I think Kelly sent you the application in your materials for the meeting today. Application will be done all electronically, much like we did the stimulus during COVID. And once it's reviewed, if the application is approved, then we would create an incentive agreement with the law department. Awards would be for 0% for up to 10 years. The maximum would be $500,000 or 10% of the project. So for example, if you had a million dollar project, it's 100,000 maximum. A $5 million project hits the 500,000. If you got a $20 million project, you still hit the $500,000 maximum. Again, I want to just mention that the projects have to be started within 12 months. And I want to reiterate one more time, all the funding is toward reimbursement of cost. We will have what we typically refer to as clawbacks as part of the agreements. So if somebody doesn't start, if they don't do the reporting back as required under the agreements instead of zero, there will be an interest or penalty rate in there. The law department's going to work to make sure we get the highest lien possible in position for any of the projects moving forward. And the awardees will be required to report annually to the Economic Development Investment Board until the project is complete. So the next steps. At the Economic Development Investment Board's last meeting, they voted to approve the by-law update pending the council's approval of that document. So this afternoon at 3, you have two ordinances in front of you. One is allowing the establishment of the infrastructure fund and the other is allowing the oversight by the economic development investment board. If council approves, we'll start talking to CPAL and other organizations about marketing and getting the program rolled out. So just kind of in wrap up, what we wanted to do is create a program that was easily accessible by small and large developers and property owners so it would be fair to use by everyone so with that chair uh ready to answer any questions thank you very much i know we have one person from the public who wants to speak you're good okay then i will take questions from council members if you'll sign in uh council member plummon thank you chair thank you mr atkins it looks like a very well thought out program and i'm sure it'll have much success of it what kind of input did we have we received from developers we asked we had conversations with several of them individually just to get their general thoughts and incorporated most of that into this do you do it and anticipate a lot of a lot of interest in terms i think we will see the three million dollars goes quickly yeah probably well do other cities do this were you checking into what other cities might have done along these lines other cities participate in different ways so that yeah there are like programs out there but yeah everybody kind of has their own natch if you will okay it looks like a good a good program thank you thank you chair thank you i don't see anyone uh thank you councilman baxter thank you for recognizing me since i'm not on the committee um you mentioned that the construction must begin within 12 months of final funding but is there any deadline for when the projects must be completed i know we have some incomplete abandoned project the portion that we assist with has to be completed within two years. So they have a year to start, two years. So, you know, if you take a year to start, you have a year to complete, but it's two years to completion overall. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Chair. Excuse me. I guess I was curious, is this going to be like a revolving type of structure or program? The reason we went with the 0%, we wanted to give assistance to developers, but we also wanted to create something like we're now seeing with the jobs fund, where you have money going back into the program, just like a revolving kind of loan fund, where you can use it later so that the assistance continues. So do you anticipate money coming back in as they make loan payments, I guess? Right. You're actually loaning the money out for investment and economic development. And that's exactly like we do with the jobs fund loans. So the money goes back into that fund. Do you have any, could you give a couple examples of what you might, would that be letting the information out that you don't want out, but a couple examples of how this would work? Are you talking about specific, you know, not specific project? Yeah. I think two good ones that come to mind, and they were different programs. If you look at the center point, well, city center garage, that is public infrastructure because it services not only the development, but it services customers being able to go to the businesses in that development. I think the other one that most people don't think about is when the summit was built, the large retention basin that is out there. It was built not only for that project. The project needed it to go. But it was also done to help relieve flooding in the neighborhood on the backside of that project that it flooded historically. So there was the public purpose for that project. So I guess the follow-up on that is that are you looking at just government property property or would it be private property and then are we relationship to that are we looking at infill possibilities infill would be you know infill would be obviously one of the main main targets uh... it would be private property and private developers but the public aspect of the project so it could be the sidewalk it could be the bus stop it could be you know a bike pedestrian facility that can be used by by numerous groups. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I don't see anyone else signed up to speak. While it's not necessary, I think it would be nice to have a motion of support for the program. So I would entertain a motion. Thank you. Thank you. All those in discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. That passes. I appreciate it. Next, we'll move on to the tax district work group report out. As a member of this work group, I just want to say I greatly appreciate the hard work of the team to address this issue. It's been painstakingly challenging, and the team has done a great job. So I'm going to welcome Council Member Plowman to introduce the issue. Thank you, Council Member, Chair. This item has actually been in the works since 2018 when we discovered a tax discrepancy in the Walnut Grove neighborhood, which is located in the 12th District. When staff and I began looking deeper at that issue, we found additional inconsistencies throughout the city and decided to take a deep dive into our procedures, processes, and look for other parcels that have been misidentified like Walnut Grove. Our work group focused on making sure residents are either receiving the services they are paying for or are paying for the services that they are receiving. And we really worked hard to see that not only neighborhoods are corrected, but citywide issues that have been left unattended for years. It also gave us an opportunity to update our internal procedures and discuss how to be more efficient with our data systems, certified mailings, and petitioning processes. I'm excited to report this out today, and I look forward to your feedback. I know that many of you have met with staff individually in advance of this presentation, and I appreciate that. I want to thank Council Members Bledsoe, Lamb, and Legree, and various staff members that assisted, especially Eve Miller and Jennifer Sutton and Nathan Dickinson. We could not have done this, and it really was a lot of work, and they actually really spent a lot of time over the years assembling all this. So with that, I will pass the floor to Brad Stone, who is introducing the group on behalf of Commissioner Albright. Thank you, Brad. My pleasure. Thank you, Council Member Plowman and members of the committee. The item today is to consider the recommendations of the tax district group and the recommendations going forward on that. It's an incredibly complicated issue, one that we've really wrestled with. It seems like my whole time with the urban county government, we've been wrestling with this issue. And if you look through the archives in our office, I think they've been wrestling with us since the merger, frankly. So I commend all the participants of the committee, Council Member Bledsoe, Council Member Plumman, Council Member LeGreel, Council Member Lamb, and all the staff who have committed so many long hours on the process. We have two of those people here today who are going to be giving the presentations. So let's bring up Eve Miller and Jennifer Sutton. Hi, everyone. Today we are just going to give you a brief overview of the work group, its detail, history. As mentioned previously, there's been a lot of work done on this over the past several years. So we'll kind of talk about that. various legal parameters, the issue at hand, and some of the solutions that we've come to. Just some background, the work group met on about eight occasions from 2021 to 2022, and the work group was formed, again, as previously mentioned, to focus on identifying properties who may have been left out or identified improperly for the tax district they're in, and making sure they're either receiving the services they're paying for or paying for the service that they're receiving. A huge thank you again to the council members who served on this work group, Council Member Plumman, Bledsoe, Lamb, and Legree, and then all of the staff members who helped with this significant process. A little bit of background on the tax district issue. The review of the current tax district change policy item was originally in Environmental Quality and Public Works and was placed into that committee on March 13th and then heard over the summer of 2018. It was originally discovered because of the tax district issue in the Walnut Grove neighborhood in the 12th district. And again, it was heard the summer of 2018. And then after a brief pause because of staff changes and the pandemic, we resumed the work on this item after it going into the BFED committee on March 9th. We also met individually with council offices at the first start of November. So, Lexington has legal parameters that we are required to follow by both the state and our charter when looking at tax districts. So the state's Kentucky revised statutes, KRS chapter 67A 860, regulates the notification and schedule of urban services to property owners. And in our Lexington Fayette County charter, article 2 regulates the service districts and their function. So the charter designates our tax districts and based on the area you live and the services that we provide, we assess property tax based on that. There are three primary urban services the city provides to residents. They are city refuse, street lights, and street cleaning. Based on the charter, properties built after the merger inside the urban services boundary is placed into tax district one, which is full urban services. that are in the process of being built or developed are placed into Tax District 2, which is general service, and that's public safety as well. And then when they are completed, they moved into Tax District 1. And then areas built before the merger were placed into the Tax District that correspond to the services that they were receiving at that time. But residents can choose to petition the city at any time if they want additional services. So here are the seven tax districts that the city has, as well as the services that is provided in each of those, and the 2022 tax rate. So there are three instances where a property owner could have their tax district change. The first is a new development is on a public street. They will be placed into tax district one, full urban services. And if they are on a private street, they're a place into tax district 3 which is only city refuse Second a property owner can petition the city to receive additional city services So for example if I live in tax district 4 which is only street lights My neighbors and I can petition the city to receive additional city services to receive all three and Third if the city discovers a misplacement or an error we will work to place the property owners in the correct tax districts for the services that they are receiving. So as Eve just mentioned, the city will occasionally discover that a property is in a tax district that does not correspond accurately with the services that are being received or being paid for. This could happen for a variety of reasons. It could happen because of updates to street names or addressing or we categorize those as address transcription errors. A plat could be omitted from where a subdivision plat was filed but maybe may have left one or two homes out of that transition. A human error just generally so when data is being inputted into the system just a transcription error in that regard or a general process issue where for some reason or another a property did not get moved into the proper tax district. So we collected or we had a list of parcels, quite a long list of parcels that were reviewed. We determined these parcels based on public feedback, individuals that were receiving services but not getting taxed or other inconsistencies due to the plat or address omissions. And our research and with a gigantic take thank you to the council clerk's office who pulled all resolutions and ordinances pertaining to all addresses and street names all the way back to the merger that pulled those into a pdf so we could make it searchable and go through each one and find out if there was a resolution or an ordinance associated with that address after that we determined which category the errors may have fall into and those kind of align with what was on the previous slide. So those are address transcription errors, plat omission, private streets, street lighting, or if it's tax exempt. So here's just a quick example of the plat omission issue. This is the Walnut Grove neighborhood, which was kind of what spawned the investigation into this. You can see that the back half of the neighborhood is in a different tax district and that has to do with the platts being omitted. Then you can also see another example of the address transcription area. The property and identified here has frontage on two streets so it was left out because it sometimes it can be It just can have an error because it can be confused because of the two different streets. Most, if not all, of the properties that have this address transcription error is usually on a corner. So to recap our research, we identified 1,181 parcels across these five categories that Jennifer mentioned that are in the incorrect tax district for the services they are either receiving or the services that they are paying for. We did want to note that we had 26 parcels that are tax exempt, but they are in the incorrect tax district. So we are proposing to move them to the correct tax district, but they will still not be paying for taxes based upon their standing either as a nonprofit or a religious organization. That way we can ensure if the property were to ever change hands, our system would be updated and ready to go to reflect that. And then here are the parcels broken out for further analysis by each council district. And we wanted to demonstrate and show that to you all today. If the suggested changes that we are bringing forth today are approved by council, there could be an estimated $389,635 of additional revenue added to the Urban Services Fund. However, this is a very minor amount compared to the overall fund, which is about $50 million for fiscal year 2023. And also we wanted to point out that this estimate does not account for any changes in property value or changes in taxes. And if the changes are approved, staff is ready to send out a letter to each property owner for each parcel explaining the change and explaining why this is happening. And this is a similar letter that we sent to, well this is the letter we sent to Glendova residents recently. so each letter that we are proposing to send out will have a similar language that you can see on this slide and also as well we will include the environmental quality and public works office contact information so if anyone has any questions or concerns they can reach out to that office along with our research into the misidentified property the staff and work group also looked at our internal procedures and updating them. So they looked at efficiency. So having implemented, and this was kind of as a result of COVID as well, e-certified mailing for notifications, and increased computerization of the plat review and an e-petitioning process so people can do that process online. We've also looked at process enhancements, so the staff certification in environmental quality and public works, data sharing and mistake proofing mechanisms, which incorporates GIS into this process and being able to look at properties and how they've been edited. And then also modernizing a 1980s typewriter document, internal staff guide, and kind of improving that and making sure that it's easily accessible to or easily understandable for people moving forward. We also wanted to publish a page on the city's website explaining all of this information to ensure transparency on this process moving forward. This is a draft of that language, which includes tax districting information, contact information, and information on petitioning or how to calculate their taxes for the PVA. So the recommendations coming out of this work group is to approve the list of property corrections, which you all have resolutions that are associated with each property that needs to be corrected. And then approve the schedule for property corrections, which is also found in the packet. And then additionally, staff will continue to explore enhancements to this process and continue modernizing as needed. And with that, we'll take your feedback and any questions you might have. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Special thanks to Eve, Jennifer, and Nathan for spending an awful lot of time trying to correct errors that go back to merger, which has been pretty intense. So I want to thank all of you all for your hard work. And with that, I'll open up for questions. If you have any, please sign in. We'll start with Councilmember Lamb. Thank you, Chair. And I also want to give a huge accolades. You know, having spent 21 years in the council clerk's office and spent intimately with those records that you all had pulled and the historical significance of this research that allowed so many people to touch records that they had never touched before is something that is a very rare opportunity. And so I say this because I think that this process, very arduous as it is or was, has allowed so many people to become more knowledgeable about a process that has been usually just really siloed. And I know that I appreciate all of the work and, of course, the geeky part of me is thrilled that we were able to get to where we are today, but more so of the experience that everybody that has had their hands on these records that they've had the opportunity to see and to go through this process. The other thing I wanted to say is there was one specific area in my district during the pandemic that they were trying to go through the urban service district process and to change over from private to city collection. And it was just so difficult. And it actually ended up, it kicked out several streets because we had trouble getting in touch with everybody and touching and getting signatures and so forth. So I appreciate and value the fact that many in this government, especially Nathan Dickerson, had gone through and come up with whole new processes that allowed people to work through a situation when there were issues like the pandemic where you couldn't go house to house. And so I think this is a perfect example of the government putting their head to an issue and finding solutions and coming up with positive solutions and then going through this with the Public Works Commissioner's Office and finding, I mean, this is still just the bear. I mean, there's still so much yet to be dealt with with this. And, Brad, I'm looking back at you, Mr. Stone. I know, you know, we've talked about this numerous times, even before I even came on council. So I just think that this is a good starting space, but I know that there is still yet more to be adapted to as it moves forward with this, with urban service districts. But I am thrilled to be able to be here today and to hear this presentation and to know that we are able to move this forward for the betterment of our community members and to make things better. I'm anxious to see what the fiscal amount, I don't know how long it'll take us for us to know what that amount will be that'll change. I think it will be significant, and I think it is fair, and I appreciate everything and my colleagues who served on this. It was a pleasure, crazy fun, but you all did all the work behind the scenes, and I just want you to know how much I appreciate everything you all have done, so thank you. Thank you. Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for recognizing me once again. I have a few questions, and one has to do with addressing transcription. And I know when the plats are recorded, how there's kind of two addresses. So with the updated procedures that we will have going forward, are there fail safes there to where we can make sure that the correct address is recorded or what's the process there? Yeah, we might call on Nathan, Mr. Dickerson, to answer that question. Council Member Boxer, well, thanks for asking. I have to compliment Chris Dorge and GIS and that whole team. They've been super helpful with coordinating databases so that they all speak to one another and they share a common language. And so I can share this with you afterwards as well, but essentially what we have is some redundancies so we can check that everything that went through the process in one year that went through the assembly line of changing was properly corrected. We can also track, for example, anytime a parcel is edited on the PVA side with a timestamp, and that can indicate any kind of fluke that we don't anticipate that might otherwise cause a parcel to fall out. So that's one example of how we're doing that. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thanks. So I really appreciate this work. I think it's great that the community will be on a level playing field, so to speak. But as the council district that saw the most numerous amount of increases, our property is affected, I'd be remiss without expressing a little bit of my concern. I have eight properties with an over $200 increase per year, and I have one property who actually will have a $4,000 increase on the year. So my questions are, as it relates to that, is there a graduated implementation or an appeal process that someone could go through? Sure. And law could speak on this further. But to our understanding, when we inquired and looked into it, based on our legal parameters that we have to follow, we would need to make that jump immediately. just because there are some property owners who are paying for services but not receiving them. So we want those property owners to start receiving the service and have that implemented. But I'm sure maybe someone could speak more to that. But I don't believe there could be a graduated step pay process. Okay. All right. I think that's all for now. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I see no one. Councilman Marcian. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for recognizing me because I'm not on this committee. I also appreciate all the work that has gone into this. I know that it takes a lot of time to look up all of these records, match everything up, and I appreciate that we are correcting a process because I think part of our job as council is oversight of some of the procedures, and so this is a good example of where an issue has been brought up and we've been able to work to correct it. So I appreciate all the work and time and effort. But back to Councilmember Baxter's question, you addressed the graduated amounts if there was a way to kind of ease people in, particularly when they're paying a high amount. But I didn't hear the information about is there an appeal process. Because for the PVA's office, when property values are reassessed, and some of my district recently went through that, there was a process for the resident to then contact the PVA's office and kind of appeal it or discuss what the new evaluation was. Right. This process would be a little bit separate from the PVA's property value process. So I'm not sure if they could technically appeal the city's taxes. for services, but they certainly could contact the PVA and try that process. But yes, I do understand the concerns of property owners jumping up. Is this a better question for Mr. Cravens, or do you want to take it? I'll take the first step at it. You'll notice on the schedule, there is kind of a lengthy legal process. Part of that includes a public hearing, and that would be an opportunity to kind of discuss that. Thank you. You're not getting up, so I assume you're good. Okay. I see no one else signed up to speak, so I'm going to turn it over to Council Member Fleumann. Thank you, Chair. I do have two motions that I'd like to bring forward. The first motion, I move to approve the schedule and resolutions for the identified parcels to be corrected, including tax districts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. So moved. Second. Is there a second? Thank you. Thank you. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. That motion passes. In my second motion, I move to approve a partial report to be made today at Council's November 29, 2022 work session for the tax district work group report out. So moved. Second. Thank you. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. That motion passes. Thank you very much, Councilman Plowman and Councilman Lamb and LeGree for your work on this item. And now we move on to the last item, which is the compensation study update. Vice Mayor Kay, would you like to open up this conversation? Thank you, Chair, and welcome, Ms. Walters. I just want to be clear about one thing. I'll have some comments after the presentation, and although my name is attached to this, the presentation that's being made today is the administration's presentation, and I had some questions about the compensation study, which I'll ask after the presentation. So thank you. Thanks for being here. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you for having me today. I appreciate the opportunity. And I'm going to talk a little bit about what our topics of discussion are this afternoon. We're going to talk about the implementation of the study, and that's going to be twofold. So we'll get to that in just a second. And then I'll give you some information about our administrative review process that's currently open, our next steps in human resources. And then Commissioner Hensley is going to talk about the funding for this project, and we're going to present a proposal. And we talk about implementation of the study. The conversation that brought this about, as Vice Mayor Kay mentioned, were some questions that he had about the implementation itself. and we've invited Dr. Russell Campbell from Management Advisory Group back to speak to some of those questions and he'll also be here for follow-up questions as well. So I'm going to turn the podium over to him. Thank you. Thanks, appreciate it. Good afternoon. As you know, my name is Dr. Russell Campbell. I believe it was October when I came up and talked to you about the draft report for the compensation classification study. There were some initial questions that evening, and so as we fast forward to today, it's my understanding that the organization has moved forward with implementing the study, but there's a few lingering questions that need to be addressed, as well as some additional information shared with the council. So it is my hope that I can address those questions today, along with Tammy, get you the additional information you asked for, so that we can put this issue to bed and move forward. Before I get started, let me say this. What I'm about to say is based on 22 years of experience doing 200-plus of these type studies around the country for some very complex organizations, as well as some that are not as complex. Under no circumstance have we ever initiating a study said to any employee or employee group that this study is going to make everybody happy. And we certainly pointed that out when we kicked out the study. This study is not and was not designed to make every employee happy. The goal was not to give everybody a pay raise. The objective of the study are twofold. Number one, take a look at the composition of jobs in this organization, the duties, responsibilities, and requirements associated with them. Look out in the marketplace to see what other jurisdictions are paying for comparable work, use a statistical modeling technique to take the two sets of data from the evaluation process and the market data to create a new salary schedule. And that's exactly what we did. We had one overriding goal that I would stand up in front of anyone and say we adhere to, and that was to treat everybody fairly. Quite frankly, I didn't care who got what as it relates to the study. I have no friends, relatives, cousins, aunts, uncles that work here. So this was an objective process, knowing that some people may not like the outcome, but the outcome is what it is. If we back up for a second, we talk about conducting a compensation classification study. When you commit to doing a new study, you're basically discarding the existing study. You're starting from scratch. And so a couple of questions that were raised that were brought to my attention, and I want to address a couple of those questions while I'm standing here. Number one, someone asked the question, why didn't the administrative policies and procedures that the organization currently has in place that govern the maintenance of an existing study when it comes to issues such as determining hiring rates of pay, promotion pay, demotion pay, and transfer? The answer is, quite frankly, this. When you commit to doing a new study, you're starting from scratch. The policies that were being referred to are for maintaining the study once it's done. It has no bearing on the implementation process of the new study. So the 7% or 5% based on whether you move one grade or two grade, that becomes effective going forward after the study has been approved and implemented. Then it becomes subject to those administrative guidelines and procedures. It's not part of the implementation process. Another question that was raised, I'll address, was that why did people's comp ratio go down? Well, if you digest the report, the comp ratio is simply a calculation that shows the employee or anyone who's reading the report where their current salary falls relative to the current pay study. Not the new study, but the current study. In compensation philosophy, the target salary is generally considered the midpoint, the midpoint or the juncture between the minimum and the maximum of the pay range schedule. So if someone's current salary is equal to the midpoint of the existing pay grade, then their count ratio would be 100%. If they were 5% above their midpoint, their comp ratio would be 105%, 10%, 110%, or 5% below would be 95%. The reason some of the comp ratios changed, because the salary ranges went up. And so you rerun the calculation, and you'll notice that some individuals, their current pay has fallen behind the new midpoint, because the new midpoints, as well as the minimums and the maximum, all went up. So the comp ratios are not going to stay the same. They're going to change because the calculation foundation has changed. That foundation is the salary range. So that was one issue. Another issue that was raised was why didn't we put people at the same comp ratio in the new study as they were in the old? We do not generally recommend that as a part of a compensation classification study. One, it is extremely cost prohibitive to literally move people to the same juncture they are in the new plan relative to the old. The other issue that is of equal concern, if you have certain inequitable situations in your current compensation structure, such as issues relating to disparity, whether it's gender or race, this will continue that. It will all make it worse. And so right now we still have another study that's being done, and we're probably three weeks from having the initial report ready, which is a pay equity study. We don't know what that's going to look like yet. That study may show that there's been some systematic issues relative to inequity pay decisions made, And so we would not want to compound that by trying to basically replicate the existing structure by putting people at that same juncture in a new plan. So that is why we did not recommend doing that. And the final issue that I raised that was brought to my attention was that going forward with respect to maintaining the study, generally speaking, best practices says you want to do this every five years. You want to tear it down and rebuild it. In the interim years, HR does market surveys to see where jobs, particular jobs are trending to see if they need to fine tune or tweak any of the recommendations from the initial study. And at the five year juncture, you redo the whole thing again. This study is not static. It will be flexible with respect to issues and concerns that come up moving forward. But most of the questions that I've seen and that have been raised generally target a particular group of employees for whatever reason. And I caution you, and again, I've been doing this for 22 years around the country. When you start making concessions for a few groups or a few individuals, the credibility of the whole thing is subject to fall apart. And so I say that to say this, and I don't mind standing up here and answering your questions because I could do this in my sleep. I'm not good at what I do. But if the goal is to put a study together that was fair and was equitable, then we did that. at no point and it certainly wasn't in our contract that we came here to make everybody happy. And we're not. When it comes to money, everybody has their threshold for what they want. That doesn't always correlate to what the data and the facts say that they are. One of the issues was the benefits component of it. Yes, when you talk about compensation, there's two forms of compensation. There's direct, which is your annual salary. There's indirect, which is your benefits. Your compilation of benefits are right there in the middle of the market. What you're offering with paid time off, contribution you're paying for health care, professional development, opportunities, and those other things that typically come into play when you look at benefits in a governmental entity. You're right there in the middle. And so there was no recommendations to change the allocation of benefits because they were very competitive where they were. The issue was the salary structure needed to be adjusted, and as a consequence of that, individuals in certain positions were identified to receive a salary adjustment. And so when we did the calculation for salary adjustments, those were based on two calculations. Number one, when you create a new salary structure, the first calculation is to transition folks from the current plan to the new by identifying anyone whose current salary is below at least the entry level of the new scale of the new plan. If they're below that, you've got to calculate what it takes to get them up to that level. Then to address salary compression, which happens when you do a new study, because at some point you start hiring new people based on the higher pay ranges, and anyone who's currently been employed that may have just been brought up to the new minimum, well, if Johnny come lately is hired two weeks later and you're hiring under the new structure, he or she could come in making the same thing that someone was just brought up to that had been here for a couple of years. So to address that, we put together a formula that applied to everyone, whether their job was management, non-management, in a bargaining unit, non-bargaining unit, where we gave them additional fiscal credit based on how long they've been in their current position to separate those longer-term employees whose salary is not where it should be based on the time frame they've been in their existing position. There was an additional adjustment calculated to move them forward within the pay structure. And so we did those things to address salary compression, create some separation between existing staff and those that will come after the new salary ranges are in effect and you start hiring people at that juncture. but there was nothing unusual about that as part of best practices when you conduct a compensation study. The only other way to address salary compression is to look at based on how long the employee has actually worked for the organization, which is fiscally, doesn't make a lot of sense fiscally, because we are saying that we want to get you to your target salary, but there are some limits on that. We're just not going to open up the cash register and start throwing out $100 bills just because you worked here for 20 years. There has to be some modicum of rationality as to how we move people within the pay structure and how we place them in the pay structure. And I think the public would appreciate that. And so we did not look at all of their previous experience, which is next to impossible to do, because someone would have to be the arbitrator to decide whether or not, well he worked at GE 20 years ago and is doing similar work now in public works is that the same type of work that he has 20 plus years in at GE relative to what he or she's doing for city county government and so there's a lot of pitfalls associated with trying to do things like that and so we did not do that and would not do that under any circumstances and so if Tammy would come up. I think she has some things she wants to add. I'll continue to be here to answer questions. Ms. Walters, before you do that, I think it might be easier if we asked Dr. Campbell questions while he's standing here, if that's okay. Does anybody have any specific questions for Dr. Campbell on what he's presented thus far? Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for coming back and considering the questions that have been asked. I guess I feel like I need to clarify a couple things. Sure. About my request. The first is that I've been around council for only 12 years. I haven't been doing this work for however many years you've been doing your work. And so I'm not competent to question the way in which you've approached the study and the report that you've given us. but I do understand fully that the intent is not to make everybody happy. And my questions did not have anything to do with my interest in believing that everybody should be made happy. My questions really had to do with some of the underlying assumptions behind the study and then the impact of those assumptions as you looked at the broad base of employment in the city. I had hoped that we would get some written responses because I haven't been doing this for 32 years. And it's hard for me to follow completely and know whether the questions that I have in my mind have really been adequately answered. And so at a certain point, I'm going to ask that this stay in committee. But I think I'll yield the floor to other folks and then come back. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Kloiber. Thank you, Chair. I'm not on this committee. Thank you again for coming and speaking. I know that there's been a lot of questions asked about this. And again, reiterating, the point of this study was in order for us to get in line with the market, not to make sure everybody got raises. So one of the things that you said there was that there was an assumption made that people were appropriately placed in their previous classification based off of any of that previous work. As you said, working 20 years at GE, you didn't consider that. There had to be an assumption made that people were placed appropriately at some point. Well, when we moved forward, why didn't you hold to that compensation ratio? since obviously how they were being compensated in the previous classification was the only indicator you had as to where we placed them based off their experience when they took that position? I thought I was pretty clear on that. Number one, with the other study hanging out there, we don't know what it's going to come back and show as findings with respect to any disparities that may exist that create inequitable relationships. the last thing we want to do is to run the report and implementation plan that potentially could exasperate an existing issue of inequality. Number two, the cost to do that was pretty significant. And based on conversations with staff about budgets and going forward, And then looking at what had been done most recently in terms of salary adjustments, we made the decision to not do that. So just to follow up there, we do have the second study coming on the disparity, which I assume will be an addendum and something additional that we'll do in order to try to, because we're pushing these things through. The question just comes back to what you said. You made a choice. It seems more arbitrary than fair. especially considering the impact that it has to a lot of individuals going forward. So putting into place something like there were financial concerns undercuts the overall fairness of what we're trying to do. I'm not here to split words with you, sir. What you say arbitrary, I say professional opinion. You hired us to give you a professional study and give you our expertise. And based on the work we've done and our experience, we did not recommend doing that. And no one specifically asked for that to be done in that manner. So we did it based on how we felt it would work best for the organization in terms of implementing the study. Well, I thank you very much for your expertise. And as we are people who know our city and our employees better, we're definitely going to take what you have put in front of us. We're going to work with our employees in order to try and figure out what adjustments need to be made. And then we'll go from there. But thank you. Thank you. I see no one signed up. Thank you, Dr. Campbell, for your part of the presentation. And Ms. Walters, I'll turn it back over to you to finish. Thank you. With regard to HR's portion of implementing this study, we did, and there are a lot of components that go along with that. So we updated our authorized strength and the job code table, creating new classifications, updating pay grades for existing classifications, and inactivating any unused classifications. We also updated PeopleSoft to reflect that same information in the job code table, position data, and job data itself. That did appear on employees' most recent checks last week, and we do encourage folks to please review their pay stubs, and if they see any discrepancies, please let us know. We also opened up a formal administrative review process, whereby employees may request a review of their classification and or pay grade assignment. There's an administrative review form that goes along with that. We ask that they complete those forms, provide any supplemental documentation as needed, secure the approval of their director and commissioner, and then they can either email that information to compstudy at lexingtonky.gov or send it via paper through interoffice mail. All review requests have to be filed with the Division of Human Resources by 5 p.m. on December 30th, so a little over a month left to get those in. We are going to now begin the process of updating all of our job descriptions. We have over 370 job classifications. So as you can imagine, that is not a quick and or easy task. We've made some improvements to the job description template. We're shortening that a bit and excluding some extraneous information that will still be on the JPQs if we need to reference them. And then, of course, we'll begin the process of analyzing those administrative review requests and provide recommendations from that process early next calendar year. And now I will turn it like a whole crew going on here. Let's turn it over to Commissioner Hensley. We just wanted to provide a reminder of all of the component pieces of this conversation. So as you all are all aware, we had previously committed $5 million for the compensation study and its implementation in our budget for this year. So that was existing at the beginning. That was kind of the first piece of that. Subsequent to that, an additional $1.2 million was allocated in the fund balance conversation, bringing our total available to address the compensation concerns as related to the non-sworn personnel to $6.2 million. The implementation piece that has already been moved forward is approximately $2.5 million of that. So that leaves a balance of funds of just about $3.7 million. So in talking through all of these questions and trying to address some of these concerns that we continue to hear over and over, One of the overarching concerns was we want to make sure that we're continuing to stay competitive. We did a 5% increase to all the non-sworn members with this budget this year. We recognize that there's always room for improvement in that. And so as we're looking at the funds that we have available, the first proposal that we brought to you, if you will recall, was a one-time supplement. That does not go to base. That is not a long-term compensation assistance. But it does help in the short term, and it does help those folks that are really experiencing the inflation. If you remember, we had it tiered based on where our salaries lay, and we really were trying to address with the one-time money where our folks are really seeing that inflation hurting the most. In deference to the fact that that is not a long-term solution, this proposal that we brought forward today is actually a hybrid of that. It is an additional 3% to the base for all of the employees that would have been covered with our increase this year for the non-sworn, as well as a one-time scaled supplement to be paid in December in recognition for that inflationary component piece. The 3% across the board roughly will cost us $2.4 million. It would be effective in January should that be something you all want to elect to do. and then the one-time supplement is the remaining funds to try and adjust for that. Again, it is tiered the same way that we discussed it the last time. So we just wanted to provide an opportunity for further conversation, address some of the concerns that folks have had, and give a starting point for the council to continue to have this discussion. And at this point, I think that is it for the presentation, and we're happy to answer any questions we may be able to answer for you. Thank you very much, Commissioner Dr. Campbell and Ms. Walters. I know there are several people who have signed up for public comment, so I think I'll entertain public comment first and then allow conversation. So I'll start. Ms. Bean, did you want to speak? Is this just for this particular issue? Yes, ma'am. This issue. I don't have a comment on this issue. I do have a comment I wanted to make on the directions to the tax workers. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilson? Just give us your name. Council District, you know of three minutes. Thank you. First off, Matt Mattiola was yielding his time to me. My name is Rob Wilson. I work for Fleet Services. I've met all of you now at this point. Good afternoon. I'm aware that this committee is working on a resolution for the shortfalls of the pay study. I was shown a proposition to do an across-the-board pay increase. If an across-the-board pay increase was the solution, the pay study would have come back, no changes needed. The solution to our issues is not as simple as a percentage increase. The current pay system is failing the employees. We need something to work for. Now that our pay grades have been changed with no real change for employees with less than 10 years of service, morale has plummeted. We are now faced with having to train new hires on daily systems and methods that are paid more than the person training them. How is that right? I'm told by employees that are tenured, at one point there was a STEP system, and it was replaced by another STEP program that was supposed to transform into a performance-based pay system. From what I've been told, it was never funded. Based on that, there's a record of these systems that could be used as an outline. In regards to new hires, not only will they be paid higher than a large group of employees, they will also contribute more into the retirement system, which also puts them further along in the retirement system. I will not downplay the importance of public safety and their pay issues, just like ours. But it feels like at times, support systems for public safety are overlooked. Clean water is very important. That can be overlooked as public health and safety. traffic, road design, road maintenance, forestry. All these entities are also public health and safety. There are many more that I did not list. All these are important support divisions that are easy to overlook. All we ask is the same amount of diligence and time that goes into public safety's compensation goes into ours. We desperately need to implement some program to further employee careers. Without a compensation program, morale will continue to drop and turnover will increase. I listened to what Dr. Campbell had to say, and I've read through a lot of the ordinances pertaining to the within-grade salary increase where you're supposed to get a percentage for each grade to go up. And nowhere in there does it say that it's to maintain a pay study. It says it's to maintain the unified pay plan through the civil service system. So I don't know how that would apply to the pay study. That's all. Thank you, guys. Thank you very much. I also gave a couple of you all a handout for an old pay study. That right there. That could be used as an outline for a new one. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to speak? Yes, ma'am. Welcome. You may have three minutes to give your name and council district. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council, for allowing me to speak. I'm sorry I arrived late for the sign-in. I didn't see it up there, so please forgive me. I do have some handouts for Council if they're interested. First of all, good afternoon. Thank you again. I was made aware of some of the compensation study adjustments that were going to be made just a few short hours ago. So you'll forgive my brevity in this case. So my name is Danny Wood. I'm from Council District 4. I'm sure you recognize my face and my name, hopefully at this point. Today I'm here in a repeat attendance to give voice to those affected by the compensation study. We are so few, but we are a part of the many that you all are trying to help with the MAG study, with HR, with the administration. You're all trying to do good, and that's a huge success. There are 841 people that were adjusted and given this wonderful thing because they are doing their job, and they are doing their job well. there's just a small fraction of people who are also in that bucket that got a title change that got a code change and we're still doing our jobs and we're still filling in for our divisional needs that didn't get any compensation we had no adjustments so that number which is in the fact sheet that i gave you guys before is three hundred and eleven thousand dollars not talking about millions. I'm not talking about hundreds of people helped. I was talking about a small fraction of people who jumped two, three, four codes. And we're still expected to play those roles with new titles, same responsibilities because we're filling in for vacancies and needs in our divisions, but we're not getting paid for it. And if you could just take a few moments to look at those facts that we have provided and just question what we're doing here and how we can go forward with not just an across-the-board answer because all you're doing there, I'm going to emphasize this, is you're broadening the gap between the people you helped and the people you are not. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Wood. Okay, council members, if you have questions for the Commissioner, Dr. Campbell, and Ms. Walters, if you'll sign in. We'll start with Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to start out with this, and then we always welcome people to our council chamber to express their concerns. That's our process, and it's a very important process. We also always welcome people to refute any work that they've performed in a respectful, non-defensive manner. I want our employees to know that their concerns have been heard and are valued. And no one likes their work to be questioned. But I think it's important that we allow ourselves to have the conversations to discuss so that at the end of the day, we can understand how the process was taken forward. But having said that, I think from what I have heard today, and I appreciate and value greatly all of the employees that have taken their time to do some homework, because I have been there and done that. Back when the compensation study was done back in 1996, I know exactly what you're talking about, that pay for performance. And I stood at that podium, and I spoke to the administration at that time and spoke on many, many occasions about why in the world are you not implementing the paper for performance. Well, I mean, I never did really get an answer. So I'm sitting in this seat now, and I don't want to be the one to sit here and say I'm not listening to you because that would be a bad thing for me to do, and my heart can't handle that. So I do appreciate and value what the administration and what Ms. Walters, they're working toward. I do think that this pay equity study, it is important to find out the results of that. But also this formal review process to the point of these 90 people. I don't know who all the positions are that are these 90 people. But I, not that I'm trying to put more work on human resources, but I expect before December 31st that 90 people need to go through this formal review process. And I will say this at this point, because I'm not at a point to where I can physically make a motion to any other point, and I hate that because my time is limited here. But what I say is that at this point in the time, I think the pay equity study is very important to see what happens with that. I think this formal review process is very important to follow through. And I urge every director and commissioner that you better support your employees and sign off on the review process and let it go through the process. Because your employees deserve that. And I've been in this government for a long time. And I know what I'm talking about. So I'm saying this because our employees are very, I value our employees. I think that there is an opportunity here. You know, we have had to change a lot of positions because we've had a lot of problems with recruiting. I understand that. And that is not going away. And I know that the administration is working hard to make changes as it comes to us to address. Would I love that we could just go through and change and figure out a wonderful solution for every single employee in this government? Yes, I would love that. But I will also say that over the past two years, allowing and being able to sit up here and vote on and approve an 11% cost of living for our non-sworn employees, that's monumental. And I know when I left this government in 2013, I made $70,000. There are people that are coming into this government now on day one and making $70,000. And let me just say, that kind of hurts my feelings a little bit. I sat 27 and a half years in this and took that long to make $70,000. So there are a lot of emotions in my head right now. I want the employees to be valued. I want you to understand that when there is a process, that I want that process to be able to be utilized. and it is my hope that through this formal review process, I might not be on council after January 1, but I'm still going to be around and I'm going to keep my ear to the grind and I'm going to find out what's going on and I'm going to keep to it because it's important that the employees that have brought things forward to us, that their concerns and their questions are answered in a very respectful way. and my time is out, so that's what I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the presentation and answering questions today. And, Director, I think my question may be for you or Dr. Campbell. So when the study was conducted, I guess the standard 7% or 10% that comes with the code change or increase with a promotion, it wasn't taken into consideration with the study, just I guess from the explanation that old. So when we conducted the first study in 2014, the premise at that time was whatever rules and things we have as an organization are set to the side because we aren't looking at one position or two positions that have come to human resources with a request under those policies. As an example, if an employee's job significantly changes, then they can request a reclassification. Or if we find that market conditions are changing for certain classifications, we can study those at that time. Those are really kind of one-off situations. In a case where you're basically overhauling the entire system, you aren't going to perform those same types of or use those policies that are in place for other reasons. You're going to take all of that, take a look at it as a whole, and implement it with one guideline. And the guideline MAG uses happens to be that target salary formula. So we did the exact same thing in 2014. It was the exact same implementation formula, and it was applied across government at that time as well. Now that this is implemented, we'll go back to, well, before we created a whole bunch of new policies. This time we're going to continue with our existing policies, plus we added some additional upgrades, if you will, and we'll move forward with those. And so the folks that changed codes or had a code upgrade, they had a pay adjustment. That was based off of the formula with time and service, how many days they've been in the job. That's correct. And it's applied to the proposed pay grade, which is ultimately their pay grade now. So that formula was applied to the new pay grade. Okay. Okay, so then I guess my other question is, so the review process is going to be open until December 31st, so- The 30th, yes. 30th, so everybody that wants their position reviewed and has questions about how their position came out in the study has till December the 30th to ask for an administrative review. That's correct. Okay, and I think Vice Mayor's intent was to leave this item in committee so we can come back at the first of the year and ask for an update on how many reviews have been submitted and the outcomes of those. Okay. Okay, well I think that's important because if it's going to be, Chair, if you're going to ask for a motion to support the recommendation for the administration, I'm in favor of supporting that recommendation based off of, we have that money that we set aside for this study. If there's an opportunity to increase base pay across the board, I will support that. And then frankly, I've just been getting a lot of inquiries from employees about a bonus before Christmas. And I'm in support of that as well, so thank you for that. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you, Chair. Just to follow up on a couple things in no particular order. One concern I have is that with the proposal that the administration is now making about the use of those funds, that there's nothing left to adjust in other ways. So there's no funds, should there be a decision that some of these categories have been negatively affected, there's no money left to make that adjustment. It will have to be fine someplace else. Having said that, I can see the CAO coming forward before she speaks. Let me just say, I feel a little bit like, this is a cliche, the last speaker before the group is going to adjourn for their drinks. So I do not want to be the person who says we shouldn't move forward with the recommendations of the administration and give our employees across the board raises and supplements, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I have no intention of saying anything like that. However, I want to make a point that there needs to be additional money available for appeals. I think that is a very important point, and I'm so glad you asked me because I would like to say this where other employees can hear me. We feel, and I have talked to the mayor and I have also talked to Aaron, that the appeals that are made, what we would do is we would look at our financial situation as far as our personnel budget was at the time that these appeals are made. If we have sufficient budget in the personnel lines that we're not filling all these positions, we would come back to the council and ask that we would use that money to make sure that these people are paid. And we would make it retroactive. because to only be fair to them, if they have an appeal that is now deemed to be merit, then they should come back to the original day when they got the money. If that doesn't work out, then what our plan is, is to put that into the July budget. And it would, again, be retroactive. We would make everybody whole back to the date in November that we did this. because I think it's only fair that if an appeal is good, then it should get the money it deserved. Thank you. Thank you. I have a couple more. Yeah, so I want to make a distinction between the availability of individual review and the review of the impact on categories of workers. And I'm interested in having at some point a response back about the questions that have been raised about categories of workers. Maybe that's, again, after the first of the year. I also am interested in knowing more about what decisions were made on the basis of potential financial impact, which I heard I think pretty clearly. Some decisions about the way to structure this report were made on that basis. I think it would be useful for the council and the public to know which ones were made that way and what the financial impact was. And I guess finally, my question really has to do with whether any or all of these questions can be answered satisfactorily or the changes related to them can be made without undermining the report overall, without undermining the integrity of the work that's been brought forward. So with that, does it need a motion to stay in committee or will it stay automatically? I think it stays in committee automatically. We just need a motion on the potential program. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Lamb? Thank you, Chair. Ms. Walters, just one more question. The administrative review process, I'll look back here at the slide. Excuse me. I wanted to ask, can you go into a little bit more detail? Who is involved with the administrative review process? And are other people besides the Division of Human Resources involved in that process? If you don't mind to go through that a little bit further. Sure, and for the sake of time, I didn't put the entire procedures in here, but they are available on our website as well. So once those are received, we're going to categorize those and review them individually in human resources. We would then present the results of our findings to the director and commissioner for that particular area that the employee works in. and if they are satisfied with our findings, then we would go ahead and keep that, you know, we're going to have buckets, right? So we'll have a group of recommended changes and a group that would not. We'll present those to the CAO and then they would come forth, like she said, in the budget calculations for cost of those, should there be any. It is important to note that even if there is a recommended change, it doesn't necessarily mean that there's going to be a financial aspect that goes along with it, because that target salary will still be calculated based on any recommended changes as well. Okay, and then just one last final thing. When the review is done by Human Resources and then it is sent to the director and the commissioner at that level, Is there an opportunity for that commissioner and that director to have input and disagree? Absolutely. If they disagree, then it would go to the CAO. And if the CAO also disagrees, we would have MAG take a look at them. And when you say we would have MAG deal with that, what is? they would perform an independent review of the same request to see if they had the same outcome that we had or if they had a different one. And then there's some cost associated with that because it's outside of our contract. Okay. And then Ms. Hamilton, the statement behind you. I'm sorry to scare you. If I could just add one other thing. In my conversations with Tammy, I've made it very clear that in my opinion, and I think it's what is healthy to this process, is that the number of appeals do not equate with mistakes. So don't worry about if there are a lot of appeals that need to be approved, then that's fine. That's part of the whole system. That doesn't equate with this is not correct or that's not correct. So if the appeal is right, let's move. Okay, and I appreciate it. One final comment is the formal review process that you've outlined here is not the same thing as a reclassification study. Those are two separate things, correct? That is correct. Any changes would be implemented just as if they had happened within the study themselves. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor McClover. Thank you, Chair. As I'm not on this committee and won't have the ability to vote on this, I just wanted to make a few comments. The first is that the proposal that we have in front of us does not appear to be responsive to the issues brought forward. And I know it's been iterated several times, both by the administration and by those of us speaking. The goal of this study was not to make everyone happy. It was not to give everyone a raise. It was to make sure that we were competitive with market rates, that people were being compensated fairly. So this across-the-board 3% raise, while it may be timely for the holidays, is not necessarily any part of the goal of doing this compensation study. So while we still have this open period between the end of the year where people will be going with individual issues, and there are still several concerns that I would like to see addressed in committee dealing with these ratios and the process that went through independent of these financial matters, I don't believe that it would be wise for us to push this through and allocate all of these funds, which are the only funds that we've allocated towards this process before the end of the year, before that process. So I would make that appeal to everyone to please consider that going forward so that we do not push things unduly quickly through the process. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no one else signed up, I would entertain a motion to support the administration's proposal of the resources for the base pay and the one-time supplement. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Is there any discussion on the motion? Council Member Lamb. I just, I cannot support this right now. because I think that for everything that's already been stated around this dais, I think that I would much rather hold on to this money and look for the pay equity study and wait for the formal review process because I do believe that it could cause further inequities, and we just don't need to do that right now. And I think that we have heard information and very valuable information today, and it's my hope that my colleagues, even after the first of the year, that they'll take into consideration strongly what, you know, the best interest for our employees. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Chair. Well, I think I already said I don't want to stand in the way of this being passed, so I want to reiterate that. I have heard, I think, assurances that if and as adjustments need to be made, they will be made and they'll be retroactive. At this point, I think it would send the wrong message to deny one time bonuses and an incremental pay to our employees at this particular moment. So I will support the motion. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Chair. I don't want to be repetitive, but I heard the same thing. I think the administration is trying to, with this proposal, trying to do all that they can with the help of council to address the recruiting and retention issue that we see across city government. So having the ability to give a 3% increase across the board, I think, helps that effort. I think, I was trying to remember how I voted when we tabled the funds the last time when they were proposing to give the one time supplement. I was hesitant to do that because it wasn't an increase to the base pay and across the board. It was a one time effort and I think this is different. I think this gives our employees some hope. There's a process in place to address issues that have been brought up and Administration has thought through ways to find that funding if need be. So I'm going to support this motion going forward. So thank you. Thank you. Seeing no one else signed in. All those in favor of the motion on the floor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. Let's have a roll call vote, if you don't mind, on the screen for budget committee members only. Okay, that motion passes 7 to 2. Thank you very much. As I'm saying this, we may need to report this out today, correct, to get those checks done. Thank you. So I now entertain a motion to move forward with this recommendation at work session today. So moved. Second. Thank you. Second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Thank you. Record one no vote. Okay. Thank you very much, team, for your presentation and your work today. We really appreciate it. Before we wrap up here, this is my last budget committee meeting to chair. So I just want to take a moment and one, thank my colleagues for electing me as the first female and district rep to hold this position. It means a lot to me that you put your faith and trust in me to run it, and it means a lot to me that I've gotten to serve with you. I thought I'd take a few minutes and just run through a few things that we've done just for fun. We've created workforce development grants to support those in our community already addressing workforce issues at the grant grassroots level. We created the Economic Investment Board to maintain accountability, insight, and assistance from external community partners. We created the Lexington Public Infrastructure Program, the Economic Development Program, to make sure the city is directing priorities and the best partners to execute it. We did a whole lot during COVID. The local small business grant programs, the residential assistance program, the coronavirus relief funds. We've had consistent clear CAFR reviews. We modernized and changed the budget review process to include calendar changes, link processes, retreats, end-up review committees, the budget amendment processes, the price contract changes. Developed a PAPR, which we've been trying to do for a long time, which is excellent. Paid family leave, adoption assistance. We did the subcommittee for the assessment of all LFUC2 properties for potential revenue and cost savings, which led to LexArts, the property for future fire facilities, the Paine Miller Center. Did tax district overhaul. Almost got through exactions. So close. Focused on joint workforce between Fayette County Public Schools and our city and second chance employment. and I'm really, really proud of the work we've done. And we haven't done it alone. So to the Commissioner Hensley, your team, Melissa, Wes, former Bill Amara, Rusty, Elizabeth, the CAO, Glenn, Jen, Hillary. I'm getting emotional. It has been such a pleasure to navigate these challenges with you. It's been a joy, a privilege. and my wish to you on the new year is that you have more revenue than expenses. And I trust that you will handle it all very well. So with that, Ms. Beam, do you have any closing comments? I do. I thought you might. Come on up. I'm sorry, Chair. Yes, ma'am. I was asking to be recognized. I am so sorry. My paper for just a minute. Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you, Chair. I did not want to let this occasion go by without a remark or two. Council Member Bledsoe has brought, I would say, unusual energy and efficiency and a lot of other things to her job as the chair of the committee. Over the course of her terms, I think we've made a lot of progress in getting the council more firmly embedded in the budgeting process. and we fixed a lot of things that needed to be done. So I just want to recognize you for your work and appreciate all of that. So thank you. Thank you. Ms. Beam? Very short. I am commenting on the previous issue that you all took up, and that was on the tax districts. why did it take so long to find these non-complying addresses? Who dropped the ball on this? And why was there no process in place to have this corrected automatically? We are glad to see that property owners will not be charged retroactively, but we would really be curious to know what the cumulative effect of this has been on the public and its revenues from the revenue division error. I am glad to also see that another hearing has been scheduled to occur in January 24th at 3 p.m., And I hope that you all will get the word out to these property owners and taxpayers so they can come down and individually tell you how it's going to affect their, once they have seen how it's going to affect their tax bills, and they can come down and talk to you all individually in public about how they feel about it. Thank you. Thank you so much. And with that, I'll take a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. We're adjourned. Thank you all so much. Thank you.