# Urban County Council Work Session - May 12, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · May 12, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/906 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/906?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-05-12 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: June 17, 2026 - **Length**: 23,855 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Council convened on May 12, 2009, in the Council Chambers on the second floor of the Government Center, with Mayor Newberry presiding. The meeting's agenda centered on two informational presentations: a LexTran Budget Report and a report from the LFUCG Fiscal Policy Task Force, both of which were received for informational purposes rather than requiring formal action. Over the course of the meeting, the Council heard 2 public comments and conducted 5 motions and votes. The session was relatively focused in scope, with no legislative items requiring final approval among the listed agenda topics. ## Attendance All members of the Council were present at the May 12, 2009 meeting. The following 14 officials were in attendance: - Mayor Newberry - CM Gorton - CM Ellinger - CM Beard - CM Myers - CM James - CM Stinnett - CM Feigel - CM Blues - CM Crosbie - CM McChord - CM Lawless - CM Martin - CM Lane No members were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The following motions were considered at the May 12, 2009 Council meeting: - **Approval of the Docket** [timestamp: 0:04]: Moved by CM Gorton, seconded by CM Ellinger. The docket was approved by voice vote. - **Approval of the May 5th Summary** [timestamp: 0:05]: Moved by CM Beard, seconded by CM Myers. The summary was approved by voice vote. - **Approval of Budget Amendments** [timestamp: 0:06]: Moved by CM Gorton, seconded by CM Blues. The budget amendments were approved by voice vote. - **Motion to Table Item M (Tates Creek Sidewalks)** [timestamp: 0:11]: Moved by CM Beard, seconded by CM James. This item was decided by roll call vote and passed 9–6 to table. Voting in favor of tabling: CM Beard, CM James, CM Blues, CM Crosbie, CM McChord, CM Lawless, CM Martin, CM Lane, and CM Stinnett. Voting against: CM Gorton, CM Ellinger, CM Myers, CM Feigel, CM Martin, and CM Lawless. As a result, the item regarding Tates Creek sidewalks was tabled. - **Approval of New Business Items A–BB, Except Item M** [timestamp: 0:15]: Moved by CM Gorton, seconded by CM Blues. The remaining new business items were approved by voice vote. ## Budget and Financial Actions The Council considered a range of contracts, amendments, and grant-related actions at the May 12, 2009 meeting. **New Contracts:** - **Resolution 303-09** authorized an equipment rental agreement with **FLIX, Inc.** valued at **$6,999.33** to support the Free Friday Flicks Program. - **Resolution 304-09** approved facility usage agreements with various youth leagues, carrying no budgetary impact. - **Resolution 306-09** authorized a commercial services agreement with **Insight Business** for internet services at a cost of **$350**. - **Resolution 307-09** approved a trail design agreement with **John L. Carman and Associates, Inc.** for **$35,400** for the Cardinal Run Park North Trail Project. - **Resolution 308-09** authorized a trail design agreement with **M2D Design Group, PLLC** for **$29,100** for the Jacobson Park Trail Project. **Contract Amendments:** - **Resolution 325-09** approved Change Order No. 1 to the contract with **Stewart Contracting** for the Ice Storm 2009 Project, adding **$4,200**. - **Resolution 326-09** approved Change Order No. 1 to the contract with **Huffman Construction Inc.** for the Ice Storm 2009 Project, adding **$4,205**. - **Resolution 327-09** approved Change Order No. 1 to the contract with **Tennis Technology** for the Woodland Park Tennis Court Project, adding **$5,000**. - **Resolution 305-09** approved Change Order No. 1 to the contract with **Jarboe Construction Inc.** for the Carver Community Center Passenger Elevator Project, adding **$3,335**. **Grants and Other Financial Actions:** - **Resolution 311-09** authorized an application to the **U.S. Department of Homeland Security** for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program in the amount of **$139,200**. - **Resolution 314-09** recognized an award of **$64,000** from the **Kentucky Transportation Cabinet** for the Share the Road Campaign. - **Resolution 313-09** amended Section 22-5 of the Code of Ordinances to establish a Client Assessment Counselor position at an annual cost of **$35,040.54**. ## Public Comment Two residents addressed the Council during the public comment period, both speaking to the topic of proposed sidewalk installation on Tates Creek Road. - **Mr. McCarty** [timestamp: 0:33] spoke first, raising concerns about the sidewalk proposal. His comments focused on safety and aesthetic issues associated with the planned sidewalks on Tates Creek Road, expressing reservations about moving forward with the project as proposed. - **Dave Carter** [timestamp: 3:21] followed with a contrasting perspective, offering support for the sidewalk installation. Carter cited safety improvements as the basis for his position, arguing in favor of proceeding with the project on Tates Creek Road. The public comment period reflected differing community viewpoints on the Tates Creek Road sidewalk proposal, with concerns about aesthetics and safety on one side and safety-based support on the other. ## Contested Items **Sidewalks on Tates Creek Road** A proposal to install sidewalks on Tates Creek Road generated divided opinion among community members at the meeting. Residents were not unified in their response to the project: some opposed it, raising concerns about safety and aesthetics, while others expressed support, citing the safety improvements that sidewalks would provide. No additional details regarding the specific individuals involved, the vote outcome, or the final disposition of the proposal are available from the meeting record. ## LexTran Budget Report [timestamp: 16:33] Rocky Burke presented the LexTran budget report to the Council, covering the transit agency's recent accomplishments, new routes, and plans for the future, including the anticipated use of stimulus funds. The presentation was informational in nature, providing the Council with an overview of LexTran's current financial and operational status. Burke's remarks highlighted the agency's achievements as well as expansions to its route network, and outlined how upcoming funding — including stimulus dollars — would factor into LexTran's plans going forward. No vote or formal action was taken as a result of this presentation; it served as an update to keep Council members informed of LexTran's direction and budgetary outlook. ## LFUCG Fiscal Policy Task Force Report [timestamp: 1:11:21] Dr. Merl Hackbart appeared before the Council to present the findings and recommendations of the LFUCG Fiscal Policy Task Force. The presentation focused on the task force's work regarding financial management and fiscal policies for the local government. Dr. Hackbart outlined the task force's recommendations, which addressed how the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government should approach its financial management practices and broader fiscal policy framework. The presentation was informational in nature, providing Council members with the task force's guidance on these matters. No final action was taken on this item, as it served as an informational briefing for the Council. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the docket - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the May 5th summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of budget amendments - **Motion** — tabled (9-6): Table item M regarding Tates Creek sidewalks - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of new business items A-BB, except M --- ## Full transcript Is there anyone, uh, that wishes to address the council on matters that are on the docket today? All right. All right, Mr. McCarty? Go right ahead. If you'll just step to the microphone and give the clerk your name and address, we'll be ready to roll. If there are others, we encourage you to sign up. Thank you, Mayor. Sure. Council members, I would, uh, I- I'm here on very short notice and I'm not sure of all the procedural issues, but I will try and make this as brief as possible. Uh, late last night, I was informed that there was something on the docket today involving sidewalks on Tates Creek Road. Um, last November, about 48 hours before a public meeting was to be held, we were, uh, informed of, uh, that public meeting. And, uh, there was a lot of pros and cons at that meeting, but I think, uh, I can safely represent to you that, um, most of those of us who live on Tates Creek Road have what we believe valid concerns about sidewalks being put on sa- Tates Creek, principally because of some safety issues, also because of some issues regarding the existing landscaping, uh, old trees, uh, various issues. We were assured at the end of that meeting that before anything on this project happened, that the city planning folks would do some alternative planning, some alternative, uh, uh, differing scenarios as to how those sidewalks might or might not be done. Uh, I found out late yesterday afternoon that it w- there was something on the docket today. Uh, we, as, uh, people who live on Tates Creek, right off Tates Creek, have seen nothing, uh, from the city at this point. Uh, the last time that I think this came before this group, uh, there was some discussion about it. It was moved forward, but, uh, one of the principal people that we had spoken with in addition to, uh, uh, Councilman Beard and, uh, Councilman Feigel was, uh, uh, Councilwoman Grotin... Gr... I'm sorry, uh, Gorton. Thank you. Uh, and that her indication at that time was is that this would not be moved forward until those concerns had been addressed, uh, to the satisfaction of those who lived in the neighborhood. Uh, that has not been done and I just, uh, am here today really, uh, pretty pro forma, uh, to let you know that we are still very concerned about the safety issues and the aesthetic issues related to these sidewalks. Thank you very much. 35 seconds still left. Thank you, Mr. McCarty. Does anyone else wish to address the council? Mr. Carter, if you would step forward and give us your name and address please. My name is Dave Carter. I live on Autumn Lane, just off of Tates Creek Road. Uh, two sides to all problems, I suppose. I'm on the other side from the gentleman that preceded me. The, uh... Where I live, trees grow right to the edge of the road, so the people walking down the Tates Creek have to step out into that very busy highway there. I don't feel threatened from the standpoint of privacy in any way as far as putting a sidewalk in there. I think safety would be improved by having it there. In fact, if, if sidewalks are, are a privacy issue and a safety issue, maybe we ought to take sidewalks up from other parts of the town. But at any rate, we are very much in support of there being a sidewalk along that, that, uh, street. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Does anyone else wish to address the council on matters that are on today's agenda? Seeing none, we'll move along. The next agenda item is the docket approval. Is- Move- Is there a motion? Move approval. Second. Council Member Gorton has moved to approve the May 14th docket. Council Member Ellinger has seconded that motion. Any discussion? Council Member Martin? Thank you, Mayor. I need to recuse myself from, from item I. Uh, I previously represented one of the principals in Jarbo Construction, and also I need to recuse myself from... Excuse me, Mayor. I'll wait till the new docket. All right. All right. Anything further? We'll note that recusal. Seeing no further discussion, those in pr- favor of approving the docket, please indicate by saying I. Opposed, no. Motion carries. The May 5th summary is, uh, now ready for approval. Council- Council Member Beard has moved to approve the May 5th summary. Council Member, uh, Myers has seconded that motion. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. We have some budget amendments. A motion to approve those would be in order. Move approval. Council Member Gordon has moved to approve the budget amendments. Council Member Blues has seconded that motion. Any discussion? Council Member James? Thank you, Mayor. I had a question regarding, um, journal 32858 on the budget amendment request. It has to do with government communications. I wonder if somebody could answer a question related to, um, the part-time salaries versus the overtime. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes. My question just has to do with it, it looks like we're moving money from overtime to pay for part-time salaries. Is this, were we off budgeting with the original part-time salaries or what has changed that caused us to have to move money from overtime? Well, in this bu- I'm not over communica- general communications so I couldn't answer this specific, but this is where we, we allow people to move money within the same category. In other words, operating and, um, the salaries, so yes, it would be where, when the budget was made out in January and approved in June and at this point, the actual has, has varied from what was budgeted. Okay. My questions i- is that specific question, so maybe you're not the one to answer that, but I'm wondering what's happening actually, not, I mean, I understand the movement of the money. Mm-hmm. I'm just trying to figure out what happened with the part-time salaries. Do we have more people than we thought? The, um- Is there somebody that can answer that specifically? I will contact, uh, someone in government communications to give you the detail. Wh- what was submitted with the budget amendment is what's been presented to you all, so we'll get more information for you. Okay, thank you. Mm-hmm. Looks like Rama just walked in. And I've... Ah, I've asked Mr. Sullivan to come and explain and he's on his way here. Oh, thank you. Thanks. Thanks, Mayor, I'll hold. All, all right. Any further questions with regard to the budget amendments? If not, those in favor of approving the budget amendments- Mayor? Can we- Yes. Can we hold or table this one particular one until we get explanation? Um, I'll be glad, if there's no objection, just to skip over this one and come back to it in a moment. Thank you. When Mr. Sullivan arrives. Um, takes us down to the new business items. Is there a motion to approve those? Move approval. Council member Gordon has moved to approve, um, the new business items. Council member Blues has seconded that motion. Any discussion? Mr. Green, you have a comment here? On item N, it should, uh, read Division of Engineering, uh, Traffic Engineering as opposed to Division of Engineering. It should be Traffic Engineering. Would you repeat that, uh, please for the- Okay. On item N it should read Division of Traffic Engineering instead of Division of Engineering. What, that's- On the third, third line there? Yes, third line down. All right. Any, uh, uh, discussion? Council member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Um, on the subject of item M, which is the same subject that, uh, Mr. McCarty spoke earlier concerning the Tates Creek sidewalks, uh, I would like to table number M until such time as we can get more definitive information as to the costs, um, exactly what we're dealing with as far as right of way is concerned. Exactly what we're dealing with as far as utilities are concerned. Um, the, um, meeting that was held in November at Emmanuel Baptist Church, our own engineering department indicated that there were some problems with, uh, with, with right of way. And right of way in some spots narrows, uh, which means that we could shove a sidewalk awfully close to a curb and awfully close to, uh, automobiles that are moving at 45, 50 miles an hour. Um, to mitigate any of that would mean that we would have to acquire more land and, um, deal with, um, I, I know electrical p- power poles that are, uh, gonna be in the way and trees that would need to be moved. And the whole cost will, um, um, could go beyond and our match g- could go beyond the 200,000 that, uh, we're gonna have t- to do to, uh, m-match the state's 811,000. So I would like until such time as we can get that information, um, from our folks, um, s- so we can study this a little bit more, I would like to table this. Is that a motion to table? Is a motion to do so. Second. Have a motion to table by Council Member Beard and a second by Council Member Crosby with- James. James. Okay. All right. Uh, that motion is non-debatable, so we'll proceed to vote. Let me ask that you vote electronically. Those in favor of tabling item M, please indicate by voting yes. Those opposed indicate by voting no. Motion carries by a vote of nine to five, I believe. Has everyone voted? All right. Counsel mo- vice mayor, uh, and that's reflected. They've got you as a no, on my screen anyway. All right. Okay. Are we missing someone? Or did someone abstain? Myers. Abstained. All right. Let's do a reset. Sort of a- He's not signed in. ... politically correct thing to do these days, I understand. . Okay. 00:02:03,480 -- 00:02:07,470 Mayor Newberry. Yes. Those in favor of tabling item M, M vote aye. Those opposed vote nay. Well, the motion is going to carry because it has nine votes in favor of it, but somebody's- Yeah. ... vote is not registered. Now, thank you very much. Motion passes by a vote of nine to six. Yes. All right. All right, Council Member Court. Well, I have a question about that. Since we just tabled it and Council Member Beard was able to give his opinions, when would be the appropriate time for the rest of us to give our opinions, since he gave them today? Yeah. Council reports. Very good. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Parliamentarian. Whenever I get a hard question, it goes to the parliamentarian. All right. We're now, um, addressing a motion to, uh, approve the new business items other than item M. Is there any further discussion? Council Member Martin? Thank you, Mayor. I need to recuse from the vote on items D, I and U. I have prior representation of, uh, the individuals in these companies and to avoid a appearance of impropriety even though I'm not representing them on this matter, or these matters before the council. Uh, I do recuse myself from those votes. Items D, I and U. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. We'll ask the clerk to note your recusal. Any further discussion? Then those in- I'm sorry. Is this is David? David. Council Member James, I have you on, on the list here. Do you wish to address the items in new business? Is that a- Uh, yes sir, I do. Okay. Um, trying to figure out what the item number is here. It's, um, item K and it deals with the client assessment counselor. It's got here, um, Mr. Allen or Dr. Helm beside it. Really my question, and he, you may be able to answer this Mayor, I'm not sure, but, uh, is this a ... This is a grant, and so does it have an ending date? So is the client assessment counselor only for one year or two years or three years? Commissioner Helm is step into the microphone and- Hmm. ... she can provide more specific information. The client assessment counselor is with the stimulus money and it will cover a three-year period of time. Three years? Mm-hmm. At the same salary? Yes. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you. Anything further? Then those in favor of approving the items of new business other than item M, please indicate by voting aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. We're now down to the presentations and the first presentation is, uh, from LexTran. I'd like for Mr. Burke, if he would, to step to the podium. I do. Three. All right. Well, good afternoon, Mayor Newberry, Vice Mayor Gray, Members of Council. It's, uh, the time of the year where I, uh, present LexTran's, uh, budget to you folks. Uh, this is the adopted budget by our, uh, our board. So with that, uh, I'll launch right into this thing. Uh, the first thing I'd like to do is, is, uh, just go over some of the accomplishments that we have, uh, have made in this past year. Um, we, uh, had 6.1 million unlinked trips, unlinked trips in 2008, which is a 20% increase over numbers of 2007. We added, uh, some new routes, um, uh, hours of routes also, 4,160. The new routes that we added this year was the Route 42 or the Southland, uh, BCTC, uh, trip, a route. Uh, in addition to that, we, uh, implemented the first, uh, park and ride, uh, location, which was out at, uh, Nickelsville Road, Man O' War. And also, a second one was, uh, another park and ride lot out at Coldstream Farm in Citation Newtownpike area. So those are some of the new routes, new serve accomplishments. Uh, in addition, uh, we put, uh, many, many new bus shelters up this year, just started the installation of some new benches. I think we probably have on the neighborhood now of about 50 shelters around the city and, uh, many more to be purchased this coming year. Uh, we started, uh, pass sales at different locations. We partnered with Kroger to sell at the, uh, Kroger stores all around the city and some of our outlying communities. ... uh, in addition to that, we asked, you know, we had, we had several requests to sell passes online. So we've, we've now started that. Um, we've partnered with Arts in Motion on the, uh, uh, the, uh, bottle stop location on Versailles Road. Uh, a couple more are in the works right now, uh, Newtown Pike, uh, the East End Elm Street location. So we're really excited about those projects. Um, we, uh, just started a new paratransit contract with Wheels. It's a new three-year contract. Uh, unfortunately, with that, comes a 14% cost increase. Um, we, uh, had a very, very successful, uh, shuttle, uh, season for the UK football program, uh, 46% increase in passengers over 2007. And, uh, we'll continue to do that this year. We've started negotiations with UK right now to do that. Uh, just recently, uh, we partnered with the Fayette County Schools, the LexTran Launch, which was the free kids, free rides for kids on weekends. Um, we are moving right along with the, uh, downtown circulator, which is our, our, uh, you know, the, uh, trolleys that we purchased. Uh, we're going to be branding them as the Colt. And, uh, so there's ongoing marketing and planning for the routes, uh, and certainly we want to be ready for the World Equestrian Games in 2010. Uh, some more accomplishments just quickly, uh, we've initiated, uh, a new employee customer service training program where all employees at LexTran will go through a, a, a customer service training every, uh, quarter and a lot of quality improvement programs, employee recognition, things of that order. I mentioned the public, uh, no, I didn't. I'm sorry. We're doing a public art mural, um, on our, well, we already have, excuse me, on our BusWatch facility there on Loudoun. So if you're driving up the street, you'll see that. That was really neat for us. We involved the community to help us paint that. And now, that was, uh, just a quick summary of our accomplishments so let me, uh, turn to what we're planning on doing for this, uh, this new fiscal year, uh, with the money that, uh, we've got, gotten approved to, to use. So, um, we, uh, we did a comprehensive operational analysis. Uh, we should have the final report sometime in June. And with that, it's a comprehensive review of the entire bus system. So from that, there were several recommendations for new service, uh, more hours and miles. You can see up there, 11% increase in service miles for this coming year. Many new additional routes, uh, new express routes, uh, Saturday service on the Route 34, which is out in the Hamburg area. Uh, lots of folks have asked for more Crosstown service. We've got some Crosstown Connectors planned. Uh, lots of capital purchases this coming year, um, more buses. Uh, we'll be buying smaller buses this go-around, 30-foot buses for more, uh, again, for the Crosstown-type service where we don't want the larger 40-foot buses. Um, there's been a lot of news recently about the, uh, you know, the stimulus funding. Uh, LexTran, uh, was, uh, picked to receive $5.4 million. So with that, uh, we'll be purchasing many things for the, uh, the bus system, shelters, benches, uh, new electronic fare boxes, automated vehicle locator systems so people can tell when the next bus will be at their locations. Uh, all sorts of passenger information technology at the shelters. Um, a new radio system for our buses, for example, um, so many, uh, many amenities, uh, the people riding the bus. So that's kind of the narrative piece of this. I just wanted to throw this slide up there to show you that, uh, uh, every month for this past, uh, year, with the exception of January, we had, uh, a significant increase in ridership over the, the previous month. Of course, you know, back last summer when gas prices were $4 a gallon, that, that forced I think a lot of folks to ride our bus who'd never done that before, but I'm just pleased that since that, uh, you know, the ridership has still remained above what it was last year. So I think we kept a lot of those passengers, and they had a pretty positive experience. Um, now looking at the numbers, these are just some of the key budget assumptions that I wanted you to see. Um, up at the top, our operating budget for this, uh, coming fiscal year is a little over $21 million, and I just, uh, threw some other numbers up there so that you can see where we're, how we balanced our budget. $15 million of that will come from our mass transit revenue, uh, close to four for federal assistance, and another $2 million from other sources of revenue that, that we have. Uh, the bottom part of the page there you can see is our capital expenditures, expenditures, which will be about $12 million. And from that, we'll be buying more buses and the trolleys, um, construction of our Loudoun Avenue facility. Uh, we use capital dollars to pay for bus maintenance and parts and more benches and shelters. And to match that, we used, uh, more federal assistance from our grants and the local matching funds. And I just put a footnote up there that this, this, the, uh, Reinvestment and Recovery Act money is not included in that 'cause there is no local match for that. Um, just some things that, uh, will go into this coming budget are fixed route hours, you know, 188,000 hours. Uh, we're projecting the fixed route ridership to be at 2.2 million trips. Uh, UK hours are over 10,000. Uh, the UK special service ridership, 670,000. Um, Wheels cost, that's, uh, you know, getting close to, you know, $3.7 million. That's a 14% increase over last year. Uh, the Wheels ridership, 148. I would point out diesel fuel is a huge cost to us. Uh, this past fiscal year, we, uh, we projected almost $4.25 a gallon. Uh, this year, we're doing it at $3.25, and I think for this past fiscal year, we averaged about $2.40 a gallon. Um, and our full-time employees at LexTran is 191. And just, uh, quickly to show you, uh, you know, where our revenue comes from, the majority of it, uh, from the mass transit revenue, which is, uh, the property tax, followed by our, uh, our, uh, grants, and then, uh, thirdly from the, uh, um, UK assistance. And then turning to the expenses, I just wanted you to sh- see where the lion's share of our expenses come from. Obviously, uh, salaries and wages is number one on the list. And, uh, let me get back here. I can't see that far. Salaries and wages is number one, and the, uh, Paratransit contract is number two, with diesel fuel being the number third, uh, on the list. So with that, that's a quick summary of our budget. Questions? Does any council member have questions? Council Member, uh, Henson. I'm sorry. I didn't have it up on my screen. Council Member Stennet, then Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, Rocky, thank you for coming, uh, to your annual visit to us with your budget. Um, you, you give me a lot of hope for our bus system. You know, a couple years ago, um, we were in a tough spot. And, um, you've been on board now, what, two years now? Like a year and a half? Oh, some, a little over a year now. Year and p- close to a year and a half. Feels longer. But, uh, I see a lot of good improvements. And I hear a lot of good things, and, uh, I appreciate the effort you're putting into this, and, and the job you're doing, especially on the marketing end. Um, comple- we need a complete overhaul on that aspect about what Lextran is, what it can do, what it is capable of doing in the future. Because I think we just scratched the tip of the iceberg on what we can really, really do here in Lexington. And next week, the accounts will be going to green, uh, Madison, Wisconsin. I think that is the example we wanna aspire to. You know, with a, they have over 160 something buses- Right. ... about the population the same size of Lexington. Very green city. They've done a great job. Maybe we can learn a couple things from them. Um, I put together a, a chart, uh, based on what Lextran files annually with the National Transit Database. Yes, sir. And it's available online, anyone who wants to go out there and get it. And I passed it all around the, the council members here a second ago, um, and they have it on the overhead. I guess, you know, looking at the different areas, you have operating expenses, personnel costs, capital funds are the first three on the left. Just kind of give us, uh, uh, an overview of what's changed. I mean, we can go back as far as 2002 on this chart, you know, when, when we were just operating about $8.2 million a year. Today, you propose 21.4 million. Right. That's a big jump from where we came. What are we getting for that? You know, again, this is a dedicated revenue source that, you know, I'll be honest, I did not support it being on a property tax bill, because I thought public safety needs to be on there versus a bus system. But we gotta have a bus system. That's the way we're funded. And instead of having the revenues match the system, I want the system to match the revenues. And that's why I, I produced this chart. I wanna make sure that if we are gonna spend $21 million, we're getting three times as better service as we got in the past, because service is the name of the game. More routes, more people on board, and that's what we all wanna see. Uh, Council Member Stennet, I think probably the, uh, the thing that I've noticed the most since I, you know, took the job a year or so ago, um, you know, when the tax revenue passed, I guess four or five years ago, um, we did a comprehensive operational analysis back in, in th- in that time to kind of give us a roadmap for five years. So what's happened, what's driven these costs up is simply, uh, added service hours, more miles, more routes, and those sorts of things. And with that, you know, that drives every other piece of, of the budget, that being, you know, more buses are required, more operators are need- needed, more mechanics. And with that, parts costs, uh, go up, fringe benefits for all the employees. So everything is just, as you can see, it's been a steady increase for the last, you know, uh, several years. So that's the biggest part of it. You know, our ridership has doubled in the last four years. So I think there is some, uh, some, some accomplishments and some progress there, you know, to report. And, and again, you know, we're doing another comprehensive analysis f- take us to the next five years. And again, many more routes are being planned and, and different types of routes, more cross-town service, more, uh, um, park and ride type, you know, service, to attract the, uh, the transit-dependent folks. Or not the transit-dependent, but the choice riders, I should say. Okay. Well, one of your big costs that has really jumped up too i- is the personnel cost. Is that... You know, we went from 4.7 million in '02. Now we're at 11.4 million for this u- upcoming budget. Is that dr- is that drivers on the street? The- The majority of that cost? I know you- Majority of the driver, uh, th- that cost is drivers on the street, the administrative staff, you know, and, you know, in the last three or four years, I don't, I don't recall us adding employees. I think in this budget, um, we added, uh, uh, there are two new employees, which are actually, uh, people that will be cleaning the shelters is essentially what we've added. Now, during this past year, we actually added, I guess, uh, what was the number of a- r- riders we added this year, Jerry? Uh-huh. For the new year's 12? Yes. So we added 12 bus drivers. And, and one of the reasons that we did that is simply because cover the overtime. I heard, uh, Council Member James asked that question a minute ago, and overtime was just so high that, you know, we added bus drivers to, to offset that. And, and we think it's gonna pan out, plus improves morale so people don't have to work overtime that they don't want to. So... And, and how many... I know... How many buses do we have both used on a daily basis and the maximum available? We have 71 buses right now in the fleet, and our peak runs, uh, 42, 43 buses. Okay. Not to, not to leave o-- o-- on a negative note, I also included another chart to council members, and, uh, we don't have that for the overhead, but it compared LexTran, um, to five or six other cities, Knoxville, Madison, Ann Arbor, Michigan, other cities that are similar populations. And credits to you all, you're actually, of those six cities that we compared it to, and I, I, I gave, I can give a copy to anyone who wants one. You had the best efficiency cost at 73 cents per passenger mile of revenue, which is great. Uh, your operating efficiency wa- was in, you know, the top two of those cities. So there are some positive things happening on the operational side. Um, I too would like to see more buses th- than what we're running on a daily basis and getting more of those, of those 71s, getting more of 'em operating daily. I think that's the goal of everyone here on council, to get more routes as much as possible. Um, so there are a lot of positive things, so I applaud you for doing that. We just need to, again, continue wa- watching the operating expenses, the personnel costs, which, you know, we have that same issue here in government as well. One final thing, you did not include the stimulus money in your capital projections. Correct. So really, that would make it around 17 million if we did get that money, which w- it looks like we probably will. Um, wha- what are we doing with $17 million? The- What are just the big chunks? The, uh, the, the biggest part of that money will be, uh, buses, buying more buses. Um- And I think you said 20 at one time? When we were talking about, during the commission, stimulus commission meetings? We had talked about that. At this point in time, because th- the way, the way that th- the money's being distributed to us and the stimulus, we simply put buses. So we don't know yet how much all this technology is going to cost us that we're going to buy, so it could be two or three buses. It could wind up being, being 10. But the other piece of this thing too, we were very fortunate this year that, uh, uh, uh, Senator McConnell gave us a earmark for $2.94 million. So with that, that's 10 buses. So it could be 10, it could be 20 buses this year, depending on how this all shakes out. But in addition to that, as I said, we'll be buying new electronic fare boxes, which will help us with data collection, um, finding who's riding the buses, and just the whole idea of, of, you know, capturing, you know, who's riding the bus and collecting money and that sort of thing. We haven't had that. We use the old mechanical drop boxes. We're buying a new radio system for the buses. Right now, it's, it's a very antiquated system. It's some safety issues with that. Um, in addition to that, we're, we're upgrading and getting a new, uh, automated vehicle locator system. Hmm. One of the things that I always hear wherever I go is people want to know, "How do I find out when the bus is gonna be here? Is it running late? What time is it gonna be here?" So we'll be able to have a system to show you that. It will call out stops. You know, with the ADA, the operator is supposed to do that, but if we can automate something to do that, the better off we'll be. Um, so that's the lion's share of how that money is gonna be spent. And again, buying more shelters and benches to go around the city, the amenities. Well, uh, again, tha- thank you for the work and the changes you've implemented so far. I know you have a good staff behind you too, who's, who's working very hard. Thank you to the board, uh, for being here and your service to our city 'cause e- e- as we all know, we have a lot of issues with a lot of our boards and commissions, but I appreciate you all and the work you do and, and will do going forward. And, um, I look forward to, to continuing to work with you and, and keep these numbers, uh, from rising. That's not necessarily rising, but, um, just make sure we're getting what we're paying for. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Councilmember Wallace. Um, thank you. I have two questions for you. Um, I'm on the Outside Agency Oversight Committee, and one of the things we were looking at today was the Red Cross needing a 10% local match for a forklift bus for wheels. Do you know anything about that? No, ma'am. Sorry, I don't. Okay. The other question I had for you is the trolleys in downtown. We've heard a lot about 'em. Um, when do you expect those to be operational? We're, we're hoping that by the spring of next year, we'll have those buses ready to put in service. Right now, we've purchased two used ones. We've got those and we're using them sporadically. For example, we used, uh, a couple of them to run the service from, uh, the transit center out to Keeneland during the, during the- Okay. ... recent meet. Uh, we have three brand new ones that are, um, in production. We just finished the pre-production meeting, so that will start... That process takes six to eight months. So by the time we get everything here and, and the, the final route design in place and all that, we're, we're hoping to do something in the spring and maybe, again, launch it with the, uh, spring Keeneland meet when we have a lot of visitors to the city. So the downtown trolley route that was discussed, you do have the money in your budget to operate those trolleys and to- Yes, ma'am. We, uh, we have- ... implement that program as soon as you get the trolleys in? We, we budgeted for that. Uh, of course, you know, we have, you know, continued to ask for some support with that program. But, uh, in the event we don't get that, we have it in the budget. And, uh, so that's, you know, what we wanted, wanted to do. Okay. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Councilmember Hinson. Thank you, Mayor. Rocky, I, I want you to know I really appreciate the work that LexTran has done and, and I'm, I was happy for the fact that that, um, referendum passed and what we were able to get, uh, designated funds for LexTran. But I will continue to advocate for individuals with disabilities. And I think when you look at the cost, you know, you're increasing services and the services for individuals with disabilities and seniors for wheels, many, in some cases, it's increased the fees. They have less service, and this is a service that's been provided for years and years and years. So, it really, I get upset when I think that we have a designated tax, we're increasing services, and then we turn around for individuals with disabilities and decrease their service or add additional fees to them when they are, most cases, limited or fixed income. And I can just give you an example of if I wanted to ride LexTran, I did not have a disability, I could ride for one month unlimited times for $30. In some cases, an individual with a disability would have to pay $30 a week to ride the Paratransit. And that's 120 a month for someone if they ride five days a week, going to work and so forth. So I was just curious to ask the question about where the $3 amount came from. And I'm not saying you should never ever let Paratransit be unlimited service, but there has to be an easier way for individuals with disabilities. We have to take a look at that. I hope that your board will do that. You and the board, and I would be very happy to help if I could in any way. But I will continue, continue, continue to say what's on my mind when it relates to this. Appreciate that. Thank you. The, uh, you know, the, the $3, uh, you know, I think you all have heard me talk a little bit about that before. What, what that stemmed from was a tran- triannual review that we had from the Federal Transit Administration. They came in and found that we were providing service county-wide to people that live outside a three-quarter mile corridor of our fixed route. And the recommendation in that was that we treat those, those individuals that lived outside or taking trips outside that, or pickups, that we charge them a premium fare. And, uh, uh, we looked at what other systems around the country were doing and, uh, and, uh, us and our board decided on the $3. That's how we got to that. Mayor? Council member Martin? Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I, I was privileged to attend LBAR's regionalism study, and I'm sorry, Rocket, we haven't had a chance to get together, but since you're here, I might, thought I might a- put you on the spot and ask you a f- few things. The, uh, one of the, the most visible things I think that creates regionalism is the, is mass transportation, the ability to get from one part of the region to another. You know, we can share various utilities, electric, water, and sewer, but folks don't really feel a part of central Kentucky if they get their electricity from the same place. Um, folks, I think, feel part of central Kentucky if we can make it easier for citizens to get from one part of central Kentucky to another. Um, what we don't have is, is a legal structure to oversee how mass transit in central Kentucky, uh, might, uh, be organized to cooperate in expanding services between central Kentucky cities. Uh, I know this was b- looked at, I guess, in some way, but what I'm wondering is, what would be needed to form something like a central Kentucky mass transit authority, uh, which LexTran and the t- transportation departments of surrounding cities would be members, that would sort of f- serve as the basis to get together on a regular basis and talk about how services between Lexington and other communities near Lexington could be expanded, um, and, a- and, and how we can sort of promote regional cooperation, uh, through this? I mean, what, what would it look like? You know, that's a very, very good question, and, uh, we, uh, we found, uh, this past summer that, uh, certainly needs, something needs to be done in this area. We had, uh, requests from all of our neighboring communities, uh, Georgetown, Versailles, Winchester, for example, uh, uh, back when the gas was $4 a gallon, wanted service between the two cities, and, and, uh, you know, we were ready and willing to do that. Um, we established what we thought was a, a fair structure, um, that the cities would pay because, you know, obviously people in Fayette County pay taxes to ride, to ride the buses for the bus system. So we came up with what we thought to be a fair amount, and quite frankly, uh, um, the communities that we talked with were, a- at the time, prepared to, to do something with us. Uh, but of course, the gas prices dropped and revenues weren't what they should be for the other cities. So any rate, it didn't, didn't really pan out, come to fruition, but, but as we were going through this, one of the other things that we really discovered was that the state of Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, um, have got some, some rules in place. Essentially, it says, in, in all of our 120 counties, there is a operating authority that has been delegated to, to certain companies, uh, uh, private-type organizations. And so when we got ready to do this, so some of those folks raised their hand and said, "Well, we'd like to provide that service since we have operating authority." So, for example, that's being done right now from Winchester to here. But to answer your question, uh, you know, I think that's something we really need to do, and I think these, uh, other mayors and, and, you know, county judges and things would probably be willing to do that. It happens around the country. Uh, one of the properties that, that, uh, the company I work for manages is, is Tucson, and right now, they're in the process of establishing a regional transit authority. And essentially what it is, uh, uh, Sun Tran kind of became the lead agency, but, but all the communities, uh, around, uh, you know, they, they meet. Uh, they have a board and, and each of the cities or counties have representatives that sits on the RTA board, and, uh, you know, the, the amount of money each city pay, you know, pays is, is, has been established for that. And, um, so it's, it can be done, and, uh, certainly with as close as all these cities are, the, you know, Parises and Versailles and Winchester and Georgetown and all that, I think it'd be a great opportunity. And I'd be happy to, to provide more information about that. I think that, uh, that the towns ne-- don't necessarily want LexTran to take them over. I think that's, that's pretty clear. I agree. I, I would suggest that, you know, we think of a structure where LexTran would be a member, equal with- Right. ... with the other, uh, members, uh, in, in this regional transit authority. And that maybe for a period of time, maybe a long period of time, that we meet outside of Lexington. So that folks- Right. ... feel that, that, uh, they're not just coming to us to, to bow down to our huge transportation system. Um, uh, but I, I, I think I was told that, uh, you know, um, in, uh, Indianapolis, this was formed before they really even had any money to do it. And they did it as a way to get together to talk to each other and to explore common goals and to, uh, try to understand how regional cooperation might work. May not be for a couple of years that you actually start getting, uh, things, things moving along, but it'd be a, a chance for dialogue and a chance, uh, maybe establish some trust between us and some other folks. Yeah, I think getting our MPO involved and, uh, and the Transportation Cabinet, uh, ge- getting everybody together and start planning for this would be a wonderful thing for this area. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I wanna follow up on Council Member Hanson's questions regarding, uh, people with disabilities. And I know you had an audit with some recommendations, but did your board ever consider taking into fact that some people might need some financial aid and how you might be able to accommodate them or any type of financial considerations? I know that, uh, Ms. Hanson mentioned that oftentimes, um, you know, it's costing these people up to $30 a week, $120 a month to be able to get transportation. And I know in certain circ- circumstances where I've been getting phone calls, that's a whole lot more than they're even making in the jobs that they're trying to get to. So have you all even taken into consideration any type of financial aid for people who truly need it? Did the board do that? You know, as we were going through these discussion, it was, you know, kind of painful how we had to go through that because we knew it was going to be a financial impact on folks. But a- again, I, I know myself and the board, we're open to any sort of solutions that people come to us with. The, the, the confines that we had simply was we had to com- comply with the audit. And of course, one of the things that, that's always put out there is that, you know, door-to-door paratransit service is very, very costly. And again, one of those recommendations is that a fare for paratransit service should be double what it is for regular fixed route. So you know, we only charge a buck 60 right now for paratransit service, and it could be two dollars. Um, so I mean, that's just some of the, the facts I'm just stating. But, but to answer your question, uh, yes, as we went through, you know, discussions at board meetings and with my staff, you know, what, what other options are out there? What could we do? Uh, quite frankly, nothing, nothing came to the surface and we had to, we had to move past this to comply with the audit. So that's how we got to the three dollars. Um, could you possibly get to us the numbers of how many people, uh, you know, participate in your paratransit service so we can get an idea about how it's, how many people utilize that? And then, um, just regarding complying with the audit, I guess my only comment would be with that is, you know, a lot of times we have audits done and, and it's my understanding most of the time that they just make recommendations and that it's a guide for your board. And I would hope that in a lot of cases that you would discuss those and, and some, sometimes not all recommendations are the best recommendations for the citizens of this community. And, and sometimes you can meet halfway in the middle. And I certainly think, just like Council Member Hanson, that there are a lot of special circumstances within this population. And again, I, I, I would look at an audit as a recommendation and not being gospel to where you have to absolutely comply with it. And I, I would perhaps even guess that not all audit recommendations were probably complied with. Um, thank you. I'll get you that information. Yes, ma'am. Council Member Wayne. Uh, thank you, Mr. Burke, for coming in today. As you know, in some of our other boards here in the community, there's been some question about how closely managed the financial operations are. And I just wanted to ask you if, uh, if you believe that the accounting systems, the board of director's oversight, the management controls and external audits, um, are adequate and effective to ensure that the taxpayer's, uh, investment in LexTran is being properly spent and invested? Yes, sir. I, I would say that they are. And, and obviously since the, uh, you know, the information about the airport has come out, uh, there's virtually been no board meeting that we've had since then that we haven't discussed finances and controls and those sorts of things. We have, we've, you know, uh, tried to model our policy from what the, uh, I, I guess, uh, recommended and those sorts of things. So we've been, uh, doing that. We've looked at the Urban County Government's travel policies and things. So we, we are very confident that the controls are in place. Yes, sir. That's good. Have you made any significant changes or do you feel like your system is in pretty good shape? You know, the, honestly, uh, we were pretty much spot on with what was recommended, so there weren't a lot of changes necessary. Um, you know, we've, uh, you know, made some things, for example, you know, the, uh, uh, our chairman of the board approves my expenses and that sort of thing when I travel out of town, uh, that sort of thing. We have very, very few credit cards to deal with, and those few that we have, we've dealt with those issues. And, uh... ... so, uh, we just don't have the, obviously, I mean, we don't have the staff that travel, I think, like some of the other agencies might have. And of course, I work for a management company, so, um, I have them to answer to as well. So, if I was doing things that were not appropriate, I'm sure I'd be looking for employment someplace else. I didn't want to imply that anything was going wrong out there, but, uh- No, I understand. ... I think it's good for the community to know that the positive effect of, you know, looking at some of our board operations, and, um, the fact that you're being responsive to it, I think is very good. Yes, sir. Thank you for coming today. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. Um, yes. I'm, I've been under the impression that the Bluegrass Area Development District has a group of folks that have been meeting for quite some time about, um, transportation issues in the surrounding counties, not including Fayette County. Have you been a part of any of those meetings, or are you aware of what they're doing? Yes, ma'am. I've, I've been to a, a few of those meetings. Uh, I guess a couple last summer when, when a, a lot of this was going on, talking about the regional transportation issues. And, uh, some people on my staff when I can't go also go, but, uh, but we've been invited to be a, a member of that organization. It's, uh, but yes, they do talk many regional transportation issues, and it's a, it's a good venue for us to be at. Yes, ma'am. Anything further for Mr. Burke? Well, I would, um, propose that in order to satisfy the obligations that we've got to approve the budget, that we just run their budget through the bo- blue sheet process, so that it will come up at our next work session, and ultimately be put on the docket. If somebody wishes to deal with it in a different fashion, that's fine too. All right, hearing no objection, we'll proceed down that path. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. I have, um, gotten my question answered, um, from government communication and, um, would move that we, um, accept the budget amendments. All right. I think, I think we had a motion to approve the budget amendments pending earlier that we- Okay. ... just sort of informally tabled, uh, un- until now, and it, it's your request, so the, uh, we'll, this is kind of loose parliamentary procedure, but we'll just go ahead if, um, there's no further discussion of the budget amendments, and vote on approving the budget amendments. Those in favor of approving the budget amendments, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Uh, thank you, Mayor. I was, uh, pleased to serve, uh, as a member of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Fiscal Policy Task Force that was chaired by Dr. Merle Hackebart. And I'd just like to say our community is really very fortunate to have, uh, Dr. Hackebart, uh, as a community volunteer, and particularly to be the chair of this, uh, committee, which is looking into fiscal management and policy for our government. And I, I thought, um, it would be appropriate just to give you a little bit of background on Dr. Hackebart. He was born in, uh, Watertown, South Dakota, and earned his PhD at, uh, Kansas State University. He's currently, uh, Associate Dean of UK Gatton College of Business and Economics. But, uh, I think, uh, more than being a professor, he's also served in some very important positions. Uh, for example, uh, and s- he may be currently serving on some of these, but he, I know he was the Kentucky State Budget Director, a member of the Consensus Forecasting Group, which projects the revenues for state government as an independent group, Senior Policy Advisor to the governor, a member of the Kentucky Council on Post-Secretary Education, a senior fellow for the Council of State Governments, and he's also on the editorial board of the publication Municipal Finance. And, uh, I mention only a few of these things. He's, he does a lot of other things too, but I, I wanted our council and also the people that are, were looking at this report to realize how fortunate we were to have his leadership and expertise, as well as the hard work of all the other members of the task force in coming up with these recommendations. I feel like they'll be very important for the longterm financial viability of our local government. So, without a lot of additional ado, I'd like to welcome, uh, Dr. Hackebart to make his presentation. Thank you for coming today. Glad to have you, Dr. Hackebart. Welcome back. Thank you. With that introduction, I'd just like to close it off right here. Uh, it's certainly a privilege to, to be with you this afternoon, and to represent the task force. Uh, maybe a few more comments in addition to what Ed has already provided, uh, about the task force and its efforts. Uh, this particular group was appointed, uh, basically, uh, January of 2008. We had our first meeting in Febru- Feb- actually February 8th of 2008. The, uh, task force included 17 individuals, including representatives from the University of Kentucky, uh, the Lexington-Fayette County Ur- Urban County Government, uh, and council members including, uh, Council Member Ed Lane, uh, Kevin Sinnot, and David Stephens. And, uh, I'd like to also give a special thank you to David 'cause this is a topic that he has been pursuing for a number of year, for a long time. And we've had serious conversations about that before the task force was, was ba- was started. So, again, I do appreciate the opportunity to be here this afternoon, and provide a brief overview of the report that I, I believe you have copies of at your desk. Is that correct? Make sure, so that, uh, we don't get too redundant. Uh, I think the, to begin with, uh, in terms of some of the background issues and some of the reasons why the task force was established, I think, uh, we probably all realize that- There are a number of challenges that the local community is facing as we look to the future. Uh, those challenges are at the present time, and certainly those challenges are going to increase as time passes. Fundamentally, the first challenge, of course, is just to provide current government services, which you are actually continually involved in. And of course, a number of the other projects and activities are, uh, periodic projects to some extent. For example, the sewer and water issue that, certainly th- you've had a, a very challenging time working through and including how we're gonna pay for those efforts, as well as the EPA requirements that we have to meet. Certainly, the pension plans, uh, self-insurance, a number of those activities are not only current activities and concerns, but they also represent longer term issues that, uh, this council and, uh, and mayor and certainly future council members and future mayors will have to deal with as well. And certainly, the revitalization of the urban core, and a lot of activities of that nature are currently taking place, but certainly, uh, we have to look at the, th- both the, the financing of those revitalization efforts as well as l- also to look at the, the positive side in terms of its impact on the community. And certainly the longer term challenges provide future services that will be demanded by, as the community continues to expand and continues to grow. And certainly, I think a long term perspective is very important as we look forward to identify some financial management approaches and activities that can help us, uh, deal with these multiple issues. Um, certainly the vision 2040 is another issue that we look forward to as we try to think about the type of community we want in the future. Certainly, there are financial issues associated with those dreams of the future, and certainly we've tried to give some thought to those as well. So as far as the, the purpose of the task force, uh, two sort of general, uh, I guess, char- uh, charges that were given to the task force, basically to review the current financial management processes as well as our fiscal policies, and to review and to consider those relative to best practices, best practices that are carried out and conducted by other communities of this, similar nature to our community, as well as best practices that may be used and applied by larger communities and smaller communities, which might have some opportunities for us. I think we've also tried to borrow from state governments, uh, because certainly a lot of the issues we face here in our local government are issues that are faced by state governments across the nation. So we tried to look at our own current operations relative, again, fundamentally to best practices. And those best practices that we refer to here were based upon the individual experiences. Uh, some of our task force members coming from the private sector basically shared with us thoughts and ideas that they thought could be adopted by this particular local government, as well as experiences in state government, the university, and across the board. So we looked at it from a broad perspective. And then to provide some recommendations. And, and essentially we tried to keep our report relatively sh- short, uh, concrete, and to the t- uh, specific topics to provide some ideas. Uh, these are basically ideas at this point in time. They certainly will have to be fleshed out, expanded upon, and dealt with in some detail. But we basically were hoping to stimulate some thought and some discussion about these possible changes in how we d- manage our financial activities. Members of the task force, again, we had 17 members. Uh, as I mentioned, we had council members Ed Lane, Kevin Stebbins, and, and David Stephens, representatives of the Lexington-Fayette County, uh, County Government, as well as the University of Kentucky, and we had five private sector members as well who shared with us their experiences and ideas and provided comments on some of the ideas that we talked about. The task force met basically from, uh, last February, February 2008, through last December. And we had basically monthly meetings and we had presentations initially about the demographics of this particular area, this region, this community. We had presentation about the, um, economy, uh, current structure, and the probable future structure of this economy, as well as some unique differences of this particular community relative to the state. So all the trends that basically affect the state may not necessarily be affecting those of us who live in this particular community. After some discussion, we tried to identify, you know, what areas can we actually try to make a contribution. You know, talk about financial management and fiscal policy, uh, that's a pretty broad topic. So we decided to, to kind of focus our conversations and discussions and recommendations to, uh, basically four areas, which we felt were probably the most important ones as far as we, uh, as a group, uh, could make some contributions to, to, uh, this particular government. First of all, we focused on budget process, and, uh, this topic probably consumed, uh, the most effort by the task force. Uh, a number of issues arose about the, uh, the current budget process. We looked at budget processes of other governments and came forth with, uh, some ideas and thoughts hopefully that we can share with you that might be beneficial to improve that whole process, at least as an integral part of the overall financial management of this community's, uh, local government. Secondly, we, we ventured into this area with, with some hesitancy, and that is tax and revenue policies. That's always a difficult topic. We felt that was, there was some fundamental comparisons which we thought were, were pretty striking. And certainly, I think we all realize that in terms of our current tax base, uh, we basically tend to rely fairly heavily on income taxes, both individual, um, as well as businesses in the community. And, and if we look at our... ... are our community relative and our tax structure relative to other communities of a similar size, similar population, and so forth, we find some differences that probably, uh, would be worth looking at. We also felt it was important- ... to look at the capital budgeting process, uh, because certainly, I think that's an important part, particularly as we look to the future in t- terms of being able to assure that we can finance the infrastructure and capital facilities that are important for this community as it continues to expand and grow on into the future. Next topic, of course, is a pretty important topic in Washington DC, that is debt management. Fortunately, I think our challenge is, uh, quite, not quite as severe and quite as challenging, but there are some, some issues here as well. We think we can make some ch- uh, provide, w- provide some recommendations in terms of how we might be able to, to deal with, uh, our debt policy and our debt management, uh, im- possibly in a more effective way. And least in terms of providing perspective to you as policymakers about how we can use debt financing along with other current revenues to deal with infrastructure demands and other activities. And finally, during the conversations we had, we ended up with some other financial management issues that kind of got outside the, outside the gate, and that's, we'll share that, those comments as well. First of all, so I'd like to do and try to stay, uh, keep this short as possible, and I think the recommendations that, uh, I'm going to go through this afternoon are dealt with in, in much more detail, I think, in our report. And we also tried to provide some background perspective as to why we felt these, these recommendations were important to this, uh, to the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. First of all, uh, I guess, our, our major recommendation, which is also probably the one which, uh, would involve some time and effort, and that is to change the budget process, to, uh, focus more on program budgeting, as opposed to the current budgeting system, which tends to be, in a sense, more of a line item budget. And I think there, there are some very distinct advantages in terms of cost comparisons, in terms of your ability to deal with priorities, uh, your ability to deal with changes that, uh, might occur as revenues fluctuate, as well as to compare across different activities and services that, uh, you are providing to this community. And that's an important, uh, I think, initiative that could be very important, uh, to the improved, uh, and, uh, financial management of the community. It's gonna take some effort if this work, recommendation work accepted. Could have some implications on the accounting system as well as the budgeting system. So I think it's almost a special topic for further consideration and discussion, because, uh, there are some pretty important, uh, implications. But again, it would put us more in line with other communities of a similar nature, as well as certainly, basically all state governments to move in this direction and the majority of, of, uh, of, uh, of city governments and local governments as well. The second issue is an issue which basically kinda creeps up on us, and that's the issue of a structurally balanced budget or problems when we no longer have a structurally balanced budget. And certainly, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, uh, is facing this issue, this problem, uh, with, uh, certainly with, uh, Washington, uh, the federal government is facing some major structural imbalances. And it's an issue which just simply arises from time period to time period due to changes in the economy, due to changes in the types of services and activities we provide, and oftentime it kinda creeps up on us. Basically, what we're recommending is that we basically focus on this issue and develop some processes and activities, which will keep us alert to where we are, as well as provide some potential solutions. The third issue basically deals with, uh, providing an independent revenue forecasting and expenditure forecasting group. Again, a number of governments, state and local, have gone in that direction, and I think that's, uh, a vital part of the, uh, collective information that, uh, policymakers need in trying to decide whether new programs and activities are, uh, can be financed, as well as what the implications might be on the fiscal capacity of that community. Fourthly, we're suggesting that we, that the, that the council consider the possibility of establishing a reserve budgeting, uh, contingency and a reserve budgeting process. Essentially, the, the thought here is that we already are sort of in, in the process as having a rainy day fund, but there are other dimensions that could be added to that particular approach as well, uh, including to having sort of pre-prescribed, uh, policies that would be followed in the event that revenues basically decline, uh, so that, uh, we're not dealing with crises, but we have, we can deal with those issues in a more deliberate manner. The fifth item is, is an item which, uh, we decided to recommend to you, which is not really that common among communities like this, or for that matter, state governments. But the idea was this, that oftentimes, uh, we establish programs and activities, and as we go through the budget cycle, we simply continue to fund what we funded last year. Without rethinking, are those activities and those programs, assuming we define our programs, really important today? And this is a topic which, uh, I think is really important in terms of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of government. 'Cause oftentimes, we just tend to do in the pa- in the future what we did in the past, without really rethinking those things, taking a hard look at them. And that's essentially what we're suggesting here. The next item or recommendation regarding the budget process is, is basically a requirement for fiscal notes, not only dealing with, uh, new activities and the programs, but certainly as we look to infrastructure and new capital investments, to have a, so we have good understanding and good information about the operating cost that might be associated with that, so we can make decisions about whether we lease property, build new facilities, things of that nature, put it more on a cost comparison basis. ... the next item, number seven, uh, is sort of an, an issue which, uh, I think is becoming more important, not only here, but in other governments as well. And that is, there's this tendency to have earmark funds. Special programs basically like to have special, uh, revenues to support them. As a result of having earmarks, it's quite possible that we may be over-funding certain activities. Uh, basically, they're still tax dollars, they're still fee dollars from our, from our, uh, constituents and our community. But if you have earmark funds, it's quite possibly that you're, that you might over-al- be over-allocating funds to those activities, and not really realizing it. Uh, in Kentucky state government, uh, this is an issue that I faced when I was in the budget office, and that is, we have the same ci- have the same situation. We have some earmark funds in the state government as well. In 1981, uh, there was this, a new ac- a new initiative undertaken that basically permitted the General Assembly, uh, as part of the budget process, to basically, in effect, pull in excess funds into the general fund. Uh, as a result of that, we, we avoided the possibility of over-funding activities. And even though there may be some benefits in having earmark funds for certain, uh, programs, uh, certainly it can create some issues as well. Dr. Hackbert- Yes. ... do you have about a couple of minutes to sort of wrap up within our 15 minute constraint? Right. And we'll have some questions. And, and certainly the last item on standardized formats is something that we feel is important as well. Let me just kind of talk through the other ones. Basically, in terms of tax and revenue policy recommendations, I'd really like to have you focus on the last one. I think the other recommendations are basically sort of derivatives of that issue. And that is the fact that I think lo- local governments throughout the commonwealth are oftentimes forced to deal with restrictions imposed upon them by state government. I'm not sure that, that that's necessarily good policy. And, and certainly I think this does restrict what you can do in terms of developing a, a tax system, uh, which is, uh, considerate, uh, of the community and its economy and factors of that consideration. So that's essentially... Those other are sort of sub, sub-points of that last issue. And the capital budgeting recommendations, uh, those are simply some details about, uh, the capital budgeting process that you might consider. And, uh, finally, the debt policy recommendations are also described in some detail in the report. And finally, the after-thoughts, if you will. Uh, these are s- I guess the result of some discussions that we had. First of all, uh, uh, I guess, as basic also in terms of my own personal experience, uh, working in state government, which is probably the area I spend most of my time when I was actually, uh, as they say, in the real world, we tended to, um, focus on policies at the state level without much consideration of their impact on local governments. And I think there are a variety of, of examples of that. And I guess we're suggesting here is the possibility of working with, uh, state government and other communities and say, "We ought to have sort of an inter-governmental group that would basically think through, analyze changes in policies which are being proposed, so that before the legislature votes on an issue, they understand the implications fully for local governments and vice versa." And that's a suggestion. And finally, uh, I guess, uh, th- the last one could be inferred as a suggestion that, uh, what we have been doing for the last year be continued. We're not, we're not inferring that, but it's quite possible that, uh, there are issues of this nature that we talked about over the last year which continually emerge. And I think some emphasis on that might be beneficial as well. So Mayor, that's, uh, hopefully a quick overview with, maybe within my timeframe. And again, on behalf of the task force, uh, we appreciated the opportunity to deal with these issues and, uh, we certainly enjoyed the conversation. And, uh, I'd certainly, personally like to thank the other members of the task force for their efforts as well. So that's the report. I want to thank you for y- your work in this context, because it was very good. As, um, several folks may know, you also served in a somewhat similar role on our transition team, so I'm glad we gave you a little prep work for, uh- Right. ... for this exercise. But some of the issues continue, some have been addressed, but we, we very much appreciate your guidance. Questions for Dr. Uh, Hackbert? Um... Council Member Lawless, uh, have you... Let's stay with Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Um, thank you for your presentation. Um, I'm learning more about budgeting than I ever thought I would in my lifetime. A couple of... One real kind of, um, question just to kind of give me a sense of, um, how you feel about finance and budgeting is, do you see, um, the, the money that we spend as a local government, do you see that as an investment or a payment? So as you're thinking about, as we're sitting here making budgeting decisions around the Horseshoe, if you were sitting here as a council member, would you see that as an investment into a community or see that as a payment for services rendered? Uh, good question. And I, I guess in a sense, uh, probably both. Okay. I think in terms of, uh, those services that we're presently providing, we're basically providing payment for those services which our community desires. And they basically, certainly, you're, you're in an important role in terms of identifying which services should be provided and then working out, uh, the types of revenue sources we're gonna use to pay for those services. Okay. But in the longer term, I think we're looking at, I think it's appropriate to look at it in terms of an investment. Because certainly if we don't have the infrastructure in place, uh, when business firms and corporations look for alternative sites or new sites to locate- Mm-hmm. ... we're, we're, uh... ... uh, one of the considerations is gonna be, you know, does this community have the type of infrastructure which will keep my cost structure at a level that I can be competitive? Uh, does it have the infrastructure which I need for my business or my corporation or my activities? So, uh, as well as investing in, in the future of our own citizens in terms of providing, you know, the transportation services, all those things which they basically expect that their local government will provide, uh, for them. Okay. So, I think both is a, is a probably a good response. Okay. Thank you for that. And, um, I guess, how do you... Uh, I'm not sure how to frame my... Let me let someone else go, and I'll try to figure out how- Okay. ... to frame my, my next question. All right. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mr. Hackbart. Thank you again- Yeah. ... for your willingness to chair this. I know Dr. Stevens wanted this committee for a while, and I have too since I've been on council. Right. And, uh, appreciate the work here. Hopefully, we'll be able to take up a lot of these items in our Budget and Finance Committee and adopt- Right. ... some of these recommendations as a, as a council. You know, I think, um, you know, this really points out one of our big f- three big areas. One, we don't have a debt management policy, and I'm sure our, our rating agencies would like to see us have one. Absolutely. Uh, the capital management policy, I know we started one briefly. Uh, hopefully we can fine-tune that process as well and put it into a matrix so we understand- Right. ... what's our priorities and what, and what's not. And the last big one, and hopefully this council will work hard the rest of this year, um, a- and that's our revenues and what type of revenues we're collecting, where we have surpluses, where we have deficiencies, and start prioritizing, uh, the parties of government through the budget process instead of piecemeal like we've done for, for decades now, and really take a serious look at modernizing our taxes. Because some of them are antiquated. It's none like any other city in America, uh, how we collect 83% on, on businesses and payroll. Yeah. And we, we, we've got to change the trend sometime. And hopefully this group can take a baby step a- and turning that battleship around. So this will give us hopefully a good start and direction. I hope so. And, and certainly I think, as I indicated, I think the basic recommendation regarding the tax structure is the fact that, you know, if somehow we could convince, uh, the Kentucky General Assembly and so forth that, uh, we need to, uh, free up, uh, local governments, I think that would be a major step forward. And of course, there are some constitutional issues there as well, which, uh, uh, would have to be dealt with. But I think to the degree communities could be given, uh, more flexibility in, in identifying the types of revenue sources which are appropriate for that community given its structure and, and the types of, uh, businesses and, and, uh, and so forth, I think that would be a, a very step, strong step forward. And, and as you point out, our tax structure here is, is somewhat unique compared to our, uh, our com- our, uh, comparable communities because of our very strong reliance on, on, on major tax source. And, uh, as we talked about in, in the task force, uh, that has some implications. Of course, the other issue that's out there is the whole issue of property taxes. And again, House Bill 44, which, uh, you know, seems to have sort of special status, which I never quite understood, uh, but again, it's a limitation. If you look at, you know, the relative, uh, tax sources that we rely on com- compared to other communities, uh, that becomes a pretty stark difference. And that, uh, I think some more flexibility would definitely be ben- advantageous. Yeah. Flexibility is definitely the key word. Right. You know, I'm a big, uh, big fan of the idea that we don't need more revenues here locally. We just need to redistribute them correctly- Right. ... to meet our priorities and hopefully- It can have some implications for stability and, and also, uh, some other important characteristics of a- Of course. ... good revenue system. We obviously learned a great lesson about stability the last 12 months in our economy. That's right. Right. So, uh, hopefully we'll work there. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, thank you, Dr. Hackbart- Yes. ... uh, for chairing the co- the, uh, task force and the members of the task force for the work they've done. Got a quick question on number seven for you. Um, you characterized what are essentially enterprise funds as earmark funds. And typically, the term earmark is used for funding for a project that's attached to a bill that's in committee, so that that funding doesn't get vetted in transparency in government. Our enterprise funds aren't that. They've been vetted. So could you elaborate a little bit on what you, what your definition of a earmark is, and... Well, typically, I guess when we talk about earmark, normally, in effect, there's a special tax for a special activity. Uh, that would be a classical definition of an earmark tax, dedicated tax, and therefore by ordinance or by statute or in the, in the case of the road fund, basically that, due to the constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, those, any revenue coming into the, the road fund area goes to, or is dedicated to the road fund use. Now, I guess my concern is that o- when we do those things, uh, when we earmark funds or dedicate certain revenue sources, uh, to certain services and certain activities, uh, it kinda takes them out of the budget process and therefore we're not looking at those activities compared to other services that a community is providing. Also, in some cases, uh, because of the dedi- dedicated revenue source, uh, they're pretty s- secure and as a result of that, it's quite possible that they may actually be generating more revenue than is actually necessary. And, and again, those, those dollars are coming from the taxpayers. And are we really being consistent? Are we really prioritizing, uh, the use of revenues from a variety of sources that are coming from our taxpayers? So, um, I guess what I'm suggesting is in our conversation, we thought maybe there would be logical to have a provision that even if we have those dedicated sources that the council would have the authority if we made some changes to basically, uh, through the budget process, draw those funds into the general fund if we observe that, or if you observe that there are more funds, uh, flowing into that particular dedicated fund than actually is necessary to provide that service. Uh, this could be done on a, on a fiscal year basis and basically that's what's done in, in state government. Uh, as part of the budget process, uh, we would do a review of those dedicated funds and if we found that for a particular dedicated fund that generated... A classical example is sort of an interesting one, the undergri- underground fuel storage tank fund. Sounds kind of strange but, uh, when you buy gasoline, you're, uh, you, uh, you are, uh, paying some taxes which go to the underground storage fuel tax fund. Uh, that fund, uh, because, uh, basically it was the purpose of it originally was to, uh, reclaim old gas stations because the fuel tanks would leak and they had to go in and, and uh, basically, uh, deal with the, um, pollution problems that that created, so there was a dedicated source, but that fund typically would generate and have sig- significant millions of dollars because the funds were not being used. So, as a result of that, you had funds sitting over here while we had needs in education and/or needs and transportation or whatever the source might be, the question was, why are we doing that? Well, because we did it and therefore it seemed reasonable to, to periodically review those special funds to see whether or not the funds flowing into those funds are adequate, inadequate or possibly more than adequate. Which case, uh, a provision to permit you to, to move those funds into the general fund and use for other purposes, uh, seemed like a, seems like a reasonable thing to do. That's the suggestion that we thought we'd throw onto the table to have you think about and, uh, see if there was some possibilities to do something of that nature. Okay, I have, uh, I agree with most of what you said. Mm-hmm. Except for your solution. Mm-hmm. Um, and the reason is because that dedicated fund, that enterprise fund. Mm-hmm. We went to the public and said, "We wanna tax you in this area for this purpose." Mm-hmm. So for a future council to go back and say, "Now we're gonna take some of those funds whether they're excess or not and move that to another part of government," I think is not in keeping with what we originally told the citizens when we put that tax on 'em. It also continues to grow the size of government because now we're still taxing 'em at the same rate, we're just using it someplace else. I agree that when we have access, we need to deal with that issue. Right. Um, and by the way, th- that's also why I'm gonna be passing out... Actually, you'll, y'all have an email coming to you really soon with the recommendation to modify the storm sewer fee because it has in it a pre- or I'm sorry, water quality fee. Sorry. Because it has in it a provision for an automatic increase with the CPI every year. Which puts us in the same situation that you're discussing here today. Um, and what I'm gonna do is ask that we amend that to, to remove that automatic increase. But what I would say is that rather than taking these funds and moving 'em to another section of government, we need to roll back that tax. And, and certainly an option. And then if we find a need for it, then we ask the citizens, you know, let's take one penny of this and move it over here and roll it back over here and this is what you're gonna get as a result of that. Certainly reasonable. Um, so I would rather see that as an option and then a way to get at that would be that each one of our enterprise funds needs to have an audit tied to it, so that we audit those funds to see what they've used that money for, how well they've used it, have they done what they said they were gonna do, and how we accomplished the mission of that tax when we put it on. And then if not, then we either end it, roll it back, or make whatever adjustments we need to make it so- I think that's really part of the recommendation is to ensure that, that those activities, uh, basically are accorded the same scrutiny that you apply to the rest of the budget. I think that's really the essence of that, that idea. And I, and I agree with that, but let me ask you this question- Sure. ... uh, directly. Rather than put in a situation, um, rather than codify in a situation where the council can at some point vote to just remove some of that excess fund into the general fund or into another form of gover- another fund in government- Right. ... would you support, would you make, would you say it makes sense to just end that tax or roll back that tax so that the people have a decision- Sure. ... in the process, or a process in the decision-making on what we do with that excess fund? I think that's reasonable. I think the question there is that periodically you might have a, a, a continuing need for that particular service, but due to some unusual circumstance for a particular fiscal year, you might have generated excess funds at that rate. So again, I think you'd have to look at individual cases. It's just- Right. ... this is sort of a general thought, general suggestion to, to look at those cases and, uh, to provide a, in effect, a kind of a circuit breaker that under circum- circumstances this, if it's in a, uh, reasonable, in the judgment of the council to do something of that nature that you have the authority to do that. I think that's really the, the intent of that recommendation. What do you think about having an auditor tie, audit tied to each one of our enterprise funds for that purpose? What do you think about having an audit tied to each one of those enterprise funds for that purpose? Uh, it seems reasonable, certainly. Mm-hmm. I mean, 'cause I agree with everything you're saying except I, I do not agree with- Understand, I understand your point. ... taking funds that we told people would be for- Right. ... you know, project A and moving it someplace else. Okay. Okay. Let me clarify something here. I understood your recommendation was on a going forward basis to identify those funds as funds that are targeted to be used for product, uh, project X, but which may upon a vote of the council be reallocated for other reasons. Right. Um- So it would be a front end discussion with the public. I- I didn't hear a recommendation that we change any of the funds we currently have or try to take money out of those funds. It would be on a going forward basis. That's not what it says here. It says, "To avoid overfunding of such projects or to ensure that excess funds may be reallocated." So that speaks to the backend, not the front end, in my interpretation. What page are you on? Page 11. I- in a sense, it should- Number seven. I guess the thought was that you- that you review the forecast of that particular fund for the future and if it looks like they're gonna be generating excess funds over and above what they need to finance their services, then it would be something that you might wanna look at. And that's essentially what we did in state government is that we would do a review of those special revenue funds, which were dedicated funds. Uh, we look at their budget requests, uh, the kinds of activities that we're gonna provide, and if it appeared that for- for some reason or other that there would be excess funds generated, uh, in that case, partly due to a constitutional question that was resolved back in '81, uh, the- the budget bill that's passed by the General Assembly includes language which basically is called the notwithstanding clause, which suggests, notwithstanding all state statutes, the budget bill is superior legislation. And therefore, through the budget bill process, the General Assembly can basically authorize the movement of those funds that they specify each fiscal year back into the general fund. So there would be judgment exercised, uh, regarding the question that you raised as well. In other words- Yeah. ... in some cases, they may not do that. Not, th- they wouldn't do that universally, but there may be some funds which they feel is appropriate. See, my guess, my point is that, and you're talking at a state level, and we don't have a constitution that they have, and we don't have the same statutory issues that they have. I'm saying as a local government, I think it's wrong to tell people- No, I understand your point. ... that you're gonna tax them in this area and they approve that- Mm-hmm. ... and then we turn around at a later date and say, "Well, we're taxing you too much." And so instead of stopping that- Yeah. ... we're just gonna take that money- Quite possibly, yeah. ... and move it someplace else. These- We- yeah. I know the state does that. I think that's wrong, and I don't think that's a practice that we oughta enter into. We have a, an opinion from the Department of Law that says we can't do that anyway. So that's kinda off the table. So the only way we could do it is if we prospectively created a fund and said, "We're going to use this for project X, but if the council determines that we need to use it for some other purpose, it can." So in that instance, it would be on the table with the public that this is targeted for X but could go elsewhere if need be. So we- we could not- Yeah, that's- I understand that. That makes sense- Yeah. We- ... because you're saying to the public upfront if- We could- we could not take the so-called garbage tax now and reallocate it for police services. Okay. But that's what it, that's what it seems to say here when he has the word reallocate in there, may be reallocated. Won't work. Okay. That's- that's great, 'cause I don't want that to work. It w- won't work with regard to existing funds. Could work with regard to future funds. If we build it in on the front end- Right, right. ... to let people know- Right. ... that if we overtax you in this area, we're gonna move it to something else so that it's not just built up. Okay. Mm-hmm. Thank you. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. I- I figured out what my question was- Okay. ... for you. Um, y- you mentioned that there were several people, um, 17 individuals on the task force, um, with some of them having business experience, private business experience and such, and some of the recommendations that came out, um, I don't support. Um, but I'm wondering i- i- you know, it s- it seems to me that some of the recommendations, um, would be, um, those that would reflect folks that believe in small government and big business. And I don't know that I necessarily agree with that and I can point to some specific ones, um, that aim towards that direction, but do you think the recommendations would be different if different people were sitting around the table? I mean, is this something that if you're in business and, um, this is something that you do, like I said, small government, big business is your frame, i- is that, are these the recommendations of a person that feels that way? Uh, good question. Uh, I think our, the, uh, the threshold that we try to- to apply or the- the- the comparison we try to apply, uh, would be to- to follow what we might consider to be best practices. And the Government Finance Officers Association, GFOA, for example, provides sort of a litany of- of best practices, both in terms of budgeting, debt financing, and a variety of- of issues of this nature, and to think one of our reference points in- in regard to the recommendations was to- to use that as a potential guide as well. So, I- I- I think that the- the- the recommendations, uh, uh, partially came from best practices of similar communities. Uh, some of the recommendations and adjustments in those recommendations came from the- the individuals on the task force a- and as a group. So we had some pretty lively discussions about a number of these issues, uh, but I think, uh, as a result, given the attitudes and backgrounds of all the members, which was quite varied, um, I- I think there was some pretty solid agreement, uh, that these were reasonable recommendations to- to bring to you. Okay. Okay. I know that many discussions we've had even about value statements and visions around the horseshoe, um, many of us feel very differently- Sure, mm-hmm. ... um, about that. Reason, yeah. And when we're, during our budget discussions as well, we all have different priorities and, um, a- many times, it feels like if y- your reasoning and intent has to be known upfront before you can really jointly design how you're gonna move forward- Mm-hmm. ... and what the end result is, and I don't know... ... the f- I don't know the general frame of mind, um, as far as w- what is best practice because I could say best practice would be one thing for my experience and Council Member Lane could have a whole nother impression of that. Um, so it's- it's difficult for me to take all of the recommendations and say, "Yes, let's go right ahead with it." Because I don't know if the frame of reference and if the reasoning and intent- Right. ... is the same. Well, I think before you would consider any of these recommendations, I think it would involve a full discussion of each recommendation as to background, the just- the logic as to why we ended up with that recommendation, some of the implications, and so forth. So, uh, certainly I- I absolutely feel that that's important. I think today, just providing an over- overview of the types of recommendations that we've, uh, developed during our yearlong efforts, but I think as you- if you consider some of the recommendations, certainly, I think they deserve a- a good strong hearing individually to make sure that the council is comfortable with those potential changes. Sure. And a few things that I just said. And if- and if I end up disagreeing or not with- not with ... if I disagree with what you suggest or the task force, I hope that everyone feels like that's not a personal attack. Right. And I do- Okay. I've heard all of your, you know, all your accomplishments and your prestige and all, um, I just think that for- for our local government and for, based on the history as well, we've gotta find a way- Certainly. ... to get to an efficient and best practice of urban county government because in many cases, um, Boulder, Colorado may be a great example for fiscal responsibility, but nobody of any blue-collar nature can live in Boulder. Um, so we need to look at that as well and make sure we're not negatively affecting what our intention is as a government. So, but I do appreciate you bringing information forward. Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Dr. Hagbard, for this, uh, presentation. I found it extremely, uh, intriguing, uh, and I've- I've talked with you about that before. And while you're here, I will just tell you that I've also been asked to serve on a committee to come up with some creative funding sources for our parks department, and I would really love to have you serve on that committee- That's right. ... with us. Um, one of the things that came to my mind when you talked about earmarks was really not relative to what we do locally with our- our taxes, but, um, I know that the state government has empowered us or has given us the authority to, um, to collect taxes from folks, but there also is, uh, I believe a state statute that requires that we give a good chunk of that over to one of our outside agencies, which, uh, I really want to take a look at and find out why that has occurred and, uh, and what, uh, because it's- it appears to me that there is no oversight for that, um, outside agency, which I'm not naming. But, um, I think that is something that we need to look at as an earmark and, um, and see if there isn't, um- um- um, a more reasonable way to fund that agency rather than to turn over a big chunk of our- our- our tax. So, I appreciate your- your comments and your presentation. Thanks for coming. Right. Council Member Lane. Uh, I- I just had one, uh, follow-up question. Uh, I think it would be helpful if you would maybe give your insight on sunsetting either programs or ordinances or fees or taxes and the benefit of that to both the taxpayer and to the, um, county government. Uh, certainly, uh, this is something we talked about in- in the task force and- and basically as I indicated as a potential recommendation, this is not something which is fairly common across state and local governments. It is, however, a practice at the federal level, that's the reauthorization. Congress reauthorizes certain programs every five or six or seven years in terms of the program-related committees. Why do they do that? Well, basically, they do that to ensure that the programs and even the departments which they have in place are still what, are still relevant, are still high priority activities. Uh, it's sort- sort of the- the tradition though that in state and local governments, we- we basically tend to, in our budget cycle, just simply look at what the agencies or departments are asking for relative to last year. So we have a year to year comparison as opposed to asking the question, "Is what this particular department or agency or program actually doing, is it still such a- an important priority for the community or could those funds be used more effectively for another purpose?" And that's basically, uh, an important kind of question, I think, that because of the way we do things, the way we carry out our budget processes and- and budget cycles, uh, we tend not to ask that question. And I guess we're suggesting that it may be worthwhile thinking about doing something like that. This was, uh, basically started back in the 1980s. In fact, you mentioned Colorado, um, uh, State of Colorado started, uh, was a leader in sunset laws where basically they try to do something similar to the reauthorization. After five or six years, they would ask the question, "Should this program be continued? Should this department be continued?" And they'd go through a review of that program or activity, possibly realign its purpose, realign its mission. And I think it was relatively successful. Some communities, for example, they did some work with Hillsborough County, Florida, which is basically the Tampa area, they basically established that process for themselves where they basically look at the various departments or- or, uh, and agencies on a- on a rotating basis to review what it's doing, review whether or not the community really still needs that particular service. And then the fact they sort of reestablish or reauthorize that particular department or program. So, one of the recommendations which we said is not commonplace, but maybe, I think this is a progressive community and can do some things which, uh, are sort of out of the ordinary, in terms of improving our effectiveness and efficiency. Something of that nature may be worthwhile to do on a pilot basis here, uh, as well. And basically, that's sort of the idea, and that's sort of the reason why we included that particular recommendation for your consideration as something that could be done, uh, as well too, to try to be responsive. Thank you, Dr. Hackbarth. This will be my last question. Okay, fine. Any further questions for Dr. Hackbarth? All right, thank you very much. Well, thank you for, uh- We appreciate your efforts and- ... inviting me down today. I've enjoyed it, and, uh, actually my first, uh, council meeting, so I really enjoyed it. That's good, so I appreciate it. Great. Thank you. Good luck for the future. We're now ready for council reports. Um, Council Member Court. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, well, my first question will be, uh, to Mr. Lane, Council Member Lane, to see what your intent is to do with this document. Do you know what, or is it to percolate with council members for a while? I was gonna talk to Chairman Stinnet about this, but I feel that there may be something that we can look at one component each month or something over a period of the year to see if there's some of these things we can bring back and recommend to council. Um, I think it would be, uh, pretty hard for us to absorb it all, do it all at one time. And I mean, there are issues like, uh, long-term, uh, financial planning, and I think the, you know, we've been pushing for when you have a capital expenditure and also have a plan, a business plan, so you know what it's gonna cost to operate that and provide personnel and security. And I hope that we'll continue to improve in those areas. So to look at it, perhaps, in Budget and Finance. Thank you. Um, I wanted to, uh, ask Cynthia to put a, a certificate on the ELMO. Um, Tuesday, May 19th, which is next week, there's a really, uh, good fundraiser for the Citizens Fire Academy. And so, um, citizens can, um, either pick up at the front desk of the Government Center, or pick up at any fire station this, uh, um, discount certificate, uh, which is 20% off of all sales at Max & Irma's. So you can take this to Max & Irma's on May 19th and get a discount, and then they will give a certain part of the money to, uh, the Citizen Fire Academy, which is a good cause. Um, thank you very much. And then, um, I also wanted to go back for just a quick minute to the, uh, Tates Creek Road sidewalks, and just put some of this in perspective. Um, in, I believe it was August of '07, the, um, regional bicycle and pedestrian plan was amended into the metropo-metropolitan Planning Organization's Long Range Planning Transportation Program. It looks like this. Council members received a copy of it, um, in 2008. So, uh, the first thing is I would recommend that our newest council members, if they don't have a copy of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, that you get one, um, because this has been incorporated into our MPO Regional Transportation Plan. And in particular, um, I just wanted to highlight a couple pages. Um, page 13 of this tells about all the community input that was gathered, um, including web-based survey, four-day series of public meetings, and a series of stakeholder meetings. And those, those, uh, multiple sessions with, um, citizens are what helped drive this master plan. And in particular, if you look on page 46 of the master plan, there's a specific section entitled Sidewalks. And the first bullet point is to provide sidewalks of an appropriate width on both sides of all urban streets, except for limited-access highways, lanes, or alleys. And the importance of this whole plan to me is that we are trying to become a sustainable community, where people walk, they bike, and they ride mass transportation. And the way we're going to get there is to put in place certain elements to enable our population to do that. In particular, on page 69 is Tates Creek Road sidewalk in the list of high-priority projects. Um, and I just simply put all this in perspective to say that this 800,000-plus dollar grant, which we have been asked to approve, is a grant which directly addresses this master plan. And- It's my understanding, and there are some people in the audience who could answer this question, but if the council does deny this grant, it cannot be used on other sidewalks in Fayette County. It will go back and another community will use it. Now, if, if I'm incorrect about that, I'd like for someone to correct me 'cause I don't wanna say that i- if it's incorrect, but it's a golden opportunity for us to fund an element of this master plan. Mike Webb? Uh, Council Member Gordon, that is correct, that we... that is non-transferable to another sidewalk project and also if we cannot accept that within this budget, uh, the... this budget cycle, we'll lose the grant also. Well, and my other question to you was going to be, and this is, uh, the only other question, um, we did at the meeting with the public, um, ask that our folks take a look at the issue of trees because that was brought up at the public meeting. There were various citizens concerned about trees and concerned about access, uh, particularly in the area where Old Mount Tabor, uh, runs into Tates Creek. The folks who live across the street have very little... there's very little space there, and the bushes and trees that are there actually are a buffer for them and so will that be coming forward to us soon? We, we have not worked on the engineering work. This is, this is approximately a $800,000 project. To produce that type of information, we would've spent a significant number of general fund dollars, uh, into finding the exact right of way. We did produce and had at that public meeting, uh, a GIS map that showed the approximate right of way lines. They indicated there are a couple of tight spots there where you may have to do something creative with the sidewalk or get a little... get some easement. Those, those are limited to our knowledge, but basically we have not gone out and spent general fund dollars to determine what, what those right of way issues and what trees may be affected. Th- that, uh, that would be part of the design of the sidewalks. Okay, very good. Well, I know some communities put the sidewalk around the tree. Mm-hmm. So that the tree's in the sidewalk. The... and, and creative, creative designs like that may require getting additional right of way, but the majority of the proposed project is within public right of way. Yes. So- There are some tight spots and there... we, we know that there are some utility poles, some light poles that are in the pri- uh, the public right of way. We also know that there are some plannings of potentially some entrances into some houses on Tates Creek, driveway entrances that have fa- fancy entrances, maybe brickwork or whatever that are within the public right of way today. Okay. I- So we do know that there are issues out there. Okay. Well, I appre- I appreciate that very much. Um, I brought it up simply to say I'm very supportive of this bike and pedestrian master plan, which is in the MPO long-range plan, and I hope that as a council, we will finally embrace becoming a community that is connected and not disconnected, so I appreciate your coming forward. Thanks. ? I, I, I would if I could just like to make the point that in, in order to receive this grant, we have to do it within this budget year. We can't... we have to make a decision or, uh, come July 1st, we're gonna lose the grant. Thank you for clarifying that. Thank you. Uh, Council Member Meyers, I think has a follow-up question for Mr. Webb. If you'd step back to the podium. Wait. Mayor, I, I'm gonna call a point of order again. Um, I think this was tabled and not for debate. I realize this is council report, but we're debating an issue that's been tabled. Council reports can discuss whatever they want to discuss in the council report. Yeah, I think we've had a ruling on that from the parliamentarian, uh, earlier. You could certainly make a comment during council report, but to go back and forth with this, she is right. We shouldn't be debating it, the merits of the, of the plan. You can say you support it or not support it, but to get him up here and debate it back and forth. Well, I'm... my intent is not to debate. You will recall I asked earlier in the meeting when I could make my statements and because Council Member Beard had made his statements, so that is all that I was doing. I don't think she said point of order to you. I think it was to Mr. Meyers, being able to question- And, and she said point of order before she even heard my question. I just have a simple question for him. All right. We'll, we'll, um- I'm not debating anything. I have a simple question for him. The point of order is well taken and further discussion at this point's out of order. To the extent you have questions or issues you want to raise during council report, then we'll be able to take it up then. Council Member Stennet? Thank you, Mayor. And that's a good segment. I know several of you have asked me to reiterate to council members the, uh, council rules and you'll be getting a memo that outlines various things, one of which it's five minutes for council reports and so I apologize if we, we start abiding by that, but se- several of you, and we probably need to if we're gonna uphold, uh, other standards in this room, we need to abide by our own council rules, so you'll be getting a reminder on some of those here shortly, uh, based on a lot of feedback I've received- Uh, a couple other announcements, Mayor. Uh, one, um, we'll be having the Neighborhoods of Bryan Station, uh, meeting tonight at 7:00 PM at Bryan Station High School, uh, there in the cafeteria, and again, that's the Neighbors of Bryan Station, as well as next Tuesday, uh, May the 19th, uh, the Eastland Parkway Neighborhood Association will be meeting, uh, at Christ Center Church at 6:30. And I'll go ahead and announce that since we won't be having a work session, uh, next Tuesday. And also, um, those folks that live in the Wickland Drive, Anderson Drive area there around Bryan Station High School, we'll s- uh, be sending out a letter shortly in regards to one of the biggest stormwater projects we'll ever do here in Fayette County, uh, unless Chevy Chase, of course, gets done and that's, that, that would probably be the biggest, but, uh, this is a major project in this area. Last week, um, um, uh, considering all the rain, we didn't have too many homes, uh, that flooded or raw sewage in the house this time, but thankfully, the council supported a stormwater management fee that will go a long way for these folks out here that flood literally almost every time it rains. And, uh, we'll be having a meeting probably June 2nd to outline the design and, and when we'll begin starting the plan, but, uh, just wanna thank Daryl Bennett and Greg Lubeck, um, a- and all the folks that worked on this project to get it to this point. Uh, it's been 30 years in the making and, and hopefully, um, we'll be able to start here this summer after the design is approved. And then last but not least, uh, I have a motion to walk on the docket for Thursday night, the Sixth District Capital Fund allocation. Uh, actually, it's our remaining balance left in there, uh, for it to benefit Kenwood Park in the amount of $4,360. So moved. Second. I have a motion and second to add that item to the docket for Thursday evening. Any discussion? All in favor of adding that item to the docket, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I, I would just like to make a comment, uh, about the, uh, Tate Street Sidewalk Grant, and then I, I do have a council report as well. Um, I, I'm very much in favor of the, uh, the MPO plan and, uh, would certainly work hard to make this a more pedestian- pedestrian-friendly community, but I do think that there are some unique characteristics about this particular project, and a- I, I only found that out going through the public hearing process. Uh, the, uh, there is no clear indication of how much right of way we have. It appears that it may be more in some locations than in other locations. Uh, this is a very contentious issue, and I have received a number of emails and phone calls from people who are very upset about this. Um, I, I think that they had been under the impression that there was going to be some kind of a design printed, uh, for them t- to take a look at, and that hasn't been done. And the reason it hasn't been done, I've just learned, is this is not a grant for a feasibility study. This is a construction grant. So if we accept the grant, we are accepting construction money. Probably a more appropriate grant would have been a feasibility study, and that way, we could have taken the time to design this particular project and work with, uh, within the, uh, the right of way that we have and, and work on, uh, a- acquiring additional right of way where we needed it and people could have had a very clear indication of how this would impact, um, the, uh, the a- along the, the front of their homes. And so I, I would really, I would much rather us approach this from a feasibility, uh, po- uh, position and take a look at it and see if, in fact, it is something that we can do, because at this point, we don't know what the cost is going to be entirely because we don't even know what, where the right of way is or how much right of way we have. And I understand that they're also proposing, um, an unusually large sidewalk, which is a, I believe, a six-foot sidewalk, if I'm not mistaken. So, uh, this is a little bit, um, unique, and I think that because it is unique, it, it really, um, deserves a lot more time and thought, uh, before we move forward with a construction grant. Uh, my council report, though, is that I would just like to say that in light of some of the information that we've seen in the paper recently, I understand the, uh, the state auditor has released some recommendations, uh, to organizations on how they might deal with some of the issues that we've been facing. And I just wanted to, to let the public know and the council know that Council Member Beard and Council Member Myers and I have been working probably for the last month or so on, uh, creating and developing an oath, an oath of office for, um, boards and commissions and also, um, hopefully some type of an orientation process that would lay out for them what their, um, fiscal responsibilities are. So just to let council know, and that will be going to the inter-governmental, uh, committee on May the 26th. And hopefully we will have that ready for you that day. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, just one comment on the, uh, on the item that was tabled. It, it, it seems that we, uh, we've, we've done two things here. We've, we've, we've, we've tabled the motion, or we've tabled the item and, and, uh, we have begun a debate on it. So I do hope that, uh, this issue can be taken off the table, that we can have a serious debate and discussion, and that we can vote this up or down. This is a significant issue that needs to be addressed and not, and not- ... tabled, and then, and, and, and then, uh, subsequently debated and, and opinions expressed on it. So let's get this thing, uh, off the table and debate it and vote it up or down so that if we, if we vote it up, we, uh, uh, we don't run out of time. And if we vote it down, then we know where we stand on the issue of the, of the sidewalks. With reference to some meetings upcoming, uh, the St. Martin's Village Neighborhood Association will meet tomorrow night, that's Wednesday, at 6:30 PM in the community center at Whitney Young Park. On Thursday evening, May the 14th, 7:00 PM, the Me- Melrose Oak Park Neighborhood Association will meet in, in the Thompson Road Baptist Church. Monday, May 18, Windborne Neighborhood Association will hold its annual meeting, or I'm sorry, its monthly meeting at 6:30 PM in ML Kings Parks Community Center. Thank you, Mayor. That's my report. Thank you. Council member Crosby has correctly called to my attention that for reasons that only the technology, um, gremlins would know, she keeps getting jumped or leapfrogged by people on the list here. So I'm gonna let Council Member Crosby go next and then Council Member McCord and we'll go from there. Mayor, if I can just say, I, I noticed that myself, but I didn't wanna challenge the authority of the chair. Thank you. Uh, thank you, Mayor. I can't figure out what's going on, but, um, anyway, I just wanted to say first, also regarding the sidewalks on Tates Creek, um, it just seems to me like if we have some contentious, uh, a s- contentious situation on one side where the neighbors may not want it, I know on the other side of the street, we have several churches. I haven't really received much input from them on whether or not they care either way. And if they don't seem to be bothered by it too much, rather than losing grant money, i- is there any way that we can just go ahead with the project on one side of the street instead of scrapping the entire project? I'm not sure if that option's been looked into, but that might be something to consider. And I see right now that they don't really hear my question, so that might just be something for point of reference in the future to consider one side of the street since they're huddling in the back. Somebody up there hears me. Um, also, I wanna announce that, uh, this weekend, the Police Activities League is, uh, sponsoring the, uh, State Junior Olympics and Future Stars Amateur Boxing Championships. That's gonna be held at Imani Baptist Church on fifte- excuse me, 1555 Georgetown Road. This is truly an outstanding program for the youth of our community. Um, you all have been so generous with sponsoring this, and a lot of these kids are competing, uh, for the state and then to go on to the regionals and possibly the nationals. And, um, it's a privilege that we are able to host this in Woodhill. They come to the park, and we have a park structure where they actually practice, but kids from all over the city actually participate in this program after school. Um, Officer Loughran volunteers his time to work with these kids several times a week. And I would just encourage everybody to come out and support this program. We have boys and girls competing. And it's a great, great time to come out and support these kids who have dedicated a lot of time, um, when they could have been out doing a lot of other things, I can assure you. So come out and support that. And then just lastly, I'd like to tell the mayor that we are looking forward to his visit tomorrow in the Seventh District. Thank you. I am as well. Uh, Commissioner Webb, I don't know if you heard Council Member Crosby's question about one side or the other of the streets. I apologize. I was- That's okay. ... speaking to the person behind me. Could you repeat your question? Well, my, my question was, it seems that since we're kind of in a contentious situation, a contentious situation with neighbors on one side, but on the other side, we haven't really heard much. I know a lot of that area seems to be churches and, um, a few businesses, bank- banks and so on. If, rather than scrapping an entire program and losing the grant money, is there any way that we could do the project on one side of the street rather than losing the entire grant? Has that even been looked at? I'm gonna tell you what I remember from, from the meeting, but I would ask the, the folks from planning to chime in if this is not exactly correct. Number one, we found that they've looked at studies where putting a sidewalk on one side of the street is not effective. Uh, number two, there is opposition for those folks that back up to, uh, would... Their properties would back up, it's not all churches, that it would affect some of the plannings and screenings that are currently there. So there is opposition there, there... And on both sides of the street, there are some people for it. And, and we saw a lot of support from around it. So yes, you could do a sidewalk on one side, but it will not be done without opposition either. Uh, but a study of the right o' way would tell you whether you had to get, uh, private right o' way or get easements from people or acquire right o' way to be able to put a sidewalk in. Whenever... Uh, the documents that were produced for the public meeting showed about 95% on both sides of the road available already right o' way for the sidewalk. That maybe five, somewhere between 5 and 8%, there may be an issue with having to narrow the right o' way. Um, the width of the sidewalk, uh, that was proposed, again, that would be something that you, we would, we would have public meetings on. Is there anything addition to add to the two sides versus the one side? Okay. Thank you. All right. Um, Council Member McCord. Uh, thank you, Mayor. The, uh, the discussion of Tates Creek Road kinda led to the other things I was gonna talk about, but it ... I, I, I, like Council Member Gordon, certainly support the bike and pedestrian master plan and, and, uh, and this, and this project. Um, you know, and it's, as somebody who runs on that road, let me tell you, there's already ... uh, you, you have two options. There's a worn path and you can see where people go running, walking through the grass now, where the sidewalks, uh, would likely be. And then you have the option of running out in the road, uh, or stepping out into the road and, and, uh, jogging or walking in the curb and gutter against, uh, car traffic, which is, uh, certainly not safe. So as someone who has done that and does that on a frequent basis, uh, you know, I certainly support that. But that was a, a, a segue to ... I wanted to thank you, Mayor. Yes. Last week, last Tuesday, after the council meeting, we had the, uh, mayor's, um, bike task force, uh, forum discussion, and I think what was really interesting in that discussion was there's a, a, a lot of things going on in this city to the positive. Uh, a lot of the folks in the back of the room, uh, Keith and Kenzie and Cindy and Chris, uh, to your all's credit, that, uh, that we are doing, uh, not only just physical infrastructure, but a lot of programming elements, and Mayor, I really appreciate all that you're doing to, to make Lexington a very bike-friendly city. And, and, uh, there was a lot of folks in that room that deserve a lot of credit. And I, I appreciate, uh, putting that together. The last thing I'll say is also I wanna send congratulations to, uh, the Girls on the Run program. Uh, it's a program that we sponsor with our MDF money, a program that, uh, Council Member Crosby's a coach for and, and, uh, Council Member Gordon's aide, Melinda Melbourne, is, is very, very involved with. But it's a, uh, a phenomenal program that basically has taken over 90 girls, uh, ages ranging from third grade to sixth grade age range, uh, teaching them how to run, how to do life better. And, uh, over the course of a season, if you will, and their, their culminating event is a 5K run, which was done at Coldstream this weekend. And, uh, it was very, uh ... I, I just wanna send my congratulations. It's, it's one of those things that's a really neat thing to watch and, uh- Thank you. ... my congratulations especially to all those girls and the coaches. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Wallace. I just, I just wanted to say, uh, thank you, Council Member McCord, and we're gonna be recognizing them Thursday night, so you'll get to see a group of the girls coming in and being formally recognized. Great. Council Member Wallace. Thank you. Um, first of all, I ... On the Tates Creek Road issue, and it doesn't have to be answered tonight, but my question is, were individual property, uh ... Uh, were each of the individual property owners on both sides of the street affected, uh, surveyed? And I don't know the answer to that, but if somebody could get me the answer. You don't have to do it tonight. Yes. Are you speaking of prior to applying for the grant? A- at any point, have they been- When we had the- ... individually notified and surveyed, you know? My, my first, uh, involvement with the project was the public meeting in, in November, and we ... Letters were sent to all the, the property owners that touched, either fronted on or backed on, plus, uh, a large number of people in the vicinity. But all the property owners were notified by mail. Okay. So I guess my question or my suggestion is, is that each property owner be surveyed and ask their opinion, 'cause we don't have any idea. I don't have any idea if 3% are opposing it or 75% are opposing it. So this, that's ... I don't know if ... But anyway, we can talk about that later. Thank you, sir. Um, I also wanna let ... remind people that tonight at seven o'clock at the Central Library, um, the Office of Historic Preservation, Betty Kerr, will be, um, putting out their list of historic properties. Um, and, uh, if anybody's interested in that. And I also, uh, would like to request, uh, notice our World Equestrian Games clock is at 500 today, and, um, I would like to see if we can get an update of what kinda costs the city feels like they're gonna incur and, or that we're gonna incur, and what kind of fundraising we're doing for those games. Because that many people in our city is certainly gonna be costly. So could we get a report on that soon? Yes. I asked Christa Greathouse in my office, who's coordinating all of that, to try to arrange a time with Mr. Green to have a presentation sometime in the near future. Uh, just given ... since it wasn't urgent, I said, "Just work it in sometime in the next month or so when we have a light day, when we can have a presentation." If that's okay? Well, if we wait for a light day, I'm afraid my term will be over when the games are away. Well, I asked her to work it in, in the next month. Okay. And preferably on a light day. I'm concerned about what steps we're doing as a community to raise money so that we can pay for all the services, et cetera, that our city is gonna have to ... So maybe even if that fundraising plan and cost estimation could be emailed to the council before there's, uh, a presentation, that would be really helpful. But I'm beginning to get nervous. Okay. And I may not need to be nervous, so I can mark that off my I'm-nervous list. Thank you. Council member Meyers. Thank you, Mayor. First, I wanna announce that we've got a Neighborhood Association meeting tonight for Center Parkway Neighborhood Association at St. John's, uh, Church over in Gainesway, and we also have... I'm sorry, that's the Center Park Neighborhood Association. And then Gainesway Neighborhood Association also meets tonight. Both o'clock, both at seven o'clock and Gainesway meets at the Tate Street golf cart, golf course apartment. I can't talk straight. And then, secondly, I wanna say just for the clarification, what was tabled earlier was not discussion on the issue. What was d- what was tabled was acceptance of the grant, so we are free to talk about the issue all we want to. And so, Mr. Webb, I have a couple questions for you. And the first one is the simple question I was gonna ask earlier. You made the comment that if we were gonna do this, we had to do something by July. And what I was wondering is, do we have to... Does the project have to be done by July? Was that- No. No, we have to accept the funds, a- a- agree to accept the funds and put up the match in this fiscal year. If we don't, then our opportun- the grant will go back and be used. It'd be the same as refusing, doing nothing. Okay. Um, so that's what I was referring to. Okay. The second thing I'll bring up is that the memo that we have that came along with the, uh, Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan stated December 19th, 2008. It says in here, um, second paragraph, it has a statement that says, "These projects are categorized by feasibility." And if you look at the plan, this project was categorized under high priority. Eh, am I correct in assuming that when it says that these projects are categorized by feasibility that that means if feasibility was taken in to factor and it came out as a high priority, that the feasibility of the project is strong enough that they would rank it as a high priority instead of medium or low? L- let me defer to the planning department to answer that. The feasibility of the project did not impact the priority ranking. The priority rankings were, um, determined based on connectivity to existing facilities, uh, safety like crash data, connectivity to, um, schools, churches, parks. Um, then in addition to prioritizing projects just based on those measures, we looked at which projects were most feasible and could be completed ideally perhaps in a more sh- short-term timeframe based on, uh, environmental constraints. Did we have the right-of-way? Were there drainage issues? How, how difficult were they from a physical standpoint? So, what we have done is categorized, um, within those feasibilis- ability categories, you'll see which are some of our highest priority, um, very feasible projects, which is, in the case of Tates Creek, it fell under that category. Uh, we may have some more constrained projects that will be difficult and even within that difficulty category, we've, we've determined, well, there's still some that are very high priority that we need to start working on, um, but they're going to be more difficult, um, to undertake. Okay, so at the end of the day- That- ... feasibility has played into where this is ranked. Not, not necessarily upfront, but at the backend, you said that it is a highly feasible project. Correct. Well, I, I, uh, I voted in the negative to not table, so I can't make the motion to bring it back off the table, but I certainly hope that someone who voted in the positive to table it reconsiders. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council member James. Thank you, Mayor. I did wanna announce that tonight, excuse me, tonight at seven o'clock, the Martin Luther King Neighborhood Association will have its regular monthly meeting at the Living Arts and Science Center. Again, that's Martin Luther King, seven o'clock, at the Living Arts and Science Center. And also wanted to remind the public that this Thursday at 7:00 PM, I guess it said seven, Mayor, is the public hearing on the mayor's proposed budget, is that happen right at the beginning of council meeting. So, um, citizens are encouraged to go to the website www.lexingtonkentucky.gov and, uh, search for the link for the mayor's proposed budget. Take some time to review that. Look through that. I believe you can query by particular, a particular, um, subject. So, if you're interested, say, in trails, I think you should be able to go query by trails and search through the proposed budget. But we need to hear from you. The council is going through the process now of, um, structuring the, the final budget, um, that will be adopted by council. And at this point, now is the time to give your input as we're having our lengths meetings and discussing any proposed changes to the mayor's budget. So, please, please, please, um, make sure that you take a look at that. If you do not have web, um, if you do not have web access, please contact your council member's office, um, and see if there's a way that they can get you either, um, you can come in and view the document. I don't know how council members really want to do that, but if you have a particular question about is something in there, something, something not in there, please contact your council member so that we know that, that you have that concern. Um, but we do... You can take the opportunity to come on Thursday at seven o'clock, um, down at 200 East Main Street, second floor, um, and, um, be here present at the beginning of that meeting. And when the mayor calls for public hearing, that would be your time to come forward and speak about your concerns about the proposed budget. And we, we need your input on that. Mayor, I also have a motion. This motion is related to the neighborhood development bond fund that you all have been hearing a lot about. This, this bond fund is wrapping up. Um, projects will be complete by June 30th and so I have some, um, some final... I think this might be the final motion and resolution coming forward, um, from the neighborhood development bond fund. And this is a move to place on the docket, a motion to place on the docket for Thursday night's council meeting, a resolution approving the following neighborhood development and/or redevelopment bond issuance projects. Um, increase to funding the amount of, um, increase to funded amount of Art in Motion project. Um, the Green Acres Park will have an installation of the electric line. The Meadowbrook Park will have benches, and Dogwood Park will have a picnic shelter and tables. We have a motion and second to add that item to the docket for Thursday evening. Any discussion? All in favor then please say aye. Aye. Oppose no? Motion carries. That's the end of my report, Mayor. Thanks. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Um, a couple of things. One, uh, a comment concerning, uh, Diane Law... Pardon me, Council Member Lawless's uh, question. There is a petition primarily taken from the people on the west side of Tates Creek Pike for the whole length of, uh, of the, uh, targeted, uh, sidewalks. 61 to one, as I remember, against the sidewalks. If, um, a further survey could be, uh, needed, that would be fine. Um, you know, my, my concern and, uh, actually it was something that I, I didn't realize until it was mentioned at the, uh, uh, the public meeting in November was this question about the right of way. And, um, we now gone... have gone six months and there's been no other response, any efforts to do anything that we know about or the residents know about, about the concerns. Uh, excuse me, I just asked the question- No, I'm... No, I'm not talk- ... and I, I think that... I'm kinda... Well, I was looking at you, uh, council member. I wasn't talking to you . I was talking to the ge- general folks. Um, if we could have gotten those answers, it might have been easier to have kept, uh, the residents, uh, h- happy over in the Fourth District, which is the area I was talking about. Um, beyond that, um, there are many other places within, um, the urban services area that need sidewalks also, and, um, some of them are on, on Nicholasville Road for that matter. And, uh, it's too bad that we can't move these, uh, these monies, uh, to, uh, fulfill some of those needs or maybe they should have been on the list, uh, earlier. Um, again, I, I... Council Member Gordon, I don't know how that prioritization took place and, uh, so I'm not... I can't speak to it. Um, the second point I wanted to make is, um, really a lot more pleasant, I guess. And that is that I would like to move that the NDF fund, uh, list, uh, for today be approved. I have a motion by Council Member Beard and a second by Council Member McCord to approve the NDF. Any discussion? All in favor please say aye. Aye. Oppose no? Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. I think it's Council Member Martin. I just lost my screen again. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I do not have a comment regarding the Tates Creek sidewalks. I do, however , want to say that the Beaumont Neighborhood Association is meeting tonight at the Beaumont Clubhouse at 6:30 PM next to the Beaumont YMCA. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Does any other council member wish to report? All right, I will just follow up on something Council Member Lawless mentioned a moment ago, and that I've mentioned a couple of times previously. Tonight at seven o'clock, the Division of Historic Preservation will be r- producing or, or making available to the public an inventory of every downtown property in the area bounded roughly by Jefferson Street, High Street, Rose Street, and Second Street. There are 34 blocks. They have, uh, evaluated each one of those buildings to determine whether or not they believe it is a, an outstanding part of our historic fabric, a significant part, a contributing part, or a non-contributing part. And the general idea is we need to have a discussion about these properties sometime other than when a particular l- development plan is on the table. So if anyone is interested in historic preservation issues or downtown development, I hope they will, uh, come join us tonight at seven o'clock. They will have an opportunity to not only review the plan, but comment if they wish. My understanding is the plan is... The, the inventory, excuse me, the inventory should be available online on Monday too. And there'll be an opportunity for people to comment, uh, online, um. At some point probably, uh, that we'll talk about tonight, probably, uh, 60 days or so down the pike, we'll, we'll try to revise the plan to reflect the public comment, have another public meeting, and then ultimately put a revised inventory in front of the Historic Preservation Commission for their consideration. So that's what's going on tonight. Hope folks will join us. That's all I have. Does any member of the public wish to address the council? Seeing none, we'll entertain a motion. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. I move that we go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.810 subsection 1F for discussion that may lead to the discipline or dismissal of an employee. So moved. Do I hear a second? I second. Council Member Crosby seconding Council Member Beard's motion to go into closed session. Any discussion? All in favor please say aye. Oppose no? Motion, motion carries. Oh.