ДИНАМИЧНАЯ МУЗЫКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА ГОВОРЯТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ ГОВОРИТ ПО-АНГЛИЙСКИ GOVORUYOR. farms throughout Fayette County? Are you requiring them to come before the board to get conditional use permits? What about storage sheds that probably 30 percent of the constituents in your districts have in their backyard that they buy from Lowe's and that they put on the back of a truck and carry and put in their backyard? Is that covered by this ordinance and are you going to require them to get conditional use permits or are you going to have Dewey Crow go take them to district court? What about Applebee's that has their tents and chalets for peoples throughout the year? This is not just going to affect the Carrick House. Affect us? Yes. It's going to force us no longer to use this property because as we've told you, the Carrick House is a beautiful home. It is not large enough to accommodate the kind of events we want to have here. It's very successful. But if you don't want it to be successful, you pass this ordinance and that's what you've done and we have no doubt in our mind that this is directed at us. We have the testimony of yourself and your staff today to make it clear. So let me leave you with one other point. If you want to try to modify this and make exceptions in this ordinance so that it looks like it's applying to more than just us, we'll pay attention to that because there is such a thing as discriminatory arbitrary legislation directed at one person. And we would ask you to keep that in mind as you're looking at this legislation. Thank you. Next, the ma'am. Is that mandatory to do that? Okay. Okay. Can you step forward to the mic, please, ma'am? And state your name and address. Thank you. Hello, Council. I will be brief. I know this is a long work session ahead of you. I would like to echo the comments of Councilman Beard. My name is Allison Lundergan Grimes and my family has invested a lot in this facility. I think unlike the comments we heard several weeks ago at a hearing that was not about the Carrick House but became about the Carrick House, I would respectfully disagree with the fact that there is any sort of situation to deal with here. I think you have a business that has gone to beyond what any other business in town has to make sure that it's complying as it should with the requirements of what's needed for temporary structure. They are indeed in compliance, will continue to be in compliance, and so for anyone to say that there's a situation to deal with, I think is out of turn. I would urge the Council to give deference to the comments that Ms. Wiseman just gave. By this canon that's being shot out in an attempt to rectify one situation, there are a lot of other entities, individuals, that will be affected. Applebee's was mentioned by Councilman Crosby, and Emergency Disaster Services is another that is out there, but I think you are going to be affecting restaurants, hotels, businesses in each of your respective districts, limiting their potential to operate, and I would urge you to consider what you are about to do, which is effectively legislating against one individual corporation and or business. Thank you. Thank you very much, and gentleman here, please state your name and address. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, Members of Council. My name is John Morgan. I live at 343 North Limestone. Thank you very much for hearing this issue. As Councilman Blues mentioned, the reason we're in front of you today is because there was a zone change which discussed temporary structures, and I think you decided you didn't really want to try and make a zoning issue back into some form of trying to deal with a specific issue of temporary structures. When you go back through and look at the Lexington ordinances, there is no reference to temporary structures at all. Also, when you look at the Kentucky regulations, it's only under that one section of the building code, which is included in your packet, which talks about temporary structures. I don't want to talk about the Carrick House because it's only one manifestation of the issue. However, a temporary structure is a temporary structure. The application, which the Lundergans put in, said it was for 90 days, so that was temporary. Ms. Wiseman now tells you it is a critical part of the ongoing business. Which is it? Is it a permanent structure which is integral to their business? If so, let's go to Board of Adjustment or whatever is necessary to assist in getting a permanent structure at that location. And I can commit to both parties here that we would do anything to support a permanent structure which suits those needs for a banqueting facility. I think there are a couple of small issues which you might want to consider on drafting. One is that you might want to put in a period of no more than 180 days in a 270-day period to deal with this issue of overlapping of one year to the other. And I would also recommend the definition of temporary structures. You insert it does not apply to any structures less than 100 square feet. Therefore, people who've got small structures and just put them up for a limited period of time, don't try and clog Mr. Crow's office with unnecessary restrictions. Also, I would request that if you're going to ask for an application greater than 60 days, the Board of Adjustment is requested at the beginning of that period rather than being a fait accompli at the end of 60 days, suddenly running off the Board of Adjustment saying, please can I have my permission now for something which I've already got built. If I have to take it down, it's going to be a burden on me. We are not trying to penalize one business or one entity. This is just an example of where something which we didn't think would happen, which is a structure going down in for 180 days, coming down for one, and going back for another 180, would occur. It has occurred. When we see a situation like that, it's time to act. It's time to try and solve the problem. And as Council Member Stephens says, let's plug the loophole and make sure that everybody operates on the same playing field. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Morgan. Next and last, I believe. Please state your name and address. Good afternoon. My name is Jessica Case. I live at 421 West 2nd Street, and I'm here on behalf of the neighbors. I'm an attorney here on behalf of the neighbors on 3rd Street across from the Carrick House property. And there are just a few things that I wanted to address. The first one is, I understand and recognize the concern voiced by Councilperson Beard and Mr. Blues about legislating against one particular business. And as John Morgan just stated, this is just an example where we realize that there was this loophole in our law. And when you realize that there is such a loophole, then is the time to change it. And so that's why we're here today. And that's what Councilperson Stephens recognized. But I have to respond to Ms. Wiseman's comments that this is a business who has always operated, you know, according to the codes and done what they needed to do for their temporary structure. I'd just like to point out that the tent application to construct this temporary structure said that it was for 90 days starting in May of 08. The structure was actually up and operating in April of 08. As of July 7, 2008, the property had not been issued a building permit or a certificate of occupancy for the change of use for the existing building or a certificate of occupancy for the temporary use of the newly erected tent. So basically, this business operated from April all the way through July without any permits whatsoever. Not the conditional use permit. I mean, not the certificate of occupancy or a building permit. And a complaint was made to the Office of Building Inspection, and it was acted upon by a letter asking them to get into compliance dated July 7. So that's just a little bit of the history. I felt like I had to bring that up to respond to comments that this is only one business that's always been in compliance, and there has been a history there. So I wanted to point that out to you. Also, I would like to suggest a change in the draft to specifically state that the 60-day runs from the date that the structure is erected. And it's for the same reason. A lot of times structures are erected and in use long before they actually obtain their certificate of occupancy. So the 60-day to 180-day period shouldn't be tied to the certificate of occupancy. It should be tied to the date it was erected. The great thing about this change and the Board of Adjustment review that will take place after 60 days is that it allows for public input. Now, the Board of Adjustment may always go up to 180 days, but at least here neighbors and the community at large have an opportunity to voice concerns about the temporary structure, and that can help alleviate some of the issues that might arise, for instance, in an H-1 overlay area that this doesn't specifically address. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Case. We do have a request to have the letter, Ms. Case, that you referred to entered into, if you can hand that to the clerk. I'd like that entered into the record. Council Member Crosby, did you have a motion? Yes, I'd like to make a motion that we go ahead and ask Building Inspection to collect or provide us with information for the number of entities that would be affected by this change, and I would also ask that we also somehow notify these businesses and give them the opportunity for public input. I would imagine this could be several businesses. Mr. Crow, do you have any idea? I mean, you have no idea how many off the top of your head. I guess that would affect my time frame, whether it's a month or two months. I don't have a number off the top of my head as to how many. Again, you will see lots of these structures being used during the warmer periods of the year. As I said, firework stands and those things all fall into that same temporary structure, temporary use category. Obviously, those businesses potentially could be affected, but normally you don't see those up for more than the proposed 60-day time period anyway. Those are usually up on periods of a couple of weeks or more. Some of the small vendors, fruit stands, and those type things are up for longer periods than that, and they could potentially be affected by that. What I can get you is numbers in previous years of how many of those type things we issued in a particular year. Well, I guess my point with my motion is that obviously we have hotels, the Marriott, we have Applebee's Park, we have a lot of business entities in town that clearly probably have no idea that we're even discussing this, and they should have the opportunity to provide their input as well at an intergovernmental meeting. So I would suggest that we, one, find out who these people are, and then two, we in turn send a letter to them and invite them to participate in our meeting so that we truly get an idea of who's affected by this and how it affects them so that we can make an informed decision. So I will make that motion, and I guess as far as the timeline is concerned, I really don't know how long it's going to take. I guess maybe I should say our November meeting. Is that reasonable time, Mr. Crowe, do you think? We can produce, we can get that list together based on our existing records as to what. But to be able to notify the public and then ask them to attend a meeting. I would think though we can put a list together and have notices out to those individuals in a very short order. Yeah. November, is that reasonable, Chair? Can you, yes, can you date, can you restate your motion? My motion is to ask Mr. Crowe to provide us with a list of businesses that would be affected by the change of this ordinance and also in turn to write a letter to these businesses informing them that we are looking into changing the ordinance and invite them to our November meeting and then in turn for us to discuss this again at our November meeting. Okay, there's a motion. Is there a second? Got a motion by Council Member Crosby and a second by Council Member Stennett. Any discussion? I do have some, a point of discussion. Who's my Chair, my Vice Chair? Okay. Ms. James. Thank you. I just need clarification. Council Member Crosby, would you be referring to those that have a permit for temporary structures as well as those that have current conditional uses? Yes. Would that list need to come from your office for the conditional use or would that come from planning? We would have that information. Okay. And I believe planning probably has some of it as well, but I believe we could get most of it from our records. Okay. And who would write the letter? I would suggest probably Mr. Crowe's office. We can put that together. Okay, thank you. And did we determine whether to whom we are reaching out to or the folks that currently have these or in the past over a year or two years or five years or how do we know what businesses to send to? I would say anybody over the past three years. Is that reasonable? Or two years? We can generate that information from our records that anyone that would have obtained that type of approval and we can put that together. Okay. I will support this motion and not only because it's a good motion, but because I do believe that we have highlighted some businesses and the emergency management activities and things such as those types of businesses that do need to be in on this discussion because we do have different uses of temporary structures. Did you have something you needed to say? I just was going to ask for some clarification. I was it sounded like at one point you were asking this notification go to those who may have gotten occupancy permits for temporary structures and to any conditional use holders. Correct. That's what I just asked her and she said yes. That's what she wanted. If we have to send a notice to every conditional use holder in the county. Okay, then we'll just do the first then. Okay, so anyone who's ever gotten a temporary structure occupancy permit. Okay, not anybody who has ever. Anybody who has in the last three years. Yeah, I mean if I could also point out too that if this ever gets to the point of a text amendment there will be opportunity for public hearing. Yes, thank you. Thank you and I do want to say too while I have the mic is that these are all of our committee meetings or public meetings, but if you have anybody in particular any committee members in mind that you think would be affected particularly businesses within your district definitely to that maybe as their council representative to move forward with them and say hey I noticed you put structures up and I'd really like to get your input on this legislation that may be moving forward. Thank you. Thank you. Are you through Ms. James? I'm done. I'll hand the committee back to you. Thank you. So we've got a motion and a second. Oh Council Member Myers I have you on the mic to speak on here. No, okay. It's now time to vote and all in favor of Council Member Crosby's motion say aye. Aye. All opposed. We've got one opposed. Council Member Blevins. Oh okay. Are you voting too? Oh okay. Sorry about that. So that motion passes. Council Member Myers you had an additional question or comment? Yes, thank you Madam Chair. Mr. Crow, could you come up to the mic for a second please? Have you seen this letter that was entered into the record dated July 7th? I don't believe I've seen the one they just entered. I'll give you a second to read that. Are you aware of this letter? No, I wasn't specifically aware of this. I do know there was a delay in issuing certificates of occupancy or approvals for specific uses at this location. I do know that the tent now does have a certificate of occupancy issued. That does not mean we did not approve it for its use. There was some specific changes that had been requested that they address in the structure that delayed its issuance and certificates of occupancy are at the request of the property owner. We don't, in other words, we don't issue them until we are requested to issue them and that we issue them once everything is in compliance. And there was an issue early on with some issues, with some things there and how the tent was set up. Those got rectified. They didn't come in and ask for a certificate of occupancy and ultimately we followed up on that one as well as the building itself. I'm not aware of the specifics whether all this has been taken care of or not at this point. Okay, I guess my question is, how is it that they can occupy and not just them but anybody can occupy whether it's a temporary structure or any other business without a certificate of occupancy? Again, the certificate of occupancy is our approval that the use is correct. In discussions with them out there, the use was going to be correct for the tent and we authorized them to go ahead while they were correcting some issues not directly related to that before we felt comfortable in issuing a certificate of occupancy. They didn't follow up and request a certificate of occupancy. The situations they initially had the problems with were corrected along the way. It was just not followed up on the certificate of occupancy. The clock did, however, start running on that structure on April 18th and will expire on October 18th. Okay, so they did have approval to start. They had approval. Our office was working with them in all instances on the tent and on the primary structure as well. We're fully aware of what was being done and they were cooperating with us and we were working with them to allow the business to move ahead. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Myers. Anything else on this issue before we move forward? Okay, thank you all for coming. Our next item on the agenda is the grievance process of which I brought to the committee and I guess it's okay for me to kind of intro. Leslie Jarvis is here on behalf of Human Resources. Is there anyone else that's here with you on this issue? And there's some information within your packet about the grievance issue. I think, is this the same PowerPoint that we saw previously? Okay, and then we have Paul brought around the actual grievance procedure survey which is what we were basically here today to discuss and we all have a copy of that. So you want to talk a little bit about the grievance procedure survey. Yes, this is a draft survey and I apologize for not getting it to Mr. Schoeniger sooner for your packet. One of the things that we wanted to do was, as we mentioned when I was here in May, is to send a survey to civil service and unclassified civil service employees that wouldn't include police fire corrections because they have a grievance procedure that's addressed in their respective collective bargaining agreements. What we would want to do is send a survey to our employees. The first part of the survey is to ask them first, are they aware that there is even a grievance procedure? The grievance procedure is outlined in the Code of Ordinance, but to find out if they're aware of the grievance procedure, do they understand how the grievance procedure is intended to be used? Do they believe we should continue with the grievance procedure? And then to identify what areas they think should be grievable. Right now it's just open for anything that wants to be grieved to be grieved. And then the question on number five is to ask them, have they ever utilized the urban county government procedure? If they would say yes to that, then they would continue with the next set of questions. And the reason being, we want people to be able to answer a survey that can actually say I've experienced the process and not to make speculations on how they think it has worked for someone else. If they say yes, they move to the questions to answer, how well did their supervisor appear versed in the grievance procedure? Were they able to walk them through the grievance procedure? At each step, were they given an opportunity to meet face-to-face with the supervisor responsible for that level of the grievance procedure? Were the steps easy to follow? Do they think they were treated differently by management once they filed a grievance? Do they think that their issue was adequately addressed by the grievance procedure? And if not, what did they think worked for them or what didn't they think worked for them? And then the next page would be for everyone to answer is just general information to find out how long they've been employed with Urban County Government. At what level are they in the organization? Are they satisfied with their position? Do they feel that their position causes them a lot of stress? Do they feel that there's something they would change in their position? Are they motivated to see Urban County Government or their division succeed? The reason looking for that general information is to find out overall, are people satisfied? The majority of people who are satisfied in their employment will understand the purpose of a grievance procedure and find it to be used as an identifying factor for a specific policy or procedure that's been violated. So that's why we're trying to gauge that information. And then we ask them if they're interested in speaking to us, that would be voluntary, is to step forward and speak to somebody on their opinions or their thoughts about the grievance procedure. One of the other things that we have done that along with this survey is we have contacted businesses in the community in Lexington as well as other local governments throughout the United States because we wanted to gauge from them. We solicited some information from them. One of the things we wanted to know is what their employee population size was and if they had a grievance procedure, who oversees that grievance procedure? Was it a union or non-union workforce? And then we wanted a copy of the grievance form. The reason we did that is to gauge where does our form or our procedure line up with what others are doing either in the private industry or in local and county governments. And we said we have compiled that information and we found that basically if procedures are offered that we're pretty much on line with how the process should work. Most people do have a grievance procedure that goes through human resources that it does get addressed if they do choose to have a grievance procedure. So as far as being in line with what business and local governments do, we're typical, we're staying in line basically with what others are doing in that. Not to say that's right or wrong. But there was nothing out of the unusual that we were doing that other people weren't doing. Thank you Leslie. Council Member Blues. Thank you. Let's address the, I think maybe in a typo here, but in number 17 it reads, how would you rate the level of stress that you selected in number 15? Yes. I think that refers really to 16. Yes. Yes. Please ignore the spacing and the those. I'm not pleased yet with all of that. But yes, thank you for pointing that. Other committee members, comments, questions, observations? I do have a couple of comments. Ms. James. Thank you. Thank you for bringing this forward because I think this is great. A couple of things that I thought based on our conversation about bringing this survey forward that I think needs to be clear and would like your opinion on and would like your opinion on whether you think it's clear here or if we can make some modifications is the ultimate goal or purpose of the survey. We may be stating it now, but hopefully our employees are working and not watching this. And we need to make sure we have this on the form. But I think, would you agree that maybe it would be good to put what the ultimate goal and purpose is that we understand it and maybe we need to make clear what the purpose of this form is? Well, I think it would be important for us to understand as an organization, what is our purpose? Is our purpose the fact that we want to make a grievance procedure easier for the employee to file a grievance? Do we want to make a process? I think first that we need to be clear as as the administration, management, whoever we're looking at here and moving forward is what do we want the goal of our grievance procedure to be? And I think that needs to be clearly identified before we communicate to the employees. What's your opinion of what you want the, what you want this survey to bring out? I would like to know if people are aware of the grievance procedure, how familiar they are to look at, how familiar they are if they chose to use it. We have been in our section of human resources looking at the grievance procedure for probably five or six years looking at modifications. So there's a lot of things that I think could could happen or a few things that could happen to improve the process that wouldn't necessarily come from a grievance procedures. I think the first part is what we're trying basically to look at here is, does the population know that we have a grievance procedure? And are they comfortable with it? And do they know what steps need to be taken to utilize the grievance procedure? But part of the issue that I think needs to be focused on with our grievance procedure is is two things. One, many of our employees don't understand the intent of a grievance procedure. And that's what we need to focus on. Right now we have an open door where anybody can grieve anything from somebody looked at me funny today to they didn't serve the punch I wanted. And I'm not making that up. Those are the type of things sometimes our grievance procedure is utilized for. So I think a grievance procedure is very necessary in business, but the employees as well as management need to be trained in the proper use of how that procedure needs to be utilized. Okay. And I think you said it very well when you said that your purpose or what you would see coming from this is finding out if employees are aware of a grievance procedure and if there are improvements or changes that need to be made based on that awareness. I would like to see that addressed at the top of the survey, just clearly stating purpose and intent, because I think it's important for the employees to see that we as a legislative body are working with human resources on an ordinance to improve it and the grievance process and the form is part of the ordinance. So I think it's clear that it needs to be made clear that that's part of this process and the reason. I also had a couple of other suggestions. Since it is the purpose of this is to find out if they're aware, I think it's important to find out how employees become aware of the grievance process and procedure. So if we can ask the question, how did you become aware of the grievance process? And we could find out if we can find out what's working. So if it was orientation or if it was not orientation or if it was my manager told me or from another co-worker, we may, if majority of them come back and they say it's from another co-worker, we may want to make sure that we as a government are releasing that information so that it's accurate and it's accurate account of what the grievance procedure is. Because if you talk to another co-worker, they may have had a negative experience and deter someone from utilizing the process. Which gets to my second is a question that I think needs to be there is why have you not used the grievance process? I've heard from email and phone calls from directors that say they deter employees from using the grievance process for a multitude of reasons. So I think it kind of gives more meat to the survey because under number five, it says, have you ever utilized the grievance procedure? And if you answered no, then you skip ahead. I think we need to have a section that addresses specifically, why haven't you used it? And we can give some different options from things that our office has heard by email or by phone. I'd be happy to feed those to you and you may be aware of some yourself. Certain things like, it doesn't work, I'll be retaliated against, I don't need it, I take care of my own things, I don't need the grievance process, that sort of thing. And another question I think needs to be there is, do you believe improvements or changes need to be made to the grievance process? And maybe leaving, anytime you have something and you put designated lines, it restricts a little bit of the type of input. So I wouldn't leave like, you know, a full eight and a half by 11 page of what improvements or changes, but designate either line by lines on the page where they can fill in and write in, in that designated space. Are you through Ms. James? I'm done, thank you. Okay, I'll turn it back to you. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Thank you. Just going along with what Andrea said with some of these questions, have you ever considered, I think just on number 10 where it says, I'm sorry, number nine, where it says, do you believe you were treated differently by management after filing your grievance? On number 10 where it says, I'm sorry, number nine, where it says, do you believe you were treated differently by management after filing your grievance? And possibly what is your comfort level with, with filing a grievance? Have we ever considered having a third party involved in this? Because perhaps maybe the reason why some of these people aren't filing grievances is because of a comfort level. So is that something that's ever been considered? I know there's other entities within government that use third party administrators to handle their grievance process, you know, and ultimately, if they have a grievance, usually it's with somebody in government and it's going right up through government. So I think there might be some issues with the comfort level and the fact that there may be some retaliation. I think somehow you might need to address that in here because obviously it's being handled by those that they may see as a threat to that process. So that's just something I think we need to keep in mind while we're going through this. Thank you. Thank you. Any other committee members? Council Member Henson. Hi, I was just curious about the numbers. I'm assuming this is the number of grievances that have been filed. This is the number of grievances that was in the packet or the information that was presented in May. That number is those grievances who've made it or that have made it to a step four. This is not an indication of how many have been filed in the division because if they are concurred or agree with the answer they received through their chain of command, then we wouldn't receive it. These are those that are received at step four, meaning they've come to human resources for us to investigate on behalf of the CAO or now on behalf of Joe Kelly, which if you survey business and industries, these are incredibly high numbers for making it to fourth step grievances. Okay. I was just looking at the reduction in the... Part of that reduction would be we had a lot of... When you hit 2005 with the 81, we were having a lot of people filing grievances over the pay equity process and we made the statement that we would go forward with addressing that, but we weren't going to take people who grieved the pay process over others. So that stopped, lowered that number. And then also during 2005, we removed into collective bargaining. So there was... Those numbers would have shifted because we were reducing the number who were in the... Using our grievance procedure because of collective bargaining. FIRE had a contract... Okay. So the number of employees reduced significantly if they weren't included in this group. Correct? Correct. Okay. Because it reduced 50 percent and then this year is very low. But of course, we're not through the end of the year yet, but... Right. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. I too would point out to committee members that it... We talked about anonymity and you have taken into account that the numbers will be on the survey and won't be identified directly by employee submission unless that employee decides to put their name on the form, which is really important. And we talked about some kind of colored paper, but I guess we don't have to do that if we have the numbering. And we may want to indicate somewhere on the form that if there's a duplication of a number, those may have to be discarded because of possible duplication of a form. So I'm wondering, how would you expect to distribute these to employees? Would they go inside of a pay voucher or how could we do that? I've worked with computer services because, one, I wanted to see what the numbers were we were talking about. Would it be possible to get a label to know specifically how many you were to send to each division? And the plan would be to distribute these with paychecks so that you would know one through 30 went to the division of such and such, 31 through this went to the division of whatever, so that we would have an idea, or maybe not necessarily by division, but we would know specifically how many we were sending out to each group. Okay. So we would have a managed number. Okay. And I do have a suggestion, and I believe someone would have to make a motion to this effect and let me know, parliamentarian. That's not true. But in the essence of time, I'm wondering if you could take what you've heard from us today as committee members, make the changes, and if the committee is confident with my office kind of overseeing that the changes actually occurred, and I'll refer to Paul as well and use his eyes, if the changes come back and reflect what we've said as a committee, that I would be able to bring the survey forward to council in its final state at whatever council meeting would be after the review, the final draft was the final whatever document was submitted to me from Leslie Jarvis. Did that make sense? Okay. So is there a motion? We don't need one. Oh, well, thank you, Council Member Blevins. So Leslie, if you will, whatever changes you believe come from today's committee meeting, submit those in a final draft, or maybe you want to do them in a draft and then wait on our response, and then I will hand that back to you and we will proceed. Is that good? All right. Thank you so much for this. Our next item in committee, Employee Compensation Plan, and this issue was brought forward by Council Member Gorton, who may have a few things to say. Yeah, before. Thank you. Thank you. It simply should be an update as to where the folks are who are working on the reorganization. It's been going on, I think, for quite a while now. Good afternoon. I'm Wally Barker. It has been going on for quite a while, and it's working really hand-in-hand with the Synergy Program and bringing up the new PeopleSoft Human Resources Module. So the implementation of the Synergy System will be effective January 1st of next year. The new Compensation Program should be ready to be implemented six months after that, the beginning of the fiscal year, on July 1st. So what we've been working on, I also gave a handout a little bit late to Mr. Schoeniger. I apologize, but that will help you run through some of the changes that have occurred in how we're approaching the project and how the timeline may have been affected. The cover sheet on your handout is the pyramid that I presented to you the last time. It's identical to what you've seen before. The second page delineates sort of where we are and the changes that have been made going forward. The very first step, the first challenge that we had was to put together a job description format that was compatible with the PeopleSoft system, and the most difficult portion of that was free-form data entry. We can pull all of the information that would fill in the top portion of a job description, which would be where a position is, what its grade is, what budget it's charged to, the position it reports to, all of that type information. But when you got down to the free-form part of a job description, where you're actually describing what the function of the job is and what the responsibilities are, that was where the challenge came. And we ultimately solved that along with the Synergy folks. I'm a key member of the Synergy team, and I work with them very closely. We came up with a format that should, through Crystal Report Writer, allow us to put together a one- to two- to three-page document, depending on how involved a certain position is, job description form, which would replace the very cumbersome 17-page PAQ that we have right now. So we've solved that issue. The question now is to go out and collect that one free-form section from each employee that tells their specific job duties. Another shift is, initially, I was going to approach the entire organization at one time, and I've decided now to do that division by division, and beginning especially with computer services. I've been working with Rama because I know that he is very intent on putting in a reorganization. He also has several jobs where employees were hired to do one function but have ended up doing another function. And if we start with them, I figured that's probably going to be my most challenging and most difficult area to work with. Then the rest would fall into place very easily. And at the end of my process with him, we would have documented what everyone is actually doing, their actual job functions, not what is currently showing on their job descriptions or what has currently been the basis of what their grade is right now. So that by the end of that process, we would have accurate documentation of what each person is doing and accurate assignment of grades, which would equate to the new market range which we would have assigned to it. So that would all dovetail very nicely. I think Rama is also planning on working with a third-party organizational development firm to help him see how he should be organizing his area. So that would be the kickoff division that we start working with before going forward to the other divisions. As far as the FLSA, that will be delayed then until we have the jobs documented. I have identified the appropriate labor markets for most all of the organization here and have collected, published salary surveys for six, from six sources so far that cover primarily Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, local areas within Kentucky, and then the Louisville, Jefferson County area. As well as through this period of time, I've been asked to look at specific ad hoc surveys to do for specific positions within the organization or specific areas within the organization. So I have current market rates on not only what's included in the six published, but also the ad hoc surveys that I've been working on. Once we do have all of the salary survey information in, that would be when we would get back on schedule with the September-October dates that you see there as far as updating our current salary structures. And then slotting the jobs, defining the rules and procedures as to how we're going to administer this going forward, and then the rest of the chart stays the same and on the same timetable. The folks over at Synergy are really doing a good job of staying on key with their deadlines. We're still set to go live on January 1st. If there's been any drag on them at all, it's been my efforts trying to coordinate both projects at once, and they've been very patient with me, so I appreciate that. Implementation, again, if the PeopleSoft module comes up live January 1st, there's going to be a conversion period where all of the new program gets converted into the system, but within the couple of months following that. The process that we're going through right now is strictly taking everything as it exists in the current mainframe and putting it into PeopleSoft so that it's a one-to-one relationship. After that, there will be a conversion into the new program. That's where all the work that I've been doing will take place. And that, again, is still scheduled to to be in effect and be usable data by the budgeting process next year, which would be February, March, and so then we can go live with the new system on July 1st, which would be the beginning of the fiscal year. And then I just included you guys in my talking points. I just wanted to run through quickly sort of what we've accomplished. Part of it I just covered. We are working hand-in-hand with the Synergy Project. Their timing affects our timing and vice versa. Currently, PeopleSoft is a table-driven system and the pieces that I have put together that I've submitted, which really affect the comp program and the e-compensation module of PeopleSoft, would be the tables that the job handling table, the salary plan table, salary grade table, which is really the salary structures, the step tables, which would cover all of our collective bargaining folks where they don't really have a salary structure, but they have a step-by-step program that goes year-by-year. All of that's built into the system. We've been scrubbing data that's in the mainframe and correcting some issues before we move things over to the PeopleSoft so it comes in as clean as possible. And again, we're on track for the January 1st implementation of that. I went through the key sources that I've been using so far pulling in the market data. As I identified the job families and identified those folks for the job family table, I also identified benchmark positions that I'll be going to the marketplace to look for. The one change, as I mentioned, was instead of looking at the organization as a whole, initially I'll be looking at it division by division. And the PeopleSoft system is more position-intensive rather than job-intensive, so that's going to help us because it has more detail that we can pull from and that we can report from, especially as far as our authorized strength reporting and our employee reporting and acquisition, talent acquisition, where we're going to assign each position its own individual unique position number. And that way we can track every single position, whereas right now we do everything by job, which would have many multiple incumbents and positions within that. So that's one change that we've made. And let's see what else. From what I've seen so far, I do think we will keep the current grading structure, and what we'll be doing is simply updating the ranges that go with that structure in order to mirror what the market is paying. And we will be renumbering job coding later on once I've completed the analysis. The new field is six characters, which gives us a lot more room to delineate between divisions and or job families. And the outstanding tasks, I'm still needing to put together the review committees, which will initially start with within division committees that will be reviewing what we're doing and ultimately growing into a larger committee that would oversee the entire project. And starting initially again with computer services to have them fill out the free form part of the job description so that we can get both that first section of descriptions in place. Thank you, Mr. Barker. We have two council members signed up right now to speak, Council Member Gorton and then Council Member Blevins. Thank you, Madam Chair. I had questions in a couple of areas. You mentioned the IT folks, and I know that I've had a number of conversations with a number of different people in IT about this, including Rama, Commissioner. Can you tell me, will the IT reorganization occur? I'm just trying to understand, will it occur along with everything else next summer or will there be some step up for IT to occur before that? My anticipation is that everything steps up at the same time. We wouldn't be completing IT and putting it in place beforehand, and I think that's primarily because we have a schedule set up to where I don't think we're equipped to put something in ahead of time. It would all be, it would all come live July 1st. It all has to come live at the same time? Right, rather than piecemeal. Okay, and then the employee forms, you said these will replace the PAQs. When an employee fills out this form, will there be some review of it within the division? Within the division, and it actually starts with the employee, and that's my preference in how these are put together because they're actually, it includes them in the process. They more closely work with what they are doing, and it also gets their point of view as to what they're doing, and then it would work its way through their management, and then ultimately come to me. There will be an approval process to where. Okay, and there will be input at each step along the way, and then so if the new system is driven by individual positions, did I understand that right? There will still be an ultimate job code, but you could have a job which has 15 incumbents or 15 positions of the same job. Each of these positions is going to be numbered individually, whereas right now they're not, so we can't really track within those 15 what has occurred. So we have the ability, once we have the system set up this way, to track all the way down to the individual job, individual position, and individual employee. Okay, so within the job code there could be 15 different positions, people who are doing 15 different jobs. No, if they were doing the same job. I mean different work. They could be doing exact identical work. It could be a senior accountant, and we could have 10 of those, and they're all doing the same work. Within there you could have a tax accountant versus a different kind of accountant, so that we could track it that way, but ultimately the overall job would be accounted. Okay, so within a job there should be some similarity of what they're doing. Right. Okay. It refines it a little more to a functional, a more functional title that could go with it. So the job title, will that, I guess there's really no direct comparison. Will that replace classifications, or is there not a way to really transfer this? Actually our current classification codes are going to be changed to job codes. Okay. Job code will equate to a job title, which would be like senior accountant, and the positions that fall within that will have a more functional title, like tax accountant, or whatever specialty it is. Although the requirements for the job is still a senior accountant position. They're all the same grade level. They all have the same salary range. It's just specialties within the job. Okay, so in a way it sounds very similar to what we have now, just different words. Is that a fair assumption or not? No, it's a vast improvement. It will be very different, and so then when people come into a position and they're evaluated for a salary, will we have the same situation we have now where we're paying attention to inversions and things like that, or will that be, or will that be different? Paying attention to really is internal equity, but as we've discussed before, I think the inversion process along with the advent of this new program, hopefully that ordinance will be abolished and we will be doing no more inversions. That sort of goes hand in hand with pay for performance. If we're going to start delineating between a two performer and a five performer and allowing them to receive different amounts of an increase, if someone comes in to create an inversion and moves all those people to the same salary, then you've undone the process of paying for performance. Well, I too would hope there are no more inversions. No one more than me. Right, okay. Well, I look forward to, will you be bringing updates before January? Yes, I was out for the June update, but I will be back for the next one. Okay, thank you, thank you. Council Member Blevins. Thank you, Chair. A couple of quick questions because we're almost out of time. I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. Position will now be tied to authorized strength, is that correct? Right. That's the mapping we're looking for. Good, that's a good thing. Several years ago, we had an HR system that had multitudes of job classifications way too detailed. We swung the pendulum completely opposite and probably got a little too broad several years later. As a part of this, are we going to fix some of that? Because I always use Charlie Martin's example of the sanitary sewer operator over here who has the same job class as some guy over here that has no job relationship with him. And yet, that completely goes away. That all will be fixed as a part of this. Good. Pay for performance, is that a part of this project or is that something separate? It is a part of this project, but it also needs to be coordinated between compensation and other areas within human resources. So when will we potentially see pay for performance get implemented? My anticipation is that it will go in for that fiscal year, fiscal year 10. Okay, good. And then does that include... All the groundwork needs to be laid and everyone needs to be trained and the employees need to become aware of how different it's going to be that year. I understand there's a lot to go with that, yes. Does that include any form of bonus or incentive pay that's a one-time kind of payment as opposed to an increase in your base salary? Not at this point, unless there would be something built in for folks who were at the maximum of the range, which I anticipate we're going to have very few or no folks sitting at the max. And do we anticipate looking at compensatory time in terms of... I'm not sure how to ask this. There have been several situations over the last year where unusual occurrences have occurred. One example would be the work on the Synergy Project where several individuals had to work long hours. I'm aware of several other situations where emergencies occurred and yet different commissioners slash division directors have handled that differently. Are we looking at a policy or something so that we're sort of uniform across government how we handle our employees? Because I think some people have gotten compensated, so to speak, for their extra efforts and some have not, and that's not fair. Right now, I think it just depends on if you have someone who's willing to go to bat for you to do. Right, and that doesn't work. So are we working on that in any regard as far as you know? Not as far as I know, but I can add that to the list. Commissioner, could you add that to your list, please? You know what I'm talking about. We can't do that anymore. That's not fair. All right, that's all I had. Thanks. Councilmember Beard, we have a little bit of time left. Thank you, Chairman. I guess this is a follow-on question to Councilmember Blevins. Paper for performance and on a grade of five they get the top raise required and on a two they get nothing maybe or one percent or whatever. So they have three good years at a five and they go into coast mode and they no longer get the big raise anymore, but they still got their job. I've never seen a compensation system that works well that doesn't have a bonus factor in it, and that's how you reward people for performance and not reward them for performing. Is there any reason why we can't do bonuses? I think that may be a second step that we can take further down the line. I think looking at budget constraints and what we're dealing with right now, if we can at least get this first step into place for where we can distinguish between the performances, that'll be a very good first step and then maybe as a second. Well, other than the fact that if it doesn't work, then the whole employee base gets a sour taste in their mouth about it, and management does too for that matter. Let me jump in here just a second. We'll have to have the Department of Law take a look at that. I tend to agree with you, but from my experience in state government and working with local school districts, it was illegal to do bonuses by the way it was written for governmental employees in the state constitution. So, we'll have the Department of Law take a look at it to see if it even would be a possibility for us, but it generally in government is not because it's considered compensation for no service, basically. Now, you can argue that, but at the state and local school district level, that it's illegal. But if somebody's getting a five, maybe they're doing twice the work. Hopefully, they're doing twice the work. Well, none of this is going to work if the managers don't take it seriously and rate their employees accordingly, and we've got a lot of work to do to make it successful. It's going to take a lot of training of the employees and the supervisors, but it's not going to work unless the supervisors take it seriously. Okay, thank you. Council Member Gordon has a quick comment. Well, Commissioner Coe, I just was going to comment. A number of years ago, it might have been in 2002 or 2001, we attempted to give our employees a bonus. It was a year where we didn't have a lot of money, and we did run up against a legal roadblock because we weren't compensating them for specific work, and they were all going to get, you know, there were going to be similar bonus. So, we did run up against the legal issue. I think it probably applies here. I just didn't want to say with great certainty that it does, but it seems like it would be the same constitutional issue. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Barker, and we look forward to your updates. May I get a motion? There's a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor? You can leave. Thank you.