Could you coo? Could you care for a cunning cottage that we could share? The world will pardon my mush 'cause I have got a crush, my baby, on you. Yoo hoo, yoo hoo, yoo hoo. Yoohoo, yoohoo, yoohoo. Yoohoo, yoohoo, yoohoo. Mayor, I move to amend item number E on the new business items to replace Gearheart Communications with Intermountain Cable Incorporated. I have a motion by Council Member, uh, Henson, and a second by, uh, Council Member Stinnet to amend item E under new business by replacing Gearheart Communications with Intermountain Cable. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Oppose, no? Motion carries. Are there others? Ah, Council Member, Council Member Stevens. I had a question about item K that relates to, ah, a ground lease to Coldstream Research Campus. Ah, and I presume this is for the, ah, operations center, and I was curious about this, um, and also what the state of the plans for the operations center might be, the emergency operations center. That's correct, Dr. Stevens. You may recall, probably two, three months ago, uh, we had a discussion about relocating the site for the, what used to be called ESOC, currently PSOC, ah, on Coldstream. Previous site was about seven and three-quarter acres. This one is something over 16 acres. Ah, no additional cost. So, ah, in that sense, it's good for us. We've had discussions with Council Member Blues. Um, he's aware of the relocation. This is closer, ah, to his, to the neighborhoods in that area than the original site was. We met with him on several occasions. We met with the neighborhood residents, um, out there, hopefully allayed their fears. Ah, so this is just, simply to, ah, accomplish the amendment to the lease to relocate the site from, ah, from one lot to another on the, uh, on the Coldstream Research Park. As far as the overall project, ah, we are finalizing some constu- construction documents, ah, for the first phase of the project. Basically, the, the, uh, site work and foundation work, ah, structural steel, things of that nature. We have not given the, ah, contractor and architect the go-ahead to bid the project yet. We're still taking a look at the CIP, the budget, seeing how this fits into that, whether we can, can accommodate it. This is also a project that we submitted, ah, in case Congress passes the, ah, Main Street Stimulus Package, which we hope will receive some federal funding to, to go toward, toward partial or full construction of this project. We hope to know something, um, fairly soon, early next month about that. So we're trying to weigh all those things and, and figure out when we actually pull the trigger and, and release bids on the project, but that's where we stand currently. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, Commissioner Bennett. Yes. You might be the one, ah, I have a question on H, which involves the mandatory overtime- Yes. ... for DEEM. And, ah, I just wondered, um, in terms of this mandatory overtime, what are we ... What is the situation, and what are we doing to fix it in terms of the mandatory overtime? This actually doesn't apply to the DEEM portion of the division. It applies to the 911 portion. You may recall we merged those two divisions into one, but this is the 911 operation. Ah, staffing levels have been such that we haven't been able to allow most of the people to take vacations. You may recall, I don't remember exactly when it was, but one time, ah, fair- fairly recently, previously, we extended vacation carryover, um, time. We have fewer people this year who have not been able to use the vacation than we had last year, so we've made some progress on staffing. This extension is only for three months, just through the end of March of '09. Ah, we have hiring in the pipeline. We also have people who are in training that'll be coming off training and be eligible to, ah, to work. So we're making progress. We hope, I can't guarantee, but we hope this'll be the last time we ask you to do this because we'll be able to get staffing levels up. Okay. Unfortunately, that's one good thing about a bad economy, economy is we have more candidates. Okay. All right, thank you. You're welcome. Any further questions concerning the new business items? All right, then those in favor of approving the new business items as now amended, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Oppose, no. Motion carries. Um, we're now ready to, to get into the, ah, presentations. I'd like to, um, take the opportunity, if I could, just to recognize some folks who happen to be here with us. It won't take more than just a couple of minutes, but as many of you know, we have, um, been spending a lot of time focusing on our, um, accounting issues. Ah, just recently, we completed the consolidated, um, um, financial reports and, um, the audit, and there are some people who've been working exceptionally hard on our behalf in the accounting department that I wanted to recognize. Let me ... I think they're all here. I see, can see most of them. Um, there are two senior accountants, Kim Bryan and Cicely Connah. If you'd stand up, chance. There you go. Ah, these are our two senior accountants, and then w- working with them are Renee Wallingford. Renee? There we go. Ah, Winona Embry, Steven Mulligan, and Rhonda Hicks. Thank you all very much. These are the folks that generate our- ... financial statements, uh, take care of all of our general accounting, the grant accounting, and, and assortment of other, uh, responsibilities in terms of just keeping track of the money. And I know we have presented you all with a significant set of challenges here over the course of the last, uh, 18 months or two years with all of the, uh, changes in the software, but I just wanted to say thank you very much for all of your work. And then I've got another group. Uh, Debra Girardi, if you'd stand up. You've got, um, Debra's the supervisor of our accounts payable and data entry, and, and as a result of her good work, we were able to, um, close on August 19th for the fiscal year ending on June 30th, which is a marked improvement over the past. And then, uh, last but not least, I'd like for Mary Phister to stand. Mary is relatively new to Irvin County Government, um, but Mary has just done yeoman's work since she has been here as our Director of Accounting. And, um, as evidence of that, our, our folks in accounting have received the Governmental Finance Officers Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence award, which I happen to have here with me, and I will circulate. Uh, but I just wanted to, um, to let everybody on the council know that, that these are some folks that, uh, you don't typically see standing at the podium every time we come, come here, but they've been working really hard. They have, um, demonstrated, uh, a, a real commitment to the work of the d- department, the vision of accounting, and I'm very grateful to it. And I just wanted to say thanks very much to all of you. All right. Council Member Ehlinger. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, the Service Committee met on December 2nd. We had three items in, uh, on the agenda. The first one was the dog tethering ordinance. Pam Rogers from the Kentucky Director for the Humane Society of United States gave a, uh, PowerPoint. We had several citizens, including a group from SOAR, that came and spoke. We had an internal motion that we're gonna form a sub-committee and that sub-committee will be chaired by Julian Beard. Casey Crosby and Dr. Blues will be on the committee and they're supposed to rep- report back to the committee in 60 days. The next item on the agenda was a solid waste, um, look at the fee structure. Presently is looked at assessed value of the homes and, uh, Mr. Decamp had put it in the committee to see if there was more of a fairness, um, situation we could look at, that we could set a user fee. We have a motion to come out of here to put this into the Budget and Finance. A motion by Doc- by, uh, Council Member Decamp to remove this issue from the Service Committee based on a forthcoming recommendation place in the Budget and Finance Committee, was seconded by Council Member Crosby, and was passed without dissent. I move this forward. Is there a second? Second. I have a motion by Council Member Ehlinger and a second by Council Member Crosby. All in favor, any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. The third item was the Man-o-War truck restrictions. Dr. Stephens had put this in and gave some background information. We heard from, um, the police and we had an internal motion that is gonna, um, that was brought by Dr. Blues, that's gonna have the police report back to the committee in 60 days with their findings from the surveillance of the area and a plan of enforcement. And that was our, what we dealt with a- and we adjourned at 2:23. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much. Any questions for Council Member Ehlinger? I understand from, uh, Council Member Stephens that there's one item from the Budget and Finance Committee. Uh, yes, sir. The Budget and Finance Committee met at 1:00 today and we considered several items, which you'll hear about, uh, next year. But, uh, one item we thought was timely that should be brought forward to the council today was the, uh, related to what we as a government can do to help the equine industry in central Kentucky. And the one item relates to the General Assembly, which will begin in the start of the new year. And, uh, the B- Budget and Finance Committee discussed the tax inequities that apply to the horse business. Horses are not considered livestock, have to pay sales tax and the feed and so forth and the tractors and whatever a farmer buys, uh, to support that farming for horses has s- sales taxes are levied. However, if you raise cattle, chickens, guinea pigs, or whatever, you don't have to pay taxes, uh, on those things. So that's kind of an inequity. And it's either put the taxes on everybody or take them off the horses and so, the Budget and Finance Committee, uh, recommends that the Council of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government request that the horses be considered as livestock to alleviate farm tax inequities and that this be considered as legislative priority for n- 2009 General Assembly, uh, session. I so move. Second. We have a motion and second. Is the motion to put a resolution to that effect on the docket for this evening or- If such is necessary, we would request that, uh- All right. ... or if it can just go straight to the, uh, uh, our legislative team who can consider it. All right. Whichever is, is required. We'll, uh, we'll send it to the legislative team without the necessity of a resolution then. So, those in favor of the motion by Dr. Stephens to put, uh, equine tax equity on our legislative agenda, please let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. Thank you very much. All right. At the request of, uh, several council members, the Destination 2040 presentation will be postponed until January, but, um, uh, it's my pleasure to ask Bill Lair, who's chairing the Police and Fire Retirement Task Force, to come to the podium with an interim report. Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. I think you have received a written version of the interim report, which has a number of exhibits as well as some explanatory materials. The intent was not to be, uh, absolutely complete but to give you the highlights of the work of this task force so far. As the report indicates, we began work in September. We've had several meetings, have had presentations from Irvin County government officials, from officials that are in Frankfort, particularly with Kentucky Retirement Systems. We've had presentations, two presentations, from the pension fund actuary. And, and we are still in the information-gathering phase, uh, of our work, although we have, have received, uh, one proposal, that being from Mayor Newberry, for, for specific changes, and that was in response to our request that anyone on the task force or outside of it that, that had proposals for changes to please bring those forward and we would consider them. We have had good input, uh, and good participation on the, the task force from, uh, active, uh, police and firefighters, from retired police and firefighters, from the business, uh, and private sector members of the task force, from legislators, and from council members. So it's been a, a well-rounded process and, um, I am optimistic that, that it will result in some, some helpful recommendations. Uh, I don't propose t- since I've given this to you in writing, I don't propose to take you line by line through this interim report. I, I would simply like to make a few comments and hit some of the, the highlights. Uh, the first is probably to state the obvious, and that is that, that the current situation with the Police and Fire Pension Fund, or Police and Fire Benefit Fund as it's called in statute, um, th- represents a significant financial issue for this government. And, and in one sense, it's probably the worst financial issue confronting the government because it is, it is one that, that does not have a specific revenue source that the government might turn to to address it. Unlike the, the stormwater, uh, fee that's being, that's being contemplated and the, the, uh, existing sanitary sewer fee, uh, there is no fee, uh, or tax that is specifically dedicated, uh, to dealing with police and fire issues in general or the pension in particular. It is rapidly getting worse. Uh, the, the unfunded liability jumped, uh, from about 94 million or 90-some million in 2004 to where it is today, 247 million. Um, there are reasons for that jump that I'll explain in a moment, but that is a, that is a very rapid increase. On top of that, GASB, uh, the, the requirements of the, the Government Accounting Standards Board now requires you to report on your balance sheet, um, the, the unfunded liability situation with medical benefits. And the medical benefits component of retiree benefits, which are outside, handled outside of the fund but are still very much, um, uh, a factor and are, are mandated to an extent by statute, is now $181 million, uh, and likely to, to increase in the future. Uh, what is the cause of the, the rapid run-up, uh, from 90-something million to 247 million in the, the, uh, um, the pension fund? Um, that is a lovely little countdown that you have up there- ... m- Just a subtle reminder. ... Mr. Mayor. Um, I'd be glad to tell you what that would cost you if I were charging for this- ... um, wh- which I'm not. Um, here, here are some of the... And by the way, that, eh, the, when I said the current unfunded liability, that's as of July 1. The reality, if you had to compute it right now because of the impact of the financial crisis on the investment portfolio, the unfunded liability's probably significantly greater, although you're, you're not required to compute it. The good news i- is you're not required to compute it but once every two years, so the next report will be in 2010. The causes, uh, significant, rapid salary increases. Um, as, as you increase salaries, as the government has with the advent of collective bargaining, uh, it changes the assumptions. The actuaries look at what the likely retirement levels the last three years of salary are in computing what the benefits will be. As salaries go up, those levels go up. Increases in personnel, there's been a fairly significant increase, which is a good thing, in the numbers of personnel, good thing in terms of, uh, police and fire protection. Uh, but if you're behind on any one and you multiply the number of persons in the payroll, then you're gonna be behind by multiples of whatever the, the one is. Uh, legislative mandates, uh, without, uh, any compensation, classic unfunded mandates, the actuaries point to that, members of the Pension Fund Board point to situations, especially over the last 10 years in which the legislature, which through 67A, KRS 67A, controls, um, this, this fund, uh, things that they have done to require increases in benefits and expansion of benefits without providing funding. Um- Actuarial assumptions. Uh, one of the big ones between '04 and '06 was the use of an assumed COLA, cost of living adjustment, at 3% rather than 2%. 2% was what prior reports were based upon because that's the minimum that is required by law every year. It's a range of 2 to 5%. 3%, and these are both very qualified actuaries, prior actuary was Mercer, now it's Cavanaugh MacDonald, I believe it is, uh, and, and they use 3% because the history of the fund in the prec- in the last several years has been running at about 3%. Uh, that difference alone generates tens of millions of dollars difference in your calculation of unfunded liability. Um, rate of disability retirements. Uh, that's an oddity in our fund, and I ins- I mentioned in the report that we are pursuing that in greater detail. Um, the, the state, uh, CERS, which all other police and fire, local police and fire departments belong to, their hazardous duty component, which is the police and fire departments, uh, and a few others, has about an 8%, um, disability component of all retirees. Ours is about 42%. Um, our benefits are more attractive. That may be one, one cause of it. There are some things about the way we do departmental rules and job descriptions, um, that, that after further investigation, I'm beginning to believe is more, uh, at issue. And if, if you want to hear more about it, I can elaborate on that. And it may simply be vesting. Uh, the sta- under the state system, your, your benefits are vested after five years. In our system, they're b- they're vested, uh, only after 20 years. If you retire before 20 years, you get all your contributions back, plus interest, but you don't get the government's portion of your contributions. And it may be that since disability is the only early way out of our system, uh, with, with any sort of benefits, that, that there is an, an unspoken incentive, if you think you might qualify for disability, to apply for it. Now, there may be some other drivers of that, and we're trying to run that to ground, but that is a real aberration, um, in this plan. Uh, the first order of business is to slow or stop the rate of increase. That's what the state did, uh, what the General Assembly tried to do with the state pension funds in Senate bill, I mean in House Bill 1, adopted in the special session, uh, this past June. It's the classic stop the bleeding and then we'll figure out how to, to cure the patient. Clearly, they have not cured the patient. What they did was to adopt a new set of rules with lower benefits for persons hired after a specific date, and I think it was hired after September 1st of 2008. Uh, if this government is, is going to change the plan, uh, it will probably have to proceed in similar fashion, meaning change it for new hires after a specified date only, not for existing employees. Uh, there are, there are both, um, statutory and, and typically, uh, judicial constructions of retirement and benefits and the like that make it very difficult, if not impossible, to go back and either change benefits for, for retired persons or change benefits for, for existing employees that have made contributions under a specific statutory, uh, regulatory framework. So changes, um, are almost certainly gonna have to be prospective with new hires only. Uh, the process that the group will follow from here, uh, is that, that we are, we are getting some more actuarial information. Um, we, we, uh, have asked for a report on what the impact on future unfunded liability would be of the proposal which the mayor made. And the mayor's proposal, simply stated, is to have new hires, after a certain date, receive benefits that mirror the CERS hazardous duty benefits. It is, it is perfectly acceptable to have tiered benefits, uh, within a single plan. A, a, important distinction, this is not to have new hires join CERS, it's to have new hires stay in this plan, but have benefits that mirror CERS. Um, the state essentially cha- has a tiered system as a result of the changes that were made, uh, to their systems in, in the June special session. Uh, so we're waiting on, on the, the actuarial report of the, what the effect of the mayor's proposal would be. Um, we're also, um, supposed to get a, a report that, that helps us understand, uh, the specific impact of the, the, uh, um, $70 million bond issue, which you have, have, uh, approved, um, to, to create funds to be placed in the retirement account, uh, and, and a few other things. Once we get that, we'll get the, the group back together, consider, uh, any other proposals that, that members of the committee or others that have been participating want to break for- bring forward, and then we will try to bring back to you relatively early in January a set of recommendations. And they may run, um, to what to do about future hires. It may run to this issue of departmental rules as regards to disability. Um, they, at this point, we have not gotten, um, very deeply into the, the, um, the medical benefits issue. I can tell you that, that, uh, the medi- medical benefits, um, issue is not governed by the pension board, um, and it is something that you all are currently handling with direct payments out of the, the general fund. Um, I can give you my initial impression, which I've given to, to some of the folks that- ... presented that is that -- that, um, I w -- I would not be inclined to think about setting up one of these trusts to -- to pay for that. There are several issues that -- that relate to that, and frankly, given the level and the likely future level of that, I believe it's something that can be funded, as I understand it, out of the -- the, um, the general fund, but it -- it is a big number. It's fi- it was five million. We originally thought it was $2.5 million, um, uh, in terms of the bene- the total benefits for last year. It was closer to f- it was actually a little over $5 million. Um, I think the -- the difference in those numbers was that two and a half represents what's called the premium, and I'm not sure why there's a premium for self-insured plans, but apparently there is. But the actual cost was about $5.3 million, um, last year for medical benefits for those covered by the retirement plan. Um, that is, um, um, uh, the interim report in a n- in a nutshell. That's the highlights of it with a minute and 53 seconds change, uh, and I'd be glad to answer any of your questions. Thank you. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much, Mr. Leer. Um, and I'll look forward to hearing the final report. And, eh, eh, my question really is related to a health, uh, benefits issue. So you mentioned that you didn't really talk much about those, but I'm gonna kind of throw it out, and I don't know if anyone in government has been discussing it, but, um, you know, most employers or many employers now, when a retiree hits 65, they require that Medicare be the first payer, and I don't believe that's been the case for us. And I -- I -- I could be wrong at this point, but I think that is something that we should definitely be looking at because, uh, Medicare's set up for those 65 and over, and, uh, many, many places require that first, that the payment go first through Medicare, and then what doesn't get paid by Medicare rolls on to the second payer, which would be us. So I didn't know if you had any thoughts on that or had, um, had even considered it. Well, I -- I do have some thoughts on it, and I -- I can tell you that -- that in the private sector now, it is pretty much an article of faith that -- that employees have to share the burden of -- of healthcare and -- and have to share it in an increasing way, both because the costs are just getting out of hand and to -- to create some incentives, um, to use the most cost-effect- effective, uh, healthcare methods. I don't know whether the plan provides that. The -- the, uh, I do know that the, what the plan does, and this is again mandated by statute, is that you provide single coverage, um, for a retiree to the same extent that you provide single coverage for a current employee of the urban county government. Now, there are -- there are some circumstances in which you -- you pay family coverage, but that's limited. Um, I know that in -- in the case of an occupational death, you pay family coverage to -- to, um, the -- the dependents. Uh, I don't know what the others are, but that's the basic rule is whatever you're doing for existing employees. So, um, without trying to make life harder for existing employees, it's hard enough, I would say that in the private sector, um, we are requiring employees to share, uh, more and more of the burden of providing medical care. Well, thanks for your service. You're welcome. Council Member Lane. Uh, thank you, Mayor. Uh, thank you, Mr. Leer. I'd like to thank you first for, uh, putting all your time and effort in this. It's, uh, it's, uh, been a lot, a long, uh, effort in your behalf, and I appreciate it. I had just a couple of questions. Uh, could you, um, just discuss how changing the pension benefits, what impact it would have on current beneficiaries in the pension program? Uh, none. None. That's the -- the, uh, uh, one of the keystones of all of this, um, is a concept, um, sometimes it's an actual directive called inviolable contract. And the notion is an employee comes to work for, um, a government, works, um, contributes his or her labor, makes contributions to a plan, and there is a contract that is formed, um, between the employer and the employee, uh, that neither party can change unilaterally. Now, in the -- in the state system, and interestingly, in a section of 67A that rep- that applies to other employees, that actual language, inviolable contract, is used. Uh, it's not used in the sections of 67A that apply to the pension f- uh, the- the police and fire pension fund. However, uh, if you read the more recent trend of court decisions, uh, even, um, uh, some of 'em distinguish between vested and -- and non-vested employees, but some of 'em simply say that by virtue of coming to work under a given set of rules, um, um, that's the deal going forward, and it, it, once you've made any level of contribution, something called limited vesting ha- has come into place. And I -- I gave you a quotation from a representative case in the -- the section, in one of the sections here. Uh, certainly, and now that's for, that's for existing employees. Um, none of the -- the current case law, uh, short of one exception that I'll, that I'll mention, um, that, that I've seen allows you to unilaterally reduce benefits for retired persons, and, uh, I can tell you without fear of contradiction, we will not be recommending any such thing, um, to you. Uh, the only exception is in bankruptcy court. Uh, and there are, I – I – I know of at least one city, and there may be others, that had been put into bankruptcy, uh- ...by pension obligations. Um, I don't think this, um, I don't think this fund is large enough to put a government of this size into bankruptcy. I, I can tell you, based on the numbers I've seen, that it's big enough and it's growing fast enough as to s- to significantly, uh, negatively impact this government's ability to provide other services if it's not somehow dealt with. I have a follow-up question on that, Mr. Leer. How would, uh, the new pension benefits plan for new public safety workers be implemented? How do you start the hire a new, the new plan, the new benefits levels? Well, the, the, the way it ha- Because everything is now controlled by Chapter 67A, it would require legislation, um, that would, um, either empower, um, the local government through its legislature to, to create a different benefit structure for hires after a certain date, or, um, simply put that new benefit structure in statute and authorize it to be, to be, uh, implemented for hires after a given date. Um, if you know the history of the involvement of the legislature in this pension fund, I think the latter is a lot more likely than the former. Do, do you envision that the pension fund board and their, say the mayor's office would work out some type of, um, agreed plan and then try to implement it? Or with the task force involved or... Well, I, well, um, at this, at this point in time, what, what I envision is that, that we'll receive recommendation. I don't know that, that, that that is, um, been discussed by the administration and the pension board. Now, you have to understand that, that half of the pension board is the administration, uh, and the other half is the retirees. Although, there are two that are in both camps. Um, we've got, um, the, the pension board, uh, and Mayor, you might have to help me with this, it, it consists of the mayor, the Commissioner of Public Safety, the Commissioner of Finance, the, the Head of Human Resources, and the police and fire chiefs. That's six. The other six are, are, um, two retirees, two active, uh, police, and two active firefighters. So when I say the pu- th- the, uh, the two chiefs are, are both part of the administration, but also part of the plan. So, um, a- back to your question, my, I envision that, again, that if any of those parties, um, want to propose to us changes, uh, we'll consider those and the task force will, will try to do, will try to come up with a consensus recommendation, a- as best we can. But at the end of the day, we're gonna come up with a recommendation if we have to simply do it by majority vote. Let me thank you again. Appreciate all your comments. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Um, thank you for being here, Mr. Leer. Sure. Um, I have a couple of questions about the healthcare. Um, you mentioned it's over five million was the expenditure for healthcare. Keena could give you the exact number, but I believe that what we paid last year to, I just got it, uh, by email, Tim might be able to, I think it was a little over $5 million in benefits last year. And when you say benefits, are those claims paid out? Claims paid, yes. Okay. And... I, I assume that s- that, that would be last fiscal year, so that'd be through the end of, of June of '08. Okay. And, um, then the new employees that would come in that would potentially be under this, um, this CERS system, um, would that be... Is that headed towards some, some eventual where everyone is a part of that? Was that been part of any discussion that this is to see how that works? Is there a certain percentage of employees that have to be part of that system in order for the entity to qualify? No. And, and remember, we're not talking about, this is, uh, I, I will, um, grant you this gets a little confusing. We are not talking about putting the new employees in the CERS system. We're talking about- Right, mimicking. ... having a benefit package that, that applies to them that is, uh, the equivalent of, of the CERS benefit system, which is not, I mean, I guess it goes without saying since it's gonna help save costs, that the co- the CERS benefits are not as, um, as good or as high as the benefits currently available under, under our plan. Um... And what's the ben- what's the benefit of putting them in a plan that mimics that? Uh, it's the b- it saves, it, it allows, um, the, the new employees basically with, uh, their contributions coupled with the government contributions to pay their own way. Meaning that, that you wouldn't have to make, uh, a higher level of contribution in order to fund the benefits for them down the road. You could, it and I- To use a simple example, uh, if the, if the government is contributing 19, uh, 18% or 19% of salary today, uh, as its normal contribution and another, um, 20 or so percent, maybe not quite 20%, uh, to fund, um, this, the make up, um, it wouldn't have to use the, it wouldn't have to contribute that additional percentage, uh, on the new employees, and in addition, it wouldn't be getting behind, wouldn't be, um, increasing unfunded liability associated with them. Okay. Now, I, I will also say, um, the level that the employees would have to contribute, the benefits are lower, but the level that they would have to contribute is less. Right now, CERS employees at the state contribute 9%. ...ah, and 1% of that goes toward medical. Uh-huh. Our employees contribute 11% and none of it goes toward medical. Uh-huh. So, if, if new employees here contributed 9%, ah, it would be, um, ah, essentially getting, like getting a 2% pay raise. Th- the offset would be on down the road when they retire, um, if they stay in the force 20 years, their benefits would be lower. Would... And I think I read somewhere in here th- there would caps, caps on salary increases in order to, to keep that because I... Now- I don't think... No. No, that's not a part of any proposal. Okay. So when you mentioned, um, that one of the causes of the unfunded, um, liability growing were the jump in pay increases, that, so that's not relative really if you mimic the CRS system? No, this, this would assume, um, this would assume that the, the pay, um, increases obvi- would go on in the future, the same for new hires as they would for existing employees. So there's not... Eh, eh, the, the idea wi- is not, as I understand it, is not to treat the hires after a certain date different for purposes of all the other incidents of employment. Okay. Salary duties and the like. Ah, it would just be for retirement benefits and their contribution. Okay. And in order to get that comparable plan to the CRS, would we have to look at do all providers, um, allow for tiered systems? So if you have someone that provides a certain healthcare, does every healthcare provider offer tiering or we, we have to choose one provider that would have the tiering available? This is not heal-... This is not a, this has nothing to do with the healthcare. This is only the pension. Only the pension? Only the pension side, yes. Okay, okay. Well, eh, obviously, I've got a little bit more reading to do. Oh, no, I, I understand. It's not, it's not something that you immediately jumps off the page. Okay. Um, I may follow up with you, um, individually and with some- Absolutely. ... specific questions. And, and please, I'll reiterate the invitation that we've issued. All council members are, are, uh, welcome and invited to attend. I wanna put in a plug for, for, ah, Julian Beard. I think Julian has attended every one of our sessions, has been a very active, um, participant. Um, the Vice Mayor has attended some of the sessions as well, um, and you all are, are more than welcome to be there. Council member McCourt. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Leer. Appreciate all your work on it. And, eh, as I've seen this report kind of unfold and in front of the legislative caucus the other day, and eh, the number that kind of stands out to me that, that is, um, I guess, disturbing or, or there's that, that piece that I really would like to get my head around is, is the disability part. And, and, you know, with CRS that it's under 10%, but for us it's over 40%. Can you kind of speak to that as, as to what, why that is or wh- where, where there's the opportunity for that? Well, um, one, one piece of it is the, the, um, the benefit piece in, in... And there's a calculation in one of the, one of the things I gave you that takes a prototypical employee who is under CERS and the same employee at the same salary level that's under our system and shows the, the, um, difference in the benefits. And the benefits under our system are, are dramatically more. And there's so much more that, that frankly you could afford to retire on those benefits, you probably wouldn't want to, but you could afford to retire on those benefits. Um, you probably couldn't afford to retire on the benefits, um, that the same employee would get under, under CERS. Ah, and if you look through there, you'll see the... So that's, um, that's one of the things. The, the other thing though that is, um, it's, it's more, it's more than that. Eh, if you look at the two statutory definitions of, of eligibility, ah, ours, um, should be harder to obtain than theirs, um, because the... what they, they look at is whether, ah, and em- whether an employee is, is rendered by the disability incapable of performing the job that he or she was performing or like jobs. Ours says incapable of perfo- permanently, totally incapable of performing, um, the job that that person was jo-... or any other in the department. Now, that's broader than simply saying like jobs, that job or like jobs, that job or any other in the department. However, what, what we have, we have within the fire department and police department a single job description and, and, ah, it's the same for a chief as a dispatcher, as a patrolperson at, at, in the police department and it's the same. And, and the way it's been implemented is, ah, if, if you are disabled and, and it's my understanding of the way the, that, that, how it's been applied, and I'll give you percentages in a minute, if there's any of these job functions that are in that description that you can't perform at 100% level, um, then you're disabled. And they have had, um, a disability. I mean, eh, th- this was obviously no personal information, a disability with a 1% rating, 1% functional rating resulting in a disability which, um, results in 60% of pay as the, as the payment. Now, in, in our system, um, apparently the, the physicians simply look at that set of, of job responsibilities and measure the person's ability against that, and, eh, and if it can't be... eh, if some of those can't or one or more of those can't be performed, the person is judged disabled. ... in the -- in the state system, we had a meeting, um, with them last Friday in Frankfurt. Um, they -- they have information about the job, but they actually ask both the employer and the employee to give a description of that person's job, all the responsibilities. They also look at, um, what, um, accommodations have been made by the employer to allow a person to continue in a -- in a job. It's not unlike the Americans -- uh, the ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, what kind of accommodations have been made. And they -- they take all of that into account, uh, in -- in determining whether the person is disabled. They have about a 25% rate of approval of disability applicat- applications, and they get about 80 a month. It's a -- there are a lot more employees that they're covering than we're covering. Um, I don't know what our percentage is, but -- but, um, um, Commissioner Bennett, uh, was with me the other day, and -- and his opinion is our opi- our percentage of approval is, um, is a lot higher. So, you know, it's not... I- i- in this case, it doesn't appear to me that it's -- it's the statutory handcuffs, uh, that are at work so much as it is how we are -- are applying it. And that is an example. There's a lot that this government, um, doesn't have the ability to change without approval of the legislature, but that is... how that process works, um, is -- is something that this government has the ability to -- to modify without legislative approval. Thank you. I -- I appreciate that, and -- and as I say as I've been looking at this and -- and -- and trying very hard to, um, uh, get my head around what to do, uh, that's -- that's the number that keeps jumping out at me and -- and more from a personal standpoint. And -- and, you know, we've got folks in here who -- who do a dangerous job, and I appreciate you in this city, uh, the people of this city appreciate you, and that's the emails that we get every single day, and we know what a dangerous job it is you do and -- and, um, uh, but there's situations under this that are abused and we know 'em. And, uh, before I got on this council, I -- I've got one very specific one. Uh, I'm only 40 years old, and I have a friend that, uh, draws full reti- uh, full -- full disability for, uh, for that, but does a number of other jobs and, uh, very physically taxing jobs, and that -- that was a real, uh, that -- that's a real dilemma for me. Because as much as my heart, uh, and -- is behind you guys, and -- and, uh, I support you 100%, you know, this is an area where we've got to look at it because -- because we know there's -- there's something that doesn't add up when that number is that skewed. But that's... I -- I'm just trying to get my head around that, and -- and again, not to, uh, in any way, shape, or form, uh, take away from the danger of this, of the jobs that these folks do and the importance of it, uh, and having certain safeguards in place for you and your families is absolutely critical. Um, but when you see something like this, there's something that's -- that's out of whack, and this is an area where it's not -- it's not anything other than that. And there -- there may be a place in this where we can do some good without, uh, wrecking things or making people feel like that -- that they're not appreciated. Yeah. I -- I would like to add, um, that to that the -- the other side of that equation, we have been told anecdotally of situations where, um, police and fire personnel have essentially been pushed into taking disability that they didn't wanna take, wanted to keep working, wanted to keep working within the department with a relatively small percentage of disability. If you see the report, the average, um, uh, over the last 10 years has been 13%, and the median, meaning halfway point, is 10%. So, um, there are -- there are lots of folks that -- that, um, uh, perhaps would want to continue to work and earn full pay. I mean, 60% may sound good, but it's... if you're used to taking home 100%, it's a f- it's a 40% pay cut. And -- and so there is... there are two sides of that equation, and that -- that's why I think looking at some of those departmental rules and job descriptions, it should -- it should be one of the things to come out of this. Councilmember, uh, Vice Mayor Gray. Thank you, Mayor. I do have a question, Mr. Leer, but before the question, um, I'd just like to thank you, acknowledge that, um, well, you -- you deflect praise really well, but I think it's appropriate that we -- that we do recognize that, um, that -- that Bill has pulled this, uh, pull this together. Uh, he brought a particular s- set of skills to this task, uh, that's really rare in being, um, a member of the legislature in, uh, having been former commissioner of law here at, uh, at the city. Uh, and so understanding... and -- and beyond that, understanding the that, you know, these are tough issues, they're policy tough, they're politically tough, and they're technically tough. And so having somebody with those skill sets being able to lead something like this is -- is, um, is important for us. Uh, Councilmember Beard already got a gold star for attendance, and, uh, appreciate that. A lot of guys here in the, in the room, uh, Kevin Williams, uh, Mike Sweeny, um, uh, Chris not... Chris Spar- he's not here today. Tommy, uh, a lot of people, um, I probably missed some names, but, uh, have been -- have been involved in this and active in it. And, um, as Councilmember McCord said, um, that represents the level of care and concern, um, that the community, uh, has for these vital public services and public servants. Um, my question has to do with the pro forma going forward that we had talked about. I've may have forgotten, did we get to the evaluation of the, uh, plan going forward if we were to fund it going forward at the current... under the current model? ... and, um, comparing that with the CERS model. Did we ever get to that? Or- We haven't. That's, that's what we're waiting on. Okay. All right. Miss that then. And, and who, is that gonna be done, the actuaries, is that who's working that? Yes. All right. Yes. We should have that, um, anytime. Middle of the month I think is when they indicated it would be in. Okay. Thank you, sir. Council member Henson. Hi. Thank you for your work and for the rest of the members' work. It's, um, I think this is something that definitely needed to be looked at. Um, but I just have one quick question. If a person, and I too am very, um, interested, you know, in these numbers for the disabled, um- Right. ... or the disability claims. If a person is 100% disabled, meaning they're severely injured on the job, which could happen- Yes. ... as opposed to someone that's just has 1% disability, they would receive the same amount? No, the, the, um, 60% is the minimum. 75, 75% is, uh, the cap on a disability. And, um, for every percent of your disability over 20%, it adds to your- Okay. ... percentage, um, up to 75. Percent, okay. And, but you can be 1% and receive the 20%? Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Uh, you can be 1% and receive 60%. Now, uh, I, that's, I, I don't wanna, I, I don't wanna leave you with the impression that, that a 1% is the norm. Um, but, um, I do want to leave you with the, the impression that, um, half of the disabilities have been, uh, under 10%. Single digit. Because that 10% is the median, at least over the last 10 years. Council member Blevins. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Bill. You're giving pro bono a whole new meaning. It seems like we run into you everywhere. Either here or Economic Task Force. I have two for you. Yes. Is a, a combination or even a complete switch to defined contribution as opposed to defined benefit being contemplated at all by the task force, or some combination of the two? Ah, it's, it's not. Um, the reason is that, that, um, we've got the existing employees. We can't change, we can't do that for existing employees, um, under the case law and the statutory law. We can't do it for existing retirees. Um, we could, um, um, that has not been proposed to us, and, and we could look at that. Uh, one of, one of the, um, one of the questions that, that I posed, uh, at one of the, the meetings is if we were gonna change things, um, if we're gonna change things, um, for prospective hires, um, would it be simpler to look at our existing plan, our existing benefit plan and go component by component and decide, um, which of those we want to change and which of those we want to, to leave the same? Or, would it be better to find an external reference like CERS and, and, um, simply attach our system to that in terms of mirroring it? Um, we haven't voted yet, so I don't know how that will, will come out. And, and, um, since, uh, I mean, defined contribution, as you know, is the norm, um, outside of government these days. But defined benefit is still the norm within government, and it's just an issue of what the benefits are. Right, and it's stunning the difference in contribution levels, because the industry average for defined contribution, as you know, is between 3 and 4%, and we're talking anywhere from 19 to 46%. Um, I, I will add that, uh, police and fire are probably the only area that I would, I, I'm very hesitant to take, take away defined benefit, because I think because of the hazardous nature of the thing, we have to go the extra mile for those, those employees and families. But I just wondered if that was a possible consideration, 'cause a blended plan alone would help us a ton in terms of the contribution. You're right. Second thing I wanted to ask you was, is the qualification rules part of what's being considered? Let me be specific. And I'm just talking new employees, by the way. Uh, for example, it's my understanding that you can r- retire currently under 20 years on the force, irregardless of what your actual chronological age is. Correct. Is that one of the aspects the task force will look at? Perhaps extending the years or doing a vesting or, uh, changing, changing those kinds of rules, because they have a dramatic impact on the actuarial analysis. Yeah. One of the, um, um, one of the changes in the current plan that has, um, moved, moved the unfunded liability up is changing from retirement age of, of 50 years to 46 years to no specific retirement age and just a, a requirement that you put 20 in. It's called 20 in, 20 out- Right. ... is what the, the shorthand is. Uh, CERS is 25. It doesn't have a minimum either, but at least it's five years longer of service, which, which makes, um, makes a difference. Uh, so, uh, to the extent that we're, we're looking at, at CERS, um, I've even had, I've even had one retiree, um- ... um, come up to me during one of the meetings and say, "We really, we didn't ask for..." Um, of course, I know somebody had to ask, but, "We didn't ask for it to go from 50 to 46, and it was 50 when I was hired. I don't know why we can't move it back to 50." Well, um, the courts would say, "You can't move it back to 50 for existing employees." Uh, we could do that for hires after, um, a certain, a certain date. And I don't think, um, I don't think that would b- uh, I think that would be, um, beneficial in terms of what the unfunded liability is- Mm-hmm. ... going forward. Um, but here, one of the, one of the reasons for looking at, um, at CERS as a model, uh, is the competitive reason. And that is, you know, not, not to be lost in all this is that, that this government is in competition with a lot of other governments to hire top-quality people in both those departments. And the, the feeling, um, as I understand it, in, in mirroring CERS is everybody else in Kentucky is under CERS, so it's hard to argue that you'd be at a competitive disadvantage if you went to the same system that, that everyone else is. Now, if you went to a more restrictive system than everyone else is, then you'd get into, um, um, concerns that you're impairing your ability to get the best and brightest folks- Right. ... that, that you might otherwise get. Right. And that clouds this discussion. It makes it very difficult when I'm on the street. I was just talking with Council Member McCord here, who has the, uh, our condolences, he's turned 40 recently, and neither one of us has a pension. So it's, it's difficult when I go out on the street and talk to most people in the private sector who have no pension, and they realize that even though our police and firefighters deserve a higher level of protection and benefits, it's hard to see when, when an employee is retired at 41 or 42 at 60 to whatever percent he qualifies for and now working a second job. Uh, folks with no pension are staring at, you know, working till they're 75 or whatever. That makes it very difficult for us to frame this discussion. And in others, other aspects of the economy, you know, uh, the airlines are jettisoning their systems, uh, going into bankruptcy to do so. Uh, even the venerable giants like IBM are considering getting rid of their pension systems or have already gotten rid of them. It's, it's very difficult for us, the community, to justify this. So we, we were all starting to say things like, "There are no sacred cows and everything's on the table." We're gonna have to start looking at that way. So anyway, thank you for your help and your assistance. Sure. You're welcome. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Bill, just for the pur- purposes of the rest of the council and also for the public, um, when you reference disability, are you referencing service-connected disability or any kind of disability, trip over your garden hose when you're out in the backyard? Uh, it's occupational- Occupational. ... disability. Okay. Um, the second thing, which, um, maybe take a little staff work, I'd be interested in knowing what some policies are as far as, um, as, as the plans are concerned in other cities outside of, o- our peer cities outside of Kentucky, the, uh, the Raleighs and the Madisons and the, uh, Nashvilles and some of those places to see, uh, h- how we, um, fit with this as far as they're concerned. And, um, maybe that's something we could do internally with, uh, uh, a few- Sure. ... telephone calls, actually. Mm-hmm. But, uh, that would be valuable information to me anyway. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Sure. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Mayor. Um, thank you, Mr. Leer. I was just wondering, and this may not be necessarily a question for you, but maybe for M-MORAMA. I'm not sure if we could possibly get, um, a copy of the, uh, of their interim reports, and so many people are interested in this issue, um, on our website so there would be access for people to see it? I'm sorry. Are, are you talking about the disability report or- No, I'm talking about- This document? ... the task force. Oh, the one that's been handed out? Yeah, the task force- Sure. We can get that. ... if we can go ahead and get, um, those, uh, I know the, the council gets updates. We get all the minutes and everything and routine updates from the task force, but obviously, we're talking about a report that the public really can't see or grasp what we're looking at right now. So it'd be nice if we could get that up on the website. Thank you. Be glad to. Council Member Stennet. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, certainly appreciate all the comments today from my colleagues. And of course, Mr. Leer, I appreciate you taking this daunting task to chair the task force and try to come up with a solution hopefully by mid-January. I'm not sure. Uh, I wish you luck if you'll be able to do that, but, uh, I hope we are. Now, I think as our fire folks and police folks are in the room today, I, I think it's, it's really indicative that we look back and, and look at the big picture that Commissioner Koh so graciously at 1:00 gave us about our current financial situation. You know, our general fund budget is $274 million, $274 million for fiscal year 2009. I, I don't know if you all have looked at that, Mr. Leer, on the task force, but what we're looking at in fiscal year 2010, which the mayor will quickly begin working on here, uh, if not already, is another $43 million. That's $317 million we have to come up with just to keep everything the same. That's 20% of our general fund. That's 20%. That includes the, the new pension number, the 46%. Un- un- let me, let me say something about that. We don't disagree with that number. That is the true number. That is the actual number that we should be funding that. So I think it's important to realize that, that there's no disagreement. I g- I know from this council member that that's the number we should be funding. The issue is how. The issue is how. How do we do it without layoffs? How do we do it without raising taxes? 'Cause- ... both those things will affect your retirees and will affect everyone, uh, in this government. Solutions, I know the mayor has, has put on today's website a couple solutions. One of which this council approved already, the $70 million, uh, one-time fund. Now, let's talk about that for a minute. $70 million, one-time in January. In this stock market, if you can do that, that's four of your payments of 46% over the next four years. Up front today, almost four, and letting it grow in the market over the next two, two, uh, market cycles, next two years. That'd be phenomenal, the growth on that $70 million. And this council's already approved that. I'm gonna push as hard as I can to go ahead and do that, because I think our timing is, um, crucial to that, putting that money in here in January. Now, can we do both 70 million and 46%? There's no way. Th- there's no way. Once again, we go back to a $43 million problem. So I hope everyone has an open mind. I know the task force is working diligently and trying to find a solution, but we all got to come back to the bargaining table, so to speak. No pun intended. Uh, we all have to come back to the table. This, Mayor, I applaud you, Mayor, for taking the opportunity to address this. No previous mayor's done this. It's gotten worse since 1974. This fund opened in 1974, $500,000 in the hole already. I thank this council and my colleagues for putting forth the task force, and Vice Mayor for doing that and people who want to serve, because now we're finally looking at a problem that we've all pointed fingers on. We've all blamed the other person, the other mayors, the other councils. Well, we're finally doing something about it, and I applaud you all for being here today to stand up for your pension, because that's what it's gonna take, all of us getting together. Stop pointing the fingers, stop blaming each other, and let's get in the room and work this thing out, 'cause we're all at stake on what happens. We're all in it together. Not just your paychecks when you retire, not just your health benefits, but we're all at stake. My kids in the future, your kids, everyone in this community, because we can't afford a 20% reduction of public safety. We can't. We can't afford the layoffs to this community. So it's, it's time we all come back together, and Mayor, again, thank you for putting forth a solution and taking the guts and courage to do that, because you're getting a lot of backlash against ya, and it's not right. Uh, council members are, and vice versa, you guys are getting backlash against you that's not right. You're doing what you've been asked to do. Now you're asking us to do what we should have been doing, our previous council shoulda been doing. So, you know, let's stop the backlash and let's get to this table and work. Our picture's not rosy. Even if we get rid of your $20 million extra payment and do the 70 million, we still have another 20-something million dollars we have to fund next year. It's still gonna be a difficult time, but it can make one less decision difficult going forward. So with that said, Mr. Leer, I just want to make sure everyone knows our current financial situation. Thank you to Commissioner Cole and, and Mary Pfister for pointing that out today. Um, we don't have a rosy outlook, but, uh, we're all in it together. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Council Member Stennet. Anything further? Well, let me add my word of thanks as well. I fully appreciate, believe me, the thankless nature of the task you have undertaken and, uh, I'm grateful for your assistance. Thank you. The last thing I will say is, is, um, this is one of those situations, as I said to the press the other day, you can't just point the finger at anybody, because frankly everybody, uh, has contributed. And if you don't believe that, in the summary of lead- governing legislative, um, governing legislation and amendments that I've, I've got at tab D, you will see a couple of bills passed in the early '90s, the lead sponsor of which was the gentleman from Fayette 79. That would be me. Thank you. We're ready for council reports. Council Member Stennet. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, several things today. First of all, I want everyone to notice our new World Equestrian Games clock. It's kinda giving me anxiety over here, seeing the countdown. But, but I'm glad, I wanna thank Penny Evil and, um, Commissioner, um, Cole for getting us, uh, the clock and getting it installed and quickly, so hopefully it'll all remind us of the daunting task, including public safety. We're gonna have a big, big role those two weeks and you're gonna be very important in that too. Um, so I, I thank you for getting that clock in here. Uh, one other thing, we talked about last week, and I appreciate Council Member Decamp for bringing this to Services Committee, is the solid waste tax. Um, one of the things that we, we talked about last week is changing it from a tax to a flat fee. Uh, and, and, and doing so, I think it would be ****** to be served to place that issue into Budget and Finance, as the services would be better, um, better equipped to deal with the efficiencies of it. I don't think we're talking about that necessarily, but we're all more concerned about, uh, how much more charge you for solid waste and how. So, uh, with that being said, I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to put that into Budget, uh, and Finance Committee. So moved. We have a motion. Second. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. And then also we all should receive an email f- this Friday, uh, December 12th from 5:30 to 8:00, the Lexington Humane Society will be having what they call Art Unleashed, um, for anyone wanting to purchase paintings of various animals out there. They'll have several artists, so I, I would hope everyone would come out and support them this Friday afternoon or evening, uh, between 5:30, uh, and 8:00. Uh, a wealth, uh, a worthwhile event, and hopefully everyone can, can get out there and attend. And then last, uh, but not least, just a couple more things. One, I wanna make a motion to, uh, walk on the docket, uh, NDF request for the Sierra Club that we all gave to last Tuesday. So moved. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. And then lastly, uh, it's been an honor the last four years to serve with, uh, two distinguished gentlemen that are leaving us tonight. Um, their last council work session, so to speak, in council meeting tonight. But Council Member Decamp and, and Council Member Stevens, I, I, I really want to say from the bottom of my heart, I respect everything you've done. Um, we've not always agreed or voted the same way, if ever maybe. But, um, but, but I do have a lot of respect. I've never met two finer gentlemen, uh, in my life, and now we have a photographer I think you want to pick up. And, and you're gonna be a tennis player, is that right? But, you know, in the -- in the tradition of Bill Farmer, I know a couple years ago he had a good serenade going out, uh, for Ms., uh, Martin. Uh, I want to give you all a -- a going-away gift, so to speak, to kind of recap all of your great accomplishments and poke a little fun too because you all ha- have d- been able to do that to me and -- and picked out my mistakes, and I appreciate that too, and appreciate your wisdom going forward. But, uh, I'd like to have a little fun now, if you would indulge me for one second, council members. Um, we've all heard the rhyme "Hickory Dickory Dock." Well, you know, these folks are o- often Dick and Doc. We often talk about them as Dick and Doc. So, with that being said, "Hickory, dickory, dock. They said, 'We're off the clock.' The clock struck 1:00. 'No more committees, we're done.' Hickory, dickory, dock. Hickory, dickory, dock. They stared at the clock. The clock struck 2:00. 'They said we're through.' Hickory, dickory, dock. Hickory, dickory, dock. Dick used up all his clock." "The clock struck 3:00. 'Goodbye, District 3.'" "Hickory, dickory, dock. Hickory, dickory, dock. No, they never slept on the clock. The clock struck 4:00. 'We'll smoke no more.' Hickory, dickory, dock. Hickory, dickory, dock. Doc set his own clock. The clock struck 5:00. 'Goodbye, District 5.' Hickory, dickory, dock. Hickory, dickory, dock. Dick studied the clock. The clock struck 6:00. 'Historic, I'll fix.' Hickory, dickory, dock. Hickory, dickory, dock. They ran around the clock. The clock struck 7:00. 'Save downtown. Go get 'em.' Hickory, dickory, dock. Hickory, dickory, dock. They always planned on the clock. The clock struck 8:00. 'No more zone changes till 8:00.' Hickory, dickory, dock. Hickory, dickory, dock. They never drank on the clock. The clock struck 9:00. 'On Sundays, we'll sell wine.' Hickory, dickory, dock." "Hickory, dickory, dock. They flowed on the clock. The clock struck 10:00. 'But in the end, we did not condemn.' Hickory, dickory, dock. Hickory, dickory, dock. They voted on the clock. The clock struck 11:00. 'We should have voted with Kevin.' Hickory, dickory, dock." Oh, no. "Hickory, dickory, dock. You both have now shut the clock. The clock struck noon. We will miss you, but see you soon. Hickory, dickory, dock." Thank you, Mayor. Woo! Woo! I'm talking about not you, Kevin, not you. There'll be -- there'll be more. There'll be more. Excuse me, Mayor, Mayor? I think that we ought to take Kevin out as parliamentarian and make him the court jester. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Well, I read my ode at the council potluck, so I'll not repeat it here. But, uh, first of all, I hope employees will come to the ballroom at 5:00, because we are having a reception to farewell Dick DeCamp and David Stephens. And I'm so happy to see Patricia DeCamp here, uh, because, um, as I said last week when Sally Stephens was here, none of us can do that with significant others and family and friends who support us. So, thank you for your support of Dick all these years. We really appreciate that. Um, Dick, I'll miss you. You have been our champion for the arts for many, many years, our champion for preservation, and historic preservation in particular. Um, you've worked hard with UK. Everything's not solved yet, but I think that you did a lot to bring us closer to a good working relationship. And plus, you, um, when I was a young, naive council member and getting invited to all these dinners, you offered to take me to one at a big function so that I didn't have to be by myself. Thank you. I'll miss you. David of the red glasses, um, I've really appreciated your keen sense of humor and your intellect in thinking things through in a quiet way. You've never been out there pounding in front of the cameras. You've always been very modest. And I think that, uh, you -- you got the work done in a quiet, subtle way. You always had your little cards where you were counting your votes. He always has the initials written, whether it's JB for Julien or KS for Kevin, and he knows ahead of time on important issues such as the smoking ordinance pretty much how people are going to vote. And you've shown so much leadership, um, in our community for the long vision down the road, for 50 years ahead. When we drive down these corridors full of big, tall trees, I will always think of you for your corridor perspective. I hope you can walk down a sidewalk. Yes. And just, I will miss you and your great leadership. Thank you so much. Thank you. Council Member Blevins. Thank you, Mayor. I'll -- I'll throw in too and say, Mr. DeCamp and Dr. Stephens, thanks for your coaching during my rookie years. I'll miss you as well. I have a simple one. I move approval of NDF for this week. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Blevins and a second by Council Member Ellinger to approve the NDF. All in -- any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. A couple things. Yesterday, we had a, a council retreat and, uh, was glad to have new council members, uh, Cheryl Feigl and, and Diane Lawless with us yesterday and welcome them onto this council in January. And, um, one of the things that I said yesterday that, uh, I want to reiterate to my colleagues, but also to the community, is this new line that, uh, that I seem to be quoting a lot, and that is, "Don't waste a crisis." We've got a crisis, and we just talked about it. Kevin Stinnett just, uh, uh, laid it out in, in many ways, but there's many other crises that are coming up and the only way that we can get through this is to not waste it and to absolutely, uh, come to the table, work together, not only as council members, but as a community, and start to work on, on some of these very challenging issues. But we have such a unique opportunity. One thing I would challenge this council and, and council members individually and, and us as a, as a body, this administration is, is what are our priorities? Because we seem to be in a very reactive mode. Every email seems to knock us sideways. Every issue seems to be a, a huge issue and time-consuming and, and what it boils down to is what we talked about today is vastly important. You guys are vastly important to us and, and we need to do something about this. And, and so therefore, we need to take collective energy and focus it on this real issue. Um, a- and it's not to say that other issues aren't, um, important, but they may not be as important, and I think this body needs to take the next three weeks and really spend some time thinking about what's important to you as a council member, but also to us as a council. But we were faced with a crisis a couple of weeks ago. Toyota and Lexmark stood at that podium and said, "This body is not doing enough to be attractive to the creative class." And at the end of the day, that's what it boils down to, is attracting the right types of folks to create the right types of jobs, so that we can drive this engine. And when your two biggest employers come to that mic and say that, then we should listen. Now, the other piece of the... The other crisis that we have in this town is not necessarily financial, but it's probably bigger, and that is that we have a waning enthusiasm among people who want to see this town change and they're not seeing implementation. They're not seeing stuff being done. They're... They see task forces, they see studies, but they don't see anything getting done. So to that end, here's, here's what I am going to do. Uh, I'm going to bring forward mayor in January, working with the entertainment task force that was really part of that group that came forward and say, "What can you do for downtown?" One of the key pieces of that task force's work has been we need to create live music venues. We need to increase the arts. Dick, we need to have more opportunities for live, creative incubators for the arts. Well, by gosh, here we sit in a building that needs to be utilized. So a few years ago, uh, before the Christmas course, we had a band come to town called Little Big Town, and before council meeting, they played for an hour before our council meeting. When we went to Austin, Texas this past year, they play live music before every council meeting. So what I'm going to do is ask our council administrator to work with the entertainment task force and, uh, for an hour before our council meetings all through 2009 to make this a live music venue for the artists in our region to come and play. If nobody's sitting in here, it doesn't matter because we're on the air and we can pipe this to 200,000, a million people around the world. The next thing we're going to do is we're going to turn our lobby into a, into a place where art can be done, not just exhibited. So what my thing, uh, to us is, to you individually is, what can we do? Let's take what our largest employer said and go do something. We have to do something. And so therefore in January, Council Member Stinnett and I are going to bring this forward and we are going to get this done, and we're going to create a live music venue right here at 200 East Main. But I want to speak to, to Doc and to Dick and I want to thank you again like my colleagues will do and have done. Thank you very much for your service to this community and thank you for, uh, what you've taught me, uh, directly and indirectly, and I'm very appreciative of your service. And to the end of luring the creative class, to look at two gentlemen that have spent their life, uh, Dick, preserving, uh, buildings that are very important to, to people to see history live and not Disneyfication of history. Uh, your life's work has really laid a foundation for, for the creative class, and I thank you for that. And Doc, as, as Councilman Blethen said yesterday, anybody that has started the blood center, uh, created a smoking ban, uh, improved every corridor in this town, you are to be commended and I thank you for your service and you have laid a tremendous foundation and, and a tremendous legacy and I thank you for that. I would also, um, uh, challenge you, uh, Rama, if you're still in the room, one of the things I'd like to see before these guys get too far away into their retirement is for us to trap some of their institutional knowledge on tape. Yesterday, Doc, that was one of the most interesting times that we've had listening to how the charter was formed and some of the things that were going on in those discussions, and I'd like that trapped for posterity. Um, lastly, let me just say this. I had a unique privilege, uh, being on council. Council Member Gordon and Council Member Farmer and I a couple years ago got to welcome back a, uh, a unit from Afghanistan, uh, that had been serving over there in, in, uh... I was deeply honored to, to do that for our servicemen and women. Um, but Sunday was, was a very unique day for me. Sunday was December 7th. It marked the 67th anniversary of Pearl Harbor being bombed, and I had a chance to, uh, uh, be at the, uh, Pearl Harbor survivors lunch and, uh, to be their keynote speaker that day. And we have three Pearl Harbor survivors that live here in Lexington, uh, one of which lived behind my, my parents' house the entire time I've grown up. I never knew that he was a Pearl Harbor survivor. Um, and I made a quote... I, I, I quoted yester- on, on Sunday something that I want to share with, um, with us as a community, and these are words of General Patton in December of 1944, 64 years ago literally today, and he said this. He said, "We are not called to make the best of these days." We're not called to make the best of these days. "Our job is to make the most of these days." And Council, I... ... and folks in the community and people who work here, our job isn't to make the best of these tough times. Our job is to make the most of these times. And if we do that, then we're gonna do these other things. So with that, I, uh, I wish everybody a great Christmas break, and I look forward to getting back to it in January. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, first, a couple of, uh, announcements. Uh, Saturday, December 13th, there are going to be, uh, two neighborhood association, uh, Christmas dinners and parties. The Metal Thorp Neighborhood Association, the Christmas potluck at 6:00 at the community center in Louis Mack Park, and we sure look forward to seeing all the neighbors there. And at the same time, the Oakwood- Oakwood Neighborhood Association, their Christmas party and open house from 6:00 to 9:00 PM, that will give everybody an opportunity not only to, uh, meet and greet and have some good food and fellowship, but also to see the renovations that the, uh, that the neighborhood working with, uh, Irvin County government and Parks and Recreations have, uh, been able to bring about in the community center. Then next Monday night on September 15th, the Windburn Neighborhood Association will, will hold its monthly meeting at 6:30 in, uh, ML King Park Community Center. And I'd like to add my, uh, words of thanks both to Dick on my right and Doc on my left, uh, for their, for their, uh, their good sense, their, their steady leadership, uh, in, in, in quiet, intelligent, and at the same time, very inspirational ways. We're gonna miss it, uh, and I wish you both the best. Thank you. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I had expected to bring forward a motion to add, um, a resolution to the docket which would have amended the council rules and procedures to reflect the extensive work of the, of the, um, standing committee sub-committee. However, I will not be bringing forward that motion today. Instead, I would ask to take some time to open the floor to discussion on the proposed recommendations. This discussion will allow for the sub-committee to make changes clearer and more concise for council members' understanding and support. So I open the floor to discussion and encourage council members to speak on, um, the issue of the, um, of the proposal. And, um, me and, um, Joe, who is here representing, um, Council Member Myers, as well as my assistant, will, will be taking notes, um, so that we are able to respond directly, um, to each council member's concerns. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, Council Member Gordon. I don't really have a question, but, um, I know that we have a Committee of the Whole coming up early in January, and I wonder if we might spend some time, Vice Mayor, on that agenda discussing the proposal, so that people can bring forward their questions and concerns. And I- I appreciate that you're giving time for this 'cause it, it does require some working out. Absolutely. How would you feel about that, if we would spend some time then? I would actually... I would actually encourage... There's a lot of conversation going on about it already, and I think what we'll be able to prepare for, I'm a, I'm a full-time council member, um, and my staff is, is dedicated to making this a very, um, high priority. So we'd like to, over the break time, um, while everybody's kind of vacationing and enjoying their time, we'd really like to devote a lot of time and attention to be able to respond and, and make this just, um, the most perfect, um, resolution possible, reflective of the needs of the council. So I would actually ask at this time if there's any conversation. Um, and that, that yields to, there's an ideal situation in February that is, um, some time between council meetings which would allow us the opportunity to really get the thi- get the process implemented and, and get everybody that needs to be involved, get the process implemented effectively. Um, so that discussion that happens now and any input that happens at this moment will be able to really perfect that resolution. So, if anyone has concerns, and I know there's been some, um, I, I would just encourage that, that conversation today, so that we can address those. I guess my only other question right now would be for Susan Lamb. I know... And maybe the council administrator. I know that we've, um, already, uh, approved and I would presume we'll, um, advertise soon in whatever way we do it, our yearly schedules, so how much ta- time do we need if we decide to change the rules and make a new schedule? How much time do we need to do that piece of it? Do we have an approximation? Couple weeks, or... If you are anticipating changing the ordinance that would be approved at tonight's meeting and changing it, um, I honestly, I cannot completely answer the question because I don't know how long it's gonna take to iron out all the, the, the, uh, the issues. Oh, my question simply is to the mechanism for... We would need to have a fir-... If, if this was accepted, we would need to have a first reading and a second reading, and then is our schedule advertised in any... I mean, just like another ordinance? It is the heading only of the ordinance for the schedule, so... But we do- Okay. ... publish it on the website and post it in other various locations for the public knowledge. Uh, so that's not an issue. Okay. However, the -- figuring out the structure of everything is a huge issue and that does need to be dealt with administratively as well as, um, with the council clerk and with the, with the, with the council. I would think there'd need to be some more going on with you then to get good input. Yeah. We've had... Our staff has been very active and involved with, um, anyone that has had any concerns as far as their work process and how it affects, or how it will be affected. And it is my proposal that, um, the sub-committee be available throughout the, throughout the break, um, and up to point of first reading or second reading or implementation and all throughout, to be there to an- to take that technical com- component side, or less technical but more procedurally legislatively, um, to offer that perspective. And, and Susan's always welcome to contact, um, Sarah, Joe, and they've been in constant communication with, with Susan, um, and others about this process and, and we will continue to be there to support the process in whatever needs to happen. If I may speak on that note, um, I think that more than conversation with myself needs to take place, it needs to take place with the law department, and it needs to take place with the, the mayor's staff. It needs to... Regarding the administrative review process and it also needs to take place with the budget amendment process. That's absolutely correct. So that has to transpire before this could even possibly go forward, in my opinion. That's absolutely correct. And as the chair of the committee, I concur. Thank you. This sub-committee member will be out of town a little while over break, so I can't be here the whole break. And I, I, I... Sorry. That's okay. I will be here. Council Member Stevens. Uh, I'm sorry I wasn't at the last meeting of the committee that generated this recommendation to the council and I would have spoken about some of the concerns I have about it at that time. Okay. But I will put in, in a document either on paper or with electrons, all my concerns so that you can consider them because I won't be here when you vote on them. That would be wonderful. I know many... I really appreciate your pearls of wisdom so we will definitely, um, look at your recommendations. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Ms. James, I know that when you, uh, gave us the information you compared the committee structure to some other communities, um, in the country and, uh, Nashville sticks out, but I can't remember all of them. Um, do you know whether or not offhand if in those cities, uh, council members were full-time or part-time or can you give us a breakdown of that? I don't recall seeing that. Um, it should have... It may have been in your supplement of data which was in your folder that you received at the Committee of the Hall. Um, or- I was out of town, so maybe I haven't seen that. Um, can I... Sarah, is there a way that you can... I'll make sure that my assistant ma- gets you a copy of the information that was passed out at the Committee of the Hall. Um, that in the... Um, we worked with the Kentucky League of Cities. They helped us to do the research on the comparable cities, um, and we got as specific as possible as far as comparison. What we really found... It's really interesting that you say part-time versus full-time, because what we really found is in our current, in our current status, we have more... We have more meetings than other cities have. So whether they're full-time or part-time, um, we're having more meetings as the... In, in the current process. Thank you. I'll also, as Dr. Stevens mentions, submit my questions, uh, my further questions in writing. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. If no one else has, um, questions, I think I'd like to refer to, um, I have a PowerPoint which can detail a little bit more information, because I know we've heard some things in, in the hallways and passing, you know, kinda telephone kinda thing. So I wanted to be sure to address some of the particular concerns that we've heard just so that they don't go unanswered. Um, just to let you know that we are listening. Um, let me get my presentation here ready. I'm not able to pull it up, so if you wanna go ahead, go to the next slide. What we... Some of the concerns that we heard were, um, in response to, um, the only two committee Meetings of the Hall, um, during, during a month, during one month. Um, what the committee intended to do was to make the process more efficient as far as passage or, uh, for first readings and second readings, information getting to the docket. The committee did find out and did discover that the more effective meetings were the meetings that occurred during... Thank you. During the week of council meetings. Um, there was some research done on, on work sessions and it was found that the, the work sessions that occurred on... ...weeks when there were no council meetings, had a tendency to have either no discussion of business items, um, and at one point, there w- there was five minutes worth of discussion on business items. So, what we looked for was efficiency in the process and non-duplication, thank you, um, presentation ...and non-duplication of data having to be prepared. The committee agrees that i- there could be more than two committee of the whole meetings in one month. The question is, what will be the purpose of the other two committee of the whole meetings? And what we propose is that the process could continue as it is. Um, current status is that committee of the wholes can be, um, scheduled, um, as agenda is needed, um, as items need to be discussed, and they are advertised as they are scheduled. So, that could happen. You could also schedule the additional committees of the whole at the time when you adopt the calendar- the calendar for the year. So you could go ahead and have a month with every Tuesday with a committee of the whole, knowing that two of the meetings that would occur would be business meetings, and the other two committee of the wholes could be presentations, similar to what we had today. That presentation would actually happen at a committee of the whole presentation day, as opposed to a work session day to where we're putting information towards the docket. So we've heard those concerns and feel like th- that that process can happen. So if there's someone that really would like to just have face time with the camera on a Tuesday, you'd have that opportunity at those off-committee of the wholes. We also heard that acronyms can be harmful to the integrity of an organization. Um, if you notice, I- I don't refer to the meetings as COWs. I refer to them as Committee of the Whole. Um, you can do a lot with the word cow. Um, some things I thought of just to get it right off, get it right out there was, you know, if somebody felt like that people were using a committee of the whole, um, to get their own needs addressed, they could say that somebody's milking the cow. Um, if someone said that, um, we're not doing enough work within the committee of the whole, somebody could say, in order to speed things up, we need to tip the cow. So I think there's some, some interest in making sure that we have an acronym that is not harmful to the integrity of the process. Um, and the committee is open, open to ideas of new names for whatever the process will be, whatever this meeting will be on that Tuesday. And we welcome your ideas. And please offer them, if you have more. We also heard about the two-year term for standing committees and all of this is referenced in your resolution, if you've had an opportunity to go through it or maybe you haven't and you'll know when you do have a chance to go through that. Um, the current situation calls for a four-year term for standing committees and so under this new, um, under the amended ordinance or the amended resolution, you will see that it calls for a two-year term. What we found with the four-year term is the spots that become vacant once a council member is no longer there. Automatically, whoever comes in gets that spot because we're all locked into a four-year term. The two-year term would actually allow for some flexibility, um, and w- folks can transfer from one committee to another. Some of the concern here had to do with, um, the, uh, whether that the integrity of that process, um, could somehow be corrupted. Um, if there could be some, maybe appointments done to certain standing committees to achieve a certain goal. And other cities have things such as standing, or have committees on committees, um, and they also have, um, a process where the council members themselves actually appoint commit- council members to committees. We could look at something like that, but at this point, the subcommittee did not feel like that was something they wanted to address. We felt like that changing it to a two-year term would address the immediate needs and the immediate issues that we, that we felt like needed to happen, um, in conjunction with this process. But we're open to that discussion for later that would not, at this point, interfere with our resolution. There were some additional, some of the concerns we're hearing have to do with preferences and not necessarily rules and procedures, things such as location of meetings. Locations have to be flexible, uh, due to availability of space. I think I remember as a constituent early on that, um, I don't know, 2004, 2005, that meetings were held maybe at the Phoenix building. Um, I don't know if it was renovation or something going on. So locations are preferences and would not need to be addressed through rules and procedures. Of course, we'd wanna have that discussion, as we would with the administrative, um, process, review process and with Susan Lamb. All of those things need to happen. However, the rules and procedures that we're discussing as part of this resolution are not necessarily, um, the, the place for this to happen, but they are adjunct to, to this process. Um, there is currently no walk-on or late item process addressed through rules and procedures. It's kind of just a tradition, um, that something is handed to a council member for read on, um, for a late item. Committees had, the committee has had some discussion about this. One of the proposals that came out of that was, um, to ask for administration to actually come forward with the late item or walk-on, um, and, a- and bring that forward themselves as opposed to asking a council member to do so. Uh, we do feel like that this would help the relationship between, um, the administration and the council. We do feel like that we do want them involved in this process very much, um, and this would help to. ... um, to make that happen. And then it references there that rules and procedures currently state that meetings of the council will be televised for those that had concerns about televised meetings. Um, this goes back to what Susan Lamb, um, referred to, what needs to happen between now and go live. We've r- we've listed a few places, um, where we would need this process to be, uh, what they would need to look at their process and make sure that it's compatible with the process and the intent of these changes. Um, I won't list them, I won't read them out there, but those are just a few pro- ev- everything that she, um, everything that Susan mentioned, um, in conjunction with the budgeting process which is intermingled within all of that. I do, uh, as I, uh, as I mentioned earlier, I do think that technical assistance should be offered and will be offered on behalf of the s- of the, um, sub-committee. Um, and I do believe in outcomes and, um, very much strongly so , um, being part of council. At the end of the year, I do l- think we need to review this process, see if it's working, see how well it's working and see what adjustments need to be made, um, and we'll continue to monitor it. So just wanted to express on behalf of the standing committee that the ultimate goal is to make this an effective and efficient process. Um, change is scary, um, and I know that we're all leaning towards change, but we have to have the communication to know, um, what the, what everyone's concerns are. So y- you may have questions that you may want to ask, you may not, um, after this, but please know that this is an opportunity for you to express that and we're looking forward to working with you, um, on this so that we can have something strong, um, moving forward. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much. Uh, Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Um, two or three things. I think p- primarily I, I do want to, uh, wish both Dick DeCamp and, and David Stephens a, uh, a very happy and productive retirement, although I doubt if they will truly retire. We're gonna be seeing them in the halls and in, uh, at events and everything else. Uh, it seems that Tom Blues and I are now elevated to the elder statement, statesman on the council, uh, which, uh, I guess is better than some alternatives, Tom. Both, uh, Dick and, and, uh, Dr. Stephens, I've, I've observed them for six years, four years when I was Economic Development Director and, um, uh, then the two years I've been on the council and, uh, they're extremely unflappable in the, i- in the face of, uh, some situations that, uh, that, uh, that o-other people might not be able to handle. They, uh, they're calm, cool and collected and it's, uh, uh, th- that's amazing 'cause I sometimes can't, uh, can't do the same I'm afraid. Um, a-as far as, uh, Council Member James' proposal is concerned, uh, I have several, um, questions about it. I will make a point, however, o-one, uh, I would like to see if at all possible, a hard copy of the, uh, o-of the PowerPoint. Of the one I just sent you? Sure. Yeah, uh-huh. The one you just... S- so that I can, I can go through it and match it up against, a- a- against the resolution itself and see exactly what everyone's talking about. Sure. Can I email that to you or do you need me to print it for you? Um, oh email's fine, sure. Okay. No, that's fine. Um, the only concern I have, I guess, r-real major concern I have is the, uh, the situation about the, uh, the name, uh, council as a whole. We view the last council as a whole for other purposes and we met in other places and if we start to use council as a whole for the pivotal meetings that we have as to what's going on in the docket and things of that sort, it's going to blur somewhat in some people's mind, I think, um, about, um, w- we'll either have to change those meetings that we have, uh, Vice Mayor, uh, that you chair in the fifth floor conference room as a council as a whole as opposed to the more formal one down here. Um, and I don't want the public to get confused either for that matter. And we do some of those, uh, pretty much ad hoc as I remember also. Um, I guess I'll get another opportunity sometime this evening, uh, to collect my thoughts and, and wish everybody a happy holidays, but, uh, I'll go ahead and say it now in case I, I, I don't make it and Tom Blues and I are, are, are a- again at the top of that list so... Well, I mean, some, some people- I'll be the elder, you be the statesman. Okay. That's fine. Anyhow, I, I do wish everybody in the public happy holidays and, and, uh, you too, Mayor, and, uh, hopefully I'll be able to say that again at, uh, six o'clock. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Beard. I am advised by the, uh, by our clerk that due to our six o'clock meeting, there are a couple of matters we need to address now. Um, and so what I would propose unless there's some strenuous objection is that we, uh, address the matter that we had planned on addressing on closed session- ... now, and then reconvene in open session afterwards and follow up. I've got the list of folks, uh, here. Would there be any objection to that deviation from the norm due to the scheduling issues? And is there another matter? The, the Mayor's report also. Okay. Uh- Please. ... all right. Move approval. Okay. We have a motion to approve the Mayor's report. Second. And numerous seconds, take your pick. Any discussion? All in favor of approving the Mayor's report, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, no. Motion carries. I may have a word or two to add on there at the end when we come back, but in the interest of time, um, I believe we have a motion to go into closed session. Do we not, Council Member Blues? Thank you, Mayor. I move that we do go into closed session pursuant to KRS618101B for the purpose of discussing the possible acquisition of real property. A closed session is necessary because publicity at this stage would be likely to affect the value of the property in question. So moved. Do I hear a second? Second. Have a second by Council Member Henson. Any discussion? All in favor of adjourning into closed session, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. A wondrous boy. Ever tell me he will care, I'm certain. It's the final curtain. I never want to hear from any cheerful Pollyannas who tells you fate supplies a mate. It's all bananas. They're writing songs of love, but not for me. Our lucky star's above, but not for me. With love to lead the way, I found more clouds of gray than any Russian play could guarantee. I was a fool to fall and get that way. Hi ho, a lot- Not quite. They're always watching. Council Member Gordon. Yes, I move we come back into open session. Second. Have a motion by Council Member Gordon, second by Council Member Ellinger that we return to open session. All, any discussion? All in favor, please say, "Aye." Aye. All oppose, no. Council Member Blues. The motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on the docket for the December 9, 2008 council meeting, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute a six-month option to purchase with Frankfurt Court LLC for property located at 2401 Old Frankfurt Pike, so moved. Second. Um, I have a motion and a second by Council Member Beard. Um, le- le- let me clarify one thing in my own mind. Is a six-month option the appropriate period? All right. Um, any discussion? All in favor of, uh, Council Member Blue's motion, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. All oppose, no. Motion carries. Thank you very much for, um, dealing with that matter. And are we in good shape now, Susan? If- Any other motions for the next docket? I see none. So it's kind of speak now or forever hold your peace time. Only motions. All right. Thank you. Uh, we'll return now to council reports. I had, uh, Vice Mayor Gray, Council Member Ellinger, and Council Member Crosby. Vice Mayor Gray. This is going to be quick because the reception's already started, hadn't it? And everybody's exhausted with all this praise. Goodness gracious. Okay. I was going to say something Yogi Berra said, but I'm not even gonna do that. Just as a, just as a reminder, and this is really as a backstop, this is a little housekeeping. Uh, this is a backstop to the effort that we're, uh, undertaking now to examine the, um, committee structure going forward. But as a backstop to that, um, I've got a, a form for, uh, committee assignments that we used a couple years ago. I'll be distributing that, uh, to you all in the next day or so. So use that as, um, and get in touch with me if you would, if you're particularly interested in any of the, in any of the current, uh, committee under the current model. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. I'll keep mine very short. Hence the late hour and the reception has started, I just wanna, um, thank, uh, Dr. Stephens and, uh, Mr. Camp for their services to the community. We all try to come on this job and hope that we w- when we leave that we've left it in a better place than when we got here. And, and I can say u- unequivocally that you both have done that and had a great service to this community. And thank you for your long hours and your service. God bless. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Uh, thank you, Mayor. I was gonna continue the love fest, but, um, I know, uh- ... particularly with Council Member DeCamp, if we start cutting into a good party, he might get a little upset with me. So with that- Particularly when it's in their honor. So, uh, with that, I will just say thank you so much for, um, everything y'all have done. I really appreciate it. Both of you have been, uh, tremendous mentors to a lot of us, and you will be sorely missed. Thank you. And now, Council Member DeCamp. Just very briefly, I'm not gonna say all these wonderful things I've written down. I just wanna say, it looks like, Doc, that, uh, we're gonna miss some swinging times with Jay's gonna have music for all these new council members and, and Kevin's gonna recite poetry and it's gonna be wonderful. And, uh, so we're, we're, we're, the Renaissance is coming back to the council and I think it's gonna be very interesting. I would be remiss to say, though, um, it's been an honor to serve the residents of the Third District. I appreciate their faith in me during the last 12 years and I'll certainly miss some of the council action, but not miss the upcoming budget process. Um, I'd like to say to my fellow compatriots, good luck. Keep up the good work. It's been great to work with all of you. Be assured I'm not fading away, but you'll be hearing from me in the future. Thanks so much. And Council Member Stevens. Uh, thank you. Uh, I'll try to be brief too as I wanna get to that punch. But, uh, I did talk to the airport, uh, financial officer this morning and about 10 o'clock our bond sold for the airport at a very favorable rate and the taxable bonds were at 2.35, which is pretty low. So they were pleased, uh, the bond counsel and all the people involved. So that is, is one issue that's resolved, at least. But I did wanna ... I have many people to thank, of course, and I wanted to thank the citizens who have voted for me and the ones who didn't vote for me, but I would urge those who don't vote at all to get in tune and, and exercise your democratic right. I wanna thank the media 'cause they've been kind of kind to me, I think, and haven't pointed out all my glaring defects. I've had a great support from the employees of the government. I think they're excellent and, uh, I've never had a discourteous, uh, act by any of 'em. They've always responded very rapidly and completely. They don't always do what I think they should, but, uh, they do what they think they should and I, and I respect them for that. I wanna thank the council office and the council staff. There've been a lot of people go through that place since I've been around here, but I think it's better than it ever has and they certainly are a lot of good cooks around here now, too. The lunch is, today, was great. I wanna thank all of the fellow, my fellow members of the council, both past and present, and, uh, and the mayors with whom I've served. Uh, one of my favorite songs is the September Song and it goes, "Oh, it's a long, long way from May to December, but the days grow short when you reach September. When the autumn weather turns the leaves to flame, wasn't, one hasn't got time for the waiting game.Oh, the days dwindle down to a precious few, September, November, and these few precious days I'll spend here with you. Uh, these precious days I'll spend with you." And, uh, I'm sorry that these precious days are ending, but, uh, it has to end sometime. Then I have a little, um, Irish blessing, uh, I would like to leave and as a final thought. "May the road rise to meet you, may the wind be always at your back, may the sun shine warm upon your face, the rains fall soft upon your fields and 'til we meet again, may God hold you in the palm of his hand." Thank you. There'll be cookies downstairs, I'm sure. So moved. I will, uh, defer my comments until the meeting tonight. Um, that brings us down now to public comment on issues not on the agenda. The only person I have signed up to speak is Mr. Maher. I'll just do it tonight, see y'all in a year. Very well. Good, good decision. Does anyone else wish to address the council? Seeing none, we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. C- c- Move. Second. Council Member DeCamp has moved- Second. ... to adjourn. Council Member Stevens has seconded. I'll second it. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Love you.