# Urban County Council Work Session - March 24, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 24, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/831 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/831?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-03-24 - **Last revised**: March 24, 2009 - **Length**: 20,475 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Council convened on April 7, 2009, with Mayor Newberry presiding over the session. The council addressed a comprehensive agenda of 11 items, focusing primarily on infrastructure agreements, emergency services funding, and property acquisitions. All agenda items presented to the council were approved, with the body taking 10 formal votes during the meeting. The council also heard from 3 members of the public during the comment period. The meeting demonstrated efficient governance, with unanimous approval across all matters ranging from transportation agreements with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) to acceptance of federal and state awards for emergency services and homeland security initiatives. ## Attendance The following members were present at the March 24, 2009 meeting: **Present:** • Mayor Newberry • CM Beard • CM James • CM Gorton • CM Myers • CM Lane • CM Stinnett • CM McChord • CM Lawless • CM Henson • VM Gray • CM Blues **Absent:** • CM Crosbie • CM Martin No members arrived late to the meeting. A total of 12 members were present and 2 members were absent. ## Votes and Decisions The council conducted ten votes during the March 24, 2009 meeting, with most passing unanimously. **Procedural Approvals** • **Approval of the docket** - Motion by CM Beard, seconded by CM James. Passed unanimously. • **Approval of the summary of 3/24/09** - Motion by CM Gorton, seconded by CM Myers. Passed unanimously. **Budget Amendments** • **Amend the budget amendments** - Motion by CM Myers, seconded by CM Lane. Passed unanimously with the condition that Comm. Bennett and Fire Chief Hendricks return with a plan. • **Approve the amended budget amendments** - Motion by CM Myers, seconded by CM Beard. Passed unanimously. **New Business and Ordinances** • **Approve new business items A-K** - Motion by CM Gorton, seconded by CM Myers. Passed by roll call vote with 2 nays from CM Gorton and CM James. • **Request the Department of Law to draft an ordinance** - Motion by CM Stinnett, seconded by CM Myers. Passed by roll call vote with 11 ayes and 1 nay from CM Lane. **Administrative Items** • **Approve the NDF list for 4/7/09** - Motion by CM Gorton, seconded by CM McChord. Passed unanimously. • **Place on the docket for April 9, 2009 Council Meeting a resolution for a rental agreement** - Motion by CM James, seconded by CM Gorton. Passed unanimously. • **Approve the Mayor's Report** - Motion by CM McChord, seconded by CM Blues. Passed unanimously. **Adjournment** • **Adjourn work session** - Motion by CM Stinnett, seconded by CM Gorton. Passed unanimously. The meeting demonstrated broad consensus on most items, with only two roll call votes showing dissent among council members. ## Public Comment During the public comment period for issues not on the agenda, three community members addressed the meeting. The following speakers provided public comment: • **Vanessa Mitchell** - Spoke during public comment on issues not on the agenda • **Dawn Givens** - Spoke during public comment on issues not on the agenda • **Lewis Cobb** - Spoke during public comment on issues not on the agenda All three speakers addressed matters not included on the meeting agenda during the designated public comment period. The specific details of their comments and concerns were not captured in the available meeting documentation. *Note: Transcript timestamps were not available for the public comment portion of this meeting.* ## Contested Items The meeting featured one contested item that resulted in a split vote among council members. **Resolution Regarding Kentucky Public Service Commission Case No. 2008-00427** A resolution related to the rates of Kentucky-American Water Company came before the council and generated disagreement among members. The resolution pertained to Kentucky Public Service Commission Case No. 2008-00427, which involved rate matters for the water utility company. The resolution ultimately passed despite opposition from two council members. CM Gorton and CM James both voted against the measure, creating a split vote on the issue. The specific details of their objections to the resolution were not detailed in the available meeting materials. The resolution's passage indicates that a majority of council members supported the city's position regarding the Kentucky-American Water Company rate case before the Public Service Commission, though the dissenting votes from CM Gorton and CM James suggest there were differing views on how the city should approach this utility rate matter. ## Authorization of a Deed of Acceptance for a Permanent Greenway The meeting addressed agenda item A, which sought authorization for a Deed of Acceptance for a permanent greenway under the Greenway Master Plan. This resolution would formalize the acceptance of greenway property or easements as part of the municipality's broader greenway development strategy. Key speakers during the discussion included Rayan and Webb, who presented details about the proposed deed acceptance. The greenway in question appears to be part of the established Greenway Master Plan, indicating it fits within the community's long-term vision for connected green spaces and recreational corridors. While specific details of the discussion are not available in the meeting records, the item involved the formal legal process of accepting a deed that would establish permanent greenway rights. Such deeds typically involve either the donation of property or the granting of easements that allow public access for greenway purposes while maintaining private ownership of the underlying land. The authorization represents a standard but important step in greenway development, as it provides the legal framework necessary for the municipality to maintain and operate the greenway corridor. These permanent designations help ensure that greenway connections remain intact for future generations and cannot be easily altered or developed for other purposes. Following the presentation and any discussion by Rayan, Webb, and other participants, the resolution was approved. This approval grants the necessary authorization for officials to execute the Deed of Acceptance, moving the greenway project forward in accordance with the Greenway Master Plan. The successful passage of this item demonstrates continued municipal commitment to expanding and formalizing the greenway network, providing residents with enhanced recreational opportunities and environmental benefits through permanent green corridor preservation. ## Authorization of Amendment No. 2 to an Agreement with KYTC The board considered Authorization of Amendment No. 2 to an Agreement with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) for the South Limestone Multimodal Traffic Study Project. Key speakers during the discussion included P. King and Webb, who presented details regarding the proposed amendment to the existing agreement with the state transportation department. The amendment relates to the South Limestone Multimodal Traffic Study Project, which appears to be a transportation planning initiative examining multiple modes of transportation along the South Limestone corridor. The specific terms, financial implications, or scope changes contained within Amendment No. 2 were not detailed in the available meeting materials. Following the presentation and any discussion by board members, the authorization for Amendment No. 2 to the KYTC agreement was approved by the board. This approval allows the organization to proceed with the modified terms of the agreement with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for the continued work on the South Limestone Multimodal Traffic Study Project. ## Authorization of Amendment No. 2 to an Agreement with KYTC The board considered Authorization of Amendment No. 2 to an Agreement with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) for the Intelligent Transportation System / Traffic Control and Traffic Signal Upgrade Project. Key speakers during the discussion included P. King and Webb, who presented information regarding the proposed amendment to the existing agreement with KYTC. The amendment relates to an ongoing project focused on upgrading intelligent transportation systems, traffic control infrastructure, and traffic signal systems. This represents the second amendment to the original agreement with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, indicating continued collaboration on transportation infrastructure improvements. The board approved the authorization of Amendment No. 2 to the KYTC agreement, allowing the project to proceed with the modified terms and conditions outlined in the amendment. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## Authorization of Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with KYTC The board considered Resolution D, which sought authorization for Amendment No. 1 to an existing agreement with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) regarding Air Quality Planning and Mobility Coordination Projects. P. King and Webb served as the key speakers during the discussion of this agenda item. The amendment addressed modifications to the ongoing agreement between the organization and KYTC related to air quality planning and mobility coordination initiatives. While specific details of the discussion content and any concerns raised during deliberation were not captured in the available meeting records, the item proceeded through the standard resolution process. The speakers presented the necessary information regarding the proposed amendment to the existing KYTC agreement. The board ultimately **approved** the resolution, authorizing Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for the Air Quality Planning and Mobility Coordination Projects. This approval allows the organization to move forward with the modified terms of the agreement with the state transportation agency. The resolution's passage enables continued collaboration between the organization and KYTC on air quality and mobility coordination efforts under the amended agreement terms. ## Authorization of a Memorandum of Understanding with Windstream Kentucky East, LLC The council considered Resolution E, which would authorize a Memorandum of Understanding with Windstream Kentucky East, LLC regarding Projects Area 2 and 4 of the Downtown Lexington Streetscape Project. Webb served as the key speaker presenting this item to the council. The resolution specifically addressed coordination between the city and Windstream Kentucky East, LLC for utility work related to the downtown streetscape improvements in designated project areas. The Memorandum of Understanding appears to establish the framework for cooperation between the telecommunications company and the city as part of the broader Downtown Lexington Streetscape Project. Areas 2 and 4 represent specific geographic zones within the overall streetscape improvement initiative where Windstream's infrastructure and services intersect with the planned municipal improvements. The council approved the resolution without recorded opposition or significant debate. The authorization allows city officials to formalize the working relationship with Windstream Kentucky East, LLC to ensure proper coordination of utility services during the streetscape construction phases. This approval represents part of the city's systematic approach to managing utility partnerships during major infrastructure projects, ensuring that telecommunications services remain functional while downtown improvements proceed in the designated project areas. ## Authorization of a Resolution Regarding Kentucky Public Service Commission Case The council considered agenda item F, which involved authorizing a resolution regarding Kentucky Public Service Commission Case No. 2008-00427 pertaining to rates of Kentucky-American Water Company. Askew served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the resolution to the council for consideration. The resolution addressed the ongoing Public Service Commission case that dealt with rate matters involving Kentucky-American Water Company. The agenda item was presented as a resolution requiring council authorization, indicating that the city sought to take an official position or provide input on the water company rate case before the state regulatory commission. Such resolutions typically allow municipalities to formally participate in utility rate proceedings that may affect their residents and businesses. Following the presentation and any discussion that may have occurred, the council voted to approve the resolution. This approval authorized the city's participation in or response to Kentucky Public Service Commission Case No. 2008-00427 regarding Kentucky-American Water Company rates. The approval of this resolution demonstrates the council's engagement with state-level utility regulatory proceedings that could impact local water service rates and conditions for city residents and businesses served by Kentucky-American Water Company. ## Authorization to Submit the Proposed 2009 Consolidated Plan to HUD The council considered a resolution to authorize submission of the proposed 2009 Consolidated Plan to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This agenda item G would also grant authority to accept awards and authorize agreements with subrecipients under the plan. Key speakers on this item included P. King and O'Mara, who presented the proposal to the council. The Consolidated Plan represents the jurisdiction's strategy for addressing housing and community development needs using federal funding programs administered by HUD. The resolution encompasses several components beyond just plan submission. It would authorize city officials to accept any awards that result from the submitted plan and to enter into necessary agreements with subrecipient organizations that would help implement the plan's programs and services. The 2009 Consolidated Plan outlines how the community intends to use federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships, and other HUD funding to address local housing and community development priorities over the coming program year. The council approved the resolution, enabling staff to move forward with submitting the plan to HUD by the required deadline. This approval allows the city to pursue federal funding opportunities outlined in the Consolidated Plan and establishes the framework for potential partnerships with local organizations that would serve as subrecipients of federal funds. The authorization represents a critical step in the annual process of securing federal resources for affordable housing, community development, and public services that benefit low- and moderate-income residents. ## Authorization to Accept Donation from KYEM The meeting addressed agenda item H, which sought authorization to accept a donation from the Kentucky Division of Emergency Management (KYEM) on behalf of the Department of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management/911. Key speakers on this item included P. King and Bennett, who presented the resolution to the governing body. The donation was intended to benefit the local emergency management and 911 operations, though specific details about the nature, value, or intended use of the donation were not detailed in the available meeting materials. The resolution was presented as a straightforward authorization matter, allowing the department to formally accept the donation from the state emergency management agency. This type of inter-governmental cooperation is common in emergency management operations, where state agencies often provide resources, equipment, or funding to support local emergency response capabilities. Following discussion by the speakers, the resolution was approved by the governing body, enabling the Department of Public Safety's Division of Emergency Management/911 to proceed with accepting the donation from KYEM. This approval allows the local emergency management division to enhance its capabilities through the state-provided resources. The authorization represents routine administrative business related to emergency management operations and inter-governmental cooperation between state and local emergency response agencies. ## Authorization to Accept Award from KBEMS The meeting addressed agenda item I, which sought authorization to accept an award from the Kentucky Board of Emergency Medical Services (KBEMS) on behalf of the Department of Public Safety, Division of Fire and Emergency Services. Key speakers during the discussion included Dugger and Bennett, who presented the matter to the governing body. The resolution requested formal authorization to accept recognition from KBEMS, which would acknowledge the work and achievements of the local Department of Public Safety's Fire and Emergency Services Division. The item was presented as a straightforward administrative matter requiring official approval to accept the external recognition. The Kentucky Board of Emergency Medical Services is the state regulatory body that oversees emergency medical services standards and operations throughout Kentucky, making this award a significant acknowledgment of the department's performance and compliance with state emergency medical service standards. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion of this agenda item. The matter proceeded without debate, indicating consensus among the participants regarding the appropriateness of accepting the award. The resolution was approved, granting the requested authorization for the Department of Public Safety, Division of Fire and Emergency Services to formally accept the award from KBEMS. This approval allows the department to receive the recognition and any associated benefits or acknowledgments that come with the award from the state emergency medical services board. The acceptance of this award reflects positively on the local emergency services operations and demonstrates compliance with state emergency medical service standards and best practices. ## Authorization to Accept an Award from the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security The meeting addressed a resolution to authorize acceptance of an award from the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security on behalf of the Department of Public Safety, Division of Police, under the 2008 State Homeland Security Grant Program. P. King and Bennett served as the key speakers for this agenda item. The discussion focused on the formal authorization needed to accept the homeland security grant funding, which would benefit the local police division's operations and capabilities. The resolution was presented as a standard procedural matter requiring official approval to accept the state grant award. The funding comes through Kentucky's allocation of federal homeland security resources, distributed through the state's Office of Homeland Security to local law enforcement agencies. No significant concerns or opposition were raised during the discussion of this item. The authorization represents routine acceptance of available grant funding to enhance public safety capabilities and resources for the police division. The resolution was approved, allowing the Department of Public Safety's Division of Police to formally accept the award from the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security under the 2008 State Homeland Security Grant Program. This approval enables the department to move forward with utilizing the grant funds for their intended homeland security and public safety purposes. ## Authorization to Accept Deeds of Easement or Acquisition for Properties The board considered agenda item K, which sought authorization to accept deeds of easement or acquisition for properties related to the Storm Water Management Project in Cardinal Valley under the Sugar Mill Mitigation Project. Key speakers during the discussion included P. King and Taylor, who presented details about the proposed property acquisitions and easements necessary for the stormwater management infrastructure. The item involved accepting legal instruments that would grant the necessary property rights to implement stormwater management improvements in the Cardinal Valley area. These acquisitions and easements were identified as essential components of the broader Sugar Mill Mitigation Project, which appears to address environmental or infrastructure concerns in the region. The board approved the authorization, allowing staff to proceed with accepting the required deeds of easement or property acquisitions. This approval enables the continuation of the Storm Water Management Project by securing the necessary property rights and access needed for construction and maintenance of stormwater infrastructure. The resolution passed without apparent opposition, indicating board consensus on the necessity of these property acquisitions for the successful completion of the mitigation project. The approval represents a procedural step in the larger infrastructure improvement effort, ensuring legal access to properties where stormwater management facilities will be constructed or maintained. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the docket - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the summary of 3/24/09 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Amend the budget amendments - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the amended budget amendments - **Motion** — passed (0-2): Approve new business items A-K - **Motion** — passed (11-1): Request the Department of Law to draft an ordinance - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the NDF list for 4/7/09 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Place on the docket for April 9, 2009 Council Meeting a resolution for a rental agreement - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the Mayor’s Report - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Adjourn work session --- ## Full transcript I'm out. You got me now. You got me so I got three by nine. You really got me. You really got me. You really got me. You keep saying you've got something for me Something you call love but confess You've been a messin' where you shouldn't have been a messin' And now someone else is gettin' all your best These boots are made for walkin' And that's just what they do. And to order, if we could, please. The first item on the agenda is public comment on any issues that are on the agenda. Does anyone wish to address the council? All right. Seeing none, we'll move ahead. We have a docket for approval. Is there a motion? Second. Council Member Beard has moved approval of the docket. Council Member James has seconded that motion. Any discussion? All in favor please say aye. Aye. All opposed no. Motion carries. We also have a summary for approval today. Is there a motion? Move approval. Council member Gorton has moved the approval of the March 24th summary. Council member Myers has seconded the motion. Any discussion? All in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Budget amendments are the fourth item. Do you hear a motion? Is there a second? Councilmember Meyers has moved approval of the budget amendments. There's a second by Councilmember Beard. Any discussion? Councilmember Stenet. Thank you, Mayor. I'm passing around a sheet to address journal number 32001-02 on page 14 of our packet. At last month's budget and finance meeting, we had discussion about overtime costs, and particularly in the Division of Fire. And I know Commissioner Bennett's here as well as Chief Hendricks, and just want to have a quick discussion about why we need this $644,000 in addition to the overtime budget. Just some brief history before I ask Commissioner Bennett to come up. Normally, in years past, when I first got elected to council in the overtime budget for, I know, fire and police, we didn't put in there the full amount. We were putting in there half amounts in order to balance the budget. This mayor and this council two years ago said enough is enough of that, So we put in there the full amount into the operating budget. So we knew or tried to estimate the full amount, day one of the budget, so we wouldn't have to come back and do this. So I guess my questions today are some more centered around how do we get to this point. You see the chart on the overhead. It goes back to 2004. Every councilman has a copy of the overtime costs by month. and these are budget actual from the audited budgets, as well as what our current situation is that brought the necessity for the current budget amendment that's before us today. So first I'd like to start with Commissioner Bennett. I think it's just a couple of questions, and I apologize to Chief Hendricks and Commissioner Bennett not getting this chart sooner, but we're just able to get the numbers early this morning finalized on the chart on there. So I won't ask any questions off that chart particularly, but I guess my first question is, Commissioner Bennett, Are there any other divisions within public safety that will be coming to council this year for overtime? At this point, we don't anticipate any. No, sir. Okay. And then as regards to the overtime for fire police corrections, do you sign off on all those overtime costs, or is that more of a budget issue within the department they manage themselves? It's administered within each division, yes. Okay. So you don't anticipate any other budget amendments besides this one coming to council? No, sir. Okay. And then, Chief Hendricks, you want to briefly just kind of give us a rationale of where we're at on staffing, kind of give us an overview of where we came to this point. I know about a month ago we had a budget hearing. We discussed this in depth. I appreciate your feedback on it during that discussion. I think the whole council needs to understand how we got to this point and what are possible changes that if we don't pass this budget amendment today, what would be the consequences. So kind of give us a synopsis of where we're at. Well, it amounts to we are at, in order to maintain our minimum staffing, we are averaging six positions working on overtime every single day. So at $1,200 per person per position times six, that average adds up very quickly, as you might imagine. We started out without changing our structure or the services that we offered. We started out at a deficit of 19 last January. And since that time, there are, I believe, 19 more that have retired either on service or disability. I'm hoping this is accurate, a 38 at this moment. We have two more anticipated in the very near future. on disability as well. Have you, I guess, you know, in referring to the chart a little bit, I mean, it seems like this year we're way ahead of any year in the past. The past year is going back five years. The most overtime we've ever spent is $2.1 million, and now we're going to be close to $3 million in total overtime for the year if the projections hold out. What's changed? Is it the 35 officers that were short? Yes, sir. That's the simplicity of it. We're doing the same service, staffing the same companies with less people. So the backfill is increasing. One thing that has changed over time somewhat is that contract benefits have increased over time. Of course, the first contract in 2004, 2005, was a much greater expense to the government than had been in previous times, particularly in overtime and minimum staffing. And the new contract, while modified a little bit, is not significantly different than the last. So I know we've talked about this a month ago. I assume we've looked at every spot in order to pull guys back on duty, flex time, moving people from communities, the community service side back on the engines. We've looked at everything we can look at not to have this overtime. I mean, we're in a tough budget time right now. $644,000 is a big blow to next year's budget. And anything we can do as a council or as a community or as a government for the 90 days, all we're asking is 90 days. And six-minute a day, I think, is what you said we've got to find. Have we looked at every rock, every stone unturned to find six more additional officers a day? Actually, I said six men average per day. That's for a total calendar year. January and February, there were many days where we had nobody working on overtime, but nobody takes off. Christmas, Thanksgiving, the entire summer vacation, spring break, fall break, those numbers escalate sometimes to 12, 15, 20 or more people working on overtime. So, just to say that by robbing every support staff position we have and putting them to work, we still only believe that we could keep one company additionally supported. It would not allow us to staff as we are presently today. And so the alternative, if we don't approve this budget amendment today, is what? If the overtime ends, then we'll have to cut services. So there would be companies would be closing down. Very good. Mayor, thank you. Thank you. Council Member Stendid. Does anyone else have questions on this particular issue while we're into it? Council Member Lane. Good afternoon, Chief. Yes, sir. Yeah, I just had a couple of questions. As you probably know, we are having financial difficulties in the United States and in Fayette County and in Kentucky. And I thought part of our strategy was, you know, we're not going to be replacing employees. So we sort of have a furlough on new hirebacks right now. what can you do since you have a lesser number of people on staff right now to get us back in the line on our budget I mean when you say a company would use close down one engine or something what exactly are your options for getting us back on the budget well I'm not sure that there are any options. That's the last one that we've come to. As I said, if we drew every support person we had, it would keep perhaps one more company off due. That would only get three people per day. It still would not meet that average of six people per day on overtime. Well, I think the police department's been able to restructure some of their personnel in order to stay within budget and they're not over budget as far as overtime. Have you discussed this with them? Are they doing something that you could do maybe to keep us within budget? We've discussed financial matters regularly with the commissioner, with Chief Baston and myself. Our organizations are, the total organization is completely different and I wouldn't want to either answer for them or try to compete with them in terms of the way they staff and what things they have to keep on doing and what they don't. Our terms are pretty simple. We've got fire companies in stations, and we have the command staff that leads those people, and we have just a very few people, probably that number's about 15, I think, because we said we could come up with one company, and that would be to seriously diminish our ability to service our apparatus, to take care of our buildings, and to offer no services to the community as far as education and the Citizens Fire Academy and so on. Well, if these numbers are correct, we're going to be at $644,800 over budget for the year. If every one of the department heads in our government did that, and we're in a recession right now, we'd be in a mess. Yes. So that's why I'm asking, I mean, there's no creative approach you could take to maintain the service that we have, but we're scheduling it differently to reduce cost. No, sir. I don't know what that would be. Okay. And I've just been with many of my peers in Washington last week, And every fire chief in the country, or at least most of them, are facing very similar issues. And the fire service is just not staffed heavy. There aren't a lot of services that you can do without. Pretty much we just have companies that are staffed. And if funds are cut, then companies have to go out of service. Okay. Well, my last question is, you know, we're starting into the fourth quarter of our fiscal year, and this is just coming really to our attention. If you'd known that we were having this problem, why don't we know about it a little bit sooner? Sir, I assure you, everybody in the administration has known our plight from day one when we feared that we were going to be going into a deficit situation. Okay. Well, if you fall in that mode, I think it would be good to let the council know, too, because, I mean, I was aware of this maybe 30 days ago, and I was really sort of shocked that, you know, we'd sort of spiraled out of control and were this much in debt for this particular overtime area. And, I mean, this puts a severe, I mean, we've already got stress and strain in our budget. It's a budgetary issue, so when this comes up, you know, it's very frightening to me that, you know, know we've got to deal with this. So thank you very much. I share your concern, Mr. Lane, and I wish there were some other way. I just would remind you that at the same time, some other areas of government had either had a greater strength than we did. We were 19 positions short last year. So the guess of how much that would affect us in terms of overtime, we got together with the commissioner and we came up with a figure of 2.4 and we thought that that would cover it. And we had no idea how many more would leave. We lost 10 command staff in January due to retirements. Well, you know, we were aware of some of that. As I said, you know, we did budget more money for overtime this year in anticipation of meeting those needs. So the fact that we're still out, I mean, for example, in the month of October, now here again there may be some billing issue, but we were 474,000, if I'm reading this correct, for just one month for overtime. As I said, I just saw these numbers today, too, so I haven't had a chance to really review them. You know, that's a half a million in overtime in one month. That's sort of a frightening number also. Well, thank you, Chief. I don't want to beat up on you, but this is a serious issue as far as I'm concerned. Because, you know, money is very tight. And, you know, if we keep spending, overspending, what options do we have? I mean, at some point we're going to have to, you know, have a tax increase. And I don't think that anybody on council really wants to do that. We're expecting, you know, that we try to operate the government within our budgets that we've set. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner, this is probably for you. The Prisoners Activity Fund. And what has that typically been used from the past? Actually, I think it may be a misnomer in the way it's titled. That should actually be the phone revenue account at the detention center. It's just accumulated over the years. It's revenues that's generated from the phone calls the inmates make to outside recipients. And it's been accumulated over the years, and it was one of the issues that was addressed recently in the internal audit of the jail. It's been used basically for technology purchases at the jail, software development, repairs and maintenance, things of that nature. Okay. And there's no designated use for it at this time? Do you know what a balance is on that account at this time? I think it's in the neighborhood of $1.2 million, or at least that was the balance as of the date of the audit. Okay. That's all I have, Mayor. Thank you. Okay. Councilmember Lawless. Yes, you mentioned the educational programs that you all are doing. How much are those costing? What kinds are they? And do you have any clear data on how effective they are? Well, nationally they're extremely effective. It's a difficult thing to predict, but as far as interacting, I'm speaking in terms of all the schools that we enter, when any programs are done within the community. For example, this weekend, some of you may have seen at the Home and Garden Show that we had at least one person down there with our fire safety house distributing information and they had several things. They had about some grill safety, they had as well as the standard things that go on there. So we only have four people assigned to that entire division of community education and interaction, community relations. So that's one person per day and then one person on straight days. I'm wondering if some of those activities couldn't be done by community volunteers. If that's one person a day, and we're doing an average of how many six overtime people a day? Like the people that go through the fire academy. Let me be clear there. That one position per day that I'm talking about extends out to almost half a million dollars, but it takes roughly four people to fill that one position. So it's one day, two days, three days, three, then plus the time that all of those people have off duty. Well, I guess my point is a half a million dollars is a lot of money. and is that something that could be done by community volunteers who represent the fire department in that way? Or do they have to be trained firefighters? I would have to say that that's a possibility that could be explored. It couldn't be implemented immediately. And certainly even with just one person per day, you're just talking about the coordination of volunteers and people who might be willing to do something like that. And we do utilize civilian volunteers at every opportunity. We have the Citizens Fire Academy Alumni Association, who has been very kind in helping with several projects. In fact, some of them were down there at the Fire Safety House as well at the Home and Garden Show by way of example. We use community volunteers to help us with the, I forget the name of it, but it's the rural interface where you evaluate the wildland interspaces together with the fire risk in those. And we actually enlisted people in those neighborhoods to assist us with that. So it's not something that we're not doing at all. Well, I certainly would hope that you would look at expanding the use of volunteers. A half million dollars is an awful lot of money when we're looking at these kind of overtime costs. And I know there are a lot of agencies within and outside the government that use volunteers, well-trained volunteers extensively and that'd be first place I'd look at trying to cut down on some of your overtime. Thank you. Yes, Mayor. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. Chief, you have 35 vacant positions, is that correct? I believe it's closer to 38 minutes. Is it? Because where the money, is there money set aside for those positions because they're authorized, correct? I believe that's what human resources called personnel laps. Okay. But that money is, as I understand it, budgeted back in. It's estimated based on history, and it's actually budgeted into other areas. It's not sitting in a pot somewhere. Okay. Because it looked like in a way, I mean, if you look at the cost of an employee and the cost of your overtime, that possibly the overtime would be less because you don't have benefits and so forth that would be included in that money. And we've looked very closely at that. There is a breakover point. And actually for what it costs to pay one position on overtime, you can actually hire about two points something, somewhere between two and three people. Okay. So it actually is cheaper to hire? It depends. Up to a point, it's cheaper on overtime, as you clearly pointed out. But there is a break over point at which it's more expensive to work people on overtime. Do you have an academy or whatever training in process right now? We have 12 people that will graduate on July 2nd. Just 12? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. And those are not included in that 38 number. Okay. Okay. So you're still 38 in arrears after the 12th. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. I'm just trying to get my arms around the numbers a little bit. You all have done a nice job of summary. It had nothing to do with this, sir. Okay. You did it, Kevin. Okay. Okay. So between 2004, if I'm reading this right, between 2004 and the amended overtime number for this year, we're talking about doubling. Is that correct? From $1.5 million to $3 million. These numbers are from the actual budgeting and accounting division. That is where I got all the information. Okay. Employment has gone up, am I reading this correctly, from 476 in 04 to the adopted budget is 557. What's actual numbers for FTE? I believe we're at 510. So authorized is 557, but the number is 510? No, sir. The numbers, as I understand them, are we are authorized at 546. It was considered to be 558 because the intention of the mayor at the time, as I understand it, was to add another EC unit with 12 more people. As the economy downturned, that turned out not to be a possibility. So our authorized strength, to my knowledge, is 546. And so we're operating at that deficit of perhaps it's 508 instead of 510. Are we tracking the percentage of overtime to total compensation? Do we have numbers on that, trends on that? I do not. So we don't know the percentage numbers. No, sir. Not off the top of my head. What's the total for fires, 20-some million, isn't it? So it's better than 10 percent. 15 percent. No. 10 percent. No sir. Well it's going to be if it's 30 million gross, 3 million is 10 percent of 30. Our budget is approximately $51 million. So I'm thinking, but I'm not talking about the total budget, but just personnel, it's compensation. Well, 91 or 92 percent of our budget is personnel, so. Okay. Just a, okay, Chief, a question I've got. In considering alternatives, have you considered consolidation of bureaus, adjusting the span of control, span of authority between officers and front line. So you get more in, you know, common vernacular or common language would be more feet on the street. Have you looked at those? You said you just were in Washington, so lots of things are considered. The reason I'm asking that question is that the span of control would... Right. The spanner of control should be roughly five to seven in fire companies in our situation. And at this point, we are well within that, so far as we know, but we are not overstaffed in command, if I'm following your question. Well, those are questions that everybody has to ask all the time. So the question is, to what extent are those management issues being engaged in a self-examining way? We have looked at every possible place that we could not staff. And we're running three-person companies everywhere on a day-to-day basis. The numbers are telling us one thing. we're hearing something that is suggesting that there's been a 100% increase in overtime in four years. So if you were looking at that objectively, in my view at least, you'd be asking a lot of questions about how come that's occurring. And I think that, with the information, the limited information that we have, at least, That's my question. Well, between 2004 and today, we placed five more companies on duty. So there have been 69 additional people hired to staff those companies. So with each position or with each group of positions, each company comes with a certain increment of overtime. So, I mean, that wouldn't explain, obviously, 100 percent. But there are significantly more people employed here than there were before. Well, if I'm looking at the numbers correct, your employment is up around 15 percent and overtime is up 100 percent. So numbers are not, in my view, there's something irregular about those relationships. That's all I've got right now. Thank you, Chief. And something that may be confusing, we haven't added any, the only people that have been added throughout my administration, in fact through my 32 years of association with Lexington, have been to add companies. We've never had 10 additional firefighters just hired to do with and be dispersed. The only thing we've done is open stations and open companies with new people. And so that is driving a, you see what I'm saying? If your employment is up in four years, by 15%, and the overtime is up by 100%, what I'm hearing you say is the reason for that is that we've opened more stations. And I'm having trouble with that. I'm just saying that with the opening of more stations comes more staffing. Okay, so you would think that the relationship would be in a direct, it would be a direct relationship between the increase in employment and the rise in overtime. I don't know why there wouldn't be. I mean, there's something, maybe I'm missing something, but help me. I'm with you. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. And, you know, while this is a long-term problem that's going to continue to go, and as we move into this budget cycle, it ought to be a very interesting discussion. You know, I'm about is there a creative solve here for what we have in the interim. Chief, can you speak? Can we use the – I know there are 12 folks that are in the paramedics class that already have fire training. Can we use them to maybe fill the holes for the next 90 days and maybe get us through this? Is that a possibility at all? We believe it would put them at a serious disadvantage toward completing their paramedic. But it would be an option. I mean, if push came to shove, that might be an option that we could use. It might put them in a difficult spot as far as their training. But I'm just, as I say, for the next 90 days, you know, in this budget cycle, I think we as a council and as a government have to look at everything. And I didn't know if there was something that precluded those 12 from not being able to do it. Is there anything that you see that – They're not fully qualified by our current requirements. To serve on a fire truck at all? I mean, until they finish paramedic training, they can't serve on that fire truck, right? their pre-entry is not complete until they have completed the paramedic training as well. Could they be utilized? Could we hire people off the street and not train them, put them through a minimum of training of some sort? I'm sure we could, just like other organizations within the government have much greater training than is required by the state. So it's not my recommendation. If that's what you want me to do, I'll do that tomorrow. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Chief. I want to take up where Councilman McCord just left off. Are you saying that the 12 folks that have gone through the fire training that are, they've received all their certifications and everything to be a firefighter, what they don't have yet is their certification to be an EMT. Is that correct? No, sir. They have EMT certification. do not have paramedic certification. Okay, so they can write a... Okay, explain to me the difference. An EMT course is about 140 hours of training which qualifies a person to be a basic operator of an ambulance in the state of Kentucky. Paramedic is about a 1500 hour certification that allows the person to do the things that we do here as far as advanced life support skills which would include things like defibrillation, intubating the lungs, administering medications, bringing the emergency room to the patient's home or to their bedside. So these 12 have the EMT, they don't have the paramedic? That's correct. So you're saying that it would not help you to utilize these 12 one day a week to alleviate this overtime situation? And if they're on a truck one day a week, how severely will that curtail their paramedic training? And again, we're looking at a short period of time, not an extended period of time. We've not looked at that particular option. Okay. They're not considered graduates at this point. I understand that we set that standard, and that standard is extremely high, and that's the way we want it to always be. But I think everybody in the room is looking for a short-term solution to work around this budget crisis. And so the question is, if they were allowed to ride on a truck one day a week, how seriously would that curtail their training to get their paramedic certification? I'm assuming you mean by one day, 24 hours. If so, that would be 24 of the 40 hours that they are spending in class currently. So it would significantly delay it. I suppose that we could look at some model like that, but we believe that while they're in this training mode that they have an important job to complete, which is completing training, so that they'll be better qualified. And we've just felt to this point that it would be short-sighted to perhaps cause them to stumble, to not be able to certify, and not be able to fully serve. There's another way to look at that as well, and that is that while it might seem short-sighted to have them prolong their training to get their paramedic certification, it also might be seen as short-sighted to overwork the rest of the fire so that they may stumble because of exhaustion or sleeplessness or those kind of things. So I think there's two ways to look at that. So here's what I'd like you to do. I want to make a motion that we have you come before budget and finance at the next meeting. Yes, sir. with the plan to address this shortfall and how we might be able to use those 12 and any other opportunities that you can find to address this shortfall for the next 90 days. So moved. Just a moment. Let me try to clarify. Are you suggesting that we do that in lieu of approving this item so as to amend the budget amendments to delete this item? or are you talking about making the change and having the chief attend the next budget and finance committee? Can I ask a question to the commissioner? Logistically, how much damage, we'll say, would that cause if we made the change or we didn't make this budget amendment and looked at post-haste bringing those 12 on to alleviate the overtime situation for that short term? I'm not sure I understand your question, Mr. Myers. I was thinking about something else here for a minute. Okay, the mayor is asking, do I want to, in effect, table this budget amendment until such time that you and the chief can come together with a plan to address it without the budget amendment? If we do it that way, what type of hardship does that cause? I would recommend you go ahead and approve the budget amendment today to go on the docket. It's going to take two readings anyway, and I believe the next Budget and Finance Committee meeting is before second reading would occur. Okay. So I would recommend that we move that way. If you decide to pull it off at second reading, you have the option to do that. Okay. I like your wisdom. That clarifies the motion. Thank you. Councilman Myers, we do not have another Budget and Finance Committee meeting after the budget process is complete. After next Tuesday, we enter into the budget deliberations, and we do have meetings, but we do not have an official budget and finance meeting that we normally have. So our next meeting is April 16th, two days after the mayor's budget address. That being the case, what do you recommend as the chair of budget and finance? I mean, you could call a special meeting, but I know we've got a lot of meetings on the table. You know, in the short term, we've got 90 days left. I'd like to have had this conversation 30 days ago. I think the bigger issue is how we're going to go forward and manage overtime in the future and through this budget process. I think we've got to swallow this bullet and get it done. But we've got to really address the issue of management going forward and how we're going to divvy out overtime. And if there's money in the budget, 35 officers that we budgeted for, where is that money? It's there. We should be using it in spending. Otherwise, it's going back in personnel laps into the general fund, and we're not serious about having 545 officers. So we've got to make that choice as a council for this budget and going forward. So are you asking the question where that money is right now? I know where it is. It's in there. It's in personnel labs. Not well, yes and no. And the budget office can probably do a better job explaining this than I. Of the 35, 38 vacancies, whatever the actual number is today, 19 of those were not budgeted at all. So that money is nowhere in the budget. That's not what we passed as a council. We passed 545 officers. You passed 545 as authorized rent, but you didn't fund all 545. Nineteen of those were held open from day one of the fiscal year, unfunded. Okay. The balance of that other 19 was funded, has been vacant, the money has not been spent. However, if you recall, there were also a lot of retirements and other types of attrition that were projected that didn't happen. So what's happening in order to balance the budget this year, some of what would otherwise be personnel laps that may be available for you to spend is having to be used to plug that hole. So there's not money available there to spend it. The other portion that's being addressed by overtime that the chief mentioned, but I'm not sure it was very clear, is we've got 38 vacancies today. That means we've got 38 holes we don't have bodies in. We also have the 12 people in training. That's 12 more people that have not been on the ground fighting fire. So basically, we've been trying to cover for 50 vacancies this year, not just the 38. We had the other 12 people hired. They're on the payroll, but they're not benefiting us day to day on the street. Okay. Commissioner, I have a question for you. Yes, sir. Those 12 people, you said they're not on the ground, boots on the ground, fighting fires. Yes, sir. With the training they have, are they able to do that today? They may not be a paramedic, but a paramedic does a different job than fighting a fire. Correct. They could fight fires today. So then. That's my understanding. So do you have any reservations about taking those 12 and rotating them in? I understand they need to get their perimax training, and that's a standard that we've set. We want to keep that. So I understand that. But do you have reservations about at least rotating them in a day a week or what have you? I'd like to look at what impact that's going to have on their projected completion date for their training, what effect, if any, the collective bargaining agreement has on extending that, what effect that has on what would otherwise be their ability to complete their probationary period that they're currently under before they become a permanent employee. So logistically, I'd like to look at making it work. If it can work, yes. Okay. What I'd like to do then is change my motion to ask you to get those three questions answered and any other questions that you may have, and then if you can bring that back to next week's work session instead of doing budget and finance. So moved. And then if I can clear up, and we go ahead and pass this budget amendment onto the docket. Okay. I think the, Mr. Parliamentarian, you're wearing lots of hats today, but I think the best way to catch that is to move to amend the budget amendments by adding a request that Commissioner Bennett report back on this particular one next week. Fair enough? Okay. With the information discussed. All right. Yes, sir. So the motion on the floor then is that amendment. Is there any discussion of that proposed amendment? Council Member Lutz and then Beard. Thank you, Mayor. I'll support this motion as long as it's understood by both the Commissioner and the Chief and Councilmember Myers that we're not asking you to go off and come back in a week and cut costs at any price. I think the bottom line here is public safety, And I don't want to support a motion that could send a wrong message that says find ways to save money no matter what. I'm a little concerned about micromanaging the division of fire from the horseshoe. I think it's reasonable to look at these possibilities, but I hope it's understood all around that what we're not talking about here is jeopardizing public safety, is compromising our ability to provide this absolutely essential public service function. Thank you, Mayor. I think Council Member Myers had a quick response in Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. I'm not quite sure what I said makes you think that anybody's going to compromise public safety or the safety of these officers. I asked the commissioner if he had any reservations about taking those 12 officers that have been trained, firefighters, and putting the boots on the ground one day a week. Certainly didn't ask him to do anything that would compromise anything. So I don't really understand your comment. But, again, what the motion was was to ask. He came up with the questions that he needed answered. I've asked him to bring those answers to us and nothing more. I'm not questioning your intention. I want to make what I am wanting to do is make sure we all understand what we're asking and in what context. And actually, we haven't asked him to cut any corners. We just asked him to answer those three questions and bring the information back. That's all I asked him to do. Council Member Beer. Thank you, Mayor. Just a quick piece of math, but one day a week gives you the equivalent of 1.7 people, not 12 people. And that isn't going to fix $644,000 in overtime. It's not going to fix much of anything, to be perfectly honest. I think the thing that everybody needs to understand is that the fire department functions out of fire stations, and there are fire companies that man fire stations. And I'll use an analogy of 24 or 26, however many stations there are. if they were airplanes and you were short a stewardess, you don't fly one airplane next to another and ask her to jump so that she can serve in the other airplane. These are all discrete pods. And over time, you can move people around within them, but you've got to replace those people, or you've got to fly short. And I don't think anybody gets a sense of that. it's a little bit different than the police department where they have their own discrete pods to which are their cars are issued. Thank you. Okay the motion on the floor is Council Member Myers motion to amend the budget amendments by asking Commissioner Bennett to report back next week. Is Is there any discussion on that amendment? All right. This list may have changed. If everybody on the list wants to discuss that, we'll go down the list. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Well, I was tracking on what Mr. Blues said and hoping that we aren't going to a place where the council is micromanaging public safety. And I'm not implying that Council Member Myers was trying to do that at all. But I think unless we know exactly what firefighters and paramedics are doing, then it's very difficult for us to make the decision to fill the hole or plug the hole. And I only want to know in this motion, which I'm going to go ahead and support, what the upside is going to be and what the downside is going to be. Because there is going to be a downside to interrupting these trainees. And it could be cost. As you said, Commissioner, there could be several points that would be real negatives for us. And I hope that we'll go ahead and approve the motion, but also approve the budget amendment so that we can move forward. And the more important question is what Council Member Stenet brought up, and that is a long-term plan for public safety and overtime. And this is not a new issue. It's been around for many years, and we need to somehow attend to it. And, of course, I believe that one way to attend to it, which we're not going to be able to do in our new budget, is to fill the positions. We need to have public safety at a strength that will fill our positions so that we can actually offer full public safety services to our citizens. And that costs a lot of money, and it takes a big commitment. So I'll be supporting the motion, but I'll also be looking forward to what you bring back in terms of the upside and the downside. Vice Mayor Gray. I'll yield. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You know, I didn't bring this issue up today to talk about performance because the performance of your department chief has been outstanding. The rank and file, your management, things have been outstanding in our fire department. The issue we have here today, and it kind of disgusts me to hear the word we're trying to micromanage public safety, when we're the ones that approve the budget. We're the ones that make budget decisions. And that's what this discussion should be about today because we can't keep going down this path, period. We can't keep going down this path. This is about public safety. It is our number one priority, in my opinion. And that's why we're talking about today, because as Vice Mayor says, it's a big deal. This is huge. It's not just a number on paper. It's a big deal. This could mean layoffs next year across government. This could very well mean that if revenues don't hold. So it's a big deal, and that's why we're talking about today. That's why Council Member Myers' motion, I do support, because we've got to open up the box. We've got to be more creative. But, Council Member Gordon, you are right. It is a long-term problem. We've got to start addressing it, just like we're doing the sewers, the stormwater, things like that. So it's a long-term problem. Chief, you have a lot of support up here to do that. Now is the time to help you fill these positions. We've got to figure out a way, once and for all, to stop moving public safety dollars around, because it is 50-something percent of our budget is public safety, and it should be. But we can't keep going down this path on overtime, and that's why I want to address it today. you shouldn't have to be coming back here and asking for overtime dollars. You shouldn't have to. We should be able to budget appropriately in the beginning so that you don't have to make these type of requests and come and do what we're doing today. So that's the goal here is to fix that problem so that you're giving the amount of money to manage your division and do it appropriately so we don't keep going down this path every single year. And you've been around a while. You know we've done this a lot. So I thank you for being here and taking these questions, Commissioner Bennett. I thank you for being here and answering these questions. But public safety is a big deal. And that's why we're having a discussion not to micromanage it in any way, shape, or form. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Lane. Council Member Stenet said a lot of things I wanted to say, but I just want to go on the record. Public safety is the number one obligation of our city government. That's what we're here for. That's our number one priority. And under no circumstances do I want to have less than the best service available. But at the same time, I feel like we provided adequate funding in this budget, and it's an issue of managing that money to get the most out of it. I think that's what we need to look at to make sure that that's been done. So when you come in to the meeting next week, that's what I'd like to see, how you spent that, you know, several million dollars worth of overtime, where it's gone and how well we've handled the expenditure of those funds. Then maybe the council, this will all be cleared up and let's say you did a great job and there was no way we could have done better. But on the other hand, maybe we'll see opportunities where we could do better and make things more efficient. And right now, just like Council Member Stenet said, our opportunities are very limited, and I don't want to lay anybody off. That's the last thing I want to do. But everybody in government has got to work together as a team to stay on budget. And I think that's the message we're trying to get across today. Thank you all. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. I wanted to ask Council Member Stenet as the chair of the budget and finance if we could have budgeting provide us with a little bit more detail, like the funded positions, the number of funded positions, because evidently there's some cross-communication of what the total number was, how many they budgeted for retirees, how many were expected. Maybe there was an overage or something, but it seems like there's some – is anybody else seeing some unbalance in the number, the bottom line number, as far as personnel is concerned? and maybe there is some money sitting somewhere in a personnel account that we can utilize, but we need a more detail that specifically deals with the personnel retirees' overtime, funded and unfunded vacancies. Well, the bottom right-hand corner came directly from budgeting. This is what they're operating under, so I don't know about the budgeted overtimes in 19 or so that we expected to retire, how many there were in there. We can get that, I'm sure, but this came from budgeting. All these numbers came from budgeting, so this is what they're showing is authorized versus 510 active, and you can see above there what percent broken down as to firefighters, lieutenants, and captains, how that's broken down. That's where those numbers came from, but, yeah, I'd be glad to do that. Okay. Thank you. The motion on the floor is Council Member Myers' motion to amend the budget amendments by requesting Commissioner Bennett to report back next week on options for dealing with overtime, I think is the short of it. Yes, and then the three questions specifically that he came up with and any additional. All right. Vice Mayor Gray. This is just a point of clarification. On the questions I was asking about the percentage of compensation, the rise in overtime as a percentage of growth, are those questions going to be able to be addressed as well? We will try. Let me take a stab in a very broad way at addressing some of them now. As you look at this year by year, there are going to be natural increases because of the increases in the number of people and the increases in the compensation for those people. There's also going to be increases in fluctuations based on how many vacancies there happened to be at the time. And if you'll recall, we said a while ago they're functionally operating with 50 vacancies right now. That's roughly 10% of their force. This is substantially less than 10% of their personnel budget. Now, I realize some of the higher paid people are exempt from overtime. But still, it doesn't appear at first blush to be that far out of line, given the number of vacancies that we're dealing with right now, and given the fact that they weren't flush with people to provide the services they've been providing going into the budget. We didn't, going into the FY09 budget, we didn't budget enough overtime to cover 50 vacancies because, frankly, I don't think either of us expected to have that many vacancies. We knew we would have some. We knew we were going to have the 19 going in. But I don't think we expected anywhere near the number that we have today. That's part of the reason for the shortfall. If you're going to provide the services, you're either going to provide them with funded, filled positions, or you're going to pay for them with overtime. And when you have to pay for them with overtime, it gets very expensive. So what we'll come back to you with, I hope, and Chief and I will work on it between now and then, is a more clear explanation of where did the overtime go? Why did we have to spend this much overtime and what did we spend it on? Because backfillings, vacancies, and running the fire trucks every day is not the only thing we have to deal with. We have a substantial amount of in-service training that we have to provide these people every year, which is done on overtime. So there's a lot of things that come into play. And hopefully we'll be able to give you a much clearer picture of why we are where we are. It doesn't change where we are, but hopefully it will put it in a little better perspective for you. All right. Council Member Stennett. One quick question. How does the collective bargaining contract impact over time? In terms of? I mean, what I'm thinking has happened since 2004 is, you know, we have a collective bargaining agreement. fire stations since then, 23 and 22, which needed the 60-something additional officers. Both those together have impacted the double-digit jump in overtime or the doubling of overtime because the bargaining contract mandates certain days have to be taken off, correct? It mandates the number of slots that we have to have available for people to take off, yes. And wasn't that dramatically different from previous contract? Yes. So, I mean, that has to be into what you bring back to us tomorrow as to how many of those there are mandated because we have to fill the or allow time off. And just the opening of those two stations didn't require 60 additional people. That was part of it. But you'll recall I think there were at least two additional EC units, front line EC units added during that period. So that was extra people too. So it's a combination of things that added up to that number. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. All right. Motion on the floor is Council Member Myers. Any discussion further? Those in favor of amending the budget amendments to add a request to Commissioner Bennett to come back next week with answers to the questions Council Member Myers raised, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. We're now ready to discuss the budget amendments as amended. Any further discussion on those items? Council Member James. Yeah, if you want to stay there, Commissioner, my question is on journal 31902-03. It has to do with $3,800 from the general fund or recognizing revenue to the general fund, I guess. I'm sorry, which number was that? 31902-03. It's one, two, three, fourth on our list. Okay. Do you know where that revenue from where it came? I do not. You, Chief? I don't know. I do not. We'll get that answer for you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. That's... Oh, hold on. That might not be all I have. on journal 31505-06 this has to do with public works the 2009 bond fund about cheap side improvements it says recognizing bond proceeds just wanted to get a little bit more clarification on this if there's anybody that can answer that I'm not familiar with I thought the resolution 752-2008 was a reimbursement resolution, so I'm trying to figure out if the bonds have been sold or... Would you mind repeating your question? Sure. I'm trying to figure out. It says recognizing bond proceeds by resolution 752-2008, and I thought 2008 was a reimbursement resolution. So I'm just trying to figure out how that flow of money actually happens. I'm not familiar with the wording. I really think that the proper person to answer this is Bill O'Mara, but I don't see him here. Okay. And the money is for the temporary improvements for Cheapside Park that are going on. And I believe it's being funded by cash from the general fund until they're ready to sell the bonds. Council Member James, I'll ask Mr. Green to get Mr. O'Mara to come down. I'll just defer until that time. All right. Thank you Mike. That's all I have. Thank you. Any further questions or comments with regard to the budget amendments? And all in favor of approving the budget amendments as amended, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. We're now down to the new business items. Is there a motion to approve? Move approval. Council member Gorton has moved the approval of the new business items and councilmember Myers a seconded that motion is there any discussion council member James thank you mayor my question is on item E has to do with the downtown streetscape project and really has to do with the UDAG payment so maybe I'll I'll defer that until Mr. O'Mara gets here. Mr. Webb would probably not be able to answer that. It's related to budget only. So I'll defer. Thank you. I think he may be in a position to answer that question. He may not. I was going to ask for what the balance is of the UDAG fund. You don't know that. I'm not sure Mr. O'Mara will be able to answer that one unless he brings his UDAG. We may need to table that. I mean, I may make a motion to table that until such time because there's some other projects that are going on. I just want to make sure that this will not hinder those other projects in the UDAG fund. Mr. Kelly may have some information for you. subject to correction this is being funded out of the UDAG allocation that y'all moved last year for design on the streetscape project so this is not from any other UDAG this is the money that was allocated by the council for the streetscape design Was that money from UDAG moved to the streetscape fund, a streetscape fund? Yes. Okay, because the wording here in the language says funds are available in the UDAG repayment funds. That's that bucket of money that y'all moved from the UDAG pool, if you will, that was available for the purpose of the streetscape design. Okay, it doesn't read that way. So if that could be modified, then maybe at that point it could be considered. It doesn't read that way. It just reads like it comes from the UDAG funding. Yes. And not the allocation. And we will verify that for you. Okay. To make sure I'm telling you correctly. Okay. If you could do that prior to the first reading, that would be great. Sure. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Okay, Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I had a question on Item F, and I know Mr. W.L. Wilson is here. This is the rate case for the increase in rates for Kentucky American Water. Thank you for being here. Have you been involved in the discussions? We have. I mean, you personally have? Yes. Okay, good. I had a couple of questions. Does this rate case apply to all of Kentucky Americans' customers? It does. So every county that's involved will need to be signing off on it? Is that correct? Not every county will intervene. We do intervene to have some say, particularly with regard to our fire hydrants. But what we do make sure is that each customer is charged the same tariff rate, regardless of what district they're in, with Kentucky American Water. So if the rate is approved by all of the parties, it will apply to all of their customers? That's correct. Okay. I guess that's really what I was wanting to know. On page 33 of the packet and 34, there's a little bit of detail about this rate case. On the second paragraph, on page 33, the second paragraph of the text of the Department of Law's memo to the mayor and council members, It says that Kentucky American Water Company has requested additional revenue to meet increased operating costs and to pay for system improvements. I'm curious, since they are guaranteed a rate of return for their stockholders, if there's no mention of that, and I didn't know if that's built into this. Does the rate increase include any increase in the rate of return for the stockholders? Do you know? It is. And it's up to the Public Service Commission to determine what is a reasonable rate of return. So in these negotiations, there was no requested rate of return? Was there a requested rate of return, which I think there usually is, isn't there? There is, but that was not part of the negotiation. But is it your sense it's included in the rate increase? Right. Now, what that rate of return will be, I don't know. So if we vote for this, we don't know what kind of money we're paying the stockholders. Right. That's correct. It seems to me that's kind of an important question. Well, it is, and that's the responsibility really of the Office of the Attorney General and the Public Service Commission to determine what is a reasonable right. And one of the primary issues that they had to deal with was whether they would obviously they could get a return on the expenditure for the plan and the pipeline. And, of course, that's a primary concern. And the question was how to get that right, whether to get it all at one time or whether to get it incrementally. So will the rate case that many of us have talked to the folks from Kentucky American because they've updated us on the progress of the water treatment plant. And so we're aware that in a year they'll come back for another rate increase. Are you, I'm just curious, are we, are you saying that each time that rate of return for the stockholders will be included, but we may not know what it is? You'll probably know what it is. Basically, in a nutshell, what they're asking for right now, approximately 45% of it is for the plan and the pipeline. A smaller portion is for pipes, pumps, and valves in other locations. Another is for chemical costs. A small amount is for increased electrical costs. And then another portion is basically for labor operations, maintenance, and other costs. Well, it's kind of an important question for me. Given our economy, anyone in this economy who has investments as a stockholder most generally has seen those investments drop by 30, 40, or 50 percent. And so I'm surprised that this is coming to us for approval or sign-on when we don't know what kind of rate of return for the stockholders it includes. I'll try to find that out and come back to the Council with that information. I know it is a, as with you, it is probably a primary concern. It's probably a primary issue. Obviously, Kentucky American wants to provide the highest rate of return they can, but the Office of Attorney General and the Public Service Commission has exactly the same concerns that you do with regard to the economic climate presently and the rate of return. The two things, one is the rate of return for the investment, but the other is the cost to the consumer so that in these times of economic hardship, there's not a massive increase all at one time. And it's not, and hopefully the economy will become healthier as time goes by as the incremental payment for the water plant takes place. I will try to find out an actual rate of return for the investor. I appreciate that very much. Throughout your discussions on the rate case, has there been any discussion of how many customers along the pipeline there are at this point? There have been. I can't tell you. Well, it seems to me a month or two ago it was just us, LFUCG, Lexington. And so I was curious about whether in this discussion of raising the rates, there was any focus on the fact that there are no other customers except for us. You know, when we first talked about this, there were going to be customers, potential customers up and down the line, but you're not remembering. Right. No, it's not. And that's been an issue of confusion, as a matter of fact, that it was being built to service other customers. But it's primarily for Lexington to ensure our water supply for at least the next two or three decades. Okay. Well, I will appreciate being able to look at those stockholder return numbers. Okay. I'll be happy to do that. And I just want to make everybody aware that the Public Service Commission is having an open forum this evening at 5.30 at Bryan Station High School. So anybody that wants to go out there and make a public comment, they're certainly welcome to and I'll be out there as well. Thank you very much Mr. Wilson. Mr. Member Beard. Let me ask another question I guess it's the methodology to determine when we talk about the cost of the plant and the pipeline and the rate of return. Those Those items are on various depreciation schedules for Kentucky American. And it's a depreciation portion only that should be, rate of return should be applied to. It shouldn't be the capital, I would think. And I'm obviously no expert in how the Public Service Commission digs into things, but you You think basically that they're enabling themselves to sell more water to us and other entities. And I would think that would be where the rate of return should be applied as opposed to the costs of, huge costs I would assume they would have for a pipeline and a water treatment plant but some of those would be a pipeline good lord it could be on a 50-year depreciation schedule and the cost in and of itself would be relatively minor won't say it's minor but it'd be relatively minor so I would be interested in how they make those determinations as far as the PSC is concerned if they approach it the same way I just mentioned. Oh I'll find out. Thank you. Thank you Mayor. Thank you. Any further questions for Mr. Wilson? Vice Mayor Gray. This would just be a point of clarification. It doesn't need to be for the whole council. I'm curious about the current usage numbers. You probably don't have those, but I think it links to them. I do have those. Demand and usage, you do have those? And 2008. And exactly, some projections of future years and projections of growth. I'm curious with it. One of the things that we're dealing with across the country is with the declining demand, especially industrial users like Toyota, for example, and suppliers, what that's representing in terms of demand on the utility. You got those now? I don't want to delay it today, but I think it's consistent with some of the themes of Council Member Gordon's questions. And those were some of the questions we asked, specifically that we asked to Kentucky American Waters. So I'll get you there. Thank you. Any further discussion on the new business items? I would note that Mr. O'Mara is here now if you'd like to follow up with him. Please. Yeah. It was item E that I had a question about as well as one under the budget amendment, but I'll just at this time deal with item E. My question was, I know that there was an original allocation or appropriation of UDAG funding for Streetscape. And I wondered if that went into a specific Streetscape account, or is it just being pulled down from the UDAG fund for Streetscapes? You don't know. I came prepared to answer a different question. Okay. I had two questions. You must have been on your way during the second one. Hopefully the second one I'm ready to answer. Okay. Well, if you can find out for item E, The issue is there's another project that's coming down the pike that council had agreed to, and that was the ADA lift for the government center that was supposed to be funded out of UDAG funding. And I want to make sure that this is not pulling from a balance in the UDAG account and is coming solely out of that streetscape account. But then again, I don't even know if there was a streetscape account or if money was just being pulled down from UDAG for streetscape improvements. So if you can verify that, like the balance of the UDAG account, and maybe get with Commissioner Cole to find out what the projections are looking like for the ADA lift, because I don't want to pull from that. We don't have any other sources of money for the lift, but we've got lots of other sources for streetscape. So I don't want to pull from that if we have availability elsewhere. So I guess we'll have to vote on that. And then, okay. Before we leave that issue. The money for the streetscape is actually in its own line. So when they pull for streetscape that's in its own line, it's not affecting the, quote, UDAG fund balance. Otherwise, we would have to have done a budget amendment. So we are not affecting the ADA line or any funds that were left over from remaining projects. Okay. Okay. Do you know who prepared the synopsis that's included in our new business? because it says funds are available in the UDAG repayment funds. They just want you to know the source of funding for that change order. That was the purpose of that line. But that wouldn't have been that source if it's in a streetscape. It's still the same thing. The money is from the UDAG repayment. That is the fund that it's coming from. That was the purpose of that line. Okay. If there's different language you'd be more comfortable with, I'm sure we can modify it. It's not really about my comfort. It's just for future reference as you start looking at when we go back. I go back and look at all of my new business from the past year when I'm looking at how things are spent. So just for everyone's general reference to give reference to get some language that's consistent for a fund and then maybe stick with that. That way is we can start kind of keeping a tally of what that is and it doesn't get confusing. Thank you. Do you want to hold my budget amendment question? Is that the question for Mr. O'Meara? Yes, it is. Yeah, go ahead. It had to do with fire, let's see, journal 31902-03. Is that what you were prepared to talk about? I thought we were going to talk about journal 31505-06. Oh, yeah, that's another one. Okay. Cheapside Park improvements by recognizing bond proceeds. Can you explain what that means a little bit? Well, that means that it was approved in the capital improvement plan that there was a reimbursement resolution, but we have yet to sell the bonds, and so we're now ready to have a budget line for this construction, and this is establishing the budget for that prior to the bonds being sold. So it's just to, it's not accepting any money at this time, it's just providing for a line for that money to be accepted? I don't know what you mean by accepted. I know that the project has been approved by the council with a reimbursement resolution, and so now there have been bids and work is now ready to be begun. And so in order to charge, we have to establish a budget line for it. The ultimate funding is going to come when we sell bonds for all of these projects bundled together. Okay. So the money comes now, the $50,000 comes from? Our cash balance. Okay. Where does it say that? Where does it say that the money comes from cash balance? shouldn't there be something that says comes from the general fund well in accounting we're going for where the ultimate financing is coming from and it's being approved to be financed by a bond we're choosing when to do the total bond not for each project but all the bonds together to get best market so this is an early project before the bonds have been actually sold. Other projects may happen after the bonds have been sold. So the selling of the bond is timed for cash flow purposes. The city then either pre-funds through cash balance or draws down from proceeds from the bond depending on when that project occurs. Does that help clarify? It does, except for I'm still missing where it shows that it's coming from the general fund. If I look at the, there's two, the second and third that dealt with fire from the prisoner's activity, it showed that there was money coming from and money going to. And so it was easy to track that. On this one, it says recognizing bond proceeds, but it doesn't say anything about there's cash being used from the general fund. Well, we establish in budgeting a separate bond fund, which is separate from the general fund for accounting purposes. And so I believe this is technically correct. It is being established in the bond fund. And so fund accounting is properly being noted. Now, if we have to write the check to pay the contractor prior to the selling of the bonds, then that's a cash flow issue separate from the accounting within a specific fund. Okay. I kind of understand that. I'll look for the $50,000 forthcoming then. Okay. I'm glad you didn't ask me to repeat it. Okay. Is the $50,000 all that's needed for that project? I would defer to Mike to answer that question. We have a very large streetscape project that goes all the way down. Yeah, that's a $90 million. This is one specific part of it that's happening early. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner, what does the $50,000 pay for? That was an amount that I asked them to move over and make it available to us for temporary work being done on cheap side. Don't believe we will need the entire $50,000. We're actually doing that work on a unitized contract. that's available to us. And we did a comparison of bids. Actually, what the contractor is doing should take about around $32,000. Can't give you the exact figure. And then there are some pavers. We had, I believe it was Clay Ingalls, providing pavers, and we got a bid for a separate contractor to do the installation of those, which we are paying that separate contractor. And we're paying a reduced rate for the pavers that will go in the center. And that should complete what we would do down there until we do the final update of Cheapside Park. What's the total amount for the full cheap side? The final estimate, the last estimate, the original streetscape estimate was $1.9 million. And please let me use approximate. I looked at that today, but I can't quote, you know, but it's somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.9 million. that design has not gone to construction documents so we don't really have any more than a rough estimate at this time. And you can find that in the Streetscape Master Plan. Each one of those projects has that estimated amount. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. Let's move ahead now with any further discussion on the items of new business. And those in favor of approving the items of new business, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Mayor, no on F. No on F as well, Mayor. Thank you. Madam Clerk, if you will note those two dissents. All other items are approved unanimously. And those items are approved as well. That concludes the discussion of new business items. We're now ready for the Budget and Finance Committee report. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. We had our last Budget and Finance meeting on March the 24th. We started off the meeting with our overall financial report, and I'll briefly give that to Council and to those viewing right now. Currently, total revenues year-to-date are exceeding a little bit about where we budgeted. We budgeted $178 million. We're currently at $181 million for a difference of $2.9 million in the positive right now through the month of February. It's important to know these numbers are just through February. Total personnel expenses year-to-date are $116,200,000. Budgeted, we're $116,999. So we are actually running a deficit of $799,000 year-to-date. This is important to note from previous month in, we were up on personnel expenses of $3.7 million. We're actually down now on personnel expenses of $799,000. Operating expenses, we are also below budget operating expenses through the month of February, $791,000. For a total of $36,310,000, the budgeted number was $37,101,000. And last but not least, total expenses year-to-date are $161,475,000, budgeted $170,942,000. And so we're down $9.4 million for total expenses year-to-date. Now it's important to keep in mind, too, of that $9.4 million, $6.3 million of that is debt service that we had planned on issuing bonds for that we have not issued. So there is some savings there through the total expenses. next on our budget discussions were the schedule for the committee of the whole as was passed two Thursday nights ago we changed the mayor's budget address from April 7th to April 14th so mayor next Tuesday is the glorious day we can't wait also on that schedule the next budget or committee of the whole meeting will be April 16th next Thursday evening to discuss the mayor's proposed budget that's different from the norm so make sure council members If you don't have our schedule, we'll be happy to email you our calendar that we approve for the budget and finance meeting. But our first budget meeting for the council once we get the budget is April 16th, a week from this Thursday at 4 p.m. here in the chamber. So we'll need to start tackling our taking the budget over from the mayor. I know he'll be happy to get rid of it and give it to us to balance going forward. Next, we talked about the council links, try to improve some of that process this year. We did set a reporting format. We will be reporting out our council links a little earlier beginning on May 14th. The order of reporting out as divided up amongst the links, general services will go first, followed by public safety, probably those will be the only two we'll get on that day, followed by public works, followed by social services, and we'll end up with general government. The method being anybody that had to interview outside agencies or outside people outside of LFUCG. We let them go last to give them more time to schedule for their budget lengths. And then the fourth item on our discussion was the sale and disposal of obsolete property. We did have one motion that we came out of the meeting. Basically, the years past, the practice has been if we bought a piece of equipment with a dedicated fund and we sold that piece of equipment, that money went back into that fund. We changed that here recently and there was a motion by Council Member Gordon to request the Department of Law to draft an ordinance to require proceeds from any assets sold from one fund or account are put back into that fund or account. So going back to the old method, and that was seconded by Council Member James, so that's the one motion I bring to Council today, so moved. You've heard the motion. Is there any discussion? Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. We just completed the LFUCG Fiscal Policy Task Force report, which has been submitted to Council members, and one of the recommendations of that report is that we not do that. And so I wanted to bring that to the Council's attention today. The main reason for that is that if you're making buggy whips and you don't need buggy whips anymore, but you're still putting all the money from selling the used buggy whips back into the account, then essentially the council doesn't have the right to re-appropriate that money and put it in a better place. So the recommendation of this task force report is that it goes back in the general fund. At that time, the council can either re-appropriate it where it came from or re-appropriate it to a new area. So I was going to ask under a council report that we bring the chair of this committee before council. I'd just like to ask the council to consider that before they vote on this. Maybe they would like to sit on this vote for a period of time before they vote on it. But I would be voting against it. Thank you. In response to that, this is just a motion to draft something to bring back to council. So it's not an actual motion to approve it right now. We're just asking the law department to give us some language and a draft ordinance to bring back to either this whole body or the Budget and Finance Committee. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. That item in committee was one that Dr. Stevens and I, I guess, somewhat both brought forward to budget and finance after realizing, after looking at the auction online and seeing that some of the items were going from certain dedicated funding was going back to the general fund. And as we look at stormwater, our stormwater fee, which is about to come, and we think about our sewer system and how dedicated funding really needs to stick with where the taxpayers are thinking it's going. I mean, I can't tell you how many times I've heard, where did all that money go for sanitary sewers that we've been paying for years? I think it's very important that we do keep these dedicated funding. If they're paid with a particular tax, we do keep that in that particular one. If necessary, we could, if that money is needed and there's an extreme surplus, we could always have some type of motion to move it from that if necessary, if we get to a state of emergency and we need to move funding. But I think it's best to keep that dedicated. So I do support the motion and having law come with that documentation. I understand that the committee, Council Member Lane sat on, is looking for ways to overall make sure that general fund looks great. But I think that we have all these committees and folks that are working with particular tasks, and we need to make sure that we're taking care of our necessities. And these dedicated funds are there for a reason, to take care of those specific needs. So I would ask for the council to support the motion. Thank you, Mayor. The motion on the floor is to request the Department of Law draft an ordinance for consideration by the council. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I also, even though this is simply asking for law to draft an ordinance, I'm very supportive of this. I would think as good stewards that rather than look at where we could siphon off money from dedicated funds, we would look at lowering the fees. And so I look forward to that discussion and the recommendation, which I did read in the fiscal report, because when, and I think this is an important issue, when we put into place fees and taxes for specific programs, the public believes that that's where they'll be spent. And so I will look forward to the full discussion, and I'm very supportive of this particular motion. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I like your analogy, Mr. Lane, about the buggy whips. And I take a little bit different perspective on it, and that is that if we've taxed the citizens to make buggy whips, and now we don't need buggy whips anymore, then we ought to revert that tax back to the citizen. And that's why I'm in favor of this motion, so that we keep those dedicated funds into that same dedicated fund. And then that way, if we find out we've got a surplus, we don't need the tax anymore, then we can revert that tax back. So I encourage the council members to support this motion. Thank you. Any further discussion? Then all in favor of Council Member Stenet's motion to request the Department of Law to draft an ordinance pertaining to dedicated funds. Let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The motion is approved with Council Member Lane dissenting. Thank you, Mayor. And then we conclude with a couple items from Council Member Lane. One, he referred to the results of the Fiscal Management Policy Task Force, which all council members should have a copy of. Hopefully we'll be able to get that presentation for the full council here very soon. And we also had a presentation from a citizen, Warren Rogers, with the Kentucky Club for Growth, made a presentation in regards to our city golf courses so we can get that presentation to all the council members, and it could be an item we take up at a later date. And once again, we will not be meeting on a regular budget and finance meeting schedule until after the budget. Our next Cal meeting will be April the 16th. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much. That was an excellent report. I hope you will see now that we have our financial management software in place that the reporting process will be more regular and more consistent and just better where you can make more informed decisions. But excellent report. Just so everyone is aware, the presentation on the amendments to Section 11 has been postponed, but I do have three short proclamations that I'd like to share, and we have some folks here who have been waiting for those. So Captain Rupert, if you will join me at the podium. Mayor, for the sake of time, while you're reading that, we have some promo things we'd like to hand out to the folks if they wouldn't mind taking those. And while you read that, with no disrespect, we'll ask Ms. Donna Rainier to be here. Okay. And we'll take that out. That'll work. These are all of our helpers. All right. Well, these are folks who have been working in our community very diligently to inform the public about the problems of alcohol and drug abuse, and I'm very appreciative of their work. Let me quickly read through the proclamation. whereas nearly 14 million Americans, one in every 13 adults, abuse alcohol or are alcoholics, and whereas health risks of drinking include increased incidence of cancer of the liver, esophagus, throat, and larynx, as well as cirrhosis of the liver, immune system problems, brain damage, and heart problems, and whereas alcohol is implicated in the deaths of some 85,000 Americans every year, making it the nation's third leading cause of preventable death after smoking and obesity, And whereas nationally underage drinking is defined as alcohol consumed by anyone under the individual state's legal drinking age, and in the United States approximately 9.7 million young people between the ages of 12 and 20 consume alcohol. And whereas young people who begin drinking before age 15 are four times more likely to develop alcohol dependence than those who begin drinking at age 21, and whereas alcohol related problems cost the U.S. economy an estimated $185 billion per year in lost productivity and earnings due to the alcohol related illness, premature births, premature death and crime. Now therefore I, Jim Newberry Mayor of the Lexington Fayette, Urban County Government do hereby proclaim the month of April 2009 as Alcohol Awareness Month and call upon citizens, parents, youth, public and private institutions, businesses, hospitals and schools to support efforts to reduce and prevent underage drinking in our community. So, Donald, let me turn the podium over to you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. We recognize that the Council has a lot on your plate, and we appreciate the sense of taking the time to recognize how important an issue this is, and that it affects the health and welfare of our community in so many ways. we probably should have been able to give you those wonderful stress balls at the beginning of the meeting instead of now, I think. But we're happy that you have it now with all the facts that are there. We do enjoy the support of the mayor with the Mayor's Alliance on Substance Abuse. The Fayette County Agency for Substance Abuse Policy and Bluegrass Prevention work very well together with a group of well over 40 people on consistently looking at ways to keep our youth healthy and strong because our community needs it. Again, thank you for your support and for taking the time for this. Andrea. Yes. Quick question. Does your, in all the alliances, do you mainly deal with youth and alcohol, or do you have a focus with adults as well? We, that's a really good question. We focus mainly on underage drinking. However, there's the recognition that parents are a vital key of anything that happens with our youth. We also focus on the whole sense of ordinances, which we have come to this council with before, that our community needs to give a certain message to our youth. And so the council has been very strong in working with us on like a responsible beverage server training, on keg tracking ordinances because if they don't hear from us, from the community, that we have certain expectations of them and certain needs from them, then we are remiss and they will only hear the other side. So that's the way that we focus a lot on about the environment, our youth, our adults, and the laws, which then affect everybody. Because this problem isn't caused by kids. This problem is caused by adults who provide access to kids. I want to challenge you just a bit, you and your organization and anybody that deals with alcohol, to as we talk about revenues, you've sat and listened to us as far as our revenue. If there's a way to show what is the impact of alcohol on our revenue of urban county government. So when you look at certain ordinances, particularly detention center, and I know there's a huge percentage of folks there that are there because of substance abuse and alcohol abuse. Yes. I challenge you to bring some information back to us to show that so that we can show the city as a whole what the effect of alcohol and substance abuse is so that we can start tackling our ordinances appropriately. We will accept that gladly. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody else? Thank you. Thank you so much. I should have introduced everybody who is here. Howard who is wonderful and Lindsay Sugarman who is our ASAP audience and Emmy Kobus who and Melinda Rowe. I'm sorry. They kept telling me who is here and I am here. Thank you. I should have also mentioned that Captain Rupert retired from our police department several years ago and we thank you for your service to Lexington for many years. Next, it's my pleasure to welcome to the podium someone who needs no introduction, Susan Land, and let me read a resolution about records and information management. The management proclamation, whereas the management of records and information is critical to every business organization and government agency in facing the complexities of competition, customer service and globalization and whereas technologies for storing information are expanding the amounts of information that can be acquired with increased longevity and whereas the need to use information to value and plan strategically is a driving force in today's world and whereas control of records and information is necessary for the reduction of risk and liability as as well as compliance with global standards. Whereas a record center and archives is critical to the overall operation of an entity to ensure proper destruction is made after a specific passage of time or permanently stored to meet historical administrative legal and financial requirements of federal, state or local laws and regulations. Now therefore, I, Jim Newberry, Mayor of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, do hereby proclaim April 2009 as Records and Information Management Month and recognize RIM as an essential and important asset to any type of business organization or government body. Susan, congratulations. So now I'll let her introduce some guests she has here. Thank you, Mayor, for recognizing us. This is kind of the unsung heroes that you don't see these guys. They're behind the scenes and they're the ones that take care of all the records. But I also want to recognize Mr. Jerry Carlton, who came up from Frankfort. He's with the Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives. with them for over 27 years and he has worked with us in our office in so many ways in creating and adopting the retention policies and then for the creation of our new record center. And Jerry has just been a wonderful person and I would like to give him the opportunity to say something. I would just like to commend these folks for what they've done. I remember starting working over here in Fayette County with different folks years ago trying trying to get records management on the front burner, so to speak, because it was difficult to get a good records management plan and program in place without a retention schedule. And you probably don't even know what a retention schedule is, but it is a listing of all your records and how long you keep them and all that kind of thing. Back in 2002, we got this rolling. And when the council clerk, Liz Damerill, previously, we were able to get a schedule in place and get the records center. And I recommend to other folks, I do a lot of training throughout the state, and I said if you want to see a good records center and a records management program in place that has been done from the ground up go to Fayette County. And so you can be proud of these folks for what they've done. If you want a record, that's what records management is all about. Can you find it when you need it? And these folks are here to help you. I'm really, really proud to be a part of this. Thank you. And then in addition to that, the staff that you hardly ever see because they're always behind the scenes is Roger Hamperian, who's our records management analyst senior, Todd Copeland and Jack Brock, they're both our records management analysts. And they do a fine job and basically I am going to say proudly that they facilitate the over 12,000 boxes of urban county government records and then they can turn around a records request within minutes and then deliver or pick up those records in the same day. So I'm very proud of them. They do a fine job and they take a lot off of my plate. And I also want to tell you that we have a display set up on the mezzanine where we have brochures for management of emails, which a lot of people are not familiar with, and also for management of how to box your records, which is not a given factor, and also a general brochure about what the services that we provide for our staff and I would hope that you would go and take the opportunity as well as the rest of the government employees to go and check out the display that is on the mezzanine for this month. Thank you very much. And last but not least, I'm pleased to welcome to the podium Bob Jones, who is co-founder of the Bluegrass Coin Club. And this is a special time of year for them as well. And let me just read a short proclamation. Whereas the American Numismatic Association is a nonprofit federally chartered educational organization that encourages and educates people about one of our nation's oldest and most treasured pastimes, the art of collecting coins, currency, and related items. Whereas members of the Bluegrass Coin Club are dedicated to promoting numismatics throughout the Bluegrass region. Whereas 2009 marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, an important figure in Kentucky history in numismatics. Now therefore, I, Jim Newberry, Mayor of Lexington and Fayette-Urban County Government, do hereby proclaim April 19th through 25th, 2009 as National Coin Week and call upon all citizens to celebrate this week with programs and activities expanding their knowledge in numismatics and the joys of coin collecting. Bob, welcome to the podium. Bob McClendon, I'd like to thank the Council Member. And, you know, we talk about everyone's budgets and things like this. People always go back to the coins. It's a nice, fun hobby. It doesn't cost anything. Most times people do it with their change. We've got the Lincoln Legacy this year. And one of the things that we have right now that I'm going to give to the mayor is this is the bicentennial. And this shows Kentucky cabinet or the log cabinet. So he's always got two cents there he can put in. This is great. I needed this. But like you said, we are a nonprofit organization, and we try to promote the education of coins. One of the things is up in Cincinnati, there's a course that's going to be called Coins in the Classroom. It's free to teachers. All they have to do is register, and it gives them an opportunity to use coins to teach art, the history, mathematics, and geography. And so all they have to do is go on to the American Pneumatic Association website. It's money.org, and they can register for that and go right on up there. And it gives the teachers another opportunity to use coins in the classroom. Thank you. Thank you for your time. All right. We're ready for council reports now. It looks like Council Member Gordon is first. Thank you, Mayor. Move approval of the April 2nd NDF list. Second. I have a motion and second to approve the NDF. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. And then I just wanted to let council members know that the stormwater fee task force has finished its work, and we are bringing forward a proposal for a water quality fee. and this will come in the form of a packet and it should be in your boxes on this Thursday so that you can have the pleasure of reading it over the weekend and then we'll be making a presentation on Tuesday the 14th at work session. Thank you. Thanks very much. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. Several announcements today. First of all, a couple upcoming runs. I know Council Member McCord will be ready to jump in these runs and the next couple weekends. One is the Run for Bobby. It's sponsored by Lexington Traditional Middle School. It's a 5K run next Saturday, April 18th at 9 a.m. out at the cross-country track at Master Station Park. Anyone that wants information on that particular run to support those kids at LTMS and in recognition of their classmate, Bobby Wayne, covert the second, please contact our office. We'll be glad to give you that information if you want to participate in that run. This month also marks the 50th anniversary of Brown Station High School of the class of 1959. We'll be doing a lot of celebrations the week of April 15th through April 18th. Just a couple of those things on Wednesday, April the 15th at the baseball field. We'll do a retirement for former Brown Station defender and Major League Baseball player Doug Flynn. We'll be retiring his jersey. He's a class of 1969. Also, on Saturday night, April 18th, actually Saturday morning, Councilman McCord, there's another run. You can do two in one morning if you're good. We know you can do a 5K in less than 10 minutes. So we have the Defender Classic, 7th Annual Defender Classic at 8.30 a.m. on April 18th as well. For more information, you can contact my office on getting in that, as well as a pancake breakfast right after at 9 a.m. And then that evening on April 18th, there will be a reunion celebration from 4 to 7. It's free, as well as an alumni dance after. So anyone that has attended, knows someone that has attended Bryan Station, please let them know, and we can get you more information about all those dates and times to help us celebrate the 50th anniversary of Bryan Station High School. And then, let's see, last but not least, Mayor, we had talked about having a debriefing with council about the ice storm situation and ways we can improve our response, particularly about how we're sharing information, as well as our 3-1-1 and how they're working with the Emergency Operations Center. Has that time and day been scheduled so that we can all get together and talk about that? It has not been scheduled yet. I know Commissioner Webb, who's kind of leading that effort, has initiated the process. I'm not sure how far they have gotten. I just didn't want us to get too far away from it because it's starting to be warm weather. But today does remind you of the ice storm with it being snowy outside. But I just don't want to get too far removed from the event. Actually, Pat Duggar has taken the lead for me, Mayor, and she has a meeting scheduled April 20th, I believe, from 1.30 to 3.30, with representatives that were provided by the commissioners from a large number of the divisions that were actively involved to start the review process. All right. Would you ask Pat to give Council Member Stenet an update on the timetable for that whole process and when we might be able to get something scheduled for Pat or others to come to the council and give us an update? Yes, I will. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. At this very moment, down at the central library, down in room A, which is on the lower level, there is being held a Lyric Theater renovation outreach event. And I'll just read what the legal announcement in the paper stated. The Lexington Fayette County government would like to request all contractors, subcontractors, including but not limited to general, minority-owned, women-owned, disadvantaged, and small businesses interested in information and bidding on the Lyric Theater renovation project to attend this event. The event will discuss the Lyric Theater renovation project, the specific trades that will be involved in this renovation. The purpose is to provide an opportunity for inclusion of all interested parties and connect contractors and subcontractors wanting to participate in our project. It had Brian Markham for contact from Director of Purchasing. I guess if you're not able to attend that event, which is from 4 to 7 tonight at the Central Library, you can contact Brian Markham at 258-3320. Again, that's 258-3320. I'd also like to remind Council, I gave you a save the date maybe a couple months ago, about the Celebration for Disabilities Expo, and there's a GTV3 spot running right now, and Council Member Henson and I serve on that commission. And on Friday, April the 10th, is a Celebration for Disabilities Expo, and it will be to highlight services and opportunities for citizens with disabilities and their caregivers here in Lexington and the region. That's from 10 to 7 at the Lexington Center. For more information, you can contact my office at 258-3216 or dial 311, and I'll give you more information about that, or you can just check on the website under the Commission for Citizens with Disabilities link. But with that, I need to make a motion because we've got a delay here in the contract, But I have a motion to place on the docket for the April 9, 2009 Council meeting, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor to execute a rental agreement with the Lexington Center Corporation for the Celebration of Disabilities Expo. Thank you. Motion is to add that resolution to the April 9th Council meeting docket. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. motion carries. Thank you Mayor that's all I have. Thank you. Council Member Wallace. Yeah just a quick update the Ellsford Neighborhood Association meeting is tonight at Woodland Christian Church across from Woodland Park. Also I've been trying to get in touch with neighborhood association leaders in the 3rd District make sure that they're properly registered with the Secretary of State and to update that contact information so if any of you all out there you can get in touch with me by going through the Urban County Council website or 258-3222 and let me know if you're interested Saturday at the horse Park, AVOL will be, AIDS Volunteers of Lexington will be having their Red Ribbon Run Walk. So if any of you all are interested in that, you can go to AVOL's website. And also, I believe this Saturday is a Reforest the Bluegrass event at Shilto Park. That's it. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. There's a Cardinal Valley Neighborhood Association meeting tonight at 7 on Garrett Avenue, Faith Baptist Church. Also wanted to mention the Disabilities Expo that will take place on Friday. It's something I've been very excited about and hopefully we'll have a lot of participants show up and be individuals with disabilities can see what services and products are available to them. I look forward to it and that is this Friday from 11 to 7. Councilmember James had already mentioned it but I also wanted to mention it. And then the tree planting at Chillito Park beginning at 9 a.m. and hopefully the weather will be nice. Thank you. But I would add, regardless of the weather, the reforested bluegrass project will go forward. So if it's cold, dress warmly and come on. If it's hot, dress coolly and come on. If it's raining, dress with your rain gear and come on. Vice Mayor Gray. Thank you, Mayor. I was asked earlier by the council to appoint a workgroup to work on, I guess, the Lyric Theater Business Plan. In order to do that, I met with several of you that are here, of course, with Councilmember James, with the mayor's chief of staff, Shea, with the mayor, with Ed Lane. Maybe you have conversations with others, George, with Council Member Myers as well. And this is clearly not a casual undertaking, and it's significant. The work that the administration has already put into it, the task force has put into it, the lyric task force has put into this is significant. The project itself is significant. symbolically for the civic space, for historical references, and for leading us into the future. So with that in mind, and particularly the encouragement of Council Member James, so that we can continue with the knowledge and history of what's already been contributed by the people who have been involved, I'd like to appoint these people. Juanita Betts-Peterson, who is chair of the task force to this point, Council Member James, Joan Brannan, Charlie Boland, who worked on behalf of the administration for, I guess, the last couple of years in managing and helping shepherd the project along, Jean Woods, who has also been a member of the task force. In addition, some others who have expressed points of view and interest, often even concerns about the project. It's Council Member Lane. Ask Council Member Lane to join the task force. Also Jim Clark, who heads up LexArts. Everett McCorvey. And I've also already mentioned that because of the significance of this project and the administration's and the mayor's involvement in the project, commitment to the project, I think it would be appropriate if we asked if the mayor would chair the work group, or mayor, I know you're busy, but if you can't do it, then maybe a delegate or someone that you appoint. All right. I also have a draft, while I'm having these conversations, I've put together a draft of what I just considered, it's sort of a straw man of tasks, that the task force or the work group rather, would examine in the course of doing its work. Did you have a question, Council Member? That was my question, is the tasks that you're charging them with. Well, among other things, it starts with confirming the memorandum of understanding, LFUCG commitments, creating a mission statement. So there are about 14 here. I said it's a straw man, it's a draft, can do with it as preferred. This is also, Andrew, sort of what you were asking about, some questions. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple of things. As it was mentioned, at 9 a.m., the Reforest of the Bluegrass is in Sheltoe Park in the 9th District. We are certainly looking forward to that and would like for all to come out for that. And then also I just want to send my congratulations to the Citizens Fire Academy Alumni Association for putting on just a fantastic Easter egg hunt at the station over in Waterford. And just really enjoyed that. Our family did, and I know Council Member Stennett and a number of others had come. And I just really appreciate the group, the Citizens Fire Academy's Alumni Association, and all that they do for us. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much. That's the last council report I have listed. Unless someone else wishes to move forward with one, we'll go ahead to the mayor's report. We have a few proposed appointments to boards and commission for your consideration. Motion to approve would be in order. Councilmember McCord has moved the approval of those appointments. Councilmember Blues has seconded the motion. Any discussion? All in favor please say aye. All opposed no. The motion carries. That takes us down now to, I'm sorry, Ms. Roy Boll. Mayor, if you don't mind I want to make an announcement. The Neighborhood Leaders Forum is on April 16th at, let's see, it starts at 530 I believe. There's a tour of the Traffic Management Center and then at 6 o'clock the program begins. All neighborhood associations and homeowners associations should have been invited. We've got an advertisement on GTV3 and so forth. But if people are interested in attending and learning more about what's going on at Urban County Government, they can RSVP by calling the mayor's office at 258-3100, or they can email Marianne Blodgett at mblodgett at lfucg.com. And it's on our website as well under the Neighborhoods link. Thank you very much. I think we're now ready for public comment on the issues not on the agenda. And I have three individuals who have indicated a desire to speak. We'll begin with Vanessa Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell. Good evening Council members. For the record, my name is Vanessa Mitchell and I reside at Brookfield Chase Subdivision, 1776 Milbank Road, Lexington, Kentucky, 40511. Ms. Mitchell, I should have mentioned to you, you'll have three minutes to address the Council. Okay. I come before the Council because I am alleging that the Division of Engineering, Lexington, and Fayette Irving County Government is responsible for increased stormwater drainage runoff damage and concealment of material information pre-existing pond on the above property. As a first-time homeowner, I have become devastated, stressed, and remain angered due to the failure of the Division of Engineering to properly record inspection results for the property. The Division of Engineering has neglected to enforce required codes, preparation for lot development, and stormwater drainage runoff. I am alleging there has been coerced concealment for preexisting ponds on the property and voiding of in-house departmental finding and penalizing the Builders-Snyder's Design Incorporation. Based on a visual map of the property before development, written documentation revealing timeframe of notice of violations and civil citations issued are not submitted, and based on the current property conditions, photos are available. This matter is presented for the Council review of and determination of unimplied liability by the Division of Engineering, Lexington Fayette, Urban County Government. This is not an issue between the seller, builder, and buyer, but it is an issue with the promise made by Mr. Moran Ryan, Director of Division of Engineering, on record, that enforcement of city codes will be implemented, therefore, accepting full responsibility to get the job done. As a citizen of the State of Kentucky, County of Fayette, I seek results and not just talk. I would like to pass the photos around or answer questions of whatever the proper procedures are. But the things mentioned I do have here for you. All right. If you would like to pass the material around, you can just hand it to Council Member McCord and then we'll pass it around from there. Thank you, Ms. Mitchell. I do have with me what it would take to make me whole again, if that's the appropriate time. All right. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. Ms. Mitchell lives in Brookfield Chase, which is in the 2nd District. She and I have had many conversations on this matter. We've also had meetings with Marwan and Hilary Newman, with Dewey Crow, who's been involved. and the developer has been cited on occasions for delaying the work that he's been held responsible for. Ms. Mitchell has been advised that ultimately this is a matter between her and the developer, but we have tried to work with her through this process, and she has indeed suffered over a long period of time on a lot, which is whenever it rains, and even when it's not raining, is wet, soggy, undrained, and for too long been unattended to by the developer. and she has endured a long and futile process here. But I do have to say that the Division of Engineering has, I think, been diligent in working with her and trying to follow up on the violations that have taken place and on the citations of the developer. Marwan's here. Newman's here. Darrell Bennett is here. Dewey Crow is here. And if any of you gentlemen would like to, you know, at this time comment in response to Ms. Mitchell's statement, I think it would not be inappropriate. We have met with Ms. Mitchell on several occasions, and we understand the problems that she is having. Normally, we do not get involved into the minute details of building lots. However, in this situation, we understand Mrs. Mitchell's having problems there. We spent more time on trying to get this corrected than any other lot probably in the city of Lexington. We have been in constant contact with the developer, who happens to also be the developer. The builder and the developer are one in this case. And we have been in contact with him all the time ever since the building permit was issued, which was in February of 2008. We've issued two notices of violations. We've issued three citations. And we are continuing to monitor the situation over there to make sure. Now, he has not finished work in that area. He is still in the area, and he has been on Mrs. Mitchell's lot many times, trying to correct. One time. One time? I understand. In a year, one time. Okay. But I understand that he tried to fix the situation, and he has not refused to go back and do more work. So we are – he has to refuse to you? Yes, he does. Okay. Okay, we are working with the developer again, and we're going to try all the means that we have to get him to go back and fill in the low spots in Mrs. Mitchell's yard. All right. Let me suggest that we're going to have a difficult time trying to resolve all of these factual disputes back and forth, which I don't deny are significant, but which I'm not sure we have the ability to deal with effectively in this particular setting. To the degree, Ms. Mitchell, you feel as though there is something that urban county government should have done that it has not done, Given the good bit of history, it may be appropriate for you to have a conversation with folks in the law department so they can assess what claims you might have against urban county government. I had my issue submitted to the law department and he submitted it to litigation. I visited that office and she didn't know what to do. And that being the case, I think it is most appropriate for us to deal with all of these issues in the context of the pending litigation claim. I do want to ask a question here for number one, as far as the engineering department. When a builder submit plans to develop an area, do the Department of Engineering or anyone go out and look at that site prior to accepting those plans? I would suggest what you do is visit with Mr. Rayon and Commissioner Askew from the Law Department, and you might be able to visit with him just now out in the hallway if you'd like to do that. But this really isn't a place where we can discuss matters that are either the subject of litigation or matters involving threatened litigation. Sorry. The next person I have on the list is Dawn Givens, Ms. Givens. If you'll step to the podium you'll have three minutes as well. Dawn Givens Well my name is Dawn Givens, I live at 514 East 2nd Street and basically I'm just here to ask a request. I'm a teacher for the Charles Young City of Dancers and have been for more than 20 years. And unfortunately, the situation with Charles Young is not good, and I'm sure you're all aware of it. And it's even gotten worse since I've been replaced. But I came to request... Yes, ma'am? Ma'am? Oh, I'm sorry. Can you hear me now? Yeah, that's better. Thank you. Okay. Basically, I've been trying to meet with you, Mayor, and try to at least get someone that I can talk to that's in your staff, and I haven't been able to do it for eight months. Just so somebody can hear me and possibly come to a compromise to the situation. I dealt with these children a long time, and I don't think they deserve it to be just put in the street. And that's where I am. It is breaking my heart. Ms. Givens, I'm aware that you've had some contact with folks in our human resources department. Yes, I have. But the issue is not that. It's just my kids are in the street, and I stress that so much because my whole life is surrounded by those kids. They needed me, and I was the only thing for them. There was no other class around them for these inner city kids. And I surrounded my life with them. And I think it's unfair. I'll be glad to visit with you, but my understanding is that you two have asserted some potential litigation against the city as well. And we'll be glad. Say that again, sir. There's been some discussion of potential litigation against the city as well. as a result of your termination? I've gotten that letter already, and I was just trying to move forward. Before I was terminated, I requested to see you eight months ago before this happened. So I was trying to get to see you or somebody, your staff member, somebody to talk to about the situation that Charles Young wasn't able to do with. So, I mean, after I'd gotten the letter, you know, when they'd seen the case and situation, I still want to go on and still help these kids that are still in the street. All right. Well, I know you've talked with the folks in Human Resources and Charles Young is part of our parks department. Yes. And I know you've had some contact with the folks in the parks staff as well about that. We'll be glad to arrange a meeting with other folks who are more familiar with the Charles Young situation and see if we can make any headway. I hope so because I've tried to talk to everybody. I tried to talk to most of your people, you know, Che, and I haven't been able to get in touch with her. I've left me several messages and nobody's returning my phone calls. Well, we'll return your phone calls. Whether or not we will be able to meet with you in light of what I understand has been some threatened litigation, I can't answer that, but we'll see what we can do. Okay, who will be touching base with me? Someone from the mayor's office will give you a call. Soon, hopefully. Within the next week. Thank you. All right. The last person we have is Mr. Cobb. First, giving honor to the Most High God, Mayor of Newberry, Councilmembers. I'm going to call for citywide unity amongst my people. The Most High called for it in the 133rd Psalm. He said, Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. We need unity today. When the slave masters brought us over here, they knew how powerful our unity was, so they set out to break their unity. It's evident by the sign we see in Cheapside when it talks about how children were separated from their families. So as we look at Lexington today, we need to be unified. I talked about a project last week. I'm calling it Project Black. The first phase of that is the uniting of all the kings. I'm calling it Kuta. And what that means, kings united, unified together again. Monuments like the lyric had to be shut down. Names had to be changed to streets in the inner city. Anything that created pride and unity was a threat. Organizations created for our advancement have been powerless and silent. As we look for leadership, all we have found in the last 40 years is tokenism. That's why it is critical that we unite. Project Black is that unity. I'm going to set my shoeshine chair outside of the lyric I'm going to ask everybody who's concerned about our future to come see me If you're scared, don't come see me If you're satisfied with foreigners owning stores in our hood, then don't come see me If you're satisfied with the arrogance and the harassment that we face by the police officers, then don't come see me If you're tired, then come see me If you want change, then come see me We ain't putting no indictment on nobody, but it's time for us to come together. The handwriting is on the wall. We can't expect Lexington to take care of us. We got to take care of ourselves. I'm starting it tomorrow. I'll be at the Lyric. I'm asking everybody who's concerned to come see me. We got to make some changes. Our children are crying out. We got mass shootings. We got things going on in our city that nobody is addressing. We got to raise children. It's a sad commentary when we're raising young men with no future in a city that has a culture of homosexuality, and we're celebrating it in this city. That's a sad commentary in 2009. We got to make some changes. I'm asking everybody to come holler at me at the lyric tomorrow, the next day, and the next day. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to address the council? Do I hear a motion we adjourn? Council member Stenet is moved to adjourn. Council member Gordon has seconded. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed no. Motion carries. Thanks.