Music Thank you. Let me make an announcement here. We are awaiting a quorum. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Those who are... Oh, we're not on the air. We're not on the air. Are we not supposed to be on the air? We can discuss. We can discuss. We just can't make any motions. The discussion or the motion making? We are on the air. Well, okay, we'll call the meeting to order. the chair takes the privilege of calling the meeting to order there are a few privileges the chair will take but the chair will take this privilege if that's acceptable by the absence of a quorum Mr. Lane, is that good with you? I'm sorry, I was just inquiring casually whether or not it was okay with you to call the meeting to order We're still waiting on the quorum. Yeah, actually that was more of a casual, you know, just sort of humorous commentary. Here comes one. We have a viewing audience now. So this meeting of the Committee of the Whole is called for the purpose of continuing discussions on the budget, the mayor's budget that's been proposed to the council. Now the council is reviewing that budget and discussing it. and we have on our agenda today we do have a quorum now thank you council member Feigel for joining us we now have a quorum Jerry why don't you take us through the agenda for today thank you sir In your packet, in addition to your agenda, you have three schedules. Schedule 1 is a summary of all of the Council Link recommendations. Schedule 2 are the general recommendations. Those are recommendations that at this point do not have dollar amounts actually tied to the recommendation like the Council Link recommendation do. And then I have recapped the individual Council member recommendations on Schedule 3. What I would propose that the Committee to hold focus on today is Schedules 1 and 3 primarily to review each topic or as many as you can get to. to either vote the particular item up or down i'll be keeping track of the individual votes and will the list will either grow or dwindle that's primarily if we're successful today that's what we'll try to focus on any questions okay Well, we really are going to have difficulty on voting up or down with this many people here. And the outside agencies, I believe, was meeting at 8 o'clock, so that may be holding us up. what's the sense of the yeah I think that we're going to have to go through them all again if we do it now we might just recess for a while with eight people here Unless there's objections, I'd say we need to recess until we get some more here because this is really not just a discussion. We're having to thumbs up or down. Mr. Vice Mayor. Yes, sir. I'd like a motion. We go into a short recess. All right. Thank you, Council Member Lane. There's a motion to go into a short recess. There's a second suggestion for 15 minutes. Is that okay with you? So we'll say 15-minute recess. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Thanks. So we'll reconvene at 925. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Just so everybody knows where we are, we're going to reconvene at 925, Committee of the Whole, in about a minute. Thank you, Council Member Stenner. Your wisdom is always welcome, particularly at this hour in the morning, after everyone's been at work already for three hours, right? I know that Council Member Gorton is here. She'll be coming by. It does look like we have a quorum, so we'll reconvene. 20 seconds. 10. All right, unless there are objections, we'll call the meeting to order. This is a meeting of the Council Committee of the Whole, which is addressing the mayor's proposed budget. And we will continue with, let's see, earlier Jerry, is Jerry here? Okay. You gave us the agenda, Jerry, but I'm just remembering about the report outs. Do we need a report out on outside agencies? Yes, and Councilmember Myers, do we need a report out on outside agencies? You ready to do one? Actually, that's what I'm discussing now. We're not quite ready to do that yet. Why don't we go ahead then with, you want us to go ahead with Council Link recommendations? Yes, and then I may just come in at an appropriate time and ask you for some time. Okay, Councilmember Jane. Thank you. question related to that as we were trying to figure out how can we report out we just left the meeting and kind of ran over is what would be the absolute last day if we were to make any changes in the mayor's proposed budget? What's the absolute last day that we could submit that, Jerry, since we haven't had a chance to debrief from this morning's meeting? And if I could add in there, Vice Mayor, we just left the meeting. We had a meeting that started at 8 this morning. We ran over and we didn't have a time to sum up after we had the presentations as a committee and debrief and then come out with an outcome that we want to present. So we may be able to get that done today. We may not be able to. Okay. So the question before the council is, what's the, yeah. I think the question is, at what date, looking at this schedule, what date could we get information to you to present to council for a final vote? I would say the 9th or the 11th, because after that, that would give you one meeting on the 16th, June the 16th. June 16th is the last day that the committee of the whole has to have everything voted on, and basically the mayor's proposed budget ratified because on that afternoon at 3 o'clock, it's scheduled to ratify the budget and place a motion for two readings, so either the 9th or the 11th. Thank you. I'll give you a little time for further deliberations after that. Okay. Thanks, Jerry. You're welcome. Council Member Gordon. So will that apply to any changes? Yes. Okay. So if an individual council member wants to propose a change, that also could be submitted? Yes. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. So what was that date? What was that date again? So that date was the 11th, right? The 9th and the 11th. 9th and the 11th. Yeah. So last, last is the 11th. Council Member Stennett. But technically, Council Member James, as we all have learned through experience here, really the last day is June 25th or before the end of the year. I mean, you can come on that last day, make a proposed change on the 25th. But to give us enough time to debate it and, I guess, etiquette for the rest of us, that wouldn't be the right days, but the very last day is really June 25th. Well, I think from a pure public policy point of view, nothing should shoehorn us into anything that we're not comfortable with ourselves, willing to vote on. Budget is a budget, and the ordinance says we should have it budgeted by the beginning of the fiscal year. Otherwise, the previous budget prevails, or is our guiding, guides us. Am I wrong on that? Okay. We get a headline, of course. But we get headlines anyway, so one way or another usually. Some of us do. Some of us do. All right. I said we. I said that. Okay. Okay, are we ready for the council link recommendations then? We're okay on that to go with Schedule 1. All right. Unless there's an objection, we'll just go through them in the order that they're presented here, public safety being the first. and just perhaps for helping us along in guidance. Whoever the link chair is might want to guide us in the presentation. In fact, just as looking at this, I'd be willing to encourage the link chair to take us through this because the link chairs are more familiar with it. Is that okay with everybody? Vice Mayor. Yes, ma'am. I just have a procedure question. Yep. And I think this is my third budget, and I think every time before we get to this point, I say, can we please clarify what the – I don't ever remember what the correct process is. How are we voting up and down for the new council members? Right. I think that's – and Jerry presented that at the last time. It would be useful for that to – can you help us with that again? I don't think we can probably be reminded of it enough. It's not an easy process. Historically, what we've done is to take each item, each recommendation, read the recommendation, let the chair talk about it, and then the council just vote yay or nay in favor of it. If they do, then it's approved. I think, Council Member James, are you referring beyond this piece today or just this piece today? I just meant do we take, do we say, you know, public safety items are number one and two. You know, are we looking at each one and then we take a vote after each line? After each line because each line is a separate issue to be voted upon. Okay. And then what, Jerry, you're doing is keeping an accumulative tabulation on it, right? Yes, sir. So you'll tell us whether we're up or down on a balance, right? Yes, sir. Okay. And after each meeting, this is kind of a living document. It will change after each meeting. So I'll give you an updated schedule or schedules after each meeting. And so you'll have something current each time you meet. Okay. Any other questions? We may need you to confirm all that again, so just be ready. Okay. Thank you. It might be helpful, Jerry, unless you've got your working papers back here, it might be more convenient for you to hang around down here. I have another question before Jerry leaves. Okay, you've got another one already. See? Hang around. I told you it was going to be a long day, Jerry. Yeah. Okay, are we to be mindful of any bottom line number as we're considering voting up or down each line? At the end of all the votes and when you come to a final number, if it's a net cost to the mayor's proposed budget, then you have to be mindful of how you're going to pay for these additional expenses. Are you going to raise revenue? Are you going to cut costs in other areas? There has to be an offset. We just say the number's a million dollars after you're finished. You just can't, if you don't have an offset somewhere, we just can't give that to the administration to find that. That's the council's responsibility. Whatever you net from these proceedings, you have to find an offset. If it's a net expenditure, then you have to either reduce costs in some other area of the mayor's proposed budget or find a way to raise revenue to fund the additional cost. When will that discussion happen? Hopefully in one of these next four meetings that we have. Okay. Thank you. I think that my translation of what Jerry has just said is, and what's operative in terms of procedurally, is that we will go through these and we'll vote up or down. That doesn't mean that we couldn't change our point of view on it as we proceed. The last, as Kevin said, as Council Member Stanton said earlier, it's a working document, and the last time for this passage by the schedule is June 25th, right? Council Member Ellinger. One thing we've done in the past, and I assume that's probably the proper protocol and procedure, is we've always voted on our revenues so we know where we're going to look at what we can spend, and we haven't done that at this point, I don't think and not I'm aware of yet, because that kind of sets us where we are now. If we won't wait until later and we need to increase the revenues, we can. But normally we will agree on that number, and that's kind of where are the parameters that we work within. Is that not true? Normally by this time there would have already been a motion to either accept or revise the mayor's proposed revenues. I think last year we waited to the last, so we're pretty much in line at this point of what we did last year. But you're right, there's always been a separate motion to either accept or revise the mayor's proposed revenue projections. Why don't you say that again, Jerry? You said last year we waited. Last year you waited until around this time within the schedule to accept the mayor's proposed revenue or revise. I think you revised it. I don't remember. I think you revised it upward, just a small amount. but historically for most of the years certainly that I've been here there was normally a motion made prior to this time of the ratification process but it's okay I mean this is just if anybody else has a comment before me I have a comment about this I think considering the swings in April revenues that it would be wise for us to consider that as we proceed and wait until we get May numbers. Because the swings in April were pretty dramatic. And what we can get is to get budgeting or revenue to give us an update on the revenues, and then you can maybe make a decision on what you want to do as far as accepting the mayor's proposed budget revenues, or you want to revise them based on what you see now that you didn't see a couple of months ago. Council Member Beard? Is it possible at all that we'll see May figures also sometime before we wrap this budget up? I see Bill O'Mara halfway rising in his chair. I would hate to speak for Bill. Yes. We will have revenues closed for the month of May by Friday, so give us the weekend to work with it and we can try to have something to counsel sometime during the workday Monday. That would be in line for your Tuesday's Cal link, which is next week from today, I I believe. Okay. Is that good? Okay. Thanks. Thanks, Bill. Vice Mayor. Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. Bill, before you leave, can you also let us know on that date if there's any change in the fund balance that was estimated as well? We have an estimated fund balance of $560,000 in the mayor's proposed. Just wondering if that's changed at all. I don't know how to answer that. Mary is due back for a half day starting at 1 o'clock. She's the director of accounting. And there's a whole lot more to work on to come up with an estimated fund balance than I do on the revenue side, which is top line versus bottom line. And I hesitate to give you a clear answer without some research done with staff. I guess I can rephrase, at her earliest convenience, can we get an updated fund balance estimate? Whenever she can provide that before. It'll be a group effort between accounting and budgeting, and I'll have to circle that back and see what is realistic. Okay. Awesome. Thanks. Thanks, Vice Mayor. Okay. Jerry, yeah. I don't have anything. Do you all have any other questions? Council Member Martin, Council Member Crosby, you have a question? No, Council Member Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think just as we go into this, rather than try to read into the tea leaves about what we think we could or should or might be able to bring in revenues, I think we don't know quite yet what the economy has to hold for us in 2010. And I think we should continue to be conservative. And if we have some extra funds at the end of 2000, you know, the next fiscal year, then we can maybe decide at that time if there are other things we might appropriate. But I think it's just prudent at this point, given the massive bankruptcies of GM and things like that, that we really take a very conservative approach to revenues. because this thing may not be over. So thank you, Madam Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Martin. All right. Okay, so we're ready to start proceeding through the recommended changes. And the first is public safety. So Council Member Crosby, as Chair, would you take us through the recommendations? And we'll just vote up and down on the individual recommendations. Right, Jerry. All right. Okay, so I will start with recommendation number one, increased funding for four additional animal control personnel, and this will bring the total officers to ten. We've had ten for this past year, and it was cut in the mayor's budget, and I think you all will recall we discussed during our budget link how many phone calls. They get thousands of phone calls per month regarding animal control issues, and their service time has decreased for being able to answer calls, and we believe there's a link that this was something that we needed to keep at current level. So I will stop there if anybody has further questions, but I think we went through it pretty in-depth during our link. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Is this 58 per animal control officer, or is this a total number? How is it? I don't understand. This is the total number. So approximately a little shade of 15 each, I guess. Is that right? Okay. Thank you. Can I supplement that? No, that's not correct. No, we currently have 10. And the proposed budget cut it 5%, which was a total of 10%, which was a total of 110,000. That's the next slide. proposed budget should only cut it 5%. So this puts back the 5%. That's a total of 110,000 from what you have in front of you as the mayor's proposed budget. Right. It says increase funding for four additional animal control personnel. It's kind of one and two. I mean, I think maybe they might be appropriate. I don't know if we can take them together. I mean, the second one is the 5% reduction level. Right. Are we adding four positions? Nope. We're keeping four positions. Otherwise, they have to cut them out. We added them last year. Our recommendation is that we do not reduce it down to six. It just seems like a low number for four people. No, exactly. They get paid $25,000 each, including benefits. It's about $110,000 total. So the four people are, so one and two are, in fact, together. Yes. So we need to either keep them both or get rid of them. Or get rid of them. Both. Okay. Thank you. And I'll just go ahead that since they're more together. I mean, I think we do have to vote on these two together. But since they were separated out, the 5 percent, we discussed this also last week, I think, during outside agencies. I just said, remember that this will come under public safety, that they had been cut 10 percent in the mayor's proposed budget when all those others were cut 5 percent. And that was just a mistake. So we just added it back in. Thank you. All right. So then is there a motion to endorse these two? Yeah, I'll make a motion that we accept one and two. There's a motion and a second. Is there any more discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Okay, regarding B1, this will be coming from the asset forfeiture account, so there will be no impact. I'll make a motion that we accept B1. Does this require a motion? Do we have a motion? Ed just told me to make a motion. Council Member Gordon. If it's general fund money that will impact the general fund, I would say we need to make the motion. Will it? Does it? It may not be a direct cost, but there is a policy issue here that we're authorizing to purchase those radar trailers, and we're going to fund it out of the revenues. It seems like we need to approve that. Council Member Stenet. You know, this is a special fund, the asset forfeiture fund, because we don't know how much revenue we're going to get in there. And in our linked discussions, there are some placeholders in there. And because we do have, we don't know how much money we really are going to receive throughout the year. And instead of this body becoming a policymaking body and dictating to public safety, here's how much you have to budget for certain amounts. I would feel more comfortable just asking them to figure out a way to budget that amount so we can purchase six additional trailers as we work on how to get a handle on an account, do better accounting for next year for this fund. Because the problem is when we switch to stars, we start having placeholders in there so they can track their budget. There has to be a better process, and we hope to take up that issue. George Myers, I know Councilman Myers brought that up. During the Budget and Finance Committee, there's a better way to do it. So instead of dictating to them saying you have to have a placeholder for the trailers, I would just simply say a request from council to purchase those trailers, whether it be from asset forfeiture or from another fund within their budget. But that's what we would like to do. And then work on next. I know Council Member Fyger brought it up too. How to account for that better? Because there has to be a better way in what we're doing it. So when we shifted into the new county system, they had to come up with a quick way to figure it out. And I think they have some ideas. I think we can work on that as a council over the next several months. So instead of saying they have to take it from asset forfeiture, I would just ask that they purchase it at this point and then work on that. I don't ever want a council, or my opinion is, I don't think my role as a council member to come in here and say you have to do this with money that they're earning, and we don't know how much it will be. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Councilman Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would just concur with what Councilman's Senate said. I agree 100% with what he's saying and that it will be good in the next couple of months to work on, you know, how we handle this going forward in future years. Thank you. Any other comments? So we don't need to vote on this. All right. And does the same apply with item C? Okay. Are we ready to move on? Okay. for the Division of Emergency Management. This is actually a mistake in here. We would need to fund $23,000, and I can defer if I need to on this, but as you recall, when we were discussing this, it is not 100% grant-funded, so we would have to actually add $23,000 for the remainder to be able to fund this position. So that would need to be added to a proposed link change of $23,000. Are there any questions? I don't know if you all remember, Connie came up and spoke about this. But it does not affect the general fund. No, it would. We were recommending adding $23,000 for this position. So it needs to go in the link change column. Link change $23,000. All right. I just want to clarify something. Any changes that you make to the mayor's proposed budget, irregardless of fund, has to be voted on by council. It's not just general fund. Yes, general fund is generally the topic of conversation, but any other fund should also be voted on by council and approved by you before we make a change to that fund. You're referring then to item B, what we just discussed? Yes. That's not true, though. That is not true. We do not vote on item B because we don't vote on the confiscation. We're not asking them to increase their confiscated funds. We're just asking them to use whatever placeholder they got in there. And whatever they wind up using will need to come to you for approval, whatever fund that winds up being. Not necessarily. Not if it's within a placeholder. They could use that for office furniture, and they don't have to come back to those. If it's a capital item, it will come to you for approval. This is the issue. This is why we need to debate it in budget and finance. Right. That's the problem, is we have placeholders in their budget that we're going to approve that they may not spend on that office equipment. So if they chose to buy these, they would not have to come back here as long as that money is in that line item. I'm just mentioning that you all have a policy that every capital item comes to you for approval before it's added to the budget. That's been the policy for a while. But every item under the confiscated funds does not come back to every time they spend it. If they already have money budgeted and can use that, no, that would not come to you. And that was my point. They do. So that's all we're saying is use it. Right. We're not saying you have to use it. I just don't want to get into that discussion right now and dictating on their federal confiscated funds. And that's fine. Because the statute is very specific. It's their money. It is. It is their money. But we generally budget and have you all look at it. I'll let you. I just wanted to make sure we didn't hit on any other fund and anyone think that we don't need approval of those because we do before we adopt them. Okay. We've got Council Member Gordon and Council Member Myers. While you're at the podium, can we have your take on Item C, the CSEP coordinator? Yes. What happened was, unfortunately, we had at one point both the part-time money and the credit for that, the grant credit for that. In the process of adjusting the budget, the part-time dollars were removed and the credit remained, the grant recovery remained. So at this point, we have a recovery and no money in place to pay the person. So we need to put the money back in to pay the person, and that's the $23,000. It's the CSEP coordinator of the – oh, now you're – I don't remember what CSEP stands for. Emergency Preparedness – it's a DEEM Emergency Preparedness Grant. Chemical stockpile. Thank you. I've done the acronym so long I don't remember what the name was. And that's what they work on. So would you like for me to make a motion? Yeah, let's make the motion, and then we'll have the discussion. Okay, I'd like to make a motion that we add $23,000 in for the part-time CSEPP coordinator position. So move. It's a motion and a second. All right. Now discussion. More discussion. Council Member Myers. My discussion's back on B and the conversation we're having, so it's not on this motion, so I'll wait. Okay. Council Member Gordon and then Council Member Henson. Maybe Commissioner Bennett could answer this one. If I recall, well, maybe I should just ask you to explain for the council what this position is. It seems to me it's related to the Richmond chemical. It is. CSAP, the acronym is Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program. And it's a federal program that funds preparedness activities for counties, particularly contiguous to the chemical stockpile location in Richmond at the federal location there. So the grant funding comes to us for preparedness activities, exercises, and this person is the part-time position that that grant funds. So if we don't spend the money on the position, effectively we don't get the grant money. What happened during the budget process is the position was funded, the grant recovery was shown, and then somehow through the budget reconciliation process, the position dropped out, but the recovery stayed in there. So basically, we need to fund the position in order to be able to get the grant dollars. Thank you. You're welcome. Is the total cost $46,000 and we're paying half and we're getting a grant for half, or is it a full grant for the entire commission? I think it's a full grant. Okay. Okay. So the only, there's no actual cost to the government other than we were going to have to make the adjustment because we didn't recognize the expense to offset the grant money we were receiving. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Commissioner, I just want to make sure I have a good understanding. In your opinion, this position is essential or, okay, we have received the grant money and we were supposed to match that? No, there's not a match. And this is a grant program that's been going on for many years. It's just a continuation of a probably decades-old grant program. The position has been in existence during all those years. We had the CSAP coordinator position in existence. since we had intended to continue that and paying for it with the grant dollars we get from this year's grant. As I said, through the reconciliation process, the position just dropped out. So it's through an oversight, I guess. Okay. So it's like we have the money, but there's no impact? There is an impact because of the way it's currently structured, I guess, within the budget. Effectively, what's happened the way the budget is in front of you today is those grant dollars have been recognized to offset other costs within the budget, rather than the personnel costs it was designed to offset. Okay. So the grant dollars will, if you approve this motion, the grant dollars will pay for that position. The general fund then will have to pay for other costs that, through the math formula, the grant match would have otherwise offset. But we're really obligated to this. Is that correct? As part of the grant, yes. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Any more questions or comments regarding item C? Okay, so we're ready to vote on item C, and then we'll go back to questions on B. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The motion carries. Okay, let's taxi back to item B. Council Member Feigl had a question. Council Member Myers had a question. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yes, I have a question. I'm still not clear on the radar trailers. Is it basically what you're saying? Council Member Stinnett, I have a question. It's basically what you're saying is that you want the radar units in the budget, but you're not telling them how to fund it. You're just saying it's kind of like, no? No, I think this body is requesting that they figure out a way to purchase six radar trailers with their FY 2010 budget. So it's like an unfunded request. And if we want to put a line item in there or add general fund dollars, we can do that or bond them. I mean, we can add it with the police vehicle package and simply bond another $69,000, which won't make a big difference on their vehicle package. Okay. I can do that too. Okay. Thanks. Councilmember Martin. I think one of the, what that question is is because those radar trucks are being funded from forfeiture funds, is that correct? How are they going to be funded? Again, we'll approve an FY 2010 budget and allow them to pick what part of their budget they want to fund it from, unless we want to dictate to them where they want to fund it. I'm not in favor of dictating to the police that they have to fund it from forfeiture money. But if we want to make a motion and fund it from bond proceeds, from bond vehicles and equipment for them, that's fine too. I'm just saying, I think there's an opportunity after working with them that they could probably fund them with their FY 2010 budget. So the point of my question, I'm sorry, I'll move this real quick. The point of my question is, are those forfeiture funds off budget? No, they're in the budget. They're in line items. There's placeholders in the budget, depending on how much revenue they receive and how they're going to distribute through our accounting system. Okay, so that's not off budget or anything like that. No, but you have a list of those that was in the capital expenditures. Right. Thank you. But, again, their capital does not affect our debt and our general fund. I think we were just trying to make it a more formal request that they figure out a way to do this and it's a request. It may not get done. Council Member Lane. All right. I'd just like to follow up on that. Essentially what we're saying, this is a capital expenditure. It is not a direct cost to the operating budget. Only the debt service would be. And you're saying there's a budget for capital expenditure or the excess funds that we get in for drug recovery or whatever. the police can then decide what capital expenditure line I am to put it on. So I agree with you. I think that works fine. Council Member Henson. I would suggest that we just remove that wording that says funding will come from asset forfeiture accounts. So if that's not, I think that's what's confusing everyone. Does that If you still do that We did I think what the chair is We're not asking you to vote on this up or down We can formalize it on a work session If we wanted to But if we take out that wording You need to take out the whole account number If we chose to do that Then there's no budget item in there It needs to be tied to an account number and that's the purpose of initial thoughts of the federal confiscated funds. But in further investigation, that's a whole other issue that we really need to explore in the next 12 months and work with our accounting team and how we're going to use that money and budget it properly next year. So what you're saying is that the council or the committee of the whole at this point in time still doesn't need to take any action on this item? And if we do, we need to figure out where in the budget we're going to put it. Right. But we retain it on the list. No? I think they know the request is out there at this point. And I was going to say we could even put it, if it's more palatable, back in recommendations and make it a recommendation and take it off of changes to the mayor's proposed budget, Schedule 1, and put it on Schedule 2, that it's a recommendation. Maybe that would be more appealing. Maybe, yeah. Is there objections to that? So would you all, I mean, do we have to formally make a motion? I was going to say, does anybody object to that? Is that okay? Okay, so we'll just put that into a general list of recommendations from the link. Okay. So, Council Member Crosby, you want to go ahead then with item D? Yes, thank you. D1, as you all will recall, that there were some collective bargaining contract items that were left out of the budget. Personal protective equipment for $100,000, and then also their educational scholarship reimbursement was $35,000. So I make a motion that we add those back in because they are contract items. Motion, and there is a second. Is there a discussion? Council Member Lutz. I just want to make sure that these two items are absolutely required by the contract. They are. They are included in their contract, their collective bargaining contract, and they were inadvertently left out. And I will say, though, that the scholarship reimbursement, that this is the first time it's been added into their contracts. So they just had to give us an estimate, and basically what they did was they looked at, I believe, corrections in the police and what they were spending, and they came up with a pretty good idea of what it would probably cost them. So the $35,000 is a number that they've had to project because this is the first time that it's been in their contract. So what scholarships are the reimbursements for? I mean, is this for advanced training or return to school? It's basically for, well, I think Commissioner Bennett's coming up, but as I understand it, it's for many of them to go on and get their college degrees. So that's... Council Member Crosby is right. But it's basically a tuition reimbursement program that's called for under the contract. Scholarship may be a bit of a misnomer, but it is a tuition reimbursement program, much like we have in police and much like we have for some of the other government agencies. FIRE did not budget it in their original request because they thought it was going to be in the human resources budget and it was not there. So basically it fell through and we need to pick it back up here. Councilmember Beard? I'm finished. Commissioner? Yes. Is this scholarship related to their fire duties, or is it if they want to go take an accounting course or whatever that we pay for that to, so that they can go somewhere else and go to work? Well, I think it's typically broad-based. I'm not sure what restrictions there are on it, but the use of it normally is work-related. Okay, thank you. Council Member Lane. Commissioner, is this a full tuition reimbursement or is this a matching type of reimbursement? I believe it's a full tuition reimbursement. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry. I missed that. That's it. All right. Council Member James. Commissioner, is the dollar amount specified in the contract for $35,000? No, that's just their estimate on how much they think will be requested as reimbursement from the employees during the coming year. There is not a finite amount specified in the contract. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Thanks. Anyone? Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just one quick question. I guess since it's in the contract, we do have to support this. But is there any kind of performance standard based on that reimbursement? You mean as far as grade requirements and things? Yes, I believe there are. Thanks. Council Member James? With that question, is there any type of requirement, Commissioner, that the employee remain an employee of urban county government? No, not that I'm aware of. Beyond that. Beyond that time frame. No, ma'am. Okay, thank you. Council Member Henson and then Council Member Gordon. Commissioner, this is in their collective bargaining contract, correct? Yes, ma'am. But there's no specific amount. Correct. And there's no identification as to what type of classes? It doesn't have to be career related? I believe that's correct. But let me, while you all are deliberating, let me run upstairs and grab the contract and make sure of it. I believe that's correct. Okay. And then was, I was just curious as to why the mayor, if this was in the contract, why it's not in his proposed budget? As I said, it was a miscommunication is probably not the right word, but fire thought it was going to be in HR's budget. HR thought it was going to be in fire's budget, and in the end, neither of them put it in the request. Okay, I'm sorry. So it was just an oversight. That's fine. Thank you. You're welcome. Councilman Gordon. I just had a comment, Commissioner. Under Schedule 2, one of the public works recommendations is that before we even go into the budgeting cycle, there be a list produced that shows all required items, including those required by ordinance or state law. And this is an exact example of that sort of thing because we ran across this in the Public Works link that certain items which are required by law weren't funded. So it just highlights that recommendation back in Schedule 2. Any other questions? All right. We have a motion and a second. We're ready to vote then. All in favor, please say aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Item 2 under D. Council, we're ready to do item 2. Actually, can we skip two and go to number three, please, real quick? Stay. Stay, please. Well, number two, I'm trying to find out something on because there's a little discrepancy here. On number three, transfer funds from overtime account to the regular personnel account, which allows for a class of 15 recruits to start on 7-6-2009 and a class of 23 recruits to start on 8-31-2009. As you all will recall, we're basically asking that the mayor's proposed budget take from their overtime account and that we fill these positions by putting monies from the overtime account into the personnel account to allow this recruit class to start. So I'll make a motion that we adopt number three. Motion and a second. Discussion. Councilmember James and then Councilmember Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I'll try to remember to hit my button next time. I'm sorry. I keep raising my hand. Actually, I'm watching the hands more than I am the monitor. Councilmember Crosby, please remind me of how we're going to guarantee that those positions are filled. I mean, we're doing the recommendation, but then how do we know that that's going to happen? Well, I think one of two ways. First, they've already started. I think that they keep an active list of people going. So it is our understanding, and I think the other LINC members could probably correct me if I'm wrong, that they will be able to fill what they have said they could do, like 15 starting on 7-6, that they keep an active list going. And by us moving from the overtime budget to the personnel budget, that pretty much guarantees that that's what those monies have to be spent on. and that would be probably the second guarantee is that they have to spend the money on hiring. And then we're also requesting, which I noticed back in the general list of recommendations, that we get reports from them on how it's going to ensure that this process is moving along. So those are kind of the three things. That last part you said was key because the money can be there, but the positions may not be filled. Yeah, and we've requested, and I don't know why it's not in here. there's a few recommendations that we made from our link that aren't listed that I could probably go into at this time, but I may just wait until later. But that is one of them that we did request, as you all will recall, that we get updates from them on this process and also on how their overtime budget is going so that we aren't keeping track with it. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. My question was similar when they'll come on board and how do we make sure that that happens as quickly as possible. So I think we've got that answered. Anyone else? Okay. We're ready to vote then. All in favor of this motion, please say aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Okay. I'm going to go on to four and five, if that's okay, because I would say that we presented those together. They've been broken down, and if we feel more comfortable voting for them separately. But four and five, we had money from the Veterans Park fire station, as you all will recall. And basically what we were suggesting that we do is take the proposed use of unspent 2006B bond funds in the amount of $185,000 to reduce the debt service and the general fund and then take also the remainder of that portion and utilize it for the design of fire station to relocation. So moved. Motion and a second. Discussion? Council Member Gordon? I have just a quick question, Commissioner. I realize this is a relocation, which makes it a little different than a new fire station. But are we continuing to use the design? We still have the design that we've used on our last several new fire stations. Last three, I believe. Yes. And when we build a new fire station, we'll use that same design. But tell me about the difference here. I don't know that we'll use that same design. And I say that simply because the contract we had with the architect who designed the last three. You may recall we did stations, I think, 20 and 21, which is the one across from Beaumont. And the one out in the Hamburg area that Haym escapes me, Council Member Stenet, the street. No. Maple Leaf. Maple Leaf Drive. Those two both opened several years ago. The contract we had, as I recall, with the architect at that time, gave us the option to use that design for one additional station. That additional station has now been built, which is the one in Veterans Park. So we'll have to have, if we want to go that route, we'll have to have some discussions with that architect to see, A, are they willing to continue on with us with that design and, B, what the cost might be. So it's not a given that we would use that same design. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Council Member Lane. Yeah, I had a question on the $185,000 credit. Have we actually drawn that money, and it's in our funds, right, in our cash funds, or do we have to draw it off the bond that's in place? Well, if we're drawing it out and then we're paying back the bond, that's sort of a mox next. I don't see that we would really be saving $185,000. I think Council Members, or the LINC's proposal, not necessarily Council Members Sammons, but the LINC's proposal is to use the money that's currently in the bond fund that has not been spent to pay debt service rather than using general fund money to pay service, which would then free up the general fund money that had been earmarked to pay that debt service. So it would free up money in the general fund. Okay, but if we're taking the money, the capital money, out of the bond and then we're going to use it to pay the debt back, we're creating $185,000 in additional capital debt, which we're paying back with $185,000. No, the debt's already been issued. It's been issued and it's been outstanding for several years, so we're not creating any additional debt. So we have received the cash. Yes, it's currently in the bond fund. Okay. All right. That was my question. Okay. We're ready to vote. All in favor, please say aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member Crosby. If it is okay with everybody, I'm going to go back to D2 in a minute because we're trying to see if we had a response on a question we had regarding that item. So unless Commissioner Bennett might be able to tell us. On the paramedic nurse coordinator, it was our understanding that FIRE would not be needing the monies that they requested for this because they are no longer going to be doing the paramedic training as part of their class. And so, therefore, they will not be needing that position to be coordinating the education of... Essentially correct. That position is a contract employee. They perform services for us on contract. We will still have some paramedic activity during the coming year in-service training for our existing paramedics. The one change, though, that we've proposed is for the new class, or the two new classes we'll be hiring in July and August, that we not require them to complete the paramedic training as part of their academy. So we won't need that paramedic nurse coordinator service as we otherwise would have. So FIRE's recommendation is that we not add additional money to the budget. They believe there's sufficient money currently in the mayor's proposed budget to cover the activities they'll need covered during fiscal 10. And when we initially presented as a link, we were not sure about how the training was going to occur and what kind of training they were going to have. So we presented it as such that they were doing paramedic training, but now, based on fire, they think that there's adequate enough money in the mayor's budget. So I think that we don't need to do anything there. I think that's correct. Okay, thank you. Let me go on to Dee. Council Member Cosby, just a second. Council Member Gorton has a question. Commissioner, then is this a temporary non-paramedic training, or are you going to be asking the council to change the ordinance requiring paramedic training? We're not doing away with paramedic training. We're not making it mandatory that they complete it as part of essentially the academy or the training program this fiscal year. That does not prevent them, however, from completing the paramedic training in future years. So we're still looking at how best to accomplish that. At this point, we're not requesting that you change the ordinance. So we want to leave the ordinance in place. We have a temporary lull in it. Okay, thank you. Council Member Crosby. Code enforcement, number one. Council Member Crosby, if you don't mind, if I can interject just one thing. To answer some questions that were raised earlier on the tuition reimbursement program, I was wrong on at least one thing, but I wanted to clarify some of the questions. There is a maximum tuition reimbursement amount per employee in the contract, and that's $1,250 per year. There's not an aggregate maximum for the number of employees that could take advantage of that. They're required for undergraduate courses to achieve at least a grade of a C, for graduate courses at least a grade of a B. to be eligible for the tuition reimbursement, and they are required to remain an employee of the Division of Fire for 18 months after they get the reimbursement benefit. If they leave employment during that 18 months, then they're required to reimburse the government for the tuition assistance that we gave them. So there are some protections in there, additional protections in there. Thank you. You're welcome. Vice Mayor, I had a question on the nurse coordinator. Yes, ma'am. Opposition. Council Member Crosby, the wording on our sheet says this is a contract employee and was included in the mayor's proposed budget. It is included in the mayor's proposed budget. And like I said just a few minutes ago, initially when we presented it, they thought it was not fully funded. But now that they're not going to need as much of her services, they feel like the funding is adequate for what the mayor proposed in his budget. And it had been cut, as I understand, the mayor had cut the salary or the funding for that position. I see them debating something. And so they were asking that it get restored back up to what she was. But now that they're not going to have as many activities for her to be coordinating with educational opportunities, they feel like it's an adequate amount in the mayor's proposed budget. But it doesn't show anything on our sheet. is what I'm, on our sheet it doesn't show that there's anything. Yeah, that's what I was trying to, Jerry, I don't know. There's a mic over there. In the budget, there was an amount for $11,850 for contract services, and I assumed it was for this position. And so the recommendation was to continue funding for it from the links. And initially I think you had 11,850 additional funds for this, like those funds weren't provided in the budget, but when I looked at it, the funds were there. That's why the recommendation had no impact on the mayor's proposed budget. The chart, though, unless I'm looking at it wrong, says adopted 09-11-850, but then it has nothing for mayor's proposed budget. That's a mistake. Okay. That's a mistake. Yeah, that's a mistake. Okay, that was what was confusing me. Yeah, I'm sorry. Okay, thank you. Okay. Are we ready to move on to code enforcement? Yes, ma'am. Okay, number one. funding for two vacant nuisance control officers. I think that we have had many discussions about the need of this and how short they are in that office. So I'll make a motion that we fund the two vacant nuisance control officers. Thank you. Motion and a second. Is there discussion? Discussion, discussion. Council Member Lawless. It's my understanding that those two positions have been funded and vacant since maybe January of 07, and then they were taken out this year. it's again I would like to see if we can have some kind of update to as with the positions and about where they stand are they being filled they are really critical for our community and life safety issues as well as neighborhood issues so is there some Well, we'd be happy to make that recommendation. I think that's important for, as we see throughout reports from all of the links, that we have found that we've funded several positions and are not getting regular updates on what's happening and why they're not being hired or where they are in the process. So I would be happy to make that as part of our recommendation because these are critical positions within this division. And obviously, I think if we pass it, we should follow up. Thank you. So I will just make that, if that's okay with everybody in the link, that we just add that as a recommendation to get an update on the process. Thank you. Council Member Gordon. Well, my only comment was going to be Councilmember Lawless and Councilmember Feigel and I have been serving on the housing task force, and this is one of the major issues. So I don't want us to lose sight of the nuisance control officers because I believe this will be something coming forward to us from the housing task force. And when that recommendation comes forward, it will be post-budget. So I'm just saying this as a support for that. Council Member Stennett, then Myers. I just want to follow up on Council Member Lawless' comment. I think one thing we can do through budget and finance is have our link chairs report out, and if they could kind of keep up with the recommendations and kind of maybe report out quarterly about where we're at, They may be another beneficial use of the links. I'll let them kind of be the watchdog on those recommendations and come back to this group during our Budget and Finance Committee meeting and report out. So I appreciate you noticing that because those two positions actually already had people ready to go in those, and they were put on hold. So I don't know if we have to start the whole process over. Those two people are still eligible, but we'll hopefully find out how to put the money back. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess as a point of clarification, I want to ask the question. I don't know that anybody here can answer it. It may be a question for the administration. But these positions that we are authorizing to be added to the budget, you know, when we pass resolutions and ordinances, they say a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor to blank, blank, blank. My question is, do these hires have to go through the committee that was put together? I forgot what the committee's called, but right now there's a hiring freeze. So there's a, is it Mercer? I don't think that's, no, I'm talking about, because there's a hiring freeze put on by the administration, there's a committee that reviews all new hires. So that's different than the Mercer to do the study on how much they get paid. But this is more a committee that determines whether or not, if a department of government wants to hire somebody, if it's a valid hire. So my question is, and maybe Shay can answer this question. It's more of an administrative question rather than a budgeting question, and that is that the administration has a committee that it put together that determines if, say, budgeting wanted to hire somebody, and that committee would look at it and decide whether or not it's warranted under the hiring freeze. My question is, when we authorize and direct them to add these new hires to the budget, do they then have to go to that committee? The committee you're referring to, I think, is from a previous administration, and there was an attrition committee at one time. That process is no longer in place. The process that's in place right now is the, quote, hiring freeze, is whenever there is an opening, the administrative division either does or does not request for that position to be filled. It goes through the commissioner, and then the commissioner, upon their recommendation, presents it to the mayor for a yes or no to proceed on the hiring process. So then it sounds like I understand you to say that the mayor right now is a committee of one that determines whether or not that hire would go forward. I would say it's a committee of middle management because the director recommends, then the commissioner then recommends, and then the final say is then presented to the mayor. Okay. So then in this instance, when the council authorizes and directs, does that automatically set forth the hiring process? or what steps does the Administration take to fill these positions? MR. Well, I don't know how to fully answer that question from a director-level experience. This past year we were in a hiring freeze that the whole budget was based on a number of retirements to occur in order for the budget to be balanced. And so there was an intense management focus on managing and monitoring that retirement slash open position process. Because if we hired everyone that was authorized, we would have broke the bank. And so this whole year was managing that process. when September came, economics changed, projections for the retirements looked like what were valid back six months before were no longer going to happen, then more emphasis was made on managing the open positions. And so that was all iterative throughout the year. I do know that Kena Co. came and reported on both the number of retirements versus projected as well as the number of open positions versus projected throughout, I think, the Budget and Finance Committee, showing how that process was key to this year's budget and how it was being monitored throughout the year. So I don't know that I answered your question, but that's the process that I was involved with. Okay, so, and thank you for that explanation. Now, moving forward, if the council says we readjust the budget so that these positions that we're saying we want filled are budgeted, then I guess it's more of a question of moving forward, how will that process work? I would have to defer to the administration to give me guidance on how to answer that question because I'm giving you what we did in 2009. Right, you're giving a historic perspective. Thank you very much. Shay? You've heard a lot of questions here. Every time we put a position back into the budget, people are asking how are we ensured that that position is going to be filled in a timely manner. So I guess this is a new situation from last year's, the way we operated. So you may need to talk to the Mayor. I'm not sure you would have an answer today or at this time. So I guess my question will be can you do that? Can I do what? Talk to the mayor? Yeah, I don't want to put you on the spot and expect you to have an answer to this question right now. That's what I'm trying to avoid. So, and maybe you have one. If you do, we'll take it. But if you don't, I would ask that you get with the mayor and the commissioners and whomever the committee is that he would put together, and then bring us back how you plan on addressing these new hires moving forward this year. Well, I would just make a quick comment. and I do agree with Bill O'Meara, if we were to fill every single position that's authorized and funded, we would not be able to finish the year with a balanced budget. And so part of the mayor's responsibility as mayor is to manage throughout the year with the money that we do have and the revenues coming in. Can I interrupt you for just a second? Right. I understand last year, but the situation has changed this year. When we put these positions in the budget, we'll put the money in the budget to hire those positions. So I'm not asking for last year how we did things. I'm actually talking about every year. But we all agree we want more code enforcement officers. And so when we start off the year, we intend to hire more code enforcement officers or whatever the authorized position might be. But as Bill said, we have to work with the division directors and the commissioners to make a decision on whether or not that's the best decision right then given the circumstances. So I think I will be happy to talk with the mayor to find out how we can bring forward recommendations to you in a way that would be better for you or any council members. But, I mean, it's kind of an administrative function where we have to make decisions. if the council wants us to hire someone. The way that you do that is you authorize us to do so and you put the funding in, but then we're responsible for making the decisions throughout the year. And right now we have a hiring freeze in place that, as you know, has saved us $12 million annually, which has allowed us to balance the budget. and we've asked our divisions to do more with less. Well, I would argue that when we pass a budget and the budget says authorizing and directing the mayor to fulfill that budget, then what the mayor's responsibility to do throughout the year then is come back to the council and say, revenue is not coming in as projected or whatever it is, how are we going to address that? It's not. When the council passes something that says authorizing and directing the mayor, the mayor doesn't have the discretion to then say, well, I'll just work throughout the year to determine what I'm going to do based on what revenue is coming in. And that's the way you're presenting that. I do not want this to sound argumentative, but I do think we're going to need to have a legal opinion on what the mayor's authority is in terms of the decisions he can make on hiring and not hiring. Well, okay, we can do that. But that's the reason I ask this question, because this is what we're going to end up with the year. When we pass the budget and the budget says authorizing and directing the mayor to do something, then that's what's supposed to be done. If something happens later on during the year and it changes the funding stream, then we go back and look at that. But to say that we pass the budget authorizing and directing the mayor to hire people, but the mayor can wait until whenever throughout the year that they think the funding is there to do that, isn't the case. So I guess what I'd ask you to do is talk to the mayor and find out what his interpretation would be. if you want to have a ruling from law, that's fine. And then I would ask my colleagues on the council to look at putting a policy in place that says when we authorize and direct the mayor to hire somebody, that that's what happens. And that happens in a timely fashion. And then if something happens just like any year, throughout the year, funding doesn't develop the way that we thought it would or something else happens, there's some type of crisis that happens and it affects our general fund balance, then we'll address that at that time. I think we should get legal involved to determine the authority. And then I believe Bill O'Mara had a financial perspective he wanted to add. If I could address this from a totally different angle, I'm trying to stay out of who told who and directed to what. If I can just look at it from a financial perspective, we have a budget, and in the total budget, we're operating with $190,585,190 in total personnel. I'm going to open up a can of worms here, but I really think I need to make it clear that that is not the cost of 100 percent, 52 weeks of every authorized funded position. If we did that, we would have to cut about $6 million out of the budget. If you want to make sure that 100% of the funded positions were filled for 52 out of 52 weeks a year, there's about another $6 million of expense that has to be incurred. Now, reality in a large organization, whether it's a government or a corporation or even a large company, is that there are people that come and go throughout the year. And so in order to have a valid budget of what you're actually going to spend and incur, instead of not building a building or doing a program, we know that those salaries are not going to occur completely 52 weeks out of the year for every position. we try to come up with a realistic total personnel dollars incurred, and that's what we have done here. So there's a friction here with the budgeting of turnover, and I want every position filled as soon as possible and have zero turnover. So, you know, if you want us to go out and hire every person, then $6 million of other expenses have to be pulled back so that we have the money in this budget in order to hire every person and have them in there the maximum amount of time possible. So I'm just trying to give you a financial perspective of what you're asking. Does that help? It does. But the reality of what you're saying is that if we start out with a budget that says we have 500 employees, and those 500 include the employees that we're putting into the budget as we complete this process, we know it won't go up from that because we haven't, as a council, approved any other hires except for the ones that we add into that 500 starting in the budget process. But it's very likely that the number is going to decrease because there will be people that retire throughout the year. There will be people that leave throughout the year, whether they're for whatever reasons. So the number can never go up because we haven't authorized or directed it to go up above the 500. We know it will definitely go down. The question then will become whether or not we rehire those positions that vacate during the year. So I understand what you're talking about. With that $6 million play in there. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about when we start the budget balanced with this is what we think the projection is and all those things. So this is a dollar amount that we're going to work with for our operating budget for 2010. And based on that, we have these 500 hires. What I think we're all asking questions about as we go through this list is we want to see these hires happen. and we want to see them happen post-haste. Because in previous years, and I understand the historical reasons in previous years, because we had the hiring freeze because of the budget shortfall that we knew we were going to have. Because of that, there's a hiring freeze put into place. And so then some of those positions weren't filled based on the fact that we knew we couldn't fill them if we were going to come out with a balanced budget at the end of the year. So I think it's too, and that's why it was great to hear the historical perspective that you gave, But that's also why we're asking the question about moving forward, what is the policy then that this body wants to see happen in terms of if we're putting these positions in the budget, we're putting the money in the budget, we have to assume that the money is going to be there. Otherwise, we don't pass a budget. So then how we address that $6 million that you're talking about is knowing that it's never going to go above the $500 because we haven't authorized it. It has to go down because people will retire in a trip for other reasons. then that's when I think the mayor's discretion comes in as to what positions are refilled. But as for when we start out the budget and we authorize and direct that these positions be hired, I don't think there's discretion there for the mayor to determine whether or not we should do that. And I'm not asking you to, because that's not your, I'm not trying to get you in the way. Again, I would like to not, like to stay out of the discretion. I'm just trying to give you the guy that's got to balance the checkbooks perspective. that if we hire all these people July 1, I'm going to paint two scenarios. The glass is half empty first, and then we'll talk about the glass is half full. So we've directed to have 100% filled positions. We make Michael Allen and his crew work overtime throughout July and August, and we get everybody on board September 1. and by October we're looking at layoffs because revenues have eroded every month since then. And so is that a good thing? From my perspective, that's overreached. And when I'm talking to bond council, we've gotten ourselves in a jam. So as each month goes, we're looking at where the revenues come in, and we want to control spending where we can control spending. One of the places to control it, which is the largest one in the single largest category that we have to manage, is salaries. So I guess we can't – I don't see from a financial management perspective taking salaries off the table and not having that as part of managing the expenses throughout the year, just from a financial perspective. Okay. Thank you. And I think this is probably really a question that we need to look at as a council is whether or not we want to put a resolution in place that would require these positions to be hired when we pass the budget. So I appreciate the comments from the administration, and we can move on, I think. Okay, thank you. Council Member Myers, Council Member Stennett, then Council Member Lane. Just to follow up to Council Member Myers' question, though, I think what we're asking here is we're funding them, hoping they be hired July 1. We're asking them to be hired July 1. But to Mr. O'Mara's point is we're passing a budget and we're approving funding. We're not managing that funding. That is the role of the administration is to manage it how they best see fit. Our role is not to manage government. Our role is to pass and approve the budget and provide policy. Now, if we want to say our policy is if we approve a position they all hire July 1, our budget would need to increase probably another $6 to $10 million easy. But our problem is we can't manage it because that's not what we were elected to do. We're elected again to pass the budget and give the authority to spend, not tell the mayor or the administration how to spend it. Thank you. Vice Mayor. Council Member Lane, you want to respond to that? Yeah, I think I'd just respond by saying that when we pass the budget and when we pass these positions that we're authorizing and directing the mayor to hire them. And I understand what you're saying about managing throughout the year. but if you take your perspective and roll it all the way out, then basically he didn't have to do anything that's in this budget. So I don't think that's the answer. And I think that's not the expectation of the council when it passes the budget either. So, again, I think if we need to, as a council, come up with a policy on when new hires are supposed to come online, then that's something that we can do. But I don't think that anybody here that's putting these positions in the budget expect that they're not going to be hired. So I think that says enough, I guess. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think I'm in agreement with Council Member Stinnett is that the council basically gives the authority to spend, but it's not a mandate to spend. We're setting the budget and policy for the local government. And the mayor is the CEO and has to operate the government on a day-to-day basis. I think if we start to micromanage the administration of government, we're going to be in serious trouble. And currently we're in very adverse economic conditions, and I think that it's even more important for our administration to have more flexibility and be able to effectively adapt to the tax revenues we're receiving and changes in our local government. So I just want to basically restate what Council Member Stent said, but I believe that that should be our policy. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. It's my understanding that under the city's charter, the mayor has the authority to hire and fire employees. I don't think we as a council, except perhaps upon specific items, have really the general authority to overturn that mayor's authority under the charter to manage the employees. I think one thing we have is a conceptual item about what a budget is. And one of the ways we as a council have to affect policy is to tell the mayor, you know, we're going to give you X, Y, Z number of dollars for this area. And it acts in some ways as a cap on the mayor's ability to spend money on those types of items. And we're going to give you no money to spend monies on this other area. And by that function, we have the ability to affect policy. But I certainly hope that this mayor and the administration keeps the eye on the ball, as they have, by watching the economy and watching our revenues and managing the resources that we've authorized them to use in a wise and prudent fashion so that should we have shortfalls, that the funds have not been committed on July 1 so that we're going to have a deficit. So I guess it's a conceptual, I think, item about whether or not when we approve a budget, whether we're actually directing the mayor to hire a specific individual. I don't really think that's what the legal function, although I see Logan's here. Maybe he can tell us. I think what it is is we've created an account that the mayor has to spend money on in order to hire a particular person if it fits within the current finances of the city. and they can't spend that money on anything else. So beyond that, Logan, you want to educate us on this? Point of order. I don't mean to. I'm sorry. We still have a motion on the table regarding the code enforcement, nuisance control officers, and I think we've gotten a little sidetracked. I mean, I think this discussion is very important, but we have a motion, and we're not discussing the motion on the table. So I don't know if this discussion is more appropriate for... Well, I think everybody's acknowledged the value of the conversation and that probably want to engage it. Is that correct? But as the chair, then if it's okay with it, acceptable to counsel, the chair will rule on the point of order so we can proceed. Is that all right? On the motion. On the motion. No, I'm ruling on the point of order, right? But you had asked for Logan to come up. Council Member Martin, is it okay if we set aside this conversation? I think Mr. Askew's advice is the legal effect of the motion that's on the table. And so I think the question came back to when we approve this, Are we directing the mayor to hire this person or are we? Chair recognizes, yeah. Well, wait a minute. Point of order, that's not the motion that's on the table. Well, the motion that's on the table is specifically to fund two nuisance, two officers, right? Right. And my question was what Logan can speak to, but Logan doesn't need to speak to whether or not we vote these two positions up and down. That's not what the motion is. The motion is just that we're going to accept these two positions or not. And we don't need a legal opinion on that. and we haven't had one on any other positions that we put into the budget. I guess I think that Mr. Myers has asked to sort of put the question into play. I'd like to sort of know the answer to it. But I think the question that I put into play doesn't have an effect on whether or not we pass this motion. And the appointed order was called to get back to the motion at hand. And my question is a separate question from the motion. I think the question is germane to whether or not we are, in fact, requiring the mayor to hire these two individuals or whether this is a recommendation in the budget to provide funds for that purpose. But that's still not germane to whether or not we pass this motion. Well, all right. Chair, this has been the call for the question by Council Member Gordon. There's a second. So procedurally, that governs, right? All right, I just want to make sure. All in favor of the motion to call the question, all in favor to call the question, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Okay, so we can call the question. All in favor of the motion? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right, but just for a footnote to this conversation, we all acknowledge. Pardon? Go back to that. You want to go back? I'd still like to hear. I think it's a good question. I think we as a council would like to understand the function of the budget that we're passing. Right. We may not resolve. Clearly, we may not resolve it all today. And, Logan, you might bear in mind our time constraints. we're recognizing the significance of the question from every side today. Well, I recognize the time constraints, and I will be brief. Yeah. My understanding is consistent with what Council Member Martin indicated in terms of the Council passing an ordinance indicating authorized strength in positions. I believe that's the way the ordinance reads. But you've raised a number of interesting issues and I have been watching this conversation or a portion of this conversation and I think it might be helpful for the council and for the mayor to have an opinion that kind of outlines the issues that have been raised and let me get that back to you. Is that acceptable? Yeah. Can I ask a question to Logan? Sure, Council Member Myers. Logan, when you look at that opinion, can you separate two issues? One, whether or not the budget authorizes and directs, because that's not really what I'm saying. When, after we pass the budget, each of these positions will be blue-sheeted. And, well, I guess look at the question of whether or not the budget authorizes and directs, and look at the question of whether or not when the council authorizes and directs a resolution or an ordinance, does that direct? Yeah. Well, actually, you're talking about, I can get into this a little bit more with the memo, but the part about authorized strength is in a different portion of your ordinance than the budget itself. And I believe it's Chapter 21 and Chapter 22 of the Code of Ordinances is where the personnel portion of it is. I want to also remind you in this whole discussion, remember that we operate under a civil service system also. So with our non-sworn folks, the hiring process is governed by that as well as, Council Member Martin mentioned, the firing process. Well, in other cities, the mayor does have that authority. However, under our civil service system, it doesn't quite work that way. As you all know, there are recommendations. Those can be appealed to a civil service commission, and ultimately a civil service commission can make a decision, or it could go to a court proceeding. So it gets a little more complicated than what you might see in another city or in a private business. But I understand you've got those questions. And if there are any others related to this issue, if you'll let me know what those are, I'll try to get something together and get it right back to you. When is the next, in that vein, when is the next Cal meeting? June the 9th. June the 9th, we'll have something before then. Is that acceptable? Yes, sir. Okay. Council Member Lawless, did you have a question on this issue? I have a comment on it. Okay. I think this illustrates that we certainly need to look at KRS-16 and our charter and ordinances, and I would hope that we can go on and move through this lengthy budget and save these discussions for another time. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Council Member. Feigel just came up. I don't know if she has a comment. Council Member Feigel. Just so that this doesn't get lost, I just would like to suggest that or make a motion that we put this item into committee for the continuation of this discussion. Second. Motion to second. I think budget and finance. I'm not sure whether it would be budget and finance or intergovernmental. Okay. Intergovernmental committee for consideration. Okay. We've got budget and finance and intergov. any other is there a motion did you make the motion motion and a second to put it in budget and finance is there discussion okay all in favor of the motion to place this in budget and finance please say aye aye all opposed no okay the motion carries budget and finance alright where were we do we need to vote on Vice Mayor Councilman Kravitz, excuse me just one second. Go ahead. Based on what Councilmember Lawless just said and the action that you all just took, does that mean that you want whatever opinion we have to go to Councilmember Stennett for budget finance as opposed to trying to deal with it next week? Cal? Budget and finance. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Beard, yep. I'm watching the clock and know that several people have other engagements, some of them starting as early as 11 o'clock. What is our fallback plan to complete this? I don't see at the rate we're going that we're going to get the next six minutes to get finished. We're not going to. We're just going to keep rolling as far as we can today. And this is the same thing that happened last year. We've just got to move with it as it comes along. and we may have to go into another session for it. That's what happened last year. It was the other session I thought maybe we could be able to schedule because I may have to leave. I've got a 12 o'clock I've got to go to too. Council Member Gordon said she could take over if we wanted to keep going if we had to quorum. But it looks like we might not. Other meetings at 11? How many people got other meetings? Hold up your hand. How many people, how many Council Members have to leave before noon? We can, as chair of the 11 o'clock meeting that several of us have, we can reschedule that. Okay. Okay. So we, I've got to leave at 12, but Council Member Gordon can take over at 12 if we need to go on beyond 12. If we can't, then we can't. We'll have to adjourn it and keep it going. So, Council Member Crosby. Thank you. Code enforcement, item D2, we have requested funding for office relocations within the Phoenix Building. As y'all recall, the discussion strictly was around the safety of this division. They are on the ground level right now, and they have people who are able to have open access. to their office. They come in and out. They've had threats. People have been able to access files while they're in there, and we believe that this is something that needs to happen. So, so moved. Motion and a second. Is there a discussion? Council Member Blues, then Council Member James. Can I, I just wanted to, I forgot to add that they have already discussed with some other divisions within that building that are willing to relocate down to the first floor. So it wouldn't be... I believe that they already have somebody who's willing to switch locations with them. Thank you. Sorry. Council Member Blues, Council Member James, Council Member Gordon. So my question is what can be done for $11,000 that is going to make the building more secure? We already have a secure... No, it's not to make it. It's to move them to a different floor. I understand that. Okay. And as I recall, they already have some monies available to where they can do that. They're so willing to move that they'll do it themselves. Evidently, this is a bigger issue than what I would have been aware of before this public safety link, and I don't know if Councilmember Student wants to chime in at all, But they evidently have some pretty big issues with access into their office. Thank you. But if I could just ask further, the Water Street door is locked to the public, and there is a security officer at the limestone entrance, and I'm not clear on how disruptive presences can work their way into the building and exactly what the security difficulties are. I think some of the security issues are the way that the floors might be laid out and that once people have access to their office, they're still going to probably be accessed through the security guard that's down there. I don't think that's the entire issue, but it also, I think, one, they're very easy to get to on the first floor. They deal with very sensitive situations. People are not real happy with them in a lot of situations. So they're able to get in easy, and they'll still have that access through the security officer. But I think also the way the office is physically laid out, and with the number of people that they actually have in the office, people have access to things the way the office is set up to where they would prefer to be in a different location because of security issues and also privacy issues. I think that they have found people who, once they get into their office, have been able to move around pretty freely and look at files and do things like that. So that is an issue with that location, as I understand it. So who will be moving where? I mean, all of code enforcement isn't going to move. So what particular offices or functions are going to shift around? Actually, all of code will move up to another floor, and then it was my understanding, maybe it was the Downtown Development Authority might be moving down to the first floor, which also would be nice because of their function. Well, they're here, so we can ask them if they've had these discussions. But it also puts them down on the ground level. people can see their displays, things like that, and that they're more wanting to have the ability for the public to come in and have that access on the first level, if I'm not mistaken. Briefly, from my understanding, it would be the Downtown Development Authority, Downtown Lexington Corporation and Parking Authority would move to the first floor, and then code enforcement would move up to the fifth floor and just occupy the spaces. There's no renovation, nothing. People would just move in as is. So can we do this for $11,000? Pardon? This is an $11,000 operation? I don't know about that. I mean, that's code enforcement. I don't know. I know for us, it's just packing our boxes and moving downstairs. But you can't use that space just as it is down there, can you? We could, yeah. Okay. Between us, parking authority and DLC, we get a lot of people that just walk in, you know, so coming just directly to the first floor would be easy for them. Yes, and we could work within the cubicles that are there. Okay. You know, this is fine. I have no objection to the moving around. I'm just concerned about whether this can be done within this number, that's all. Well, and if I'm not mistaken, and maybe Council Member Stinnett can help refresh me here, if I'm not mistaken that they do have some monies that they can put towards this in addition to the $11,100. dollars. So they felt very adamant that they could accomplish this within that dollar range while trying to control their costs, but also for their personal safety and also for some privacy issues that they would be able to accomplish this within that budget range. Thank you. Okay. Council Member Gordon and then Council Member James. Yes, I'm curious as to exactly what the $11,000 pays for. I'd like for someone to explain because I know that in December, as an example, council members, many people moved their offices and it didn't cost a penny. So can someone explain this? no not much more than i think we have you know they evidently you know we were moving within a floor same floor many of us probably 50 feet at most and uh i don't think we had the amount of computers and files and i mean this is an entire division and we're comparing it to moving a council office. So I'm not sure that we could, I mean, that's like comparing apples and oranges. I'm not sure we could really draw that type of comparison. And my guess is that that's what it's for, is the physical moving of the entire division. I wish Mr. Jarvis were here, but I can't answer that further than the information that I had presented to me during the council link and my other link members. I don't know. It's just the physical moving of the... Are they hiring a moving company? I don't really answer that question, but I know there have to be rewired. Their phone system and computers, because they're tied into our government network, I know that has to be done up on that floor. And I think there's some minor equipment changes in terms of desks and furnishings, just minor, not like a whole new room. They're going to try to reuse what Harold has up there for the most part to keep the cost down as low as possible. But it was my understanding that most of it was moving. I don't know if it's external or internal movers. So is the rewiring, I know on the Council floor when we rewire the government does it, is there, are they using outside people to rewire or, if, Bill, you're just so good and consistent today. Commissioner Bennett had to go to a pre-scheduled meeting related to negotiations, so he's unavailable now. Okay. And I don't know if probably someone at code enforcement isn't watching TV right now, so we would have to get back with you. Probably out and about. The account number that's been assigned is repairs and maintenance, not outside services, but I don't know how much we can glean from and assume from that. Well, one more question, Council Member Crosby. I think I heard you say they have some funds within their budget already. Yeah. $800. Okay. Well, without any further information, I'd like to go ahead and move to – I'm tempted to move to lower this number, but since we don't have information, I'd like to move to go ahead and table this issue until we get better information. I was going to suggest that maybe we not vote on it and maybe we try and get a hold of David, move on to finance, budgeting, social service, and outside services, and then maybe in between we can get a hold of Mr. Jarvis, and that way we can go back to it and figure out exactly what it's for, if you guys are okay with that. Second. Council Member Gorton's motion. Sorry. It's no. Okay. Okay, there's a motion and a second to table this item, which is non-debatable, so all in favor of a table. Please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Okay. Vice Mayor, quickly, I'm going to go ahead and handle this now because it appears that we're going to have to go into another session. But under general list of recommendations from Lynx, public safety had made several. One we already talked about was with FIRE, keeping up with the hiring of the employees and some other things. But we had requested that we get a presentation regarding the EOC because, as we talked about, there's a little radio issue of $10 million that we did not make a recommendation on based on the fact that we had asked the administration to give us this presentation. we asked for it during the budget cycle because obviously we need to know where that stands before we can make a $10 million recommendation on radios. They all kind of interconnect. We've not heard anything about that presentation, but that was a recommendation from our link, and that's not in here. And I'm a little nervous that as we're going through this process that this is going to get dropped if we don't make a formal recommendation as we already have once during our link report out. So I would like to just bring that to everybody's attention. And then also a recommendation or a comment from the link is just remember that right now, I think the first deadline for the COPS program was yesterday, May 31st, and then we'll have a second one coming up, and we were hoping that we might receive some police officers through that program. Obviously, we don't know that yet, but if we don't, our recommendation is going to be that we have to have discussions on hiring some police officers. So I would like to also see that that get added from our link. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Crosby. Our next broad area is finance, budgeting, social services, and outside agencies. And that is, who's the chair? Council Member Hanson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. the first item under social services division of adult and tenant services was to create a new position of social service coordinator for the Black and Williams Center and reassign the interim recreation supervisor and what's happening over there is the The recreation supervisor has taken on additional responsibilities. So this would be recategorizing, I guess, his position and increasing his salary by $18,172. All right. You putting that in the form of a motion. Council Member Henson, okay. Is there a motion? Is there a second? Is there a motion? Is there any discussion on this item? Not Tom Blues. Mr. Tom Blues, I'm sorry. As I understand it, Peggy, Council Member Henson, we have presently on loan from, I think, from adult services, social worker who acts as the supervisor at Black & Williams. Is that not right? That's correct. And it's a sort of stopgap situation. We've got several nonprofit agencies in the building, and so our person, I'm very proud of you. other position or will he continue on in this new role or what? It's my understanding that this would be like he would now be getting paid for the additional work that he's been doing. So he will remain at the Black and Williams Center. But he has taken on additional duties there. Yes, it's not that when he moved to the Black and Williams Center, he didn't give up his other duties. He's sort of been doing a couple of jobs here. Right. And, you know, he just goes above and beyond, in all honesty. Any other comments? Mr. Stenet. I don't know if Commissioner Cole can answer this or not, but we've talked about, I know it's come up a lot in outside agencies about the future of Black and Williams Center. Do we have a grasp about in terms of, I know there's a lot of maintenance needs, there's a lot of people occupying that we, I don't think, knew prior to outside agencies' discussion on who was in the building. Do we have a firmer grasp on that, and are we charging everyone rent, and this is a building we're going to keep and a property we're going to keep going forward? I know there's been a lot of discussions about what to do with it. So I'm just curious about where we are in those discussions and how much grasp we actually have on who's occupying the building and what this person will oversee. We do know who all the occupants of the building are. They do all have leases. However, those leases do not require them to contribute anything to LFUCG and the way of payment. So the future for Black and Williams, we have not had a discussion on what that should be. Okay, but we now, because I know we didn't have everyone under a lease prior. No, we did have, government-wide, we didn't have leases with everyone. For Black and Williams, there were leases for everyone. And this person will oversee those leases and the terms and conditions of those leases? I am not, I do not know anything about the position that is being discussed here. Well, I mean, I guess it was alluded to that they'll oversee the building and everything. I guess you're in charge of buildings and we have a division, facilities management. Why wouldn't that person be in your area if we're going to oversee a building? Well, I think Marlene's coming to help me out here. I'm not sure if they're overseeing the building as much as they're overseeing the agencies. We've had lots of discussions whether it's a building security type person or a building maintenance type person or someone who has more of a social work background that is more appropriate for the types of day-to-day items that come up. Okay. You'll remember management partners actually made that recommendation that Black and Williams be transferred to general services, and it was the determination that it should remain with social services. And so Kevin Edmonds, or I shouldn't really use the name, but the individual that is there is currently a client assessment counselor. And two years ago, when the position became vacant, we made the determination that we that rather than employing, just because the position was vacant, we thought, do we really need to employ a person to sit in the building? The previous person's title was recreation supervisor. That really does not fit within our department. That was the only position of that title that we had in the Department of Social Services. And I wanted to take a real look at that. I was trying to determine what does a recreation supervisor do in social services. And what we realized was that we were actually paying a person, a very competent person, with a degree and with aspirations to really sit in the building. They had no other responsibilities other than to oversee the part-time custodian and to just make sure the building was opened and closed and that the ten agencies that are inside had access to the building. We made the determination that let's try by placing another individual with the same response, you know, keeping their same responsibilities. We just simply asked an individual to conduct their normal job responsibilities from that site, thereby giving LFUCG an employee to be in the building if needed. That person has now done that for two years. Management partners again came back and said that because of the nature of that particular building, this individual's time is being used a lot more than we suspect for operation of the programs within that building. Therefore, he was not able to do as much of the job responsibilities related to his title. So it's our determination that if we identify this position, we will advertise it. We will go through the process. We will have someone there who, in our opinion, will have it written into their job description that they are to supervise and oversee this building. They will also have the other responsibilities that are listed as part of this particular job description. I know that's a very lengthy answer to what probably seemed like a pretty short issue. So they will have the maintenance responsibility and calling in maintenance requests? They'll have oversight of the building, yes. Okay. And that person, of course, being in it, will report directly to you, and then any maintenance requests will then be shifted to Commissioner Cole? Is that how it's going to work? That person will actually report to Cheryl Talbert because this position will fall under Adult and Tenant Services, which is where Black & Williams falls. We are currently, as part of the budget process, we made the determination to cut the amount in the budget in that particular division for custodial. We have in another division some in-house custodial staff, and we are making plans now for some of those individuals to go over on a weekly basis to Black & Williams and to provide some maintenance service on the common areas. And we will be asking each of the tenants to kind of maintain their own area since we are not charging them for utilities or rent or any other services. Yeah, okay. Then you hit the concern as the custodial staff because the money's not there, but you're going to use in-house. So we're saving some money there. That's correct. We're actually saving. We actually pulled $10,000 out of the budget for the custodial. So if this position is approved, the bottom line is really just about $8,000. That would be the difference. Very good. Thank you. You're welcome. All right. Is there any further discussion? Council Member Myers? I'm sorry. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner Helms, could I ask you a quick question? I think you said that the agencies that are inside that building aren't contributing to the cost of the building. They're not paying rent. Are they paying anything to be in there, whether it be rent, utilities, maintenance? No, I think we have an insurance policy, but we do also require them to carry an insurance policy for the activities that they conduct and for the people that they have in the building. But at the present time, we are not requiring them to compensate LFUCG in any monetary amount. Okay, so they're getting everything free being there? They're getting everything at no cost. At no cost. That is correct. Okay. So my question is, have we thought about asking them to share that $8,000 net increase in expenses with this pay increase for this person? Yes, we've thought about it. and I think Commissioner Cole was alluding to that fact earlier. Our concern is that we have so many of these facilities and so many of these leases that we really need to take a comprehensive enterprise look at this rather than singling out one facility and asking them to do something that perhaps we are not doing in some of the other facilities. And I think this is a conversation that we must have sooner rather than later. Okay, I'd like to have that conversation maybe in outside agencies and see how we can come up with something comprehensive. Let's see the commissioner shaking her head back there. Okay, we can work on that. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay, we can vote on this now. All in favor, please say aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member Crosby, can you hold just a second, Council Member Henson? Thank you. I'd like to make a motion that we reconsider D2 in light of the fact that we have, take it off the table. We have the director here so we can maybe get clarification on some of our questions. Second. Okay. There's a motion and a second to remove from the table item D2. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Okay. Council Member Crosby. Mr. Jarvis, if you could just please come forward. And the question was regarding what the actual $11,100 is for as part of the cost of the move. And maybe Council Member Gordon might want to further clarify her question. But I believe if you could just give us maybe a rundown of what that cost is for, that would be great. Sure. It will probably be for. Probably the issue around it as well. Yeah, okay. Well, the move is that we're on the first floor of the Phoenix building. Our files are unsecured. All of the records we have are unsecured. Our whole entire facility is unsecured. I mean, and we know what code enforcement does. We know the type of impact we have. We feel it's a safety issue. We've had numerous incidents down there. We've had people going through the files, and we just really need to get off the first floor of the Phoenix building. We have agreed with Harold Tate to switch floors. Harold will be moving to the first floor. we would be moving to the fifth floor. The $11,100 would be for furniture, that sort of thing, because we're going to try to take most of the furniture out of surplus. The furniture we have now actually has to stay on the first floor of the Phoenix building because it was designed for that first floor. It can't be moved. I don't know if you've ever been to the Phoenix building, the first floor. It has those sweeping wings and the built-in desk with the filing cabinets. So when we're moving, we're moving bare bones. We have nothing when we move. So we will use whatever furniture we can from Herald Space and then whatever we can get from Surplus. And then, again, incidentals. It may be filing cabinets. It may be tables, chairs. We started out at $14,000 at one time, and we whittled it down to this number now. And, again, any of the funds that we don't use, we'll be glad to turn back over. But we don't think we can move with zero money. I have Blues and you've already spoken or not no I have Gordon first sorry then Blues then Myers did you have your hand up Mr. Martin I was just going to move to approve this oh okay there's a motion in a second let's do that now discussion Council Member Gordon thank you can you illuminate a little more for me first of all, the security problem and how it is that people go through the files there. Sure. Who's doing this? Once you're on the first floor of the Phoenix, there are no measures to keep you out of our office space. You literally can walk freely through code enforcement. The filing cabinets are out in the hallways. The way that the first floor was designed was never designed for us to be there. We were always thought to be on the first floor of the Phoenix. We were moved there, I think, just as back when it was built. I don't know if it was budgetary. I don't know what it was, but we were put there. None of our files are secure. None of our records are secure. None of the inspectors are secure. Once you're on the first floor of the Phoenix, you're in the middle of code enforcement. There's nothing to keep you from walking anywhere you want to within that space. And, again, you know what we do for a living, and we make people quite upset. So these are people from the public who come in, sign in at the security gate, and come and look through your files. Absolutely. I've found attorneys going through filing cabinets. I mean, we've got citizens going through filing cabinets. We've had citizens come up to inspectors while they're at their workstations and start berating them. And we need to have some kind of measurement to where we can have the public in a location that we can come out, meet with them, talk. And so, I mean, not to belabor this, David, but so this is a time when no one's in the office. And so the filing cabinets aren't locked? No. Well, there's no way to lock the filing cabinets. Right. So these now to the cost. Are you not taking your filing cabinets with you? We'll take the ones we can, the ones that will fit on the fifth floor. A lot of those are really, really large that were designed for the first floor. So there will be some incidental furniture costs. Again, we're going to try to take everything we can out of surplus. I mean, our folks are willing to live bare bones on this. Metal desk, metal chairs, we really don't care at this point. Okay, thank you. Mr. Blase and then Mr. Myers. I sympathize with this need for better security. I'm just wondering, will the fifth floor provide it for you? I mean, you'll still have, then will the members of the public still be coming up to the fifth floor and say, will you schedule hearings there and so forth? Absolutely. How will it be more secure than downstairs? There's a reception area up in the fifth floor. Once you come into the fifth floor, if you've ever been there, there's a glass reception area. Conference room is right there. The public will come in and wait there. There's a waiting area. That will be a more secure location. and we can even have a door before you go into the actual working area of code enforcement. Now, once you walk into the Phoenix building, you're in the middle of code enforcement. There is no dividing line between the public and the division of code enforcement. I understand. Sure. And you can better segregate the public access and public functions from the office areas. Absolutely. All right. Thanks, David. Mr. Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yeah, I think it's a great idea to move up there and be a little more secure. I would encourage you to take some of that $11,000 before you give it back to set up a door where you've got to buzz through to get to the employees. We will. We'll try to make it as secure as we can. And, again, the other positive aspect is you're going to have Harold's folks now down on the first floor of the Phoenix building. Right. While the question games are coming, it's going to look fantastic down there. There will be models and posters. I mean, that's where we want to showcase Lexington. The first floor of the Phoenix is where to do it. It's beautiful down there. It just doesn't fit the needs we need as a secure division. Sure. Thank you. Council Member Mack, James. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thanks, David, for coming in to explain it. It helps to enlighten by you coming in. I did want to talk about the security a little bit. if you do have an irate client in or, you know, something gets irate, what will be your security and safety measure at that point? So when you're on the first floor, you've got security there. You've got your, you know, eyes on the situation. Everyone can kind of hear what's going on. When you're on the fifth floor, you won't necessarily have that direct connection to security. So what's your plan of action up there? Panic buttons, like we utilize now. We'd have panic buttons, and they would be in a more segregated location. You would have them in a waiting area. You wouldn't have them in the middle of the entire code enforcement. I don't think we should be discussing security on TV. I don't think that's a good idea. I guess the question was, do you have a plan? Yes, we do. Okay. I didn't want you to be off in some area without some type of security plan. Yes. Because someone could actually take a little corner or nook and think that they could, you know, do something not so great. Okay. Thank you. Is there any other comments, any more discussion? Okay, we can take a vote then. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Okay, we can continue now. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Baseman. Under Social Service Division of Youth Services, we were requested to fund an administrative officer position for the day treatment center of $81,000, and this would include benefits. And what has happened at the day treatment, originally there were three administrative type positions there. Two individuals have since retired. One position was trying to do everything, and they just felt that it was becoming more and more difficult for that person. So we recommended adding one position back in. I'll make a motion. Is there a motion? Is there a second? Is there a motion and a second? Discussion? Mr. Blues. Council Member Hanson, is this the position that is currently in social services administration, but it's vacant at this time? No, it's my understanding that one of the two positions was not funded in the 2009 budget because it wasn't filled. And then in January, when there was a hiring freeze placed, they lost the other position. So we were just asking that it be put back into this budget. Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member Henson, you've got two more. Right. Moving on to human resources, eliminated from the budget, and we requested it be reinstated, was the funding for the YMCA membership. It's a subsidy that LFUCG pays for the non-collective bargaining employees at a cost of $90,000. So moved. Second. Motion and a second. Is there discussion? Mr. Lane? Council Member Henson. And Mr. Blue. Can you tell me how many of our non-collective bargaining employees are using the wine facility? They gave us a number, but in all honesty, I don't remember if C.M. Ellinger or Lawless, maybe. do you remember how many were utilizing the YMCA membership? Council Member Ellington. Oh, I'm sorry. I just want to say, since we did do it, it's increased 100%. I remember that figure. I'm not sure of the numbers. The Y membership, how many LFUCG employees are utilizing? 500. I have the numbers. I'm not sure if I have them down here, but I know that the increase is 169% increase. Yeah. And it's, I don't want to say the numbers because I don't want to be wrong, but I do know for a fact it's 169% increase. Well, the reason I'm asking the question is I'd be curious to know how many actual employees are using it, not how much it increased. If it went up from 10 to 20, that's a 100% increase. I'd like to know the total number of employees that are using it. It's well over 500 people that are using it. In addition, we were given information that Humana had, the pharmaceutical part had also, and you can't exactly cause and effect, but since this program was implemented and the number had gone up, there had been a dramatic decrease in the number of medications that are connected with, you know, not having exercise like cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure, et cetera. You're pretty sure it's over 500 per year? I know for a fact it's over $500 a year. Okay. Well, that sounds good. I mean, that makes the cost reasonable on a per employee membership. So I will vote to support that. Thank you. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wondered if this is a blanket membership for all employees, or is this on a request basis? Can they just request it? Yeah. Yeah, it's not like LFECG has a membership and all you have to do is show your employee badge. You have to. So it's on an individual basis and they have to request that. Yes, and there's also a cost for the employee and their family, too. It's not 100% stipend. It's a subsidy. I mean, there's just a reduced rate for a city employee to become a member of the YMCA. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Ready for a vote? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Council Member Henson, the last one on your list. We also requested that the funding for the optional flu immunization be reinstated. And I think both of these items are health-related, and since LFUCG has health self-insurance or whatever, we felt like in the long run that both of these two items would probably save money by prevention alone. alone, so I move to approve the flu immunization. Second. There's a motion and a second. It's your discussion. Mr. Martin. Mr. Vice Mayor, I think this is just one of the most important things we could do. We will absolutely save money to the extent that we can keep people from being home for sick for two weeks and spreading it to everybody else here down at the city. I just think this is a very good use of money, so I support this. Council Member Gordon. And just to add a fine point to what you said, Council Member Martin, I think probably just based on my experience with flu vaccines, If we don't offer this, a lot of people will not go get it on their own and pay for it. Yes, Senator Stenick. Just curious, how many vaccines would this provide at $20,000? How many? Is this everyone in government? Because, I mean, Kroger and Walmart have them for, what, $4 a piece? I think there were over 1,500 employees that got it last year. Is that the number? Yeah, it's just an estimate of what they're going to project, but it's like $5 a piece or something like that. Okay, thank you. All right, is there any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. And just as a point of clarification, I don't know if you all are like me, but I'm going through some of these thinking, you know, we're passing on some of it or we're endorsing some of it, but we may have to still look at it again. I'm just saying that for the record because I still don't know whether or not we're going to get it at the end of the day after we hear April numbers and where we're going to have a reality check on things and we need to look at things again. So just making that observation myself. Thank you, Councilmember Henson. The next is Finance, Budgeting, Social Services, Partner Agencies. Is that right? General Government. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. That was a summary. Sorry, we just got through that. I was reading the wrong line. General Government. Mr. Councilmember Professor Blues. Thank you, Vice Mayor. As you say, I think we will have to revisit several of these lines. Perhaps. As we go through. Under 3A, the Commonwealth Attorney, our link has recommended the addition of $6,000 for work study positions within the office. This is a good experiential and recruiting tool, and so I move adoption. I move approval of the $6,000. Second. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Is there a second? Okay, we've got a second. Is there a discussion? Mr. Steny? Just a question, the 6,000 extra. Is that one extra intern? Two, three, four? I think it's one or two. But I'm not absolutely certain of that. And do they have any track record? I know that this was asked this morning in the outside agency meeting by them interning. Have we hired any attorneys through this program since it's been incepted? Have we retained anybody? I don't know the answer to that either. Okay, just a question. Thank you. Any, Council Member Henson. Council Member Blues, do the interns provide a service that is actually cost saving to the Commonwealth Attorney's Office? They actually perform services within the office. they work. These are students, and so they get some kind of on-the-job experience and training in the kind of work that Mr. Larson's office does. So are they filling positions that normally would not be filled? No. No, they're not. Okay. And are they generating maybe some revenue? Well, I don't know whether they are, but I kind of doubt it. Because I know a lot of their work may be based on collections of child support and things like that, getting money into the economy. You know, like all intern and work study programs, the major purpose is not to fill essential slots within an office, but just as with the interns that several of us have had, the idea is to help out with some office duties, and in our case, constituent duties, but also get a feel for and some experience in day-to-day operations of government. And that really is the function of this program. It's not essential to the day-to-day operation and success of the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office. Are there other questions about the motion on the floor? Council Member Crossley. I would just say that a lot of times that the students, to follow up with what Dr. Blee said, for example, like in the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office, oftentimes they can assist with research and doing other types of activities that if you don't have a student in that position, then oftentimes you might be taking an attorney or another staff member who costs a lot more to the office off of something else. So I would beg to say that indeed it probably in the long run is a cost savings to them because you're not taking somebody at a higher pay level to do something that they in turn could have students doing while they're getting experience working in that environment. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'd also add to that that they do a great job of recruiting out of those internships and actually hiring people that have had experience in their office and doing good work. So it's a great program, and I think that we ought to support that. Thank you. So where are we? Okay, we ready for a vote? All in favor, please say aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Okay. Council Member Blues, I was going to – if it's okay with you, I think Council Member Myers is maybe ready for outside agencies, and we've had some folks who've been here a long time waiting. So if the minister's objections, we'll move back. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Blues. Outside agencies, as we spoke earlier, met this morning at 8 o'clock and kind of ran over a little bit and haven't had a chance to get back together as a committee and to discuss what we heard this morning. So I wanted to release the chamber and DDA from being here any longer. we've opted to wait and report out on a later date where we can get together one more time and discuss the information that we had today. Okay. So if there's no other questions. Any questions? Hearing none, be fine. Thank you, Council Member James. Thank you all for joining us today. All right. Back to Council Member Blutes. Thank you, Vice Mayor. On to 3, Item B, the coroner's office. As you know, in our report out earlier on, the coroner's office has been, to a large extent, the coroners in the office are paid at a sub-par level as suggested in HR's market study. So what we're proposing here is to begin to make some adjustments in the salaries of the deputy coroners in the office at a cost of $30,040. This is a first step toward the salary upgrades through reclassification. And so I move approval of that adjustment. There's a motion and a second. Is there a discussion? Council Member Feigl. Well, I really am very torn on this one. While I do think that we value all the hard work that all of our employees do, I have some concerns about reclassifying some employees and not others. I think it needs to be really a comprehensive look at all of our employees before we start making individual changes. And because this is a really tough budget and we are definitely going to have to make some cuts, this is probably not one that I can support at this time. The reason for these reclassifications, as I indicated last week, is that within that classification category, The coroners do the kind of work that all other employees in government do not do. Their job is much more technical, and it's carried out under often very extremely difficult and, well, difficult. Let me leave it at that conditions. So that's the rationale for the proposal to reclassify. Mr. Stennett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I don't debate the rationale. I mean, I could sit here and justify that one all day. That was part of our counseling last year. We did not recommend it. The problem being is if we look at all through government and the thing we're thirsting for the most is a new pace. system, because there are several positions out there that need to be reclassified. And if you remember, this body said no more reclassifications 18 months ago. And there's two in the proposed council changes that would go against that. And if we start singling those two out, I'm worried about the precedent that it's going to set. Because basically, the only way people are getting reclassed is if their director wants to do it or not. And that's a bad way to do it. There are people in here that do deserve market salaries, including these folks, as well as the traffic engineering and other folks, but to start singling two divisions out and not as a council, and this is where Councilman Myers can help me, is develop a policy that says, here's how we're going to handle this going forward. Either we're going to demand a new pay system, which I know Commissioner Coe was working on before she left, or start letting everyone do them because it needs to be either or just to single people out. It causes a lot of morale issues. This will cause a morale issue with other departments that want to come to this body and ask for reclassifications. And I'm not saying they're not worthy. They don't do something very specific and special to their duties because they do. But everyone else, a lot of other people do as well. And I think once we start down this road, this body needs to be prepared for the rest of the year to have several others. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just a very quick response to that. and that is that while I appreciate Council Member Stenitz's argument here, that we do have a pretty loyal and experienced staff within the Coroner's office. And part of our reason here for recommending this reclassification and almost token salary upgrade is to show our good faith and to keep those highly skilled and experienced employees. Vice Mayor, if I could also respond as a member of that link. I agree 100% with Councilman Stennett what he's saying. need to come up with a policy to deal with this. The only thing I would add to this, and I could argue both sides of this, just like you said, the only thing I'd add to this is that the reason that they're here is not so much that the employees came and asked for a reclass, but the director had an opportunity to pay some folks that he brought in at a higher pay scale, which is what HR recommended to him at the time that he brought those people in. It would have caused inversion. He thought he was doing the right thing by paying them less money than what HR recommended to start. The problem with that now is that if he had gone ahead and taken HR's recommendation, HR would have then come back and fixed the inversion. Since he tried to do the right thing and not hire them in at an inverted rate, now they can't fix the problem unless they come to us for a reclass. I'm not necessarily arguing one way or the other. I see both sides of the argument, but I just wanted to make it clear that that's how they arrived here today, not just because the employees of the director wanted to reclass, but HR actually recommended that they get paid more when he brought those other folks in. And so I just want to add that to the conversation. Mr. Lane. I reckon. Just briefly, though, we have an employee on our own floor that should be reclassed. It's based on the director's request to have them reclassed and redo the PAQ. Some directors are being told not to or reluctant to do so, and some aren't. And therefore, our policy is so inconsistent. That's my point. I can justify them as well. But, again, until we get a consistent policy, start letting people do it one by one, we're going to have a snowball effect. I agree with you. I'm just saying that HR recommended that they pay them more to start, and they didn't do it, and that's why they're here. It wasn't just because the director wanted this done. But I understand what you're saying, but that's not what happened here. Mr. Lane, then Council Member James. I'd just like to throw a couple of thoughts out here. You know, our budget is tight as a tick, and I think it's a bad precedent to start reclassing. It's unfortunate. I'm sure these employees are justified, but there are many other employees that are justified too, so I think we do need to hold the line. Thank you. Vice Mayor, thank you. Council Member James. Just to add into this discussion, because within our link there is also a similar, There was a market study done by our own human resource department, which I think is critical that these recommendations are coming from our own internal sources. But our budget is not just what we see today. It's based on cost savings later down the road as well. And so I don't know specifically for this recommendation, but we've got to keep in mind that if we allow for reallocation of a job grade at this point, how does that help us? And that's the discussions that we went through in our link. And as I'm thinking about all of the reallocations that happen, we need to be looking at how does it help in the long run. We could think don't reallocate or don't reclassify. And yeah, on the front end, it looks like we're saving money. But if you don't get positions filled that allow for services to be performed and provided by our employees that then in turn allow us cost savings, then you're missing the full picture. It's not just the upfront cost. It's the overlasting cost and the value of that position and that employee. So I will support the reclassification in this, and I hope that later you will consider supporting our link recommendation of the reclass as well. Thank you. Any further, any other council members want to speak to this issue, this question? I have a question. Is the coroner's office reviewed by the mayor and the administration? What's the, or is it coming straight to us just through them, through the coroner's office? I mean, does it come straight to us? I believe the latter, yes. Okay. Okay. I'm just going to explain my vote. I'm going to vote against it, but I'd like to hear more because I don't understand it adequately right now. Are we ready for a vote? All in favor, please say aye. All opposed, no. No. Okay. of hands all in favor raise your hand. Okay all opposed raise your hand. Okay the motion does not carry. Okay Council Member Blues you're still on even though you're. Thank you Vice Mayor. the council office item c1 the first item here uh i think is is is obligatory to to restore the funding for uh of for for a council aid so moved it's a motion there's a second uh is there discussion I believe this is Council Member Martin's aid Council Member Council Member Gordon Can you remind me why this did not get put in the budget? In the past they've put No? Did it not get put in because it wasn't filled? Did not get put in, but I don't It was vacant, so it got cut. And that would be the 10th district aid, I believe. Do you want an aid? I'm sorry, that's a halfway serious question. I didn't realize this was for my aid. I absolutely would support having this money put back in the budget, considering she's starting week after next. So I would appreciate it. I want support on this. Senator, do you know why my aide got cut from the budget? It was a vacant position. And so my other question is, does this $70,000 reflect, what salary does that reflect and then the rest I presume is benefits. So what salary does that reflect? This is a recommendation for, this would be 52-3. All right. Now, I am... Plus benefits. Let me defer to Council Member Myers here. Thank you. I would say that, first, I appreciate you saying that you'd like your position funded, but really the council, and this kind of goes back to what we talked about before, The council voted a few years ago that every council member would have the ability to bring in their own aid. And so it's really not fair to put this on one council member and say we're putting his position or her position back in the budget. We're doing what we said we would do a couple years ago is the first thing. Second thing I would say is that to look at the amount of funding that's here, the easiest way to answer it is this is consistent with what the pay level is for all the rest of the aides on the floor for the position. So you may be asking this question of whether or not this aid could make, say, $65,000. No, this is just consistent with what everybody else has ability to be paid. I'm not saying everybody's getting paid that. I wasn't questioning. I certainly think this position should be funded. I don't believe all aides are making the top of the scale. That's what I just said. I didn't say that everybody was making that scale, but it's consistent with what is available. And so that's what needs to happen for this. You can't have 14 positions funded one way and the 15th funded a different way. No, I agree. I'm not opposing this. I just wanted information. You still need to speak, Council Member Myers, in addition or not. No, sir, I'm done. All right. Council Member Stenner? I just want to point out that Council Member Myers, right, it's not for Doug Martin's aid. His office had half an aide, and we had another council office that had half an aide, and so there was a full position open. Now, both those halves are gone, so they left the whole position open, but it really applies to all of us because there's been a new hire since then too. And, Council Member Gorton, if you would like the breakdown on what the percent of that that's benefits and what is actual salary that we use as our standard cost for the aides, we can provide that to you. Thank you. I would appreciate that. And I also would like to see what the pay scale, what the range is for that position. We can find that out as well. Thank you. All right. So we're ready to vote on this. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Dr. Bluys? Dr. And the second item there is our recommendation to restore $25,000 to the Economic Development Task Force that the Council may be instituted is the wrong word in the 09 budget, but at least allocated $50,000 last year from what we had provided for Commerce Lexington for the Council's Economic Development Task Force. And we are recommending $25,000 for that function in the FY10 budget. So moved. There's a motion. Is there a second? Is there a second? All right. Is there a second to this? Could he repeat the motion? The motion is, go ahead, Council Member Bliggs. The motion is to fund the Council's Economic Development Task Force at a level of $25,000, dollars, half of what we allocated for that purpose in 09. Second. There's a motion and a second. Discussion, Council Member Gordon. I had just a couple questions. Now, when we loaned the distillery district the money for their TIF application, I'm presuming we won't get that paid back for a number of years. Is that correct to assume that? It is correct. Okay. And then what would be the use of this money? Is there a plan? No. I mean, I'm speaking as you're going to. The reason I would vote against this myself is that last year we put $50,000 in and we didn't use but $1,000. Okay. That answers my question. Thank you. Council Member James. I think to speak to that, and that's what several people are saying, is we had money in there, we didn't use it. But I do think, I mean, is economic development not important to our council? I do think we need a plan. I mean, I think we put money in there. It's the same thing with the infant redevelopment money that we had in there for years that we had no plan to do anything with. It doesn't, just because we don't have a plan right now, doesn't mean we put the money in. We actually need a plan and a focus. We had a trip that I think people couldn't go on or didn't choose to go on. Maybe there was an agreement that that wasn't part, maybe there wasn't agreement that that was our strategy that we need to pursue. But we need to, we haven't had a meeting, an Economic Development Task Force meeting. I know several people have requested that, and there's been nothing. One of the things that I would recommend, if we're not going to have scheduled, if we can't get a meeting scheduled, we need to look at making Economic Development Task Force or Economic Development a standing committee. I mean, we need to do something to where on a regular basis we are dealing with the issue of economic development. But I think we need to leave this money in here. If it's not clear to us after our chamber trips that we need to have a focus and we need to have some resources to tap into, then I think your green glasses were blinded by black light or something, because we truly have an economic development issue when it comes to our government. So I would recommend leaving this money in here and having a meeting to discuss economic development, and if we want to have a standing committee, ask vice mayor to create an economic development standing committee that meets one Tuesday a month where we can have the chamber come report. We have access to this money, tap into it, have our economic development office report out to this standing committee and have something to work with. Right now we're just lingering. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess I have a problem with the money being in there. If you don't really have a use for it, there's no plan in place. It doesn't cost anything to make a plan. None of the other standing committees have a budget, is my understanding. So I would not support this. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. No, Crosby was up. Crosby was gone. Now, unless did you decide to withdraw? Okay, Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would concur with Council Member James. I believe this is something that is lacking in our focus as a council, that we need to try and get a very comprehensive look at what we're doing as a city in terms of economic development. It seems to me that it's very, and this is maybe the learning process, but it seems very fragmented to me. and I would really like for us to focus a lot of time and energy on a long-range strategy, and I would love to see our council, in fact, take the lead on that, and so I would support Council Member James' notion to set up a standing committee, and certainly if we have a standing committee, we need some form of funding just to get some guidance on how to move forward. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'll point out that none of our other standing committees has a budget like that. So, you know, it's kind of ironic we're sitting here today. We sat in outside agencies this morning and we questioned Commerce Lexington about what your plan is before we give you this money. But yet we're going to say, let's put money in something we don't have a plan. It doesn't cost us any money to get an economic development plan. What it costs us is to implement the plan. And the problem we've had and the struggle we've had having these economic development economic development meetings, if we gather a lot of information, I think we're at the point now where how do we put that information to use? We heard from a lot of different speakers from UK to the professor from Louisville who just retired. We've heard a lot of good information, but we have to sit down as a group and say, what is our strategy going forward? Get out of the technical side of it and trying to be hands on the street, trying to do it. Let's get a strategy and go find the experts. I know the vice mayor has preached that, and I've been drinking your Kool-Aid, and I understand what you're trying to say, but we have to get the experts in the room, but we have to, as a body, decide what that looks like. What do we want as a council, and I hope every council member will think about that, is what do you think economic development is and what do you want to see our city look like in terms of an economic development strategy? I think that's where our gift is as a council, is to develop what our strategy looks like, whether it be do it in-house, outsource it, whatever it may be, but we need to, as a group, develop that. I don't think we need the $25,000 to develop that that plan going forward. But I do think long term, we will need money in that kitty. But as of right now, I'll vote against it. Mr. Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I support the notion of having a standing Economic Development Committee. I think I brought that up several, a month or two ago in one of our council sessions. The – it's always been my sort of feeling. We have great folks working for us. Anthony Wright does a terrific job, and the folks at Commerce Luskin do a terrific job. But there's just not enough of them. And I am not, I guess, going to be supportive at this time for an allocation to a committee for the reasons Mr. Stenis said, that none of our other committees currently have an allocation, and we didn't really spend the one from last year. We used it to offset a fee that someone else was supposed to pay. I think that it's important for us, nonetheless, to put our money where our mouth is in economic development, and as we consider our budgets for economic development for both Mr. Wright and what we might be able to do in-house but also through Commerce Lexington, that we really try to get in the game in economic development because right now we are basically using Band-Aids. We are not in the game. You look at vibrant other towns such as Madison and Austin and other places, and we just aren't even in the game. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Blues. The question here, it seems to me, in light of this discussion is, in order to get the experts in the room, and I agree with Council Member Stinnett on this, are we going to get them in for free? If we're going to be serious about our purpose and our obligations as an economic development task force, then it does seem to me that we ought to have some resources available for the kinds of discussions, the kinds of meetings, and possibly the kinds of visits that will help us do this. economic development is a critical need and it is a critical gap. We don't have a plan. I think that we need to go forward, whether with the task force, whether with the standing committee, as Council Member James has suggested. but having some minimal resources here to enable us to make some of the moves we want to make, to do some of the planning we need to do, can be critical. So I will support that motion that I think I made several months ago. I would add one thing, that the economic development money that we spent out of that fund, the $47,000, was an obligation of LFUCG. And it was an economic development expenditure, and I think it was money well spent, and that money will come back to this government in due course. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member James? Sure, just a few comments, Vice Mayor. Council Members, in the Economic Development Task Force meetings that we've had, we heard from a retail expert who, for a cost, would be able to provide analysis of whatever area we set forth to develop a retail strategy. We did hear that. We had that presentation. That is a cost. So we would have to find that money to tap into. Vice Mayor and I co-hosted or co-sponsored a webinar that we tapped into that was a cost, reinventing space where we had, I don't know, 10 or so people come and participate and open that invitation up to all council members and many others. I think Council Member Feigl may have been there. That was a cost. We know that there are you may but Rebecca Ryan that we heard speak in Madison. There's a cost to bring her here again if we'd like to hear from her or any other expert in an area that might be leading or have knowledge of ways that we need to proceed as a city. if we'd like to do anything related to software. We saw a presentation in one of our economic development task forces that showed this linkage of how do you make sure that you're tapping into coordinating the services that you have available locally, regionally, and nationally to produce the result and the outcome that you want towards economic development. So I think a lot of that could be covered with having that fund available. We've got to be serious about it. And actually, it's not a standing committee, but it basically functions as one corridors committee has access to money. I think they have an account. So even though none of our four standing committees have that, somehow things have been modified in ways that committees do exist that have access to money to be able to get a desired outcome related to the mission of that group. So keep that in mind. So I would ask for maybe a friendly amendment to Councilmember, or maybe it's not friendly, I'm not sure, an amendment to Council Member Blues' motion that with this, we change that from Economic Development Task Force to an Economic Development Standing Committee and begin that and to allocate this $25,000 to that standing committee so we take care of both those at once. I respect that rationale, but I don't accept that as a friendly amendment. I think that adding a standing committee is a different issue and should be debated and voted on separately from this motion. I didn't figure you would. I didn't think you would. Thanks. But my rejection of it as a friendly amendment was made in a very friendly manner. Could they make that as part of a recommendation, though, from their link? That's what I'll do later. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Myers. I think I'm going to pass. Okay. Council Member Feigl. Oh, you've already pulled. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think this issue is part of a larger issue of how are we going to manage our economic development, how are we going to manage planning in Lexington. We've had Mr. Webb come up and talk with us, and we've talked about how do we think about the future and what rules do we put in place to guide future development and future economic development. I don't know that we as a council need an unspecified fund in order to do that. We can have folks come and do studies for us and talk to us about issues, but should that money be in the planning department, which we have cut by a couple hundred thousand dollars this year, or should it be within the council's budget? And I would propose that we fully fund at least 2009 levels the planning department's budget because we can't think about what we want to look like. We can't think about who's going to connect our neighborhoods, and we can't think about what we as a city want to be in 10 or 20 years without really having a vibrant, fully funded planning department. And I think that goes the same with economic development. I mean, the types of studies and the types of consultants that we would want to bring in, that should come out of our economic development budget, and we should tell those folks to go out and bring in some experts and talk to us about things. So I would, rather than sort of set aside an undesignated fund, we should fund planning and economic development, not actually in 2009 levels. We should double it. We should really make an aggressive commitment toward what we want to do in the future. Because a lot of these things, without good planning, once you do the neighborhood or once you do the development, it's there. And we've permanently missed opportunities to affect how that would look in the future. And so I guess I would encourage folks to try to direct funds into economic development and planning. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council, okay. Council Member Feigl, you're back up, and Council Member Mayer. I am. I'm back. All right. I was thinking I was losing it here. You're on and off. Well, you deleted me once. I didn't. No, I did not. I wouldn't have done that. Council Member Feigl, go right ahead. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yes, ma'am. Again, I would love to see our council do a very intense study on how we might play a bigger role in economic development. I realize that we spend a lot of funds on this particular item, but as a council member, I don't really feel like that we have any opportunity to affect the programs that come out of that. Even though we might ask for these different entities to do something, I just don't feel like that we have the ability to control how they spend their money other than just to approve their budget. but we don't get down to the detail in their plans to actually make suggestions. At least I don't have the conduit for that information to get to them. So I still feel like that this is something that we need to do, maybe just as a one-time thing to get together and maybe have somebody come in and talk to us from other communities that have had a successful economic development plan within their city. And then we will know a little bit more about how to proceed in working with the other entities within our own government. So I still feel like that that's a very important item to consider. And personally, I would rather see that funded rather than the NDF funds for council members. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. The thing that I enjoy hearing today is that the council is looking at policy. And this is probably the third different policy that the council has articulated today that we need to come up with a policy to address. So what I would say is I can go either way with putting the money aside for this. We put it aside before and we didn't spend it, but we didn't do the work that we wanted to do either. And we're not done. So I like the idea of it being a standing committee because it's transparent. It's open to everybody to see. It would be on TV every month. Citizens will be able to come and take part in it. Business people will be able to take part in it, et cetera, et cetera. So the debriefing meeting that we're supposed to have after we do the budget is the one where we go back and say all these different ideas that we had for different policy initiatives, et cetera, is maybe where this could go. So I'm not going to support the $25,000 yet, but that's based on knowing that we can come back and get the $25,000 or whatever we need at any point that we need to do that. So I would recommend that at the end of the day, whatever happens today, we put this issue, along with these other two policies that we've talked about having today, into that debriefing meeting and then follow up. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Myers. Council Member Lawless. Actually, without discussing it with Council Member Myers, that's somewhat what I was going to say. And I'm okay with setting it aside for now because we're going to have three more meetings. But I think that we have, again, no control over how any of that economic development money is really spent. And so I think that's a policy issue we need to visit at another time. And I'm okay with setting it aside, but I would definitely vote for it. Okay. Can I say something about this, too? there was somebody famous who once said a wise, no, a wise man, yeah, yeah a wise man changes his mind, a fool never does and I'm willing to change my mind, I will say this is a pretty persuasive conversation, I agree with Council Member Myers this has been a very healthy debate, it clearly illustrates where there's a lot of passion and I also quote one of a board member in our company and he said recently about a funding issue that we had. He said, and it was a very modest amount, and the funding that was requested was very modest and he didn't think it was enough. And so he said, well, that's like peeing in the ocean. And I think that's a little bit of what has been said today that this amount is really extraordinarily modest. And, Council Member Martin, you've been General Counsel to the Economic Development Cabinet. I've spent 36 years sort of my life doing that stuff. And, you know, looking at this deliberately and intentionally the way Council Member James has suggested and moving it into a permanent committee sounds like, you know, an extraordinary opportunity for us. and it reminds us of why we've been here perhaps for three and a half hours this morning, that even in the micromanagement, sometimes we elevate ourselves and pull ourselves up to really significant issues, and that's what this represents. So we have a motion on the table. I mean, we have a motion on the floor, so we need to vote on it, right? Is there any more discussion? right we need to vote on that are we ready for the vote okay all in favor of the motion uh to uh put 25 000 into this please say i or hold up your hand i all in all opposed no okay so let's do a show of hands all in favor hold up your hand All right, all opposed? Hold up your hand. What is it? Oh, my goodness gracious. We can talk about it again, it sounds like. It fails. I've already voted. No, I voted. Okay, so, yeah. So that motion fails. All right, Council Member Blues. All right, let's look at the clock, y'all. We've got services is at 1 o'clock, so we've only got 35 minutes in case some of those folks want to have lunch. And so are we okay with stopping at 1230 after we get through? All right. Why don't we just try to get through general government? There's only one, two, there's basically just a few more items. I know we've got some that will have discussion. Oh, I'm sorry. Can we just get through? Let's go through the mayor's office. That's going to take us to 1 o'clock. Take us through D. There are two Ds. Well, all right. Let's try it. Let's see where we get there. All right. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I move to restore funding for Council Members NDF and operating accounts to FY 2009 levels. So moved. There is a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Council Member Gordon. Quick question. In your link discussions, did you discuss any kind of compromise about how much to restore, or did you just discuss restoring the full amount? We did discuss some kind of compromise between what we thought, between 2009 levels and the mayor's recommended cuts. Our conclusion was that our individual council office budgets are pretty minimal. and that council members can well use these funds to operate on the level that we're elected to operate on. And that is, you know, day-to-day direct relationship with the citizens of our district and of the city. So $10,000, for example, for neighborhood development funds enables us, as we all know, to fund projects throughout neighborhoods, to help activate neighborhood organizations, to provide kind of seed money, and even in some cases sort of matching grant funds with neighborhoods. So we felt that full funding here at 09 levels was not an extravagance, was not a luxury, but is money that enables us to do our jobs. So that is our recommendation. Thank you. Council Member Gord. Council Member Feigel. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just feel a little bit almost guilty about restoring the full funding for the council, NDF funds in particular, because if we're asking the entire city government to reduce their budgets, then I think that we should do the same thing. And I realize our operating budgets are pretty slim, but I just feel like the NDF funds, while they are very helpful to us as council members, I know that many times these sheets are passed around here at council meetings and we're giving money to nonprofits and that type thing, and I just feel like that maybe in this particular budget year that we need to also take a cut in our funds as well. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. The NDF funds of $10,000 a year, there are 8,600 registered voters in the 3rd District and many more who aren't. It's mostly older neighborhoods that have huge problems, and $10,000 a year is absolutely a drop in the bucket for what my neighborhoods are trying to do. This goes directly to the community for community-wise projects that help save our neighborhoods. So I strongly encourage everybody to keep that in there. It's a small portion of our general fund's budget, and it's the tiniest little bit of money that we as council members have any control over how it's really spent. Council Member Blues. I'd also suggest that, or I guess remind us all, that each council member's fund is a separate account. And any council member can restrict him or herself to X amount in NDF fund up to the limit or in operating expenses. these are separate items so we're free to restrict ourselves and so that whenever guilt strikes we can we can put the lid on Council Member Myers Thank you Vice Mayor some of us here on the council today weren't around back one year where we got $100,000 put in for this fund it was called capital funds at that point in time though and I can show you I can drive you around my district and show you how we spent that money and show you how we made a direct impact on the citizens that live there. And I won't open up the package yet, but a little bit later on this month, we're going to be having a grand opening for everybody to see some of the things that we did with that money. This $10,000 is the rubber meat in the road. And I'd be more than happy to show anybody how we spend that money in the 8th District. This is a small pittance compared to what Louisville gets. Louisville gets $100,000 a year, and they have 26 council members. I believe. And, you know, plus they get a much bigger operating expense as well. So I don't have any problem. The people in my district know what we've done with this money. They know how it's benefited them. So if anything, I'd like to see it quadruple rather than be cut in half. So my vote is going to be to increase that back to the original state for 2009. Thank you. Council Member James. I will vote in favor of this motion and put out there that if there's any council district that doesn't utilize or doesn't need their $10,000, I'd be happy to receive that. Thank you. Ditto here. Yeah, just a footnote to me, you know, looking at $270 million general fund and almost double that overall, these funds, maybe it's just because we touch them. But the word efficient certainly comes to mind, and even in the way that we share and that we, through that sharing of these NDF funds, we're made more alert and more aware of needs that are being addressed throughout the community. So I'm for it, too. All right, we're ready to vote. All in favor, please say yes. All opposed, no. motion carries alright there were two is that right three against alrighty council council member blues council clerk vice mayor point of order were there three nays or two nays on that last vote I think there were, yeah, hold up your hand if you voted against, if you were not in favor. There were three, I think, right? Okay. Thank you. All right. Councilman Blues. Thank you, Vice Mayor. the Link Committee voted to restore $48,000 to the Council Clerk's operating supplies and expenses. And this is funding that will be needed to pay for obligatory advertisements and announcements in the newspapers. Those rates are going up. Now, it is possible that some of this money will not be needed if the council passes a resolution that enables certain expenses up to, let's say, I know we've discussed this, preliminarily up to $100,000 to be authorized without council approval and thus without announcements. But our rationale here is that we can't really hold this money hostage against a potential council vote or predicated on a council vote. So I really do think that we're obligated to put it in the FY10 budget to reallocate if that opportunity arises dependent on a future council vote. Thank you. Council Member Feigl. I would just like to add that in addition to those items that Council Member Blues talked about maybe not being required for publication, there are a number of items that we're looking at right now that may be reduced from the necessary requirements for publication. And I only mention that, and today there are no specifics to throw out, But as we go back and look at this budget again, over and over and over probably, then that is an item that probably can be reduced pretty significantly. Council Member Gordon and Council Member Martin. Council Member Blues, my question is about we've discussed advertising on the web as an alternative, and was there any discussion about that in your link? I do not recall specific discussion of that, but it is my understanding that we're required by statute to advertise in the newspaper of largest general circulation, and we have one of those in our city. And so the question is, how much do we have to advertise in the newspaper? Is that pretty much the question? That's correct, yes. Okay, thanks. And the council clerk's estimate is that we will need that funding to meet those obligations. Council Member Lawless. Council Member Feigl and I have been working with law and including, is there somebody else that I'm missing right now? Is there somebody else? At any rate, Andrea, I'm sorry. We're in so many meetings with so many overlaps, I can't remember which is which. But anyway, I think we have something that will work well, be within the law, and provide more transparency for the public. This was set up in 1970, in the early 70s, and we have new technology now and new ways to be far more transparent. So that's coming, I think, pretty soon. But, again, I support keeping this in here until we have that in place so that we can reduce it then. All righty. Are we ready to vote? All in favor, please say aye. All opposed, no. No on that one, too, so we better hold up our hands. Who voted in favor? All right, who voted opposed? Okay, motion carries. All right. Mr. Blue, yes? Mr. Blues, you got... Thank you, Vice Mayor. We're going to try to get through this one, and then that's... Item D1, Mayor's Office Special Projects. As you know, the link has recommended that the funding for the arts programs be reduced by 10 percent, consistent with other recommended cuts in the Mayor's proposed budget. And so the link in a spirit of consistency, but also wanting to add that we are in no way wanting to slash, burn, or damage arts funding, recommends this $45,000 reduction, which would take us from $450,000 to $405,000. So moved. Motion and a second. Okay. Discussion, Mr. Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'm strongly opposed to this $45,000 cut in LFUCG's support for the arts. I mentioned last week. As featured this week in the Herald-Leader and Time magazine, arts programs nationwide are experiencing severe cutbacks in both donations but also government funding, and they're struggling to keep their doors open. These arts organizations are lean and are struggling to survive. A $45,000 cut in arts funding will cause some of these organizations to close their doors. They either will have to close their doors or they have to raise ticket prices, which would, of course, limit and reduce accessibility to folks who otherwise can't pay higher ticket prices. We here in Lexington have made huge strides in funding the arts. While it might be easy to write off arts funding as unnecessary, especially during lean budget times, I cannot emphasize enough that funding of the arts is a vital economic development function. Lexington will not recruit and maintain individuals with the intellectual capital necessary to lead us into a 21st century economy without a strong commitment to the arts. We need Lexington to be a vibrant, forward-thinking, intellectual capital kind of town to create new products and new companies and to start new businesses and to come up with new ideas. Funding for the arts is crucial to maintaining this vibrant type of community, and I encourage the council to vote against this reduction in funding for the arts. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Lane. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yeah, I, too, support not cutting the appropriation for LexArts. I'd like to remind council that LexArts is an umbrella organization that provides support to a number of arts groups throughout the community. And so this not only affects their organization, LexArts, but all the other arts groups that are depending on contributions coming from LexArts to fund them. Also, as we go into the next year, we will be having the World Games here, and there are a number of special arts exhibits, performing arts, and special events that will be coming up during that period of time. And I feel that this is not a good time to further cut the arts organizations because this is going to make the arts will make a major impact on the World Games. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, sir. Council Member Gordon. I'm going to vote against the proposal for many of the reasons that have been expressed. And I think if we look at economic development, having a good, thriving arts community is a very strong component of economic development and encourages economic development. And when our citizens go experience the arts, they generally go out and also spend money doing something else, eating out or whatever. And I think this is not a good place to cut right now. Council Member Lawless. I agree. I want to see this stay in, the gains, economic development. So many of these programs do outreach to people with disabilities, underserved people who can't otherwise afford to participate in the arts, and it would be a shame to see this be cut. And it is critical to many of our arts organizations. Thank you. Council Member Blues. I just do want to suggest, although I sympathize with and agree with what others have said, but no one on our link committee has suggested that the arts are unnecessary, that they're not crucial, that they're not a vital part of our community. It's not that we're recommending laying waste to the arts, tossing them on the junk heap, or denying that they are also an economic energizer. So are many of the other special projects, however, that the mayor's budget has recommended cuts in. So I do want to make that disclaimer here, that this cut that we are recommending is not meant to castigate or to somehow suggest that we do not appreciate and don't value the arts community. but we all have to share in economic downtimes as we do in prosperity. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Please. Mr. Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just need to get in there with my colleague on that link. I don't want to leave him out there by himself, and we did look at this long and hard. And, you know, one of the themes that we heard all year was that there are no sacred cows, And so, you know, this is just another thing that, you know, people are looking at in terms of if people are going to take a 10 percent cut across the board, then this is just another one of those things that needs to take the cut. Thank you. Okay. If you all don't mind, Chair gets to say something on this. Actually, again, you know, this is a great conversation, great debate about really about economic development. That's what everybody said. And my point of view is really just a story that I remember from six years ago that relates to this. I was a doc in town, young guy. His name was Harshest Sin. He was an eye doctor. Met him for the first time. And he was playing at Wood Songs in his spare time. And what he said to me was something I always remember about the economic development commentary on economic development associated with the arts. And he said that he had options of going pretty much anywhere in the country. And he wanted to go to a place where the arts offerings were compelling. And why was that? And he said, well, you know, as a professional, as a doc, you know, I'm working 70, 80 hours a week, 60, 70, 80, whatever the number is. And he said, the leisure time that I've got, I want to use efficiently. And, you know, that to me spoke as compellingly as any other commentary on the economic development value and power and influence of the arts. And, you know, we've got some traction with this one. We seem to have, you know, there's always, you know, points of view, different points of view about how much traction we've got with different initiatives in economic development. But it does seem like, as a general theme, that we're running on a lot of good cylinders in this dimension. And so continuing to fund it at a healthy rate is the reason that I'm supportive of it. Okay. Are we ready for a vote? All right. all in favor of cutting, not to the junk heap, of reducing the funding, please say aye. All in favor. You've done it again. You've done it again. All in favor of reducing the funding, please say aye. All right. All in favor of not. All opposed, please say no. No. I don't think it passed, Council Member Blues. How many? How many? Two. Okay. All right. You want to roll us into the sister cities, and then we'll call it a day. Council Member Blues. I'm having a good run here. I'm willing to go on to 1 o'clock if you want. What? No, no, no. You want to finish with Sister Cities? That's a good closing. The recommendation from the link is to restore the Sister City salary level at the FY09 level. That's $4,000. So moved. Second. There's a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Mr. Lane. Yes, sir. Sister Cities. Okay. Councilman Gordon. Yes, I just simply have a comment. This, I talked to the budgeting folks early on, and this was an oversight. We didn't cut anybody else's salary, but this is salary. So that's why we're adding it back in. Salary. Mm-hmm. If we approve this, if we cut this or approve it as it is in the mayor's budget, we will have reduced that Sister Cities employee's salary, and we did not do any across-the-board reduction in salaries for government. And this is for our current employee. Thank you, Councilman Gordon. Okay. Any other comments, discussion? Hearing none, we're ready to vote. All in favor, please say aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Okay. Before we hear a motion to adjourn, where's Jerry? Right here. Jerry, all right, help us here. We've got some more work to be done here. I've forgotten how we handled this last year, but I know we had the same situation. So we've got to schedule another meeting that's currently not scheduled. No, we're okay then? All right. We have three more meetings left. All right, okay. You may want to have one more and see where you are at the end of the day. All right, okay, great. All right, then I'll take it. Well, one suggestion may be to have next Tuesday's meeting earlier again because 11 o'clock is going to push us again up until the 1 o'clock problem. They want to go 9 again. I'd make a motion to change it until 9 a.m. Go ahead, Council Member Gordon. So would that, in effect, cancel corridors, which is at 10 o'clock? Yes. Okay. All right. Cancel council's participation. There's a motion and a second. All in favor, I'm assuming no need for discussion. All in favor to make that adjustment on time, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. All right. So it's 9 o'clock. All right. There's a motion to adjourn and a second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you. I know he's there He's with me on the stage He's everywhere And when my song begins I always find The phantom of the opera is there Inside my mind Sing once again with me How strange you are My power over Oh, stronger yet You'll give your love to me For love is blind The phantom of the opera is now Your mastermind Those who have seen your face Draw back in fear I am the most aware It's me they hear Your love