# Council Planning Committee - October 21, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · October 21, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/623 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/623?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-10-21 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: July 16, 2026 - **Length**: 18,520 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Council Planning Committee met on October 21, 2008, at 1:00 PM, with CM Gorton presiding. The committee addressed three agenda items during the meeting, including one action item and two informational presentations. The committee took three votes during the session and heard no public comments. The Mobile Home Park Quality of Life item was approved by the committee, while presentations on Newtown Pike Status and Management Audit were received for informational purposes. ## Attendance The following members were present at the Council meeting on October 21, 2008: * Gorton * Blues * Gray * Ellinger * James * Beard * Stevens * Stinnett * Crosbie * McChord No members were absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The Council took three votes during this meeting: **Amendment to Section 5-107** [timestamp: 1:00:00] CM Blues moved to amend the wording of Section 5-107 to remove the recommendation of $50,000 annual appropriation, seconded by Dr. Stevens. The motion passed by voice vote, with one vote against from CM Beard. **Adoption of Ordinance as Amended** [timestamp: 1:02:57] Dr. Stevens moved to recommend the adoption of the ordinance as amended to the full council, seconded by CM James. This motion passed unanimously. **Appropriation for Program** [timestamp: 1:03:28] Dr. Stevens moved to recommend to the full council that $50,000 be appropriated for the remainder of the fiscal year for the program, seconded by CM James. This motion passed unanimously. ## Budget and Financial Actions The Council approved the sale of fleet vehicles, which is expected to generate $500,000 in revenue for the municipality. ## Contested Items The October 21, 2008 Council meeting featured two significant areas of disagreement among members. **Funding for Relocation Assistance Program** Council members engaged in heated discussion regarding whether to include a recommended funding amount within the ordinance itself. The central concern was the precedent that would be set by earmarking specific funds directly in the ordinance language. This debate reflected broader questions about the appropriate mechanism for allocating resources and the distinction between policy direction and budgetary specification in ordinance language. **Citizen's Advocate Office Funding** A second contentious issue arose over the administration's proposal to defund the Citizen's Advocate Office. Council members mounted strong opposition to this action, asserting that the office is part of the council's budget and therefore should not be unilaterally eliminated by the administration. This dispute highlighted tensions between executive and legislative authority over budgetary matters and the status of offices under council jurisdiction. ## Mobile Home Park Quality of Life [timestamp: 00:00:33] The Council discussed relocation assistance issues and proposed ordinance changes affecting mobile home parks. The agenda item was presented as a discussion item and ultimately approved. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Council Member James, Keith Horn, and Dr. Stevens. **Topics Discussed** The Council debated two primary matters: - Relocation assistance for mobile home park residents - Proposed ordinance changes to govern mobile home park operations **Issues Debated** The committee focused on the funding mechanism for the relocation assistance program and examined whether the program was necessary. These represented the central points of contention during the discussion. **Outcome** The agenda item was approved. ## Newtown Pike Status During this informational presentation, updates on the Newtown Pike project were provided by Paul Schoninger and CM Blues [timestamp: 1:04:43]. The discussion covered two primary areas of project activity: **Temporary Housing** Updates were provided regarding temporary housing arrangements related to the Newtown Pike project. **Right-of-Way Negotiations** The status of ongoing right-of-way negotiations was presented to the council. This agenda item was presented for informational purposes, with no formal action or decision required from the council at this time. ## Management Audit The Council reviewed the status of management audit implementation and addressed factual errors that had been identified by division directors. [timestamp: 1:13:40] **Key Participants** Dr. Stevens and Joe Kelly led the discussion on this agenda item. **Discussion** The agenda item focused on two primary matters: an update on the implementation status of the management audit and a review of factual inaccuracies that division directors had brought to the Council's attention. The discussion allowed division directors to raise concerns about errors in the audit findings and provided an opportunity to address these discrepancies. **Outcome** This item was presented as informational in nature, with no formal action required. The Council received an update on the audit's progress and the corrections needed based on feedback from division leadership. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-1): Amend the wording of Section 5-107 to remove the recommendation of $50,000 annual appropriation - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Recommend the adoption of the ordinance as amended to the full council - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Recommend to the full council that $50,000 be appropriated for the remainder of the fiscal year for the program --- ## Full transcript Beautiful. She's telling me we'll be wet. She's picked out a king-sized bed. Oh, ain't love a kick. Tell me quick, ain't love a kick in the head? ... ahead and convene our planning committee meeting. And the first item on our agenda today is the mobile home park quality of life issue, which Council Member James brought to the committee. And it's coming back to us after being discussed last month at our planning committee meeting. So, Council Member James, do you have any initial comment before we start discussing this, which is on pages one through three? Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to comment that it, the title of the agenda item was a bit misleading, and some folks thought it was the report out of the, and like the finality of the quality of life for mobile home park, and this is actually the relocation assistance issue specifically. So, for those watching and, um, for further reference for anyone that wants to follow up on this later at the council meeting, um, report out, which will be next Tuesday, please indicate that this is, or please note that this is for the relocation assistance and not for the full mobile home park report out. Thank you. Uh, did you ha- have any comment about what was brought back to us in terms of the ordinance, or does any other council member want to comment- Um, um- ... on the ordinance change? I would like to say that I believe, and Keith Horn and Cheryl Talbert, um, as well as Paula King are here, and I would like to say that I, I believe they did make the changes, um, that were brought for, that were suggested at the last committee meeting. And, um, they are here for your reference, if you need to ask any questions. Perhaps we should hear from you all first. Keith Horn from law, thank you for being here. I attempted to make the change that I think was discussed, which was the, the beginning language, it is n- now indicates that just to ensure that the program remains viable and is regularly funded, that it's the intent, or it's recommended that the urban county government appropriate annually $50,000 to this program. After talking to budgeting and accounting, I also added a sentence about this being maintained as an open fund, which was explained to me that would mean that the money would not have to be reappropriated every year. That that would remain an open fund. That's my understanding of it. So that's the only changes to the ordinance. Okay. So that was, uh, on page three of the packet in this last, uh, section 5-107, where I, I highlighted the part of the sentence, "It is recommended that the LFUCG appropriate at least $50,000 annually to the program." And was there any other change- The, after, the next sentence, "Any funds appropriated?" Mm-hmm. Th- that next sentence is new. "The fund for the program shall be maintained as an open fund." Now, um, are you saying that would be added? Oh, okay. Then I see. The s- the, skip the one sentence, "The fund for the program shall be maintained as an open fund." And then that defines it so that nothing has to be reappropriated. It stays in that fund- Right. ... and is available a- for use whenever it's needed. In subsequent fiscal years. Okay. Okay, very good. Uh, Cheryl, did you have any comment or? No. No, I was just here to support Keith. You're supporting? And P- and Paula King, did you wanna say anything? Okay, you have some good support here. You come with good backup. Okay, uh, we'll open it to council member questions, and I have Dr. Stephens. Uh, I guess I don't have a question, but I, I'm a little uncomfortable with the recommendation, fiscal recommendations, because I think that we have many needs in our city and in our community for funds. And that to separate one particular program out and have a dedicated funding for it, which would stay in the fund at subsequent years without, uh, without having a, um, obligation like we do now. If you obligate a fund now, or a purchase order say, and it goes through, it can carry over to the next budget year. This would be a little different. And, uh, I notice that you used the words, "recommend." Does that mean that it, it's permissive then? It's not shall, it's a maybe. That's correct. And the whole thing would be a maybe then? Yes. Th- the fact that there would be funds accumulating, which may not be used that would carry over to the next year would also be maybe? Once you make an appropriation to that fund, unless you come back in to amend this, it will r- remain in that fund for this purpose, unless you reach that $200,000 level. At which point, the council has the ability to, for any amount over that, to reappropriate to other programs or services. ... but this does not tie you down to making the appropriation annually, the $50,000 appropriation. And let me say that I'm trying to make this reflect what the council wants. I'm not necessarily here to advocate that this is what should happen. I took what happened at the last meeting and tried to build into the ordinance what I had heard. Uh, well, I would object and register an objection to this. I don't think that it should be any different than any other appropriation that we make during the course of our budget preparation and approval. Uh, I think that it is an excellent program, it certainly is needed, and needs to be adequately funded, but I think it can compete along with any other request. Does that complete your comments? Yeah, I would strike it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Doc- thank you, Dr. Stevens. Uh, Council Member James, and then Council Member Beard. I guess I'm, um, deferring back to Keith and, um, where you s- you say that you're responding to what the committee felt like was necessary. The group that worked on this, did you all feel, I mean, you were the ones charged with kind of researching this and putting this together, did you feel that it was important to do this sort of appropriation specifically for this fund? I don't necessarily want to speak for everybody, but yes. I think that the, one of the major concerns about the program is it- it's somewhat useless to create a program and then not make sure that there are funds in it for the operation of the program. Mm-hmm. If- i- if you create this and don't make the appropriation, then basically you don't have a relocation assistance program, even though there may be an ordinance on the books. Mm-hmm. And I think that... And it wasn't just our inner-governmental group, uh, it was the- the Build folk as well and the commitment that the administration made to bring forward to the council an ordinance that would be viable and effective. Mm-hmm. Not just a useless ordinance. Mm-hmm. Would there be a way to put some type of time on this particular one to where we could say evaluate it after, that this needs to come up, um, five years from now? I don't know if you can create an ordinance that says, "This either needs to be evaluated or it's done with in five years." Can you do that? I- I think we can build that into the ordinance, if that's what you prefer. As I said before, at any moment, the council could examine this ordinance and decide to amend any part of it, or to do away. Through our regular legislative process? That's correct. Okay. Well, I would just, I would definitely urge the committee to support this. I do support this in the current language. Um, some of the confusion that had been expressed previously is, doesn't adult services a- already get money to do things like this? And it's, um, clear that there's some misunderstanding about the funds that we already have for assistance and whether they would be able to be used for this particular type of situation. So I think it's, I think it's definite that we need the clar- the specificity that's included in this. Um, I would support, if there's some uncomfortableness with this being in, um, some kind of perpetuity, I would support an end date, um, to go back and look at, um, but I- I do, um, suggest that... Uh, it's going to be my motion towards the end of this to go ahead and move this out of this committee today to put forward to the full council. Thank you, Madam Chair. Council Member Beard? Thank you, Madam Chairman. Um, I basically agree with, um, Council Member James as to the need and requirement for this is, is kind of uncharted waters and it was brought about by the angle side trailer park, uh, situation. And we don't have one of those happen to us every year, every quarter, maybe every four or five years. We just are kind of flying by the seat of our pants as to what is adequate. Um, you know, $200,000 in some circumstances might not be adequate and we always have the ability if, uh, in fact we're able to build some kind of a reliable track record, uh, and feel more comfortable with the amount. Uh, we can always go back in and change it as, as a council. So, uh, you know, I would recommend just keeping it a- as it is, um, and, uh, and go from there. Thank you. Uh, Keith, could I ask you, what would be, in your view, what is the difference on, on this section 5-107 if we said, in order to ensure that the relocation assistance program for tenants remains viable, it needs a- a- and nee- it needs to be regularly funded, taking out the next part? 'Cause the recommendation- As of- ... any council can do anything they want with the budget. ... as a practical matter, there is no legal difference in that language. Mm-hmm. Uh, I think that part of the reason why a figure was built in was to send the message that there is seriousness about funding it and at what level, but if you want to make that change, there's technically no difference. I was just curious. Do we have any other, um, ordinance where we recommend a funding level? Other than... I mean, I know w- we have a very special ordinance with our rainy day fund, our economic contingency. Go ahead. I'm not aware of any. I can't promise you there aren't any, uh, because I haven't looked at everything, but I'm not aware of any- Hmm. ... like this. Any other counsel comment? Um, Mr. Blues. M... Oh, Dr. Blues? Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. That was my concern too, whether in an ordinance we recommend that something be done. I, th- ... Um, w- ... My general understanding is, and, and, and, uh, is that we, you know, we say what is, is being done. Uh, it would seem to me, uh, that we would ... It, it would be, it would be a, uh, you know, appropriate to say, not that we recommend X amount, but that we strike, we strike that and go on to the next sentence, that the funds appropriated to the fund remain available, you know, to what ... In other words, it might be im- ... Let me ask this. If we, if we worded it and Keith, uh, you may provide some guidance here. In order to ensure that the relocation assistant fund for tenants remains viable, any funds appropriated through the program, et cetera. Uh, there's no reason why it couldn't read that way, if that's what you would like. I would move th- then, Madam Chair, to, uh, to amend the wording a- as I just, uh, as I just read it. Okay. There's a motion. Do I hear a second? Uh, I second, but it would you repeat your motion again for me? Yes. I think I got the, got it, but I'm not sure. That the, uh, that the first sentence would be elided with the second one in the following way. In order to ensure that the relocation assistance program for tenants remains viable, any funds appropriated to the program shall remain available to the program in subsequent fiscal years. And would you say any unused funds? What we're talking about is if, if say they have an appropriation of 50,000 and they use 40,000, that, that 10,000 would stay with- Yes, uh, d- ... If, if, if you think that the word unused should be there. Oh. I think that's what ... I think it would describe more what the intent is. I take that as a friendly addition. Yeah. Okay. We have a motion and a second. And so if you wanna speak to the motion, I know some people were on the list first. Uh, just let me know. Council member James, go ahead. Um, uh, I have a ... I understand where you're ... I understand where the concern is, and relative to all of the other line items that we've already appropriated for, for this budget year, it makes sense that there is some, um, hesitancy to establish a particular amount. But just as Keith said, this is a new program. I don't know how many new programs that we've started in the middle of a fiscal year or when we're not looking at it for the full, um, uh, with the full budget. So I think the dollar amount is to show the integrity of the intent, but it's also to kind of give an idea. If we ... If this program ... Say all of us were replaced on council, by chance, we're, we're not all gonna be replaced. A lot of us are gonna still be here. But if all of us were replaced and someone brand new is looking at this budget, looking at the budget where this program was part of that budget, how would they know what the intent was of this program? How would they know how much would be? And as I'm talking, I'm kind of sorting this out, so please bear with me. But I'm thinking we've gotta have some type of reference, and, and whether that is to go that we designate, um, the language needs to be there that, you know, Department of Social Services or Adult Services or someone needs to help guide what's the appropriate, um, index? What are we looking for in order to really make a mark in this particular program? Because it's not necessarily holistically as all government programs, it's this specific program encountering this issue, um, and being able to meet that mark. So is it gonna be as we go line item by line item? Oh, we've got $10,000 left, so we're gonna put it over here in the relocation assistance program. Well, $10,000 is not gonna do anything, um, towards, towards dealing with this tenant issue, um, that doesn't have any money a- appropriated to it right now. Um, there's nothing ... We're starting from nothing. So we've got to have some sort of benchmark, and I think that's ... I mean, I have in my mind now $50,000. So when I'm gonna have budget discussion, if I'm on that link, that's what I'm gonna put out there for debate. But anybody else wouldn't even know where to start, um, or what kind of goal we're aiming towards. So I think it's important to have that dollar amount listed, and I, I cannot support, um, the motion. Thank you. Uh, Dr. Stevens, you're next. Uh, what has been the history of this fund in the past? How much... Do you know how much you've used in past years? There isn't a fund... There isn't a fund for this. The history that you may be speaking to is our relocation assistance program that's for condemnations, where code enforcement has gone out, taken an action, and condemned a property. But that's not what, what this ordinance speaks to, so there is no history to, to speak of. Now, with, um, code enforcement properties, I mean, it just depends. Um, a couple years ago, in September, we had run out of funds because there was a whole apartment complex that had been condemned. Um, we had 15,000 and based on that, we asked for an additional 15,000. So last year, we had, um, $30,000 and we used all of that money as well. And that covered your needs for last year? Did it cover our needs for last year? We overspent by a couple thousand dollars. How about previous years? That's why before that, we had $15,000. There was an apartment complex that was condemned based on a flooding that had happened. We d- used all our money in September. The budget started in July. By September, we'd used all of our funds- Mm-hmm. ... because of that one particular action. So it just depends on, you know, natural disasters, something's going on the community. But, I mean, we never have had a problem spending the money that's been allocated for condemnations. Again, there's no history with this program. Based on the individuals that we were working with with Ingleside, because there wasn't a, um, money set aside for that, we tried to piece together what we could in the community, but there would've definitely been a need for the money there, and we probably could've used 20, $30,000 at that point, based on the number of residents. So that's the other thing that you're gonna have to look at too, how many households, um, are gonna be affected by that. Again, we don't know. Well, I have no objection to creating a line item in the budget for this particular program, as you describe, a new program, uh, but I oppose to setting a f- an amount on it now and making it a recurrent thing codified in the ordinances. I think that this Department of Social Services can, uh, put this in their budget request and they can, uh, compete with other things in their department, as well as the government as a whole. I see no reason to, uh, that this program is so different than any other program that it needs to be codified in the Code of Ordinance with a set amount. So I support the motion, and if it wouldn't pass, I'll make a motion we delete this whole thing, this whole paragraph, I mean, related to its special provisions. Uh, Dr. Blues. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, uh, I agree on this point because it, it, it does seem to me that, uh, you know, that, that we determine policy in, you know, in making a budget and so on. Uh, the... and our, our ordinances are, are, uh, you know, the expression of that, uh, you know, of that policy. We do have a preamble here, which expresses the need. We do have a Department of Social Services, which is, uh, mandated to, you know, to look at, at, at the needs. I would expect, uh, that, that, uh, as we, as we move toward discussions for the, for the 20, 2010, uh, budget, that Social Services will, will be advocates for this, that various members of the council will be advocates. Uh, so we set the, you know, we set the law in the ordinance. Uh, we make recommendations, uh, you know, in oth- in oth- in other, uh, in other, uh, venues. So I, I think that, that not putting a recommended amount is no, uh, you know, is no detriment to, uh, you know, to the intention or to the expression. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Council member Baird? Thank you again, Madam Chairman. Um, I guess I'm gonna have to be, uh, uh, take a position somewhat contrary to Council Member Stevens and Blues. Uh, again, we're in unchartered waters here, and, um, this would be likened to, um, n- not budgeting in the police department for gasoline, because we don't know what the price of gasoline's going to be and, um, or are budgeting a fixed amount, and then, uh, uh, gasoline goes to $4.11 a, a gallon, and we park all the vehicles sometime in, uh, January or February and they, uh, they don't run. Um, we have to put a number in there, I think, to show what our intention is and our level of interest in, in doing this, rather than leaving it open-ended. 'Cause if we, if we do not have one of these circumstances for a year or two, uh, it, the natural, uh, tendency is going to be to, uh, forget about it all together, and the council to forget about it all together. And then we have to go through some long drawn out, uh, process to remind them about what happened at Ingleside and h- what did happen and, you know. Um, you know, we're not giving this money away. It's there, uh, for the purposes of helping, uh, people who are in, in dire straits, in a situation, uh, beyond their control, and again, we have control of whether, how high that number can go. If, in fact, uh, and let's take a 10-year horizon- ... that, uh, it sticks, uh, uh, close to 200,000. We could always lower that number down because we wouldn't have had any single occurrence it would have maybe been any higher than 40, 50 th- thousand dollars. We ... Any future councils will have the o- option to do that. But I think we have to be able to communicate to future councils what our intent was to begin with. And if we just strike that whole paragraph, uh, uh, we might as well s- not even have the, uh, the program as far as I'm ... as I can see. Thank you. Uh, Council Member McCord tried to use his electronic and didn't show up so - Got nothing. ... you're next. Uh, for the, I guess, for the sake of going forward, is there anything that's showing up on y'all's radar that, that there's another, uh, one of these coming or it's kind of in the, in the potential site at least? You know, and, and that's ... I guess that's my dilemma 'cause you, you see that there's a real need when, when it does happen, but then putting money away and, and leaving it untouched for something that, you know, is, uh, y- you don't even see anything on the radar right now. And I think this kinda goes back to a couple years ago when, uh, when some council members, uh, basically voiced their concern to, um, uh, the Commissioner of Social Services and asked, "What, what's coming next? Kind of, what's the Katrina that's coming?" And, and the premise of that was that, you know, FEMA got blasted because they weren't in place ready to go when something that they knew it was going to happen, happened. And, uh, and I think that where I kind of come down on this is, is, uh, putting something that, that gives some intentionality of, yes, we recognize this is ... th- this can happen and it can happen very quickly. But I think more to, uh, having the Commissioner of Social Services and, and us working very closely together, seeing what's coming, coming up, the planning department and them talking, uh, versus trying to put asi- a, a set of money away, keeping that sequestered over here and, and then letting that build. And then we got a, a, another need that we could put, apply that to. Well, planning, um, has, is in the process and they were working on changing their application so that we would know. Okay. They were asking very specific questions when people came in to submit applications if something like this was going to, to happen, so for us to say, "Do we know?" I don't think we have a process in place to know if it's gonna happen, but that was one of the things that planning was working on. A- and I think that's probably, uh, can be the most, um, beneficial thing to come out of this meeting. Uh, however things are voted is, is to, uh, is to have planning, uh, the planning department basically, uh, identify those, the known trailer parks that we have in the city and then, uh, put them on- We worked through all that during our process. Okay. We, um, sat down and looked at the ones that were zoned for trailer park use and if they were zoned for something else. So planning, um, building inspection, every ... the, the players at the table were very involved and it was an excellent work group, so and I think we did come up with some things that we could put in place so that we would know. Madam Chair, would it be appropriate if, if we had asked, uh, planning to just give us a, a quarterly ... give the planning committee a quarterly report of, of what those are, if there's any, any movement, any ... that way there's a, a trigger, at least for this body to be aware? Um, however this vote goes down, I, I think that, uh, it would be good for them, for those parties that are actively at the table to just, uh, supply us with, "Here's where they are. Here's ... what is, is happening around or here's what might be happening in the next year." Uh, so I, I can make that in the form of a motion that, that the planning department would bring us a quarterly report of, of that. Can, can you hold off until the- Yeah. ... current motion is- Absolutely. ... is, uh, debated and voted? Sure. I, I do wanna make sure that everyone understands this applies to more than mobile home parks. Mm-hmm. It's related to the dislocation of low income tenants. Mm-hmm. And it's my understanding that, uh, the, the existing mobile home parks, there may be one or two that wouldn't even have to request a zone change to go ahead and change its use, that the existing zoning would permit, uh, I think industrial or something like that in its current location. So it's not necessarily always gonna be triggered by the division of planning. It could be triggered by something else. Okay. Uh, Council Member James. Thank you, cou- thank you, Madam Chair. I, I wanted to talk a little bit about, um, we talked about the accrual and whether the funds would be utilized or not, and I think as long as we don't ... as long as our urban service boundary is as it is, um, the need to, um, develop within the urban service area will be there. And if, uh, Council Member McCord, if you need some examples of where it's happening, I can take you for a ride through my district. Um, it's, um ... it is a threat. Um, it's not even a threat, it's a promise that, um, these funds will be needed. Um, it happened, um, as kind of, um ... we found out the information after the fact- ... um, or during the f- during the phasing of the Ingleside Mobile Home Park and didn't have anything in place to help those residents. And there were many of us, Cheryl and I, uh, uh, and many others frantically trying to figure out what to do and trying to be proactive, um, I'm finding is very difficult in this government sometimes because everybody wants it to be the same as it always is, yet we talk about innovation and progressiveness when we talk about planning for the future. We really need a plan for the future, and, um, it's not just mobile home parks. Infill and redevelopment is occurring right now. As we are speaking, there's bulldozers happening. Um, people, maybe not always residents, sometimes it's other ... we haven't got anything in place yet for the business owners that are dislocated, but infill and redevelopment happens all the time. It's happening as long as our urban service boundary is the way that it is and will continue to happen. So keep in mind that as ... if one year something's not tapped into, that next year we might get hit double fold or triple fold. ... and need all of those additional funds. Um, it's not like gas to where we can go to a hybrid system. Um, you, you talked about the comparison to gas, Council Member Beard, and that was a great comparison, but there's solutions to that to, to make it to where we don't have to rely on that. And when we go through our budget and we're going line item by line item, we're looking at things get, can potentially be eliminated at some point. You have a program that maybe will work its way out. When we're giving money to partner a- agencies, we're looking at them having a mission and solving a purpose. Um, relocation, as long as our infill is happening at the level that it's happening, will be needed. Um, we need to be proactive. We need to stand up and be that council that we talked about being, proactive and progressive and really, um, being there for our citizens and having something in place. We need to keep that dollar amount in there. Thank you. Council Member Stennet. Thank you, Chair. Um, you know, I, I certainly think this ordinance a- and what's been presented to us today and the work of the, of the work group is being proactive. I think, uh, the language in there specifies exactly what, uh, type of assistance this government will provide, and I think, a- a- as we should, we focused on the money aspect today a little bit more than any of the actual need for the program. I think the program is great as it's set up, um, but I think from the money aspect, I guess my, my biggest question is have you ever spent or, or had the need for $50,000 a year prior to, um, today? For? Assistance, rental assistance, for this type of assistance. You, you mentioned 30,000 last year. For, that was for relocation. Now, keep in mind that we have another set of money that's emergency financial assistance when people have lost their income for one reason or another, whether they're sick, you know, their job, they've been laid off. Yes, we do spend over $50,000 for rental assistance in that particular program. But that's based on a specific need because someone, something has happened to them that they're not able to generate income that they would normally generate. This ordinance isn't about that. So the re- the 30,000 was relocation money last year? Yes. And then you said you spent an additional 2,000 over that. Where did you get the additional 2,000? We have to go back and forth within our budget. Um, we have to borrow from the emergency financial assistance fund to move the money over to- So budget amendments- ... cover that. ... are normal process. Well, a- and that gets me to, to the point, you know, I don't mind this council saying, "Hey, we need to put $50,000 a year into this program." No problems at all about that, but i- if the money's not spent or you only spend 30, th- I think that 20- That's all we have. Right, or, or if you only spend 40, uh, of this 50, then I, I'm not exactly comfortable with that rolling over for the next fiscal year because I think if there is a need, i- if you do come back to us and say, you know, "We have 50,000 in, but we need 100,000 this year," I think the process is in place that you can do a budget amendment or come to this council. Have you ever come to the council for additional funds in, in your area for any type of social service program? I haven't. I mean, we did it a- as a council for the, uh, CHIP program, for instance. We had extra funds in the bu- fund balance and we created a CHIP program. It's a program that provides the heating assistance, but we don't put money into it every year until, A, we have a budget surplus or there's a need and they come to us for that need. I think, you know, that may be better suited for this program because we can't judge the need every year. I mean, that, we, we've debated that. Um, but, but I think the program is, uh, needs to be in place. There needs to be some type of dollars allocated each year, but whether or not it needs to roll over, I'm not exactly comfortable with it rolling over every year and building up to $200,000. That, that's a big chunk of change. I think if we're ever gonna need that kinda money, I think I have the confidence in Commissioner Helm and, and yourself to come to us and say, "Hey, Council, we need a budget amendment. We need to take from our emergency rainy day fund. We need to fix this." But having the policy in place allows you the capability to come to us and ask for those monies. Thank you. Council Member Baird, we still have the motion we're discussing to remove the one phrase that is recommended that the LFUCG appropriate at least 50,000 annually to the program. So Council Member Baird. Thank you again. Um, Cheryl, y- you mentioned you had a fire situation in an apartment and you ran out of money at that point. Ah, wh- what, what was the process of the residents themselves? Uh, did they have to race down here and get in ahead of somebody else to, uh, or did you prorate it across the whole group or ho- No, I mean, the people come in as they come in. I mean, it's the first time But then they do have to race. So they, they do have to- But they don't- Once they- Yeah, but they don't sense that... I mean, we've never told them we don't have any money because my thought is this is a, a service that we're offering to the community. We need to, to be able to assist them. So for them to know we got $999 left, the community doesn't know that. The, the clients that are coming in don't know that. But y'all had in your budget $15,000. We had in our budget $15,000. Okay. And so that wasn't adequate. That was not adequate. I'm talking, I'm talking about philosophically now we're in a situation where we have to raise that, uh, to replicate in the future what has happened in the past, but these events don't happen with enough regularity. And, uh, obviously, unless you use, uh, apartments, th- they're all different sizes with all, uh, different numbers of tenants. So, um, to be able to predetermine what that amount should be each year is going to be a problem. Uh, do we not also, and I'll just ask this in general, do we not also, uh, have other funds that overflow each year and we carry that money forward? Like the sewer fund? Yeah. I mean, so there's i- it's not unprecedented to carry. There are dedicated funds, and I believe the grant program funds, um, flow over into the following year. Yeah. Um... Well, I mean, we're not in unchartered waters by, by suggesting this, then, uh, at, at this point. And maybe $200,000 isn't, uh, necessarily need to be the, uh, uh, the number. Maybe it's $100,000. But, uh, uh, at the same time, it needs to be something, I think, uh, in, in my opinion, anyway. Thank you, Chair. Uh, Council Member Blues. Thank you, Madam Chair. The, the issue is here is not $200,000. The, or, or any other, or any other number. The, the issue is here is crafting an ordinance that makes a recommendation. I'm all in favor of Council Member James' argument th- that w- we, that we need to defund this kind of, this kind of assistance. It's not an argument, however, that you make in an ordinance. You make it at budget hearings, uh, at, you know, in other, in other fora, where, where we're, we're, where we're actually determining how much to put into a fund that's been defined in this ordinance if this ordinance passes. So that's, I think, is the, is, is the issue that we're addressing with this motion. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Will you temporarily take the chair, please? Be happy to take the chair. Thank you, Council Member Blues. Does anybody wish to be recognized? Yes . Um, I had a couple of questions for you, Keith. Um, we were talking about are there other funds that get rollover in the general fund. Do you know of any fund that rolls over? I- Because I don't think of one in the general fund, which this would be general fund. Right? Correct. Well, other than- Economic. ... the rainy, the economic- Conting- ... Contingency Fund. But all the funds where things are rolled over, other than capital, are special enterprise funds, are they not? Sanitary sewer fund- I think that's probably true. ... landfill fund. Yeah, I may not be the person to ask versus someone from budgeting- Well, yes, you are law. That's true . Uh, but that would be my understanding. Mm-hmm. I, I, I think that is true. Um, and, and I really appreciated what Council Member Blues said, because I'm totally in favor of this ordinance. I think we need to put a plan in place. Um, because if we don't have a plan in place, then we have no backbone for putting funds into it. I do differ, and I agree with Council Member Blues, in that this, just like every other general fund allocation, should go through the budget discussions. Um, we do not mandate how much money we put for stormwater, which is a huge issue. We don't mandate how much money we put for s- resurfacing. We let those come through the budget process. So that's my only, my only difficulty with, with this is this one phrase that recommends an amount of money annually. I think that's up to the divisions and the departments to bring that forward through the process we have on the books. I f- I fully support the rest of this, which the intent, I believe, is to set up a program where we can help folks who need help. But I will support your, uh, motion, because I think it's inappropriate to designate or even recommend an amount of money. If we're gonna start doing that, I'd like to see us recommend money for PDR. I'd like to see us recommend money for stormwater. I'd like to see us recommend money for resurfacing. I mean, you can go down the list of general fund needs, and all of those could have a recommendation behind them through ordinance. So, um, I will support your motion, and intending to support the rest of this, which the intent, I believe, is to set up a program where we can help folks who need help. But I will support your, uh, motion, because I think it's inappropriate to designate or even recommend an amount of money. If we're gonna start doing that, I'd like to see us recommend money for PDR. I'd like to see us recommend money for stormwater. I'd like to see us recommend money for resurfacing. I mean, you can go down the list of general fund needs, and all of those could have a recommendation behind them through ordinance. So, um, I will support your motion, and intending to support the rest of the ordinance, because I think it is a good, strong ordinance to set up a program for what we wanna do. Thank you. Can I make sure there's no confusion about one thing? Oh. Okay. This ordinance is not written to apply to those condemnation situations. Right. Yes. That's a separate program, and so- That- ... there's technically no historical event to compare this to- Yes. ... for the purpose it's written. So I just wanted to make sure that everyone understood. This does not apply to condemnations. Right. Those are the situations- Or any of our other- ... where you've- Right. ... put money in- Mm-hmm. ... a different way. And I would just add, too, to make a comment, is that if, if we're gonna go that route, and it has to be part of, that it's gonna be part of the budgeting process, just to keep in mind that, not to take away from another program, one of our existing programs to be able to fund this. So not to lower our emergency financial assistance budget to be able to, to fund this program, but in addition to what we request, we sh- to be able to request the amount. Well, my understanding is this would be a new- Right. ... a new program. Right. And the moneys requested come from Social Services, so that would need to be worked out through the budget process. And, I mean, at some point, I think during this year, if we put this into place, we theoretically could put some seed money into it, um, if we figure out where to take that seed money from. But, um, yeah, my only point was that I, philosophically, I disagree with putting a recommended amount in an ordinance for a- ... a General Fund program where all the others have to come through the regular process as a budget request, and then work through the mayor, work through the council. So that was my only... that, that is really my only differ on this. And so I'm gonna support your motion. I now return the chair. Thank you, Dr. Blues. Madam Chair. Now we have Council Member Gray and Council Member James. Um, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I was, I was curious as to the... you all may have addressed this, so apologize for being tardy. Did the, um, social services recommend the 50,000? Was that the, the work group? Can... The work group. The work group did? Can you... Yeah. Okay. Yes, the work group. And the motion on the floor is to remove that phrase, "It is-" Right. "... recommended that the LFUCG appropriate at least 50,000 annually to the program." So the, the recommendation was for 50,000? Would it be... and I'm, I'm hearing the comments and the, as, a- in terms of the, um, point of view of the appropriateness of an, of a, a number in the ordinance, and that's pretty compelling. The question that I would have would be, would it be, um, would it be appropriate to recommend consistent with the work group, perhaps 50,000 for the first year? Have you all discussed that? Did you already mention, was that... Uh, the motion on the floor, I don't think we've discussed that, but are, are you asking to put that in ordinance or to bring it as a recommendation separately from the ordinance? Don't know exactly. Okay. All right. I'm just throwing it out as encouraging an endorsement of the... somehow to encourage the endorsement of the 50,000 that's been recommended, but not make it binding, because the issue of binding-ness is a compelling one to me, the one that you all have been discussing. But it's also worthwhile to acknowledge the intentions of the work group and what they've, what they vetted, you know. And I think that maybe is consistent with what Council Member Beard was suggesting too, that, you know, they've, they worked through this, so there's a level of investment in it, those numbers, and if there's a way that we can recognize that without codifying it, I guess, is what I'm saying. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Council Member James. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to clarify, um, a statement, um, Madam Chair, that you just made to, um, um, Cheryl, which was, um, social service, social services would, since it's their program, they would have to come up with the funding. And I, w- I just wanted to request the fu- okay, 'cause I wanted to clarify, 'cause it sounded like it would be out of social services budget, but it's out of the general fund dollars. So, eh, but my concern is during our link discussions when we had our link, um, we had kind of an amount and, and money was tight. And we had an amount for the divisions of government that we were, um, linkin', linking with, and, um, we were trying to work with the dollar amounts given. And that was based on existing programs. And I guess, as a matter of fact, uh, I don't even know if we even funded any new or expanded programs at all. Um, so I'm curious, um, if there, if funding doesn't come down from, um, mayor's proposed budget, um, and we're in tough economic straights again, um, and social services has to add a, add this new program, which really affects more divisions of government than just social services, it's really, planning has been involved, mayor's office has been involved, um, then they'll need to kind of finagle with their budget and make it happen, um, with what they're handed down? Or, I guess, w- kind of going back on what Cheryl's saying, is this seems to really be a need, um, and, but they already have needs and they've, you know, they used their money on all the pro- the existing programs. And again, we've had a couple of comments about the mix-up between the emergency funding and this funding, a couple of council members have said that, and I'm just afraid it's, the language is gonna just get really blurry and it's gonna say, "Okay, we got, we have $50,000 to use for tenant assistance. Let's just divide it, 25,000 and 25,000." That doesn't really seem to, to help what the issue is of this, of this ordinance. Well, uh, why I said what I did is I was thinking along the lines of Vice Mayor Gray, that if we could find some seed money for this program, to seed it initially, without putting in the ordinance that there's a recommended amount every year, because whether it's housed in social services or whether it's housed in planning, or wherever it's housed, um, I'm, I'm kind of taking a budget purist view, in that all programs have to make their request every year for dollars. So if we could somehow seed it first, which I think is what you were getting to, Vice Mayor, is put some initial money into it to set it up without putting in the ordinance how much money had to be in there every year. That, that's, that's kind of where I'm coming from. But, but it would, but it would need to be requested every year then. It would compete with everything in government, in the general fund. ... a-and I, and I guess, I, I just need some help with the comparison to PDR and road resurfacing, because PDR has a set goal, um, and a set, a set amount and a set goal. And road surfacing, we know we can, you know, for $800,000, we can do two roads or whatever the amount is. Huh. Um. Have. For this, this is kind of, um, w-we don't know how many tenants are gonna be, um, relocated or, or not. How would you do, how would they know how many people to estimate for the way that we do with PDR and the way that we do with road surfacing? Well- How would we know? Now, I don't believe we put an ordinance how much goes into road resurfacing and how much goes into PDR, do we? I think- That's all in the budget process. Right. But we know, when we get that handed down, we know how many roads- Mm-hmm. ... how many roads are there. We know the goal of PDR. There's a certain goal and- Mm-hmm. ... matching funds and all that, that go into that. I'm just, maybe I would support the $50,000 initial- Seed money. ... seed money. Um, again, I'm worried about the after, the next budget year, um, how would we then account for that mega year where all the mobile home parks are closed in one year? Or- Well, I think we can go either way on that. That may never happen. But it may happen. We don't know. I mean, we, we've had a program in the past that was sidewalk matching money, for low income folks. And, um, we had no clue how much we would need, but we didn't codify how much should go in there. We, we, I think we can only estimate. And, and it would have to come through the process if, if planning and social services see that next year there may be a problem, then they're gonna need to ask for more. So can, in this, can we, in this, um, ordinance then state, "Be funded for 50,000 year, $50,000 for the first..." I'm sorry? Can we in th- in this ordinance state, "Be funded for $50,000 for the initial..." I think that's up to the committee, isn't it? Council- Well, I think we can, uh, we could, if we approve this ordinance, which I think we will, 'cause it's a good ordinance, we could make a recommendation to the council that they include a budget amendment to fund it for X number of dollars for- Mm-hmm. ... the eight months left in this fiscal year. And it would not put it into the books then, it would be done every year. It would go on year by year. A- But it wouldn't, I'd say, I wouldn't leave it in the ordinance to stand. It could be done either way, I think, but I think it'd be better to, to recommend to the council a budget amendment to fund this program for the rest of the fiscal year. Okay, thank you. And, and Cheryl, how do you feel about that from your division with, with it just stating for $50,000 for the first time and with no mention of approval? Do you have discomfort with that? Again, I just think everybody just needs to recognize that because we haven't been here before and just knowing that something could come up and that we'll be back asking for additional monies, if, if that's the way it's gonna, that it's gonna go. And we'll come back with numbers. I think that's the other issue is that we don't have any data at this point to, to support it, so. Mm-hmm. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Council Member Crosby's on the list and has not spoken yet, for those of you who are before her, would you allow her to go next? Thank you. Yes. Council Member Crosby. Thank you. I just, um, just back to what Council Member James was stating, and, um, I, uh, appreciate the fact that, um, we're gonna pass an ordinance, it appears, to, to outline, um, uh, the guidelines of this program, which brings me to the question I'd asked last time is whether or not we needed an ordinance, because the reason why I'd asked that question was because I felt like this could have been part... It was my understanding that we don't necessarily need the ordinance to make this a part of the budgeting process. I was told, I believe, that yes, you did have to have the ordinance to run the, the program. I've since found out that you probably could have requested in the budgeting process for this, um, which brings me to the point that at, at any given time, you could have requested this as part of the budget for now. We could have had this as, as part of the budget. No. Yes? They weren't done with their But, but we saw a need within the community already, and we could have gone ahead and requested the funds. So I appreciate that we're outlining the fa- this fact in ordinance, but I don't, I agree with, with the fact also that we don't need to necessarily appropriate $50,000 every year and bind ourselves down, um, with that. So, um, I will s- I will support removing that language, but I would also be willing to look at providing some seed money and also look at future budgeting opportunities with this. Uh, all right. Uh, Vice Mayor Gray? Um, I'd just say, uh, I might say just for, a little bit of observation or context that this is one of those, um, conversations in where, not just conversation, but the work of the council, the work of this work team, uh, as Council Member James said, the, uh, push toward, um, change and innovation, sometimes it's a struggle. Council Member McCord, you know, you're, you're, you're nodding your head. But if we really reflect on it, this is where often the hard work gets done and the constructive work gets done. And, uh- ... um, and even some compromises are made, but the -- the good news about this is that we've all seen this need. Uh, it's illustrated itself in the past couple years. There have been a large community of constituents who are advocates for this intervention and this support, and, um, I, like others, are glad to support it. Thank you. Council member. Council member Blues. Just very briefly, um, Madam Chair, I do expect that -- that while we cannot always accurately predict how much money will be -- will be required for a particular -- particular program, um, we can't do that, uh, in an ordinance, and we can't make those kinds of insurances. I -- I -- I do say, again, that I would expect that, given this ordinance as a context, as a guideline, Social Services Department will be powerful adequate -- powerful advocates for adequate funding of it year to year, and so will many members of this council going forward. Thank you. Council Member Beard. One last comment. I've had my turn four times now, so I promise this is the last. I just want to remind everybody, the third line of section 5-107 says, "It is recommended..." And that's all it is. It is recommended that we appropriate at least $50,000 annually to the program. And maybe we could change, "Any funds appropriated to the program should," rather than shall, "remain available," which would soften that, uh, ongoing, uh, question. Um, but i- in any case, it is only a recommendation. And, uh, and with that recommendation and with the unchartered waters we're in, uh, you know, the -- the $50,000 that Vice Mayor Gray mentioned, uh, is obviously better than none, but, uh, it's ... We can't react q- q- quickly enough, I don't think, as a council, if we actually have a fire, and, uh, we use up all of 50,000 and then some. To reappropriate m- would take some time. And, um, the... meanwhile, these folks are sitting in motels, and I g- I assume we're pr- I- I guess we're paying for the motels. I don't know what we're doing, but, uh, eh, w- we can't react in any reasonable, uh, amount of time to be able to, uh, to help these folks during that interim. Thank you. Uh, Dr. Stephens. I would, uh, support the amendment as stated, and I would also say that if this amendment passes, then I would make a motion that we approve the ordinance as amended, and also a motion that we, uh, request the council to make a budget amendment to adequately fund this for the rest of the fiscal year. And if, um ... and I think that's where we would need your help, Cheryl, to find out exactly how much money you think you need for the rest of the year. I think we've said ... we were ... did we say ... did I hear the $50,000 to start out? Then I would make a motion for 50,000 as a budget amendment. If this ... No, I'm not amending. I'm saying I support Councilman Blue's amendment, and I would, uh, make a motion then, after... if that passes, that we approve the ordinance as amended, uh, and recommend to the council it be placed pass, and that we also request that a budget amendment be done for $50,000 for the rest of the fiscal year to this newly created program. Uh, Vice Mayor Gray. Just a quick ... just a quick question, um, or maybe a clarification. Just in terms of process and administration- administrative process, if we adopted the model that Dr. Stephens has just suggested, or the process that Dr. Stephens has just sugg- just suggested, Cheryl, um, perhaps a good tracking system, you know, for the next eight months that could give us a heads up pretty quickly on what it's looking like. So, you might be able to get good data in the first three months. Then you could come back to us and share that with us and give us some kind of proforma going forward to give us a good index or indicator of what it is looking like going forward. We can do that. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Are there other comments on the motion? Okay. The motion on the floor is to, uh, amend section 5-107, uh, to remove the phrase, "It is recommended that the LFUCG appropriate at least $50,000 annually to the program." So, the motion is to, uh, prove this ordinance with that amendment. Keith, did I... No, I think the motion is on the amendment. Oh, just to... Okay, gotcha. And then, after that is passed- It's just on the amendment. Yes. It was my understanding we were going to remove after viable and is regularly funded is recommended that the LFUCG appropriate at least $50,000 annually to the program. What was... Council Member Blues, you made the motion. You're gonna put a comma after viable. That's correct. Okay. And, and delete the rest of the... of the... you know, of the sentence, and pick up then with the next clause any funds. So, your motion does not include- "... and is regularly funded." Is that correct? He wants that deleted. That's right. That is correct. Okay. So, the motion is to remove, "And is regularly funded. It is recommended that the LFUCG appropriate at least 50,000 annually to the program." So it would read, "In order to ensure that the relocation assistance program for tenants remains viable, any funds appropriated to the program shall remain available to the program in subsequent fiscal years." Is that correct? Correct. Okay. All right. Any other comment on the motion? Council member James. I just wanna say that, um, I am gonna vote in favor of this motion, and rely very strongly- Uh- ... on social services- ... to be very, very active with coming to the mic, or speaking with council members, or speaking with your commissioner, to let us know how it's working. Because we have the ability to go in and change this, if the- ... if the facts justify that. But since it's new, I will support and vote, um, with my colleague, Council Member Blues, on his motion. Um, but I'm really relying on extreme feedback. I don't want this to be one of those ordinances that sits on the shelf somewhere that nobody ever looks at ever again, and then the money starts to dwindle in the budget year after year after year. So, please, let's work together to make sure that we do that. Thank you. Okay. Um, will all those in favor of the motion please say aye? Aye. Any opposed? We have one, Council Member Beard. One nay. And so that motion passes. Now, do we hear a motion, Dr. Stephens, for the- I move that, uh, the planning committee recommend to the full council the adoption of ordinance rela- this ordinance as amended. Do I hear a second? Second. Second. I have several seconds. Is there discussion on the motion to recommend this ordinance to the full council for passage? Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you very much. I have another motion. Dr. Stephens has another motion. And I would move that we re- also recommend to the full council that appropriate funding, starting at $50,000 for the remainder of the fiscal year be appropriated, funds permitting- Second. ... uh, for this program. Okay. And we have several seconds. Uh, is there any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, so we- this will also come with the recommendation that the council allocate $50,000 from the fund balance, basically, uh, to get the program going. Thank you for your hard work. Thank you. Thank you. All of you. Thank you Council Member James, and all the task force members. Uh, we'll move right along here to our ... Well, our second item, Andrew Grunwald could not be here. And so, I can ask ... Yes, let's have Paul Schoenhager just highlight what his report would have been on the Newtown Pike status. Uh, this is found on page four. I don't wanna read to you, but I guess I'm going to. Uh, under phase one, the temporary housing in the South End Park, the temporary housing area is almost complete. The construction's almost complete and move in is scheduled by Thanksgiving. Uh, regarding phase four, and this is the road actually, from Main to Versailles, the right of way has- negotiations have begun, uh, with district w- um, with district seven. And that they had a meeting with, uh, stakeholders for the design of the bridge over Town Branch. And regarding the land trust, that the, uh, land trust board of directors had been established. And that a second meeting is scheduled for l- for later this month, tomorrow, I guess. Okay. Thank you very much. Um, we have, for written information only, Liberty Road status and Loudoun Avenue road status. Pardon me? Council Member Blues, did you have a question? Oh. I think that was from the- That was leftover from another- ... the same thing. Did you have a question about Newtown Pike? I just wanted to add a, a, a couple of things on, on that. The, uh, uh, the temporary housing, um, is, is in place and there are some final touches to do. And, uh, and a few weeks ago, uh, the, uh, the, the folks who are gonna move in and, and several others of us, uh, toured that, that housing. Got to see inside the manufactured homes, and they're really quite commodious and quite, quite substantial, and very impressive. Everybody was, was extremely pleased with, uh, uh, with this temporary housing which is, you know, it's gonna be only semi-temporary since folks are, are gonna be in there from, from one and a half to, uh, to two years. Um, I've also sat in on several meetings on, on, on the, uh, on the bridge over Town Branch and, and th- there was a lot of, uh, uh, citizen input and input from, uh, from area architects and, and, uh, uh, Van, Van Meter Pettit from the Town Branch, uh, Town Branch Association. And, and, and, uh, it was, it was really impressive to see this kind of, uh, kind of discussion, cooperation, and, and coming up with, uh, under- ... financial constraints, d- design of a bridge that is, that is going to be impressive and not just another road over, over another creek. The, the Community Land Trust has met for the first time. Paula, one correction, uh, tomorrow night's meeting has been, has been canceled. And the next meeting, I can't remember the date, is, is in November, but it's been, uh, it's been penciled in for four hours. So we have our work ahead of us on the, on the Land Trust Board. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for that addition to the update. Uh, Vice Mayor Gray, did you have a question? Yes. Um, thank you, Councilman Gordon. Um, back to the Newtown Pike, uh, presentation. We're gonna meet, are we meeting next month? We are meeting next month, aren't we? Yes. Okay. Before break, right? Okay. I don't know, I guess you've got a full schedule already, but I sure think that we, it would be useful to have a, a presentation by Public Works, by, I guess, Project Manager, by Andrew on the current status of Newtown that confirms what we're hearing today on these really critical issues, the bridge, whether or not the bridge is being incorporated this, these suggestions are being incorporated, the extent to which the intersection of Manchester and Newtown is going to be a pedestrian-inviting one and streetscape-inviting one. That's a big issue. Still a big issue. I think there's a lot of anxiety over that. I don't know that it's really been confirmed yet. Maybe you know something that I don't, Tom, or I've not kept up with it that closely. I just know that the anxiety among those who are really interested in it, the stakeholders are, is pretty high. Well, I think we're all stakeholders in- Yeah. Um, yeah, all of us, right? Those who are, I guess, the, the, the, the ones who are, um, you know, have property contiguous to it, the, uh, Distillery District. Um, that's just what I've picked up, so I'm expressing it now because, you know, if the project is going to full design and to, and to bid, then it can be too late and... Would it suit you to have, uh, we, we have, um, seven other issues on November's docket, but we could have a brief update from Andrew, which would address- Yeah, or even an interim meeting, you know- Mm-hmm. ... with any, anybody who wants to join it. I think it'd be probably useful. For an update on Newtown Pike extension. Yeah. So that's- Bridge designs and intersection designs are not casual . And- Mm-hmm. ... and, uh, we've only got one shot at this. Would it suit the committee, w- would you want to ask our council administrator to set up a workshop? Or what, what suits you? It's good with me, yeah. I just think- To have a, a meeting. ... it would be useful to have a little, uh, update on it, a little bit more detail. Well, how, how do others feel about that? Um- Well, I, you know, I, I think that's a good idea. And, and, and why don't we- Council workshop. I know that, I know that our... Well, I was gonna say we could have an update at our next planning committee if, say, for 10, 15 minutes. Do you think that would work? And, and, and perhaps even so, I haven't, uh, y- you know the upcoming agenda better than I do, but maybe there's something of lesser, uh, import that we could make a, a change. Um, I would say we, we, we have our development plan adherence coming back. I'm hoping the land bank social services report, electrical inspector fee is coming back. And all of those issues on, um, zoning violations are coming back. So we might could have a short Newtown Pike update, and then if council members wanted an extensive vetting- Student housing. Well, and Dr. Stevens says we may get student housing . So we have a pretty packed agenda. Uh, I- I, I think, um, uh, Madam Chairman that a, a meeting at, a work session at noon someday would be an excellent way to handle this and- A workshop. A workshop, yeah. Invite all council members. So we can give them food. Uh-huh. Okay. I'll, I'll work with the council administrator toward that. And, um, Council Member Beard. Thank you, um, Madam Chairman. Um, I, I guess my concern maybe is, is similar to Vice, uh, Mayor Gray's. Uh, Paul, maybe you know the answer to this, the intersection of Newtown Pike and Manchester Street is obviously within the TIF district. Is the bridge also in the TIF district? I believe so, but it's not one of the identified projects. Um, but you, you folks can change that lat- Well, I'm, I'm just thinking if, if in fact, uh, the choice is between some plain, uh, uh, mud fence type of bridge versus something a bit more decorative that might, uh, enhance what, what else is going on, that the funds would be available through that route to add to the other funds to, uh, to get that done. I think that, that would be an appropriate expenditure- Yeah. ... of funds in the, in the district. Okay. Thank you. All right, um, are there any other questions? If not, we'll move onto the management audit, which the information starts on page six of your packet. And I will, uh, the- there's implementation status and then there is the factual errors exercise, and I will first of all ask Dr. Stevens, who put this into committee, what his thoughts are on moving forward. Uh, thank you. Uh, uh, when I s- referred this to the committee in May, there were several hot buttons going at that time, and six months has passed and I'm sure the tincture of time has been able to resolve some of these issues. And what I would be most concerned about is the status related to the, uh, letters which, uh, Mr. Shawniger received from various components of our government, which thought that the management audit was not accurate and didn't agree with their, uh, recommendations. So, uh, I would... If somebody here representing the management, I mean, the administration can answer those questions, uh, we would, I would... That would satisfy me. Okay. Uh, do other council members have a different view on how you wanna work through this? We have quite a number of pages. The information Dr. Stevens was referring to starts on page 55 of the packet, and we do have some administration folks here, um, who perhaps could attend to some of these questions. Council Member Crosby. I don't, I don't know if it's appropriate if maybe, I... Were these people informed that today we would be discussing? Yes. So these people on here- Agreed. ... or administration or the directors? Both? Okay. Divisions. It's my understanding, division directors and administration knew- So, so- ... that we were discussing these. So the commissioners are here representing the directors in- Who are you representing, Joe Kelly? I, I guess that's my question, is are you all here to respond on behalf of the directors on, on the mana- management audit? We, we asked the commissioners to be here to be available to, to respond to whatever questions you might have. The commissioners have talked with the directors to get a complete understanding of what the directors, um, thinking was relative to the responses and they are, they are here to be able to address whatever questions you might have. So rather than send the directors, the commissioners were just briefed on- Well, you have the director's comments in the packet. I'm just asking. I'm just responding. Thank you. Di- directors were notified by Mr. Shawniger about the meeting and the discussion- I understand. ... and invited- But my question was- ... to attend. ... so what I'm just ... What I'm being told is that they were briefed and the commissioners are here representing the directors instead of- Mm-hmm. ... them being here. Thank you. So, um, did you wanna add something? N- n- no. Okay. All right. I thought maybe you were getting ready to add something. Well, eh, then if no one objects, we'll go ahead and follow through with Dr. Steven's, um, request. And if you can turn to page 55 in your packet, this first, um, I, I, I think we'll just move through these might be the best way to do this. Um, this first letter is from, was from Richard Murray of Fleet Services. And I'll let you get oriented. Yes. I would ask that the commissioners who, um, are over those departments come forward and they can respond to the specific... If there are questions. Mm-hmm. You know, if there are no questions, but, but they are here, that's, that's why they're here, is to try to, to respond if there are questions. How about, Commissioners, would you be willing to all come forward so that it makes it a little easier for council members to ask questions? Um, we don't wanna have to drag you down. Uh. 24. 24. 24. Yes. Yes. Leave a table here. Yes, it is. Okay. I'm asking Paul to give me a little assistance here as we move through these. Council Member Gordon and I were, were discussing, it might be useful, I mean, for example, in this, um, comment from Richard Murray, he's, he's, uh, uh, questioning recommendation H-24, which are reclassification of an in- individual in his department. If you look through the implementation status H-24, the administration in camera, correct me I'm wrong, H-24, the administration still agrees with, but it's, it's in a holding status as opposed to being implemented. And can you explain why that is? I, I think that's all council members are wanting, is to know, uh, w- Why, why are these the way they are in the status and when they were brought forward as concerns? Thank you for being here. Yes, I'll be glad to. At this point, both of those positions are filled. Um, if we were to make that change, it would involve, um, eliminating a position and recreating a different position, so we've chosen not to make, uh, that move at this time. Should anything in the department change, we might, um, w- we'll take a look at that recommendation and see if it makes sense at that time. And council members, if you have questions along the way, um, push your button. Thank you. Any questions about that? Council Member Beard? Uh, Mr. Cole, um, this does not relate directly to, um- Do you mind? ... that portion, uh, Dr. Stevens referenced, but, um, I'm just curious about the sale of, uh, the automobiles, the f- the fleet sales that we went through, and whether we received what was estimated by Management Partners that we receive from the sale? We, um ... I'm not sure that all of them have been sold. I know that at least 95% have been sold. I haven't seen a final report, and the estimate of the, um, receipts before our expenses was close to $500,000, so we actually exceeded the amount that was estimated in the budget. That's great. Thank you. Okay. I'm gonna have Paul just roll us through here. The, uh, segment, second, uh, identification of factual errors came from the Citizens Advocate, I believe. Mm-hmm. Page six. And that deals with, uh, F8. You can research it. Uh, and I ... If I understand the stat- uh, the implementation status, the adm- while the council funded, continued to fund that position, and did not eliminate it during the budget process, the administration still rec- still agrees with the recommendation of the, uh, elimination of the position, and- and it appears like you'll, you'll recommend that, or the intention, I think, from the note on the status, is that you'll probably resubmit that as part of the F- FY10 budget, I believe. So, so Joe, does that mean, um, that for the fiscal year '10 budget, the administration will submit to eliminate the Citizen's Advocate position? That is our position at this moment, that we will renew that, that recommendation as a part of the budget process. So, that would show up as a non-funded position in the budget? It- Is that how that will come forward? It, just as we did this, this, uh, '09 budget presentation. Do council members have any questions about that? Council Member Jo- uh, Beard? That's okay. Um, you know, we have a work group, uh, presently working on that whole situation of the Citizen's Advocate, and it's been fairly crisply determined that the Citizen's Advocate office reports to the council, it does not p- report to the administration. So, how are you all going to be able to replicate what you did as far as your recommendations, uh, in the budget? It's really, uh, it really should be an extension of our budget, should it not? Well, I think previously, that, uh, that budget item has been a part of the mayor's- Well, I, I think you're ... I know, I know you're right, but, uh, uh- And so we- ... that's a, that's just an old error that, uh- . ... replicated itself. Let's put it that way. Well, well we, we would go ahead and, and include it, and, and it's the council's prerogative to, to do as, as the council- All right. ... wills, and so- I just hate to see us do double work. I just ... It won't require much effort on our part. Okay, th- nor would it, would it for us, I guess. I, I, I hear you. Thank you. That's what I'm saying that- Council Member Crosby, are you on the list? Second. Uh, Beard is finished. Oh. Okay. Okay. S- so, as- are you, um, st- I guess my question is, are you ... Based on, um, your budget recommendation to remove this, are you removing it based on the audit, on the recommendation of the management audit? We still concur with the recommendation of the management audit, and we believe that, uh, the work of the Citizen's Advocate can be, um, accomplished through other means that, uh, that are in existence. Have you all ... Do you concur with any of the, um, work that, um, or any of the input that they've provided regarding, uh, their beliefs that, that some of the input that they got from the people performing the audit, uh, uh, they, they do not agree with the people who perform the audit, and that's not changed your opinion at a- at all? It has not. And what about, um, the working group that some of us have viewed? Um, will you be taking those opinions into consideration, um, from the working group of the council- Well, well, well, of course. ... prior to budget? I mean, I guess what I, it sounds like is you've already made the decision to make a recommendation for the next this, fiscal year, but you haven't gotten any recommendations from our working group either. A- as I said, it, it's our position today. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Council Member Myers. Thank you Madam Chair. I guess I just want to express my concern, because the Citizen's Advocate is a part of our budget, it's a part of our office, and to me, when you say you're gonna send a budget to us that doesn't include that in there for funding, it's the same thing as saying you're gonna send us a budget without funding for our council aides. So, I think that if that's the intent, then there'll be a move from the council to send the budget back to the mayor saying, "Start over." Well y-you make adjustments to the budget, uh, generally each budget cycle, and that's always been the case, and so I think, uh, to, to say that, that the administration should not submit something that they think is appropriate for your consideration, um, i- is not done in, in, uh, disrespect. It's simply that, uh, it, our opinion might differ in this particular instance, and in other instances, it often does. And so, then if you reject our recommendation, then we, we understand that. Well, uh, again, I disagree with you because this is a part of our council office, so basically what you're telling us is a branch of our piece of the government, you just determined that we don't need it any longer. And that is paramount to saying the same as, "You don't think we need our council aids any longer as well." Um, I'm sorry. That would be, that would be an incorrect assumption if you, if you thought that, and I apologize if you were left with that impression, but that's two different, uh, from our perspective, two different issues. If you look at the org chart, the Citizens Advocates that's underneath the council office does not sit under the admin- administration, so if you determine that you can just take a part of the council office and just unfund it, pick and choose which part of the council office you wanna unfund. It's the same thing as taking our aides and saying, "You don't think we need those any longer either." And we disagree on this. We don't need to keep going back and forth, but the fact is, that's a part of our budget is under the council office in the org chart. It's also in the charter. So the difficulty that it sets up is the same one we had last year. You know, part of this administration's MO has been to just defund things that it doesn't wanna do. When you do that, what it cu- what it creates is a problem where the council then has to go back and cut out other things to put things that, for example, the charter says have to be funded back into the budget. That's the other difficulty. Our feelings aren't hurt. That's fine. You guys can do whatever you wanna do. But it's a part of the charter, it's a part of our office, and it's gonna be funded. So if you do it that way, then there's gonna be something else that the administration wants, and maybe we'll just take out all the advisors and cut those. That may be your prerogative. Well, I, I, I- I wou- I would recommend to the administration that you don't send us a budget that's cut out part of our office. I hear you, thank you. Councilmember Beard. Thank you. Further, um, um, Joe, uh, w- we worked somewhat diligently with the council administrators, um, the coun- pardon me, the Citizens Advocates, um, office and, um, have put in, uh, m- more accountability, I guess. S- some of the things that we didn't have in the past, as far as, uh, which we'll be bringing to the council in total, but, uh, we're well on our way to, to being able to do that. And it's, uh, it's, it's not the same ballgame that you're making your judgments on, or the administration's making the judgments on. It's a tot- totally different ballgame, and it's, uh, it, it's got a, a lot of accountability and, and communications that, uh, did not exist before. So to sit here today and make that judgment when you're gonna see what the hell that is soon anyway, uh, is, is probably a, a kind of a moot point at this, uh, at this juncture anyway. Thank you, Councilman. Thank you. Are there other comments from council members? I, I think this just serves as a heads-up, right? Right. As to what the administration is thinking about this. Um, if there are no others, I'll ask Paul to go ahead with the next one. The next section is planning, and the first three, uh, errors there, or the first three areas of disagreements revolve, uh, application process, and that's J48, J49, and J50. And then the second part of, uh, the discussion involves the consolidation of two divisions within, two sections within planning, strategic planning and long-range planning. And there, the note on the, uh, status is that they rec- uh, the administration recognized that the council disagreed with the recommendation and, and funded, uh, that position, but I believe, similar to the Citizens Advocate, I think the intention is, again, correct me if I'm wrong, but the intention is that they would come back in F- FY10 with similar recommendations, I believe. But, uh, Mr. Webb might wanna respond to any part of that. Mr. Webb, welcome. Thank you. Do you have some comments on this? Actually, what, what I prepared for... Just got back from vacation. Prepared for was just addressing the, the memo- Yeah. ... that was sent. And if, if you go right through the memo, um, the first, the first error page, on page 173, I believe has to do with a view of what is administrative support and what is not. And the management partners identified some job classifications as administrative support where they're not, where planning does not view those as administrative support. Uh, an administrative officer, which, uh, was formally titled a deputy of planning service sections, which is a fill-in position, a high-level fill-in position, to keep, uh, keep the different processes moving. Uh- Also, some technical positions that were viewed as administrative support, which have low level planning duties. And that, that was, that was the, what was identified as an error, was the count. And if you look at the administrative positions, uh, that are actually there today, which is one fewer than whenever Management Partners was there, there are three administrative support positions for planning services. There is admi, administrative support in, uh, the transportation area, which is part, is grant funded, uh, through the NPO. And there is one administrative support person in long range planning. Are there any questions about that? Council members, do you have questions? Okay. And on page 175, major se, subdivisions and zoning review process is a complicated process. And th- there are some areas there that were identified as not correct, uh, by the planning group. Uh, number one, uh, the first that the management partner states that for plans, the cycle time between the sub-committee meeting and the full planning commission ranges from one to three weeks. Uh, the fact is that those are precisely set and that there, it's one, it's one week, except when it is accompanied by a zone change. It can be longer. Okay. Any questions on that? All right. The next session deal, section, excuse me, deals with, uh, Dean. I'm sorry, unless- Well ... Hmm? Did you, did you have any other points to make on the development review process or any of the ... Oh, um, in the Management Partners report, it states, uh, that there are three hearings that take place. There aren't actually three hearings. There is only one official hearing, and that is hearing as advertised. Whenever you use the term hearing, you are thinking about an advertised hearing, an official, uh, type hearing. There's only one of those, and that's in front of the full planning comm- uh, board. But there are, uh, review comm- there's a review committee, and then there's a sub-committee of the planning commission that reviews plans prior to that official hearing. So do you know, Mike, and you may not, because ... Pretty early in the process. Yes. Do you think that the management partners didn't really u- understand the process and what is a true hearing and what is not? I mean ... I don't- That's what it sounds like to me. I really don't think that I'm qua- because I wasn't involved in the- Yeah, you are not- ... in the interview process, and I wouldn't wanna answer that question. And that would be an assumption on my part. And I don't think there's anybody else here who ... Is there anyone else here who wants to take a stab at that? No one. Okay. And it may, it may just be a problem with use of terms. That there are three, there are two reviews and then a formal hearing. Mm-hmm. But the other, the first two are not a formal hearing. And when you use that term hearing- Mm-hmm. ... it qualifies a certain type. Council Member Crosby. Um, with all due respect, I, um, I'm, I'm not sure what this exercise is accomplishing by going through page by page. I think that when we requested this from our division directors, we were doing so so, because we had heard that there were, um, areas that had a lot of concern about some of the, um, facts that, as they were laid out from the management audit. And I believe now we have that information in front of us. And quite frankly, I'm a little disappointed that the people who actually wrote the reports aren't here for us to be able to question directly as how they relate to the implementation. So, um, I, I don't believe that us going through page by page is really accomplishing much here. I think the whole ... Obviously, I was part of the request to get this, and I think the whole purpose of it was for us to get the information and now for us to figure out what do we want to do with the information versus going through with the administration page by page. We kn- we have it in front of us clearly. I think the most disappointing thing is we clearly see that we paid a lot of money for something and there are clearly errors within that. So I think now either, you know, and it may, it's not something we have to do today, but we as a group have to decide what we want to do with this information. And it may just be when we get those recommendations, like we saw on the pages before, that clearly we understand that there are factual errors as outlined by our divisional directors and for example, with the Citizens Advocates Office or with planning or whatever, fire, whatever division that is, that maybe we need to take those points into consideration when we're making decisions on what changes they want to make. Thank you. You're welcome. Um, Council Member James. Um, somewhat related. I, I would just want to make sure that the administration is still marking within our work session packets, those that are, um, management audit, um, recommendations. Uh, I haven't noticed it in the past couple, but I did miss one, uh, work session, so, um, maybe there just aren't any on this particular one. But just wanted to put a heads up while we're talking about it. Thank you. And is that the truth? ... and nothing but the truth. Th- The commissioners are all, um... D- Do you want to say something at the mic- Yeah. ... please, for the folks at home? Council Member James, that's correct, but also consent decree matters are being highlighted as well. So they're all still being noted on- Yes. ... new business? Okay. Uh, council members, what is your pleasure? Do you want to continue or do you want to not? Yes, Council Member Beard? Th- Thank you, Ma- Madam Chairman. Now, Joe, if you don't mind, uh, have you presented these errors to Management Partners to get their reaction? Shared with, uh... I'll keep going. Okay. Risk management and the fire ones were, uh, shared with, uh, Management Partners. Okay. The, the rest, uh, the administration did not agree with or they, they just- Well, I think what we found was that, that some of the responses included philosophical differences as opposed to errors, if you will. Uh, those, those things that are clearly perhaps errors of information, uh, or assumptions, uh, we acknowledged those, and they'll be reflected in the implementation process. So, um, as you know, there was a, a significant amount of, uh, discussion concerning the fire, uh- Right. ... i- information. So we did share that with Management Partners. But philosophical differences, sh- should they not have been resolved so that everybody's on the same page before they write a report? Well, I think we've had those discussions with the directors on the philosophical issues. Well, how about with Management Partners on the philosophical issues? 'Cause y- you, you can't get anywhere if you, if th- this entity over here believes it one way and this entity over here believes it another way and they're both right or they're both wrong or they're what? I don't... Well, I think from the, the Management Partners report, um, was pretty straightforward, and those things that, uh, that the administration and the council working together think are appropriate and things that, uh, should be implemented, we're trying to move forward with those. Those things that there, there are concerns about or reluctance about, uh, the council has expressed to us. Mm-hmm. Uh, there, there are concerns about those. And we've taken that into consideration relative to how we go forward with implementation. Uh, we, you know, we think that if you take the 424 recommendations, uh, probably 90% of them, um, are, or maybe more, um, are, are not controversial in, in nature and generally make sense, I think, to most everyone. Does everyone like all those recommendations? Of course not. Uh, there are some in there that I don't personally like. Right. But, uh, I think they are things that we should probably do nevertheless, I- Well, you know, at least we're, you know, we're going through the process of investigating and- Yes. ... and such. And, and if 90%, uh, are right, then we only need to ask them to refund the 10%. Is that... Well, because, because we don't agree doesn't necessarily make them wrong. No, I understand, but, uh... So, uh, you know, I think that's- But as long as they want to continue in the consulting business without getting a bad rep from us is, uh, i- is probably the only real big stick we have at... Well, I, I, I would... You know, I couldn't raise my hand if you asked for a show of hands of anybody who's gonna write 100% of the time every time. I understand that too. So- I'm, I'm just prodding a little bit. I understand. Okay, thank you. Yes, sir. I don't think we'd have any hands up on that one. Uh, council member, uh, Vice Mayor Gray has a- Thank you. ... comment. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Um, I guess, for me, one of the comments that I'd like to make really is context. Um, when, when this council was elected and when this admin- administration was elected and we came together to create the six pillars, one of which was to improve efficiencies and effectiveness in government, and one of the out- one of the tactics associated with that was to create, um, or to get some outside counsel which would provide us with some benchmarks, if you will. And, um, my fear is that the silos and the rigidity of our government, the, um, the, the painfulness often of it, um, as it relates to our constituents, the customer friendliness of our government as it relates to our citizens and the voters and our constituents, we may be missing the big picture, which is that's what this was designed to accomplish. And as we dig into the weeds, if we don't lift up to the treetops, we're gonna miss some of that. When I read, for example, the response of planning to the recommendation on page 176 to improve the development review process, you know, it's pretty much just the same... It's, um, deja vu all over again. It is this- It is enforcing and defending the current condition, which is not moving us forward. ... which is -- leads to the sclerosis and the calcification of government that all of our citizens are just worn out with. So, you know, I realize that we have pushback on some of these recommendations. I do myself. But thematically, I really hope that we will reinforce the need to do things differently. I heard just the other day, there was a recommendation to go online with some of our processes in the Board of Architectural Review so that our citizens could see how to do it, how to get through it without all the pain. You know, that's not rocket surgery. So as we go through this -- I realize that was a mixed metaphor. That was intentional. But, you know, let's, let's remember, let's remember what, what we're here for. And we're here to try to get things done that other agencies or other private sector can't get done for our citizens. And so, you know, getting some of this through is still really, really important and for us to work together with the administration to do that is really important. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, did you have another comment? You hurried up there to the pos- To go on through this? Well, I want to get a sense of what the council wants to be doing here. The- Uh, i- i- since there was some expression of distress at the process here and what, what the end result would be. May- Yes. Maybe a suggestion, you know, th- that, you know, o- often things are painful before there's progress. So- ... maybe there's, maybe there's a way that we could do a working group or something, um ... Council Member Crosby's nodding her head ... with the administration to examine some of these issues that may be particularly, um, sensitive ones and, um, and the ones that the administration thinks that they're picking off and, and addressing. Um, but, but where we actually, you know, maybe, if there are any rocks in the road, we remove them or work toward removing them is, is what I'm suggesting, and maybe a, a work team of anybody who's willing to do that, you know. To look through- Yeah. ... these. To look through it, work with, you know, Joe or whoever he might assign to it. And perhaps that work team could come back to this committee. To the, to the committee, yeah. Yes, Council Member Crosby. I, I would also suggest that maybe these directors who, that they would be involved since they're the ones who actually wrote it, perhaps. Sure. Mm-hmm. Yes, Council Member Stennett? Thank you, Chair. Just, uh, uh, I guess, a question of logistics in, in trying to do something like that, how many of these factual errors that we've identified here do you all plan on implementing? All of them, none of them, some of them? Do we even know that yet? That's the question. I mean, ha- have you all even had a chance to look at 'em? If, i- if it is in fact a factual error, then, and if, if it has a material effect on the recommendation, then obviously we want to take that into consideration and make an appropriate adjustment. Again, I think a lot of what is being reflected, a- a- and you've had the opportunity to read them, a lot of it is a philosophical difference. If there is a, a, if there is a, uh, confusion over a term, hearing versus whatever, then, then that's a semantic thing that we can get worked out. Well, I, I guess my, my point is, my question is, that you're gonna bring some of these to us anyway in the future that, that you may want, may or not wanna implement. Yes. And the ones that you have no desire to implement, y- can we pick those out? Because o- otherwise, why do we need to have- Mm-hmm. ... a discussion about if you have no intentions at all of ever going through it? That's what I'm getting to. I mean, have you all identified the ones in the future you plan on bringing us? I think we see 'em anyway through the new business items. They're identified, and if we agree with them, then we can discuss it as a group. They are. And, and the action, proposed action is reflected in the update report that you have in the packet, you know. Uh- To me, the proposed actions are more important right now at this point. Well, i- what I heard you say though, I think, and, um, maybe not, is on the proposed actions, have these factual errors been taken into account? Do we know how many of these errors that were reported by division directors are actually being ... h- having a follow-up or are they being implemented anyway? You wanted a link between the two, it sounded like. Yeah, I don't wanna go through every error- Which would be a really good thing. ... if you have no basis for it. Yes. I- i- if it is a factual error, if it indeed is a factual error, then, then we would not bring something to you that was based upon that factual error. Uh, that, that would make no sense and, and we would not do that. Uh, if it's something that is, again, is a semantical kind of thing, then we will rectify that and take that into consideration, uh, before we would bring anything to you. Um, it is not our intent to move forward with a recommendation that contains an error. You know, we, we certainly would not want to do that. So, and, and as they come to you, they'll be noted as, uh, management, um, audit items. So y- you'll have another opportunity, uh, at work session or, uh, during council meetings to, to ask us about those as they come forward. Well, if you, again, if you can create the link between any of these errors and your implementation of those and give us a heads up. We can do that. That's obviously appreciated. Yes. But I think the point is, by going back and correcting errors that you have no business on implementing doesn't change the report. The report is what it is. Yes. We're not gonna go back and rewrite it. That's, that's a very good point. So, thank you. Thank you. Well, and I think that the work group- ... which was suggested from this end of the, uh, horseshoe might be a- a small, two or three council members, who might sit down with you and division directors and link those, is what I'm- I'm hearing, is there- that council members want a link between what was perceived as an error by division directors and what's being done in the action column. Yeah. Is it on hold? A- a- and- and directly linked, as opposed to, w- we really appreciate, I think, that the status is here, and we see all the status. Which ones actually had a reported error and how was that taken into consideration? Does that reflect what I'm hearing? And so do I have any work group folks who might be willing to sit down and do that? Council Member Beard? I think I should... No? You're not sure? Y- y- most definitely yes, but, uh- Okay, good. But I- I guess it makes sense, would it not, if, uh, the existing lengths they worked on the budget last year would go to the respective areas to, uh, discuss these with them? Because they already have had discussions concerning the budget, and, uh, many of the, uh, implementation, uh, th- the budget had been impacted by, or was going to be impacted by, uh, the- the recommendations that, uh, that those links be reactivated to do this job. Committee members, what do you think? Do you want a work group or do you want links to do this? Eh. It might be, yes, Council Member James. If we had a, if we had a particular report out date for the lengths, it's g- it's difficult to get folks together, um, to have those discussions and to continue to have the lengths meetings when it's not budget time, so- Mm-hmm. ... if we had a r- report out date, that might be helpful. It's easier to do during budget time. I mean, it's easier to do now rather than budget time, I find. I would find. Council Member Blues. I suggest that the work group would be most efficient as a- Okay. ... as a small group and could come back to, come back to the length chairs for information, advice, and s- and, and, uh, recapitulation, as- as might be- might be needed. A small work group- Let's do it that way. ... might be a quicker, more efficient way to do it. Yes, Vice Mayor. Yeah. And I'm- I'm sort of just footnoting on what Council Member Stennet had to say. In terms of the homework that might get this moving faster, um, the main interest that I would have is that we not, that we're not two years into this and then we find out that, well, the council held this up, you know. And so right now, or- or anybody held up what was perceived to be, or you believed that was important to achieve. So maybe a- a, um, just an update on this that says, "We're not doing anything because we've been stopped or there's a red light on it, or everything's a green light." Would get- That's- ... is that... I- I- I think- Am I translating that accurate? Uh, or that's just my perception, is we wanna know what it is has been green lighted, uh, or where there's a red light. A caution light even. I think- I think, um, there was, if I remember correctly, we've- we've discussed this so many of- times, several times. Okay. And we had a work session over, uh, third floor of the Phoenix, I think. We, uh, Management Partners came in and we spent the better part of a day, I believe, going through item item. And- and Madam Chair, I believe you chaired that meeting, but you did a good job. It was a long day. Uh, and went through the recommendations, uh, uh, kind of one by one. There's a bit of confusion on our part about what is it that you're absolutely not going to let us go forward with. And so, if you can tell us what it is you absolutely don't want us to go forward with, that means you're okay with us going forward with everything else, then we can be going forward with everything else. We're- we're kind of, um, we're- we're a bit confused too, and I know y'all are, and we've probably contributed to that. I accept responsibility for that. So, um, I think we all want the same thing. We're just struggling a little bit, and there's a fear that we'll make a mistake, I think, on the part of folks. Council Member Crosby. I would just say, Vice Mayor, I don't think we're holding up many things in the audit, because as indicated earlier, we passed several things with the work session. They indicate it's a management audit item and- Yeah. ... we go on and we pass it. And- and there's many things that we have already implemented, so I don't think we're holding up any process at all. Um, a lot of things we have passed based on recommendations of Management Partners, so I think for anybody to insinuate that we're holding up any type of process, uh, based on this study, um, uh, we're not. There are just certain things in here that I think we're questioning, as we should, with- with anything that we have questions on. And there are some things we are moving forward on, and I think it's okay that we question a few of these things. And I would be in favor of a small working group, uh, made up of a few council members from the planning committee as well as the other people involved. Thank you. Is that a motion? So moved. Do I hear a second? Second. Um, the- the motion is to create a small working group. Are you thinking two or three people to work with- with Joe Kelly and the division directors? You want three? Three. Three people to, uh, go through and link the, um, error part with the action part, and the progress, and what is actually being done with each of those. Is that your motion? Yes. Okay. Is there discussion on the motion? Uh, now, if we pass this motion, we'll need three people who will step forward. So we'll take a vote on the motion. Uh, all those in favor, say, "Aye." Aye. Any opposed? No. Uh, we did have two volunteers, I believe. Council Member Crosby and Council Member Beard, is that correct? And is there one more person who would be willing to sit on that, from the committee? I- I will. Vice Mayor? But I- I'd also, you know, just suggest that this is one of those where anyone who would be able to participate and willing to would be welcome, I would say. Yes, of course. Yeah. It would be an open meeting. Right. Um, and if at all possible, perhaps you could, um, report back to us in November, if at all possible. Yeah. That good? Yeah. Okay, thank you very much. Thank all of you who came. And do I hear a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. All those in favor, please rise.