# Council Work Session - August 11, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · August 11, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/998 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/998?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-08-11 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: June 18, 2026 - **Length**: 31,891 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Council met on August 11, 2009, with Mayor Newberry presiding. The meeting covered six agenda items, ranging from rezoning requests to budget amendments and new business. Over the course of the session, the Council heard 3 public comments and took 13 votes, approving items across several categories including requested rezonings, a summary approval, budget amendments, and new business matters. The meeting also included informational segments for public comment and continuing business and presentations. The majority of action items brought before the Council received approval. ## Attendance All members were present for the Council meeting on August 11, 2009. No members were recorded as absent or late. **Present:** - Mayor Newberry - CM Stinnett - CM Gorton - CM Crosbie - CM McChord - CM Blues - CM Martin - CM Beard - CM Ellinger - CM Lane - CM Myers - CM James - CM Lawless - CM Hinson - CM McCord - CM Wallace - CM Crosby - CM Feigel - CM Gordon - CM Stennett ## Votes and Decisions The Council took the following actions during the August 11, 2009 meeting, all by voice vote unless otherwise noted: - **Rezoning ordinances placed on docket without a hearing** [timestamp: 0:39]: Moved by CM Stinnett, seconded by CM Gorton. Passed; CM Martin recused. - **Amended docket approved** [timestamp: 2:16]: Moved by CM Gorton, seconded by CM McChord. Passed. - **Summary of 7/7/09 approved** [timestamp: 2:46]: Moved by CM Crosbie, seconded by CM Blues. Passed. - **Budget journal 35940 amended** [timestamp: 3:53]: Moved by CM Gorton, seconded by CM Crosbie. Passed. - **Budget amendments approved** [timestamp: 5:28]: Moved by CM Gorton, seconded by CM Stinnett. Passed. - **New business items A through Il approved, except item DD** [timestamp: 20:54]: Moved by CM Beard, seconded by CM Ellinger. Passed; CM Martin recused. - **Item DD tabled** [timestamp: 35:16]: Moved by CM McChord, seconded by CM Beard. Passed; CM Martin recused. - **New business items approved as amended** [timestamp: 35:50]: Passed. - **Item DD brought off the table and amended** [timestamp: 45:46]: Moved by CM Crosby. Passed; CM Martin recused. - **Ethics Commission composition referred to the Intergovernmental Committee** [timestamp: 48:20]: Moved by CM Crosby. Passed. - **Issue of slaughtering livestock and processing of game and wildlife within the urban service boundary referred to the Services Committee** [timestamp: 48:57]: Moved by CM Hinson, seconded by CM James. Passed. - **NDF approved** [timestamp: 1:09:56]: Moved by CM Ellinger. Passed. - **Substitution of a reimbursement resolution for the budget amendment proposal** [timestamp: 2:56:18]: Moved by CM Beard. Passed by roll call vote, 10 ayes to 4 nays. ## Budget and Financial Actions The Council addressed several budget and financial items during the August 11, 2009 meeting, including a budget amendment and two grant authorizations. - **Budget Amendment:** The Council considered an amendment to budget journal 35940 in the amount of **$125,990** related to utility truck bodies. No vendor or recipient was specified in the record for this item. - **Home Network Project Grant (Resolution 464-09):** The Council authorized acceptance of an award from the **Lexington-Fayette County Health Department** to support the Home Network Project. No specific dollar amount was recorded for this grant authorization. - **Law Enforcement Service Fee Grant Program (Resolution 465-09):** The Council authorized acceptance of an award from the **Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet** for the Law Enforcement Service Fee Grant Program. No specific dollar amount was recorded for this grant authorization. Taken together, these actions reflect the Council's management of both internal budget adjustments and external funding opportunities. The budget journal amendment of $125,990 represents the only confirmed dollar figure among the financial items considered at this meeting, while the two grant resolutions — 464-09 and 465-09 — formalized the city's acceptance of awards from county and state agencies respectively. ## Public Comment Three residents addressed the Council during the public comment period. - **Graham Pohl** [timestamp: 3:00:34] raised concerns about plans for power lines along the Newtown Pike extension. Pohl urged the Council to consider burying the lines rather than running them above ground, citing the importance of preserving the aesthetic appeal of the area. - **Clive Pohl** [timestamp: 3:06:49] echoed those concerns, also speaking to the issue of power lines along the Newtown Pike extension. Clive Pohl emphasized that burying the lines would help maintain a visually appealing entrance to the city. - **Mr. Cobb** [timestamp: 3:19:53] addressed a separate matter, calling on the Council to take urgent action to improve representation and job creation for the Black community. Cobb stressed the need to address economic disparities and indicated that the situation required immediate attention. The Newtown Pike extension power line issue drew the most sustained comment, with two speakers independently urging the Council to pursue underground installation as a means of protecting the corridor's visual character. ## Contested Items **PeopleSoft HCM Implementation Funding** [timestamp: 1:09:56] The council engaged in a lengthy and heated discussion regarding an additional $600,000 needed to fund the PeopleSoft Human Capital Management (HCM) implementation. The debate centered on two primary concerns: the proposed use of the Urban Services Fund as a funding source, and the need for a reimbursement resolution to accompany the expenditure. Council members raised questions about the appropriateness of drawing from the Urban Services Fund for this purpose, reflecting broader concerns about how the costs of the technology implementation would be allocated and whether that fund was the proper mechanism for covering the shortfall. The discussion also focused on ensuring that a reimbursement resolution was in place, which would establish a formal commitment to repay the fund from other revenue sources. The extracted data does not specify which individual council members led the debate or detail the precise outcome of the vote, but the discussion was notable for its length and intensity, indicating significant disagreement or uncertainty among council members before any resolution was reached. ## Public Comment [timestamp: 0:06] No members of the public came forward to offer comments on the issues on the agenda during this portion of the August 11, 2009 Council meeting. ## Requested Rezonings / Docket Approval [timestamp: 00:39] The Council took up Agenda Item II, concerning the approval of placing rezoning ordinances on the docket. The discussion was led by CM Stinnett and CM Gorton. The item involved a procedural step to place rezoning ordinances on the docket without requiring a hearing at this stage. No specific concerns or debate were recorded in the available data for this item. The Council approved the measure. ## Approval of Summary [timestamp: 02:46] The Council took up Agenda Item III, the approval of the summary from the July 7, 2009, work session. CM Crosbie and CM Blues were the key speakers on this item. The summary was presented for the Council's review and acceptance without notable debate or concerns raised on the record. The Council approved the summary. ## Budget Amendments [timestamp: 03:53] The Council took up Agenda Item IV, a resolution addressing budget amendments for the current fiscal period. CM Gorton and CM Crosbie were the key participants in the discussion of this item. The Council considered an amendment to budget journal 35940 as part of the action before them. The resolution was approved by the Council. ## New Business [timestamp: 20:54] The Council took up several New Business items under Agenda Item V, covering authorizations to amend sections of the Code of Ordinances as well as the acceptance of awards and agreements. Key speakers during this portion of the meeting included CM Beard and CM Ellinger. The discussion addressed the various resolutions and actions presented under this agenda item, with the Council reviewing the proposed amendments and agreements before moving toward a vote. All items brought forward under New Business were approved by the Council. ## Continuing Business / Presentations [timestamp: 35:50] CM Stinnett presented on behalf of the Budget & Finance Committee, providing the Council with an update that included preliminary year-end results and revenue reports. The presentation was informational in nature, offering members an overview of the municipality's financial standing as the fiscal year drew to a close. The update covered preliminary year-end results, giving the Council an early look at how actual revenues and expenditures compared to budgeted figures, as well as revenue reports detailing incoming funds across relevant categories. No vote or formal action was taken as a result of this agenda item, as it was intended to keep Council members informed of the municipality's financial position. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to place rezoning ordinances on the docket without a hearing - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve the amended docket - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve the summary of 7/7/09 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to amend budget journal 35940 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve budget amendments - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve new business items A-Il, except item DD - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to table item DD - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve new business items as amended - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to bring item DD off the table and amend it - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to refer Ethics Commission composition to the Intergovernmental Committee - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to refer the issue of slaughtering livestock and processing of game and wildlife within the urban service boundary to the Services Committee - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve the NDF - **Motion** — passed (10-4): Motion to substitute a reimbursement resolution for the budget amendment proposal --- ## Full transcript ... available, please come up and we'll have a chance to catch up on what everybody did over the summer. If you're not, I'll give you a rain check on a Diet Pepsi at some point. So, um, hope you'll be able to join us. Is there any, uh, public comment on the issues on the agenda today? I am not aware of anyone wishing to speak, so we'll proceed to, uh, the docket approval. Is there a motion to approve the docket? Move approval. Second. Council Member Gorton has moved to, to- Oh, oh, some people waving. ... to approve the docket. Uh, heard a second from Council Member McCord, I think. Uh, any discussion? Mayor, we have two items in need of, uh, hearing. Council Member Stennet. And I move to pro- put on number eight without a public hearing. Second. Have a motion to amend the docket to put item number eight on without a hearing. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. Council Member Stennet, did you have a second motion? The- there is another one, but it's not, not in my area. All right. I'm not sure who, who it might be, but I'll, I'll be glad to put it on without a public hearing. I'm fine. I have a motion. Do I hear a second? Second. I have a second by Council Member Crosby, uh, to Council Member Stennet's, uh, motion. That's, uh, motion to put item number nine on without a public hearing. Council Member, uh, Wallace. It seems we have people that wanted to speak on... My mistake, I'm sorry. All right. Council Member James. I'm just curious as to whose district it is and if there's any comment from that council representative. No comments on hearing or no hearing? Yes. Okay. Thanks. All right. The motion is to put item number nine on without a public hearing. Any discussion? All then in favor of amending the docket as indicated, please let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. We're now ready to vote on the docket as amended unless there's any further discussion, and I see none. So those in favor of approving the docket as amended, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. There's a summary from our July 7th work session that needs approval. Council Member Crosby's moved approval. Do I hear a second? Second. Council Member Blues has seconded the motion. Any, uh, discussion of the summary? Seeing none. We'll proceed to vote. Those in favor of approving the July 7th summary, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. We have, uh, few budget amendments today. Is there a motion to approve? Move approval. Second. Have a motion by Council Member Gordon, second by Council Member Stennet to, uh, approve the budget amendments. Uh, Elizabeth Magee from the budget office is here, and I think she has, uh, some information for us with regard to one of those items. Uh, Elizabeth. Uh, thank you, Mayor. Um, on page 19 of the packet, the very last page of budget amendments, um, budget journal 35940, we need to amend that budget journal. Um, this is related to purchase orders that existed in FY2009 that are still open and active that are being rolled to FY2010 in closed funds, so like general fund, sewer fund. Um, and this one we need to have added, sort of, the last minute add, um, is for utility truck bodies for sanitary sewer fund in the amount of $125,990. So if we could get a motion to add that one item. Would there be a motion to amend the proposed budget amendments to that effect? Uh, I move to amend journal 35940 to include 1,200 , $125,990 for the trucks. I second. Yours. Have a second by Council Member, um, Crosby. Any discussion? Those in favor of the amendment, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Those opposed, no? Motion carries. Uh, we're now prepared to discuss the budget amendments. Is there any discussion? Council Member James. Council Member Cosby, were you on the list? I was. Thank you. Okay. It doesn't matter if you wanna go first. That's okay. Okay. I just, um, regarding, uh, journal item 35940, um, I was just gonna state, I mean, this is over $3 million and it just says various on here. Um, I have the account breakout for those. That would be nice for us to have prior to- Y- you will have it. Okay. Thank you. Prior to Thursday. Oh, the majority of that is related to recycling equipment, the recycling equipment that we bought for the recycling center. That purchase order is open. Obviously, all of that equipment has not, not yet been received. Well, obviously, if that's the case, then, you know, we'll have that beforehand, but then- Right. ... when we're just adding on something for a completely different department- Correct. ... under the same, uh, journal number, it can be a little confusing when you're- Yeah. ... going across several different areas. We'll get- And- I'll get that information to you all. Thank you. No problem. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. On journal, journal number 35918, um, looks like we, there were some funds omitted during the budget process. Do you know which page that's on? Um, it's right above that 35940. Oh, this for, um, the extended school? Yes. They have a- they added a s- new school site late in the budget process. From what account did this money come? It's fees- ... um, collected for the extended school. Okay. It's, it's an enterprise fund. They collect fees for the service and they're only used for the service. Okay, so it came from the enterprise fund. From fees from- Just needed to- ... from programs. ... to be pulled over. Correct. Okay, thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Any further discussion on the budget amendments? Those then in favor of approving the proposed budget amendments, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Those no, motion carries. We, as we normally do, have a significant list of, uh, new business items as a result of, of things that have accumulated over the break. Move approval. Council Member Beards moved their approval. Second. And have a second by Council Member Ellinger. Any discussion? All right, Council Member Crosby, I think. Um, thank you, Mayor. Uh, I have a question on, uh, GG which is regarding Chapter 25 of the Code of Ordinance regarding the Ethics Commission. Um, uh, I have a s- few different, um, issues with this. First, the reading of the, the way the, um, the agenda or GG says on our agenda, it says that the AALE is with the John Road Chapter of the National Bar Association, which I, I, I, a- and then on the letter in the back, it's, they're completely separate. And then, I, I also tried to look up this organization on the Secretary of State website, and I, I can't find the John Road Chapter of the National Bar Association, which further then brings me to not just this organization, but, um, also within the ordinance it says, "The Greater Lexington Chamber of Commerce," which they're inactive. In the letter we got from, from the administration, it says, "Commerce Lexington," in there, but I think if we're amending, uh, these organizations, we need to make sure we amend, um, our ordinances to reflect what they're currently, currently registered with or if they're even registered at all. I guess, um, part of my issue is we have groups that are nominating or making recommendations to you, Mayor, and we don't even know, if they're not registered with the state, we don't know who their membership is or, or anything, if they're in good status, nothing, and then also what is the process, for example, if one of these groups nominates three people to you and you don't accept those nominations, then we have an opening until they bring someone else forward. And so I, I guess my thoughts go two different ways on this is, can we either just have you nominate and select a, a group of people that are representative of the community and we have to vote up, down as a council regardless, or do we need to make sure that we have groups that are, you know, aggreg- or registered with the Secretary of State and, um, you hope that they recommend three that you will, uh, you know, pass on to us. I guess that's my question. I think the rationale a- about the Ethics Commission in particular was that it made sense to have that commission comprised of people from a number of different groups within the community that were specified in the ordinance initially, as opposed to just having the mayor pick people. Um, generally speaking, the idea was that by having those representatives from the different organizations, there, at least theoretically, ought to be greater independence of the Ethics Commission. We do it differently with Ethics Commission than what we do with most boards because of that. Uh, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about that particular issue. With regard to the registration with the Secretary of State's office, um, eh, I don't know whether or not this particular entity is incorporated. We were looking to try to find a replacement for AALE because that group apparently has just sort of faded from the scene and we had a vacancy we needed to fill and there's nobody there to send us any nominations. If you all have some suggestions or, or Shay may be able to shed a little additional light on that. Um, as you know, Ana Hartshay deals with boards and commissions most often. She couldn't be here at the moment, so I'll try to do the best to, um, uh, answer this. You're correct that the African American League of Lexington Emerge no longer exists, so we were trying to find an organization comprised, um, primarily of African Americans to fill this position and we asked several organizations that are comprised of African Americans or represent African Americans and several of them declined. We wanted to find one that was well qualified to serve on the Ethics Commission. We feel this is the best one possible, in fact, because it's comprised of attorneys who are trained primarily to deal with these types of issues. Well, I guess going back to my question, and I'm not just suggesting it's that group, it's any group. For example, um, uh, how do we know who, who makes up the people making these decisions if, if they're not registered with the Secretary of State as an actual group for one, because almost every other group on here is, and then two, for example, you have down, um, the Better Business Bureau. Well, the Better Business Bureau here is of Central and Eastern Kentucky and we've had discussions regarding some of our commissions and our boards about whether or not, um, it is appropriate. Does that mean that somebody from another county would be ser- could be nominated and serve perhaps on our Ethics Commission? ... or two, we have people who aren't even from this area making recommendations to the mayor to serve on this commission. Well, I believe this dates back to, I believe, 1994 when the ethics ordinance was put in place, and these were the organizations at the time that were selected to comprise the Ethics Commission. So, they could be kind of antiquated then. Well, I think that that is a question that the council could take up either in committee or elsewhere, whether or not they think these are the organizations that should continue to serve on the Ethics Commission. I guess it would require an a- amendment to the ordinance. But at a minimum, we need to make, um, if we're gonna continue with the Ethics Organization as the, uh, commission as it is now, we need a replacement for the African American represented group. Well, and that is n- I don't have any problem with that at all, if that's the way we decide to go. I guess my point was more maybe some of these groups are outdated, and, um, for example, it's my understanding that three names were brought forward by one of these groups for a open spot and that nomination, there has been no nomination brought forward to us from that group because perhaps they were not acceptable to the administration. I'm not sure. I've, that's just something I've been told. But with that being said, there needs to be a cross-section, obviously, of this commission, of our, um, of our e- of our Ethics Committee, but does it necessarily have to be this group or can we go back to more up-down vote regardless of who comes forward, whether they're a female, a male, an African American, w- whatever they come from, if the mayor makes the recommendation, we still have the up-down vote. We still go through the confirmation process, so maybe we need to look at these groups and decide if we even need groups at all. Would it be helpful if Glenda gives you some perspective of why these groups- Well, I under, yeah, I understand why these groups were chosen in 1994, and I understand why we're trying to replace this one group, and the wording is just not very clear. Even in here it says the AALE with the John Rowe Chapter of the National Bar Association. That at the minimum has to be changed on GG. Um, welcome back- I, I think what, I think what we were trying- ... everybody. ... to say is we're gonna replace AALE with the John Rowe National- I understand that, but it's not written that way. Right. They say they're with that organization. They are clearly not because the AALE does not exist anymore, so- I think this is a clerical issue of when- It is. Right. And then my point, furthermore, is the fact that this other organization is not... You, you may have gotten high recommendations from them, but they're not registered with the Secretary of State. They, I know they don't have to be, but how do we know who these people are or what... Please. She's a member. I think I can help with how the John Rowe Chapter was selected. I'm the attorney for the Ethics Commission, and we have historically had one nominating organization that represents the African American community. Once we found out that AALI was no longer in existence, Ana and I had a conversation about how we could locate a organization that had minority members so that we would have minority representation on the board. I have previously been a member of the John Rowe Chapter, and I know that it has been in existence for some time, and so that's why we contacted them to see if they would be interested in serving. So, that's how we got that group, but there's no requirement that they be registered with the Secretary of State because they're not a non-profit organization as a local chapter. I understand that. I guess more to the point though is we have people from these organizations that were, and, and not, I'm not talking about this one specifically. All right. I'm talking about all of them, every single one of them. We have people from these organizations making recommendations for a pretty important position, and one, if they don't get accepted from the nominations from the organizations with the mayor's office, then we have an open spot sitting until somebody is accepted, and then two, how do we find out about who's making these nominations and how do they come forward, and you know, is it an executive board? Do they pay dues? Do they... I mean, so going back to my point is, can we not count on our mayor to find a cross-section of the community that is representative of our community? These were created back in 1994 and we as a council still have the opportunity regardless of its- We wouldn't ... um, uh, the, let me go back to this page- ... that we do have to elect someone. ... the Better Business Bureau or Commerce Lexington or whoever it is, um, they still, they can still have the ability to have input and apply regardless of what group they're from. I was just gonna say we aren't agreeing or disagreeing with what you're saying, and if the council would like to take up the issue of not having the organizations represented or make the nominations, we're not opposed to that. We're just following the ordinance as it is right now. Um, we do have a problem from some organizations of getting nominations and that slows down the process from time to time, um, when you do have the requirement of getting nominations. So, if that is something that you would like to make a motion, um, or someone else- Yes. ... to take that up in committee, I mean, if, I'm, I'm not sure what you're wanting us to do right now 'cause we're following the ordinance. I would, I would probably like for us to take this up in committee, and I have no objections to this replacement for the time, I mean, obviously no objections to the- Right. ... replacement. That's, I guess that's not my point- Sure. ... with the exception of the clerical error, if that could be fixed, and then we'll take it up in committee as to whether or not we can kind of help process this along. Yeah. I mean, 'cause we're just obviously bringing forward the recommendations as it is from Chapter 25 of the Code of Ordinances, and we're trying to replace the group so we have a nominating group. ... to bring forward. If it's the, um, will of the council not to have those groups anymore, you know, that's your prerogative. Well, and like you said, even yourself just a second ago, sometimes these groups aren't proactive in nominating people, even when there is an opening. Right. And so, I guess then the question begs are they the most appropriate groups if they can't even get nominations to us? And so I, I clearly think it's something we can discuss, but as far as what the group makeup is, that's, that's really not my point. My point is do we even have to have groups- Right. ... to do this? Because we still are the final up/down, you're saying, "No, we don't." The council is still the final up/down vote with all boards, so. For con- for confirmation, yes. Okay. And- So I guess I'll, I'll just, I mean, I, I unders- I agree with this, but if we could get the typo clarified and then if I could just make- Can I- ... a motion that we, yes? Yeah. How would it, you like to change the language there so that it reads better from your point of view 'cause- Uh, instead the, nom- uh, nominating organization w- it sounds like they're with the John Rowe Chapter and they don't exist anymore, so to replace. Can you tell me which item it is? I could suggest something real quick. GG. Uh . I'm not opposed to trying to make it clearer, but. How about with the organization or just replace African American Organization- With the John Rowe Chapter. Right. Or how about we say, we put the John Rowe Chapter in place of the African American in Lexington Emerge, which no longer exists. That's fine. 'Cause when I read it, I was, I was confused- Right. ... on, well, they don't exist anymore, but you're putting they're with this group. So okay, thank you. I'll make a motion later. Okay. Council Member Crosby's moved to modify or amend Item GG so that it reads, um, the request will authorize an amendment to Chapter 25 of the Code of Ordinances regarding the Ethics Commission to put the John Rowe Chapter of the National Bar Association in the place of American, African Americans in Lexington Emerge. All right. Council Member Ellinger has seconded that motion. Do I see any discussion? Since there is none, we'll proceed to vote. Vote- Are we voting on all of these? No, we're voting to amend Item GG. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, GG. All right. Those in favor of amending Item GG as indicated, please let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Those no? Motion carries. All right, Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I have been, um, notified by law that Item DD, um, still has some, this is, uh, a partial easement, uh, release of a partial easement and there are still some issues that law is working on with these. So I move to remove Item DD under new business from the agenda because it has been determined that some additional work is needed on the release of these easements. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Gordon and a second by Council Member Figal to amend the new business items to delete item DD. Any discussion? Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I need to recuse myself from this 'cause it involves, um, um, some property in which my wife is, uh, wife's family belongs. Also for the record, I wanted to, uh, note my recusal from item, the ordinance number nine, uh, previously voted on. The, the, the, the work moved very quickly and I, before I got my ordinance up, it was already done, so I just wanna note that for the record. Thank you, Mayor. All right. Thank you. Any discussion on the proposed amendment? All right. Um, Mayor. Council Member Crosby. This, this is actually in my district and, um, I wa- I was app- I found out about this about a few minutes before meeting and that there were some potential problems with it, and I was just wondering if somebody could kind of tell us because for it to make it on here and then we're told that there's problems a few minutes beforehand. I'm just wondering what, if, if, if somebody could, if from law or something could just tell us what the issue is just so we know. Commissioner Askew, if you could, uh, step to the podium. Excuse me just a second, sir. Council Member Crosby, I am not really sure. Uh, Mr. Gardner worked on this. I received a call from engineering this afternoon indicating this was not ready to go after all and asked it to be pulled. So, and I think, I think Mr. Gardner and Ms. Gordon had a conversation, but I don't know the details of it. Council, Council Member Gordon says she may have some information as well. Um, Ed Gardner relayed to me that there were a couple of issues being worked on. One of which was a sanitary sewer, uh, issue and one of which was a solid waste issue. I can- And, and they didn't feel comfortable releasing the easement until all those were satisfied. Council Member Crosby- That's fine. I can ask Mr. Gardner to come down, uh, if you need some more detail. That's fine. Thank you. Okay. All right. Then if it's, uh, okay with you, we'll, i- if there's no objection, we will put, uh, uh, item DD aside for the moment until we hear from Council Member Gar- uh, from, uh, Mr. Gardner from the Law Department. Or if there's somebody from engineering, they might even be able just to confirm- Okay. ... this. They can't. I don't, I don't see anyone from engineering with that perspective. So, um, let's go ahead and discuss any other issues on the list of new business items. And perhaps Mr. Gardner will be here in the interim. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Mayor. Um, item EE, um, it was my understanding it's a $12,800,000 bond issue for the Le- Lexington Christian Academy. It was my understanding that the only time those kinds of bonds could be used for a church-related entity was if it was a public space, like the gym on High Street that's open to the public and public membership for, I don't know, a dollar or something. Um, this doesn't seem to fit that. I'll ask Mr. Wright to address that issue and perhaps others. Thank you, Council Member. I have, um, Clary Horn Shadwick, who is the bond counsel for that particular deal. Uh, and she can talk to us about the specifics. What we generally do is look at where there are areas where worship takes place in a church-related activity. Non-profit organizations can apply for RRBs, but there cannot be an exclusive nature to which the funds that are used from the RRBs are put on for the project. So I'll let Clary, uh, provide any detail. Good afternoon. Clary Horn Shadwick with Frost Brown Todd here in Lexington, and I do serve as bond counsel. Um, this is a request for a refinancing basically of bonds that have been previously issued by this council, I believe, at least twice in the past. The bonds that are being refunded, the vast majority of the money that's being spent of the 12.8, over 10 million is refinancing the outstanding Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Bonds, um, that were issued in 2003. And that 2003 bond issue, I believe, in part refinanced a previous bond issue from this council. Um, now what the statute requires is that there be, uh, an industrial bea- building that is being financed and an educational building, whether it is, um, a public university or a private school, like the Lexington School, I think, was just approved, um, by this council, um, for a new bond issuance. Than that is what's required in the statute. Um, under the, you know, and again, this council has approved bonds for other organizations that are non-profit, um, that do have a religious aff- affiliation. What we always do is make sure there's enough equity in the project to cover any area that is exclusively, um, a religious area like a sanctuary or a chapel. And Lexington Christian Academy, um, their appraisal was 19.5 million. Um, the bond issue request is 12.8, so they have about 6.7 million, um, in equity in, in their facilities out there, which would be more than enough, um, to cover any, um, you know, any areas that are the chapel, which is a very small portion of, of the educational and recreational facilities out there. Um, and again, the council has, um, approved numerous bonds like this and the s- the, um, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Steele case has said, um, that so long as these, um, bonds are available to all non-profits, um, it's considered indirect aid and does not violate any establishment clause of the Constitution. Okay, thank you. Thank you. All right, any, uh, further discussion? Council Member Stennet. Thank you, um, mayor. Number AA, I just wanna make sure this is, for this project, this is all the easements, uh, for Beverly Avenue, not just one? I think we're trying to group them all into a single new business item rather than having 25 different ones like we have been. Is this every single easement on Beverly? Is this a new process that we're starting? 'Cause we used to list them all individually. Is this something we've changed in the law department that it's okay to do it this way? I don't know if Logan, he left the room, of course. Mayor, I don't know if you know, 'cause EBB is the same way. I just wanna make sure if we're gonna proceed down this path that all the individual properties are still addressed publicly somehow if we're gonna lump them together so we know whose properties we're buying up. Because that was the reason for advertising them. I understand this saves us money by condensing them, but- All right. Let me, uh, ask Mr. Askew to step to the podium when he has a moment. And, and Bob, I assume you're here for this. Is this every property we're done? There's no other ones we need to get besides the one that's in litigation? Bob, if you'd step to the microphone, please. What this is, is, is authorization to allow, um, the acquisitions of the easements to take place by, on a project level rather than bring back individual MOUs. So they haven't actually taken place. This is just giving you the authority not to have to come back to us. Yes, sir. I just wanna make sure all, the council understands that 'cause this is different from how we've done it in the past. Yes. Not that I disagree with that, doing it this way, it speeds it up. Thank you. I guess Logan left again. I -- I'll save my question offline for Logan. Just wanna make sure we're not violating any- anyone's rights, in terms of once we acquire their easement officially. All right. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Green, if you'd ask Mr. Askew to come back in, I'd appreciate it. And did I see Mr. Gardner come in? Mr. Askew is earning his paycheck this afternoon? On multiple fronts. Uh, the question goes to the, uh, sanitary sewer easements that are in AA and BB, and generally, Council Member Stennett, the question is, are these all the easements related to these particular projects, and are we doing this in such a fashion as to- 'Cause th- this is a new procedure. How we've been blue sheeting 'em in the past, we've been doing 'em individually. And I just wanna make sure that w- we're still notifying individual property owners a- and because we're not listing 'em all l- like we used to be, which I like the new process much quicker and better, but, uh, just wanna make sure w- w- you've looked at this 'cause this was a big issue. Yes. In order to expedite the process, we're just doing one resolution authorizing the mayor to execute all legal documents relating to a project. We will still have signed MOUs from the property owner stating that they are agreeing to participate in the program with us. And will we get those still, individually, as they come back, or this is saying, "We're done with it from our end"? The council will be done with it on your end- Okay. ... after you approve the resolution, but the law department does still receive each individual MOU. And we do not execute a deed without having an MOU signed by the property owner. Okay. Very good. Thank you. All right. Um, Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. My question has to do with, um, item R. Um, the authorization to rescind the resolution, um, 1052003 and appoint the Commissioner of General Services as the attorney in fact and approve power of attorney on behalf of LFEUCG, um, regarding the Farm Service Agency Community Credit Corporation. I'm, I'm curious about kinda the discussion that went around from changing it to CAO to a commissioner that would give that approval. I can address that. I- if you've ever dealt with USDA on any piece of agricultural property, there is a seemingly endless number of forms. Everything from, um, conservation easements to tobacco base allocation documents. And the notion was that, uh, given the fact that we are fairly regularly being confronted with these forms, it made more sense to have the Commissioner of General Services responsible for it than the Senior Advisor for Management because of the fact that the General Services Department is the department that's responsible for overseeing the, uh, real estate holdings that we have. It's a fair amount of fairly routine paperwork. R. Okay. Was... Can you remind me whether the CAO, was that an appointed position? Yes. Okay. All right, thank you. That's all I have. Thanks. Okay. Um, Mr. Gardner? Okay. We, we probably need to arrange for Council Member Crosby to come back. Uh, okay, they're talking. Sounds like we may need to, uh, proceed. Let you all visit a bit longer. Is that fair? Okay. Um, I think a motion to table item DD, uh, for the moment would be appropriate, and we may take it off the table here in about 15 minutes. Council Member McCord has moved to table item DD. Do I hear a second? Second. Second from Council Member Beard. It's non-debatable. Those in f- I recuse, Mayor. Those in favor of, uh, tabling item DD, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. I think we are now to the point at which we are ready to vote on the new business items as amended. Any further discussion? Then those in favor of approving the new business items as amended, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you. We, uh, today have only one, uh, presentation, and that is from the Budget and Finance Committee, so Council Member Stennett, we'll turn the floor over to you. Thank you, Mayor. Um, this is from our Budget and Finance Meeting July 7th, and again, I appreciate Council Member James for swapping with us on the Inner Gov Committee so we could try to get some preliminary, uh, year-end results. And again, that is the big disclaimer to this revenue report is, these were preliminary numbers. We'll get the actual numbers probably at our August meeting here at the end of the month. So, uh, ev- every number I, I have, uh, reported today is a preliminary number that we received. Uh, again, we're talking about revenues, and from June of last year to June of this year, revenues were up, uh, in our four major categories, and that would be employee withholdings, uh, net profit tax, the franchise fees, as well as the insurance premium tax. Uh, the approximate, uh, increase was 1,300,000. ... um, and I'm sorry, that was, yeah, year to date, uh, $1,391,784. However, um, it's important to note that in Fayette County, we've never been under a 1.8% growth increase on the employee withholdings. And our growth increase, the... Again, this was a prelimina- preliminary number, was only .3. So again, we've never been under a 1.8%, but this past 12 months, we were .3%. So, it can kinda give you a reflection of how the economy's operating now. I know there's been a lot of warnings a- and, uh, caution that was given during our Budget and Finance meeting about a backup plan should our revenues continue down, down these type of numbers. And, uh, we'll hopefully, during the month of August Budget and Finance Committee meeting, be able to solidify last year's preliminary numbers. But again, the preliminary numbers w- were up 1.3 million on the revenue side. However, um, keep in mind, we project or just passed a FY2010 budget of 279,600,000. Our revenues for FY2009 were 267,900,000, so we got about a $13 million increase we have to, to see in this fiscal year in order to balance the budget. Councilman Allen, I see you're smiling. I see that. I, I said I'm okay. But you're right. We, we have a lot to be concerned about. Um, again, we're talking about revenues here. Uh, one good note though, expenditures last year were down from what we projected to spend. Thanks to the administration and a lot of efforts in this room, uh, expenditures were kept in check, uh, at around 267,000,000 as well, so I'm, I'm sure that's on the mayor's mind and everyone in this room as we continue down the path. So that's the brief, uh, revenue update report from the month of July, uh, Budget and Finance meeting. Second on our agenda was the Division of Engineering new development audit. Uh, again, the internal audit board reports out to the Budget and Finance Committee meeting. Uh, basically, the Division of Engineering, uh, was audited. Its new development section, which we had a discussion on today at our COW meeting, and I believe, um, so that we don't have to go through all the audit report again, Councilmember Meyers, I'm gonna appeal to you. You may have a motion on this audit that would take care of anything I need to say today. You want me to make that now? Absolutely. Go ahead. Okay. In, in, uh, Committee of the Whole today, I made a motion to have the internal auditor present this audit to the, um, nearest committee... Or not Committee of the Whole, but work session possible, and that was, uh, passed unanimously with those who, who were in attendance. So, um, do I need to make the motion again here? Yeah. Okay. I move to have the internal auditor come and present the engineering audit to the work session at the most convenient, earliest schedule. So moved. Second. We have a motion by Councilmember Meyers and a second by Councilmember Blues to have the internal audit, uh, division present the engineering audit to the work session at the earliest possible date. Any discussion? Councilmember Meyers. If I can make one more note on that, I also said that we would probably be going to closed session after that presentation. Yeah. All right. If there's no further discussion, those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Okay. Item number three on our agenda was the council link recommendations from the budget. And what we've decided to do is to break it up into the five link chairs and have them report out to the Budget and Finance Committee and, and spearhead the follow-up on all of those recommendations that we came up with as a group during the budget process. So we'll be, uh... There was a motion by Councilmember Lane to approve that procedure, um, and bring the status back to the Budget and Finance Committee, and that was seconded by Councilmember Martin. And it did pass without dissent, and I'll bring that motion to the full council and make it again. So moved. Second. I'm sorry. Councilmember Stennet, could you restate the motion? Motion was to ask the link chairs, uh, of the budget links to report back to the Budget and Finance Committee the follow-up on the council budget link recommendations. And I had a second from Councilmember Lane. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. And then the last item on our agenda was the, uh, urban services fund balance. Uh, this is an item which will carry over to the August meeting, and basically we'll be looking at the funds that make up our urban services fund balance, and that being the solid waste property tax, the streetlight property tax, the street cleaning property tax, as well as the landfill user fee. And we'll be getting more information at the August meeting on all of those items. And the meeting was adjourned at 2:36. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Any questions for Councilmember Stennett? Very well. We'll proceed. We're ready for council reports now. Councilmember Blues. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, the South Hill Neighborhood Association meeting, which will be at 6:00 PM, uh, this evening, uh, will, uh... It's in, in, in Council, Councilmember Lolis's district, but the, uh, but the, the neighborhood association has invited the western suburb and the Woodward Heights neighborhood associations to, to attend that meeting, uh, because the subject, uh, will be the, uh, the rash or the epidemic of vehicle break-ins in, uh, in the three, in the three neighborhoods. Uh, representatives from the Division of Police will be, will be present, and, uh, we're looking forward to a, to a serious and productive discussion about to, uh, how to cope with this rather serious outbreak, uh. And that meeting is at 6:00 PM tonight in First United Methodist Church at 200 West High Street in the, uh, in the basement, as I understand it, um. Councilmember Lawless, you probably wanna speak more to this, but I really do want to encourage the folks from Woodward Heights and from Western Suburb to attend this meeting, uh, because, uh, because it is quite a, quite a serious, uh, problem in, in our near downtown neighborhoods. Tonight also, at seven o'clock, the Middle Thorpe Neighborhood Association will, uh, hold its monthly meeting at the Community Center in In The Park. Tomorrow night, Wednesday, August 12th, 6:30 PM, St. Martin's Village Neighborhood Association will meet. This is a meeting principally on the, uh, on, on LexTrans proposals to, uh, to change some of the, uh, the, the, uh, passenger routes in the neighborhood. So I encourage the neighborhood to, to come out to discuss, uh, those questions with representatives from LexTrans. Monday, August, uh, Au- August 17th, 6:30 PM, the Martin Luther King, or the Windburn Neighborhood Association monthly meeting will be had, will be held at the Martin Luther King Parks Community Center. Thank you, Mayor. That's my report. Thank you very much. Um, I meant to say something before we began the council reports, but I recall from our June and July conversations, there was some interest in trying to rein in the duration of the council reports and the focus of the council reports to, uh, where they don't become, uh, a source of a lot of matters of new business. So I think we have a five-minute limit. Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Parliamentarian, but, um, we- we'll try to monitor those. Councilmember Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Um, the... I just have one item. The council's planning committee is supposed to meet August the 18th, and, uh, Paul Schoeninger and I have worked through all the issues on our current issues list, and it appears that there may be none of them that are ready. We still have some lingering from 2006. So if you're a councilmember whose, who is a sponsor of one of those issues that's still lingering that's not ready yet, I wanna encourage you to, um, work to bring it forward. Um, I will be letting council know later in the week whether the meeting will be canceled or not. Thanks. Thank you very much. Councilmember Crosby. Uh, thank you, Mayor. I guess this would be the appropriate time to see if we could, um, bring up the table item DD after we've, uh, spent some time out in the hallway. I think everybody's in a agreement of, um, a minor amendment to this. So if I can make a motion to bring this off the table and make an amendment to it, that would be great. Second. I have a motion and a second to take item DD from the table. All in favor, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Aye. Oppose, no. Motion carries. And then I'd like to make a motion that, um, we amend it to remove the release of the property located at 3270 Richmond Road, and then the rest of the, um, wording would stay the same. And all parties had t- talked about this outside, and everybody's in agreeance that this is acceptable. Thank you. All r- all right. Um, Councilmember Crosby, is it fair to say that we would delete everything beginning with 3270 Richmond Road, Section 1, Lot 1? Uh, no. Um, uh, maybe if Mr. Gardner could come up and... Just wanna make sure we all understand what we're doing here. Just removing... Excuse me, Your Honor. Just removing the reference to 3270 Richmond Road is all that needs to be done. The others, the others are just listed as different lots. That one actually has an address. If we take out the reference to that address, uh, that will, that will correct this issue, and then the resolution will reflect that. So if Councilmember Crosby's motion is approved, item DD will be modified so that it reads, um, "The request will authorize partial release of easements of a portion of sanitary sewer easements on property located at Section 1, Lot 1. In the future, Section 2, Lot 2 of Sam Lake Estates," and so forth. That's correct. All right. Any discussion? All in favor of approving item DD as amended, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Aye. Oppose, no. Motion carries. Mayor, once again, I apologize. I have to recuse myself 'cause I have a family connection with this. Thank you. Understand. Thank you. And then, um, the only other part of my report, as I brought up earlier, was that if, uh, Councilmember James, as Chair of the Intergovernmental Committee, um, wouldn't mind, I'd like to make a motion that we put in the, uh, Ethics Commission and that we look at the, all the groups that, uh, make nominations to the Ethics Commission and determine whether or not, one, those are the appropriate groups, or two, if we even need to have groups recommending members to these, to this commission. So, moved. Have a motion and second to, uh, refer the Ethics Committee composition to the Intergovernmental Committee. Any discussion? All in favor, please say, "Aye." Aye. Aye. Oppose, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. That's all I have. Thank you. Councilmember Hinson. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor, I have a motion. Um, I move to refer to the Services Committee the issue of slaughtering livestock and processing of game and wildlife within the urban service boundary. So moved. Do I hear a second? I have a motion by Council Member Hinson and a second by Council Member James to refer the item of livestock slaughtering and game dressing to, uh, services committee. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Oppose, no? Motion carries. You know, we smile about that, but if you're living next door to one of those kinds- ... of operations, it's a serious issue and, and I appreciate you bringing it up. I've got a couple of announcements too. Okay. Um, tonight at seven o'clock is the, um, last meeting of the Red Mile, um, working group. And this is, uh, discussion of a development that is proposed to take place on the Red Mile property. And it's at seven o'clock in the clubhouse. Uh, next Monday, the 17th, is Golf Hughes Neighborhood Association meeting at seven o'clock at, um, the church on Addison Avenue. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, a couple of things. One is tonight at 5:30 to 7:00 is the, uh, uh, Lexington meeting of Second Sunday, uh, coming up on October 11th. Uh, we are th- quickly moving towards this and last year, there were 70 counties that participated. Uh, we're already at around 80 to 85, uh, counties. Uh, and Kentucky has become a national model, and the, the great part is, is that Lexington is the, uh, is kind of the, uh, gold standard for this. And so folks all across the country are looking to Lexington as, uh, how we are, are leading in, in changing the health of, of our community and the state as well. So that meeting is, uh, tonight from 5:30 to 7:00. Um, I also wanted to, uh, say congratulations to the South Lexington 10-year-olds and 12-year-olds that are off to the World Series. Uh, I wish them the best of luck, uh, in their respective tournaments. And, uh, I wanted to thank Mayor, you and your staff and Parks and Rec and, uh, Commissioner Cole for, uh, finally getting the last half mile of trail put in at Wellington Park. Uh, we finally found a way to move a dirt pile and get that done. And, uh, the folks have been very appreciative and, and complimentary towards this park, and it's an example of, uh, land that we've owned for a long time, uh, 32 acres of, of land that we owned for approximately 12 years that we had the privilege of mowing for 12 years and not really used, uh, and utilized by our citizenry. But with the dog park, uh, that was dropped in thanks to, uh, the efforts of Friends of the Dog Park and Council Member Gordon, uh, and, and putting in this mile and a half worth of trail, uh, we've created an, an unbelievable amenity. Um, and with some of the things that have happened with the arboretum, uh, with their recent move towards, uh, dissuading people with bikes to even show up, uh, we don't want groups coming and running and being a part of that. Uh, this park offers an interesting alternative to that and, and my goal had always been to make this, uh, the, uh, the next arboretum. And I think that with, uh, with your efforts, Mayor, and, and the staff, uh, that we're well on our way to that, and I really appreciate, uh, all that you've done in, in regards to that. Uh, if I could, Commissioner Webb, uh, just after the meeting, if you could bring me up to speed about Shillito Park and where we are with that, that trail. Um, it'd be nice if we can tie all of this Healthway Trail system together and, and have all this, uh, these parks tied together. Uh, the last thing that I would say is, is, uh, for everybody, uh, tomorrow is gonna be a very busy day on our streets and roads as, uh, school is back in session. So, uh, uh, we wanna welcome all the, the, the folks back to school, but at the same time, uh, folks may wanna have just a little bit more patience and, and, uh, give themselves a little more time on the roads tomorrow. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Wallace. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I just wanna reiterate, um, Council Member Blue's, uh, announcement about the, uh, South Hill, um, Neighborhood Association meeting tonight at six o'clock. Um, I also would like to remind people to please, uh, support the South Limestone businesses. A lot of them are really, really hurting and, um, uh, there's some great businesses there. So please go a little bit out of your way, you can go online and find out the best place to park and how to best navigate it. Um, I wanna congratulate and thank the First Presbyterian Church. They, by using private, public, uh, volunteer, et cetera, have, uh, uh, affordable housing apartments in two historic buildings that had been condemned and they are absolutely gorgeous. They're not just affordable, they are fabulous. So thanks to all the people that worked on that. Um, Holly Wheateman, um, the, the list is quite long. But, uh, anyway, it's, it really is beautiful. And, um, I don't know if this is appropriate or not, if this is new business or old business, but I was wondering if at the next council meeting or work session we could have an update on what's going on with the wayfinding signs, if they've been... I know they're designed and I think ready to go, but where are we in that process? Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. First I wanna announce we've got two neighborhood association meetings tonight at 7:00 PM in the district. One is Center Parkway and it's gonna be at St. John's Church down on Center Parkway in the Gainesway Center area. And then the second one's gonna be Gainesway Neighborhood Association at 7:00 at the Tates Creek Golf Course apartment. And then, um, lastly, a couple months ago before we went on break, I had the, uh, chair of the airport board was here speaking to us, I'd asked him a couple of questions about how much money they've retrieved, um, from all the different things that have happened. ... ah, before the audit took place, and asked him to come back and present that finding to us. It's been a couple of months. We haven't heard anything. I know the Herald Leader's been reporting some things, but I would like to ask that the chair of the airport board come before us at the August 25th meeting. Um, Mr. Artie Green said that there's room for one more presentation on that date, so I'd like to go ahead and schedule them to come back and present to us what they've recouped. So, I don't know if I need to do a motion for that, or if- Well, we'll be glad to extend the invitation. I don't know what his availability is, but, um, Mr. Green, if you would check with Mr. Owens and see if he could join us on the 25th. Okay. We'll- Thank you. ... provide a more - And that's, that's it. Thank you. Council member Lane. Ah, thank you, Mayor. I have a couple items I'd like to refer to the Services Committee. Ah, the first one regards, ah, signage, and each residential and commercial property are required by a code in Fayette County to have the street number prominently displayed, and there's even a standard for the size of the numerals on the buildings. And many of the properties in our community are not in compliance with this ordinance, so I would like to put this before the Services Committee for review. And, ah, David Lucas, ah, I've spoken with him. He's agreed to appear before the next services, ah, meeting with an update and recommendations on how the city can inform and assist property owners in complying with this ordinance. So, I'd like to move, ah, referral of that into the Services Committee. Second. I have a motion and second remove, to move the matter of, um, signage standards to the Services Committee. Any discussion? All in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. Okay, I have the other item has to do with commercial and, um, development signage that are currently being used in the city, and at this time they are not consistent with the sign ordinances that were written several decades ago. So I would like to place this issue also under Services Committee to review and perhaps to propose a text amendment for future referral back to the Planning Commission. So moved. Second. I have a motion, second council member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I was wondering if Council Member Lane would, ah, ah, entertain a friendly amendment to include neighborhood association signage? As a matter of fact, I would be happy to accept that. Ah, I really ha- intended to mention that, and I forgot to do it, but what that, for the council members' benefit, that would mean that, um, neighborhood associations that are gonna have a neighborhood meeting could put a sign up near the street near their neighborhood saying, "We're going to be meeting at seven o'clock on Thursday night," or just say, "We're having pesticide treatment in our yard," or something like that. I think while we're at it, it would, in addition to this, you know, to maybe look at all the sign ordinance 'cause there are a lot of areas that probably could be tweaked, but I would agree to that. Thank you. Council Member Myers. We already have that issue in Services Committee. Yep. Um, well, the right-of-way signage is still in there. Right. So. He's This is a, um, issue that has, has gotten pretty hot. I, you know, I, I haven't seen any action on it. What, what, what do you have in Service Committee on this right now? We've got the sign ordinance in Services Committee as well as the- Uh huh. ... right-of-way signage in there, both. Okay. So, I mean... But do you feel like they were adequately covered and we could ramp this up? Because there is a, there, you know, there's currently an issue, ah, about signage for commercial properties at this time. Yeah, that's covered under the sign ordinance, so I'm just saying that it's already in the committee. Well, I mean, I looked at the items on there, and that item, there was an item about signage that was put on there over, about a year ago, September of '08, and you know, I'm on the committee and I haven't seen any action on that at all, so I felt like that was an inactive item. Well, we gave an update on it today and it's active, so... But you can add that to it if you want to, but it's, it's already in committee. All right, I think w- we had the offer a friendly amendment to include neighborhood association signage as well, and, um, Council Member Crosby, are you amenable to that as well, having seconded the motion? Okay. Council Member Ellinger? I was just gonna comment further what Council Member Meyers said, that we discussed that in the items in committee, and that was something that they're going to be bringing forward that we should be dealing with in the next, um, meeting, hopefully. But we can include that in and make sure that it's, it's all encompassing, so that's no problem. We're dealing with- Okay, that's good. Uh- All right. ... if we're moving forward, I'm happy. Then those in favor of, uh, referring the matter of neighborhood association signage and com- commercial development signage to the Services Committee for review, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. That's all. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I want to announce that the Beaumont Center YMCA is having a parents' night out on Friday, August 21st from 6:00 to 9:00 PM. Ah, if you need a few hours to take a break, and your kids can have lots of fun playing games and swimming and crafts, ah, at the Beaumont Center Y, again on August 21st, 6:00 to 9:00 PM. Ah, tonight at 6:30 at the Beaumont Neighborhood Association Clubhouse, ah, the Beaumont Neighborho- association is having their monthly meeting, and we encourage all residents of the Beaumont neighborhood to come out and, and, and meet tonight. Ah, also, ah, ah, ah, as a regular item from On- ah, April to October, Sundays from 10 a- 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM on Southland Drive is the Southland Farmers Market, and it's a wonderful place to come up and pick some, pick up some fresh vegetables and flowers, and, and have some great things. And last but not least, the Southland Jamboree continues this evening, uh, at 7:00 PM at the Southland Bowling Lanes, at Collins Bowling Lanes, and, uh, the band tonight is the Caddy Pen Band. So thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Stennet. Thank you, Mayor. Just have a couple items. One, I don't see... Is Susan in the room? Uh, Commissioner Taylor? I'm sorry, Susan put out a memo. Commissioner Taylor, can you give us a update on the Hamburg force main? Apparently, there's been a, a memo put out, and I don't think the general public has received the information on the condition of it, and where we're at on fixing it. It was reported in the paper this morning that it was supposed to be repaired today, and as of t- right now, it's not. And, uh, school starts tomorrow. It's in an area where kids will be traveling heavily in the morning there at the corner of Star Street and Liberty, so there's a lot of angst in the community out there about raw sewage mean, kids on trails, and things like that. So do you know where we're at, and, oh, have we contained the spill? Yeah. Um, talked to Rod Shervis, and I haven't talked to him since about 1:00, so I'm not sure if there's anything new since that time. But, um, the- actually, what they had planned to do this evening wasn't necessarily have the repair in place, but to have a plan in place to manage it until the repair can be done. Um, we've had a lot of problems with that particular line section. It's actually gonna be put out of service as soon as we can get it out of service. But right now, they have four different leak spots, and they've contained it into two eight-inch pipes. We're using pumps to get that into a gravity feed line. But what the plan is for the next couple of days is it's gonna be collected into one 15-inch d- pipe that runs along the creek. There's a little short distance of creek. The state's out there, and they're involved to be, uh, placed the runoff into a gravity line. And in the meantime, we have an emergency order in place that went through today, uh, to get that repaired as quickly as possible. So I don't have an update on that. I know there's pipe ordered. Um, connectors have been ordered, clamps, and all of that's ongoing right now. So I know it isn't gonna be repaired tonight, but it should be contained and in that one pipe section and managed. They're using an earthen dam on either side to try to make sure that that's in one spot, and then it'll be monitored around the clock. So, um, that's the best I have right now, but we can provide an update, um, to you again after I check with Rod this afternoon. He was gonna call me back after they got the emergency order in place. Okay, so the school can still open tomorrow? It won't affect the school sewer system near Liberty Elementary. No, no, we can manage it. It's just not desirable the way it is, obviously, so. And the kids walking to school using the Hamburg trail and stuff will not be affected by any raw sewage on the trail or near the trail? No, that's contained. That will be contained in one area- Okay. ... with earth and dam, a 15-inch pipe, monitored. Okay. That was the safety concerns. So it's a contained piece. It's certainly not desirable, and it's certainly unfortunate that that happened. Uh, but that whole section, fortunately for us, in the future, will not even be in use. So- Right. ... we're gonna repair that piece. There've been two other sections along that line since I've been here that have broken and had to be repaired. So, um, as soon as we can get it out of service, I'll be happy. Eight times in the last 12 years, it's broken, so- Yeah. ... time for, time for it to go. Yeah, it's time for it to go. Thank you for, for that update- And- Okay, sorry. ... for the, for the people that live in that area. Council Member Stennet, I think Council Member Gordon had one more question on- Oh, yeah. Sure. Go right ahead. ... on that issue. Thank you, Council Member Stennet. Uh, Commissioner, that was one of the, uh, points I was going to ask a question about, is I know it's going away, that, that pipe, but have we done a, a sort of a postmortem on why this particular line has broken so many times over the year, years? Do we know? So, so that moving forward, we can know what... I mean, is it the way it was put in? Is it the age of it? Is it who put it in? I- what, what are the reasons that this pipe has failed so many times? I think it would behoove us to look at that. Okay, I think that's a good idea. I know that with the couple breaks that I've been involved in, there were always reasons that were determined for each one, but I'm not clear that we've done a postmortem, as you're calling it, and I think it's a good idea to do that. So, um, we'll put that together for you, so you can take a look at it. I think anytime you have a failure, it's a smart thing to do from an engineering standpoint to go back and try to figure out what went wrong and how we can make an improvement in the future. And to correlate and look at whether several of the breaks were for the same reason, and if we can fix that in the future with other break- you know, other potential situations. Yeah, I think it's a great idea. Okay. Thank you. I know the ones I've been involved in, it's been everything from the connections to failures in the pipe itself and the way it was put in. So I think a complete report would be a great idea. Thank you. So. Council Member Stennet. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Commissioner. The second item I had was, uh, many of you have probably have been getting calls and seeing a, a nice article in the Herald-Leader about the rental of homes during the World of Equestrian Games. As many of you know, the- renting a home by day in Lexington is illegal. And, um, Mayor, I'm just curious as to where we're at. I think Bill O'Mara and Joe Kelly have been working on this, and I see Joe getting up. Can you give us an update on where we've come, um, to in our discussions on how, one, we could possibly make this a viable option for those two weeks? 'Cause a lot of people think they're gonna be able to- to rent houses. The other thing is, if we don't let them, how are we gonna enforce our ordinances during those two weeks and what our game plan is? 'Cause this is quickly becoming a, a very hot, hotbed issue. Yes. This, this, uh, when I first got the call from the Council member, um, I thought this would be a relatively easy thing to, to track down and, and sort out, but it's, uh, turns out, of course, that it's not that easy. Um, it is, um, not legal to do, uh, daily rentals. Uh, there's the issue of, um- ... the zoning relative to the neighborhood where the residences are, are located, and, and this would be a business. You'd be doing business in a, in a, in an area that's not zoned to do business. And then there's the issue of collecting the, uh, the hotel tax. Um, and how would one go about doing that? How would one know to do that? So we have talked to the folks down in law. I've talked to, um, to, to Bill, um, and we are trying to figure out if there's a way that perhaps the council could, um, uh, how shall I say this? Um, suspend, um, the rules, uh, till, for a period of time. Let's say for 16 days or 20 days or a month, uh, in, in particular areas or across the city. And w- at this point, we're not clear that there's a way to do that. So we're continuing to try to figure out something that might be done or something to rec- recommend to you folks that might, could be done if, if that's your desire. H- how soon may we have something? Another month or two 'cause I know our clock's not working today, but we're, we're almost a year out and, um- Yeah. ... a lot of these companies are already marketing and homeowners signing agreements saying they're gonna do this and, uh- Yeah. I, I, I wish I could tell you. I, I, we were, uh, upon, upon talking with you, uh, we tried to talk to everybody involved in the process to try to brainstorm about what we might be able to do. Okay. And, and that being the only solution that we could come up with that, that would be the suspension of, of whatever rules there are. You know, planning commission rules, uh, and, and ordinances and are different. And so we still don't know whether or not we could even recommend that to you. Well, as long as you keep us abreast, um, going forward of what, what changes and what solutions and who's working on it. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks. Is that all? Council Member Ehlinger. Thank you, Mayor. It always seems that Mr. Stenna always is the one that goes over every five minutes again. Actually, I gave Council Member Gordon a minute of my time. I know you did. I was gonna go ahead and, and yield some of my time to you if you needed some. I was gonna make a motion, but we're good here. All I need to make a motion to, um, approve the NDF. Second. I have a motion and second to approve the NDF. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. And I'll yield the rest of my time to Mr. Stenna if he needs any. Thank you. That concludes the council- Mayor. Council Member James. One last, just, uh, Council Member Stenna, do you know what that ordinance number is? You have it for reference for anybody that might be in need of that? I'm sure Mr. O'Mara can email it to all of us, the rental ordinance. Yeah. Yeah. If there's a- You can email that too, a copy of the rental agreement. And if we can get that and if there was a way, I don't know, if we could post it on GTV3 or something, but have it maybe scrolling or showing at some point so that after someone watches this meeting that they could see that ordinance on there for reference. It's actually a zoning ordinance and it's referenced in several different zones. So I don't know, I don't think there's one specific that says, "No, you can't." It's referenced throughout our whole zoning ordinance. So, but I'll be glad to work with them and get it out there. Yeah, because I wasn't aware of that myself. Yeah, that's why I brought it up today 'cause a lot of people aren't and they're renting their homes and, and they're violating the law. Right. And I just wanted to make sure that the ordinance clearly, that it's, you know, not left to any confusion. Okay. And that, that, um, we post that up for folks to review. Thanks. Thank you. All right, that gets us down to the mayor's report. There's no, uh, document, but I do have a couple of things and I'd like for Commissioner Taylor and Commissioner O'Mara to come forward if they would so that we might take up, um, a couple of different matters. Um, I think Commissioner Taylor, you had, you had a matter about Heap It On. Do, do we need to address that today or, uh? Add it to next week. All right, very well. My confusion. I'd like for Mr. O'Mara then to step to the podium and bring you up to speed on an issue that comes before us every August, which is dealing with the ad valorem tax, uh, adjustments this time of year. And so, Bill, if you could give us a, a quick rundown on where all that stands, I'd appreciate it. Sure will. Uh, we're passing around the proposed, uh, uh, calendar. Each year, we wait for the, um, property tax certification to come from the revenue department, and then the clock starts ticking as far as the, uh, evaluation of, of the different options under House Bill 44 on, uh, uh, what, uh, what rates can be set for property taxes for this year. Uh, the, uh, certification was dated August 5th and so we have this proposed, um, uh, calendar in order to address it through, uh, August and September. Just to recap and then if there's any questions, I will turn it over to the experts to, uh, to answer. But, uh, from a 30,000 foot, um, we're talking about, uh, presenting you, uh, with the analysis of what the options are for hou- under House Bill 44. Um, for, for information purposes next, uh, Tuesday, and that would, uh, have then the 18th and the 25th in order to, uh, to look at those and discuss, uh, or, or consider options. And then, uh, September 1st work session has a proposed, um, approval of rates, with first council meeting -- first reading being September 3rd, and second reading being the 17th, which is at day 44 of our 45-day limit. Just to add one additional piece of information. I know there has been some discussion, including within our, uh, our own offices, about reducing the so-called garbage tax, and that would be, uh, part of the proposal we'd be bringing to you next week, and then we'd -- we would discuss it on the, uh, 25th as well, if this schedule makes sense. Anybody having problems with -- with the proposed schedule? Okay. Then we'll- I have a question. Councilmember Gordon. Uh, Mayor, are you meaning that, um, next week, or one of the work sessions, we would have a discussion about, as well as the tax rates, lowering the, uh, garbage? And so we'll, I presume, have the, uh, audit of the fund balances and the future plans for those fund balances that council asked for through budget and finance? Is that right? Well, uh, let me be very technical with my answer. You used the word "audited fund balance," and that made me pause. I don't mean an audit. Okay. All right. A true audit. I mean- We will have an analysis of both where we've been and where we're projecting out to be, we being, um, econ- uh, environmental quality, as well as finance ha- ha- is working on that. And that information, uh, as best as we can prepare it, uh, will be there. It will be splitting the urban service district fund into its three components. And we also have a go-forward proposal of tracking those, which we have not had the detail in the past, uh, the actual collections going into this tax season, so that it will be, uh, more transparent and -- and easier to report in future. And so will that also include future -- it'll include future plans for solid waste and use of the monies? It -- the projections are based on the assumptions, and Commissioner Taylor will be talking about what those assumptions are. Okay. And what day was that? A week from today. Okay. Thank you. Mayor? Uh, Councilmember James, then Councilmember Myers. Um, Bill, is there a public hearing opportunity here? There will be. Uh, w- I haven't yet gotten as far into the calendar for that part, but we are required to have public hearings, and they have to be, um, so many days before the vote, and we'll -- we'll make sure that those get scheduled in compliance with all of the KRS. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I was gonna ask about the public hearing, and then also, next week, we're gonna have the first discussion. Will we get the information in the packet on this Thursday so that we can see that before we get to the meeting? We hope to, but she still has calculations to do, which she has not completed. Uh, we were speaking of that and whether we'll make the publication deadline Thursday. Our intent is. If not, we will be putting it in your mailbox. It will not be presented to you on Tuesday afternoon. Okay. Thank you. Anything further on that issue? All right. Mr. Mayor, if you'd take up the IT issue now. Well, welcome everybody, from summer break. Um, and here I am again. Um, when last we spoke, uh, we told you that we would be giving you an update, uh, on the, um, uh, PeopleSoft HCM, uh, which is a human capital management module and its development. Uh, we were going through assessments and trying to determine where we were on that and what we would be able to do. And so I'm trying to give you an update of where we are right now. Uh, first, I'd kinda like to just impose upon you for just a moment to give you just a little bit of background, because I think it puts it into perspective. In -- in January of two- I'll make it very brief. In January 2005, um, we received a -- a report from a consultant, the Government Finance Officers Association, that did a needs assessment for the urban county government, and that needs assessment said that LFUCG's finance and human resource programs were outdated, overextended, and at the end of their useful life, and they recommended us going onto the market and buying a replacement, uh, an enterprise resource planning, or ERP, uh, solution. They then also, where our consultant in order to establish a request for proposal, which included the scope of what should be in a design of a replacement for both the financial component as well as, uh, the human resource component, and that was sent out in March. Um, the, um, work began in January of '06. We went live with financials in July of '06. Disaster struck right after. We had a failed implementation of our financials, and we brought in Metaformers to try to, um, address the failed implementation in December of '06. All of 2007, uh, was dedicated to try to re-establish the failed implementation of the financial component, and in 2008, we closed both fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 financial books. Uh, we put, uh, p- portions of the budgeting module went live to support the budgeting, uh, process. We put portions of the treasury module that went live in 2008, and in April of 2008, we started the work on the HCM or the human resource module. Um, the original target date, uh, was to be January of 2009. Um, that was then pushed back to, uh, March. We then hoped to go live in July. And so now I'm ready to talk about how we got where we are now. So that's the background. Um, during the development, uh, of the HCM module, we found out that, uh, the scope which was done back in 2005, uh, did not identify the entire process that needed to be, uh, done in the development. And, um, the reasons why it was not in the original scope are many. Uh, but I've tried to kind of recap them into three, uh, categories. Uh, we were not, uh, basically following, uh, best practices, uh, before the, the payroll process was, uh, housed primarily in IT, with accounting as well as HR a part of it. Uh, nobody was the owner of the process and no one had a knowledge from beginning to end of the process. Uh, with that, we wound up having IT programmers interpreting, uh, law, uh, ordinance, and, um, and, and agreements as far as how different changes should be implemented in our, in our home, uh, system. Um, which led to inaccurate pay practices that were embedded in our software. Um, sometimes the taxable compensation was not correct. Sometimes the pension base was not correct. Uh, there were, there were errors in the, um, uh, pay, uh, calculation. There was also inconsistent pay practices. Um, we've, we have found that where we have a policy for holiday and leave accruals or overtime calculations, um, that different divisions have interpreted 'em and, uh, implemented them for many years, uh, in different ways. And those were not identified until we went through the development of, of the, uh, the process. And the limitation of the software had this big bucket called Other Pay, which allowed a lot of these inconsistencies to occur. So, um, we actually have three and a half pages of Other Pay codes that have developed over the past couple of decades. And payroll coordinators were responsible for computing and putting those Other Pays into, uh, into the, uh, payroll, and affected things like acting pay and all, on-call pay and back pay and the volume and the significance of these Other Pay issues was something that, that was not anticipated and did not come out in the scope until we were doing, uh, what we thought was going into the end game. Then we had another major category, which is Kronos, and that is a hardware and software timekeeping process that had been developed over time in different divisions, and the same things occurred, different divisions put in different rules, different processes within Kronos, uh, to address the same things. So we have different grace periods, we have different rounding rules, we have different rules on whether to put in break time or put in automatically or not, shift differentials and adjustments, and these all came to light this past winter and spring, and we continued to identify these when we were trying to go to the parallel phase. Um, until finally in July of this year, the Kronos issues, we, we just couldn't get through them. So we did a tr- a triage in the month of July, and we took LFUCG meta formers and Kronos people, brought them here on site, we kind of locked 'em up in a room and said, "Guys, figure it out." And, um, so during that process, they reviewed the Kronos installation, the rules, the problems, came up with an action. We reconfigured Kronos, we tested it, and we implemented the changes. And this past pay period reflects those changes as well as ones we implemented to correct some mistakes that we had found in the mainframe. Um, so that brings us on what, what our situation is now. This is what we have done. Um, we have developed and implemented what's called the Core HR Module, and that is the employee master file. That has all the data in and about my social security number, where I live, where my direct deposit should go, this type of thing. It is used to do mostly the HR type of actions, hire, fire, transfer, that type of thing. We also have online applications already in place. It's been rolled out, and so you can apply online, uh, through the e-recruitment I think it's called. Uh, we've also, uh, implemented the benefits package, which, uh, new hire benefit enrollment, it, uh, is going to allow us to do e-enrollment, open enrollment this fall for the entire, uh, uh, population of employees, and it gives, uh, employees self-service of personal information. And what this does is stop the paper-pushing so that if I move, I had to fill out a three-part form, it had to be touched by six people, finally keyed in. Now, the employee can go in with their securities and make those changes. But this is what still remains to be implemented, the time and labor piece, which is the online time card entry and approval, the collection of time from Kronos to PeopleSoft, the actual payroll piece, which produces the paycheck that pays each one of us, um, the direct deposit, and then there'll be a self-service piece where you can go and look at your, um, check stub online and your year-to-date earnings and that type of thing. And then a pension piece, so that our city pension fund and our police and fire pension is all run off of the same payroll system, that we won't have multiple payroll systems, uh, that we have to maintain. We need two successful parallels to feel that we, uh, can go live with this. It's kind of the 80/20 rule. We've got the 80% out of the way, we're into trying to get that 20%, which is the hardest to, to accomplish, and we're out of money. So that is the reason I'm here for you today. Um, we have exhausted the budget. Um, the, uh, there is about, um, a, a little over $50,000 left, uh, and that's paying for, uh, the people on site that are here this week. And we estimate that we need, uh, $600,000 to complete the project. Um, that would, um, let us go through and make sure that the paychecks are right at a gross level, the paychecks are right at a net level, and that we have two successful parallels so that when we convert over, we know that everyone is being paid properly. Um, I don't like to be the one to deliver this type of information. Um, I got the short straw. Um, but, but that's okay, because I lived through July of '06, uh, failed implementation. And you can scorch, burn, or incinerate me, but I'm willing to do that in order to do this right and not have another failed implementation. Um, uh, should we have identified these scope problems earlier? I think the answer is yes. Is there one person to blame? I think the answer is no. Um, did it show that our homegrown distributed system allowed all kinds of different types of applications to be done in payroll? It proved it. It also showed that we really hadn't audited our payroll system in a long, long time. Um, and, uh, so when you put a best of breed or, or a best practices that makes you answer the question, "What does this pay for? What, how, what rule are you using?" It's not, "Well, if it's Thursday, do it this way, and if it's Tuesday, do it that way." It's one rule tha- and it all has to match up. And that's how all of this came to our attention. Let me elaborate just a little bit on, uh, what Mr. Ramirez said. In discussing this, it appears as though our payroll practices that created most of these problems started back in the '80s. And over the course of the last 20-plus years, various adjustments have been made in this other pay account that created a whole array of what I guess could generally be categorized as abnormal payment practices. Abnormal in that they don't cons- comport with, uh, best management practices as, as we have seen, as we have implemented PeopleSoft. When the consultants were looking at this in 2004 and 2005, trying to make some kinda recommendation about what we needed and how it would be implemented, uh, they made some, some assumptions that I think most people would make, which is that our payroll was being run more consistent with best management practices than what, in fact, it was. And so all the problems that, that Bill details with the Kronos that, uh, became apparent as we were getting into it were, um, accumulations over a long period of time. And that's why I agree with his assessment that, that there's not any one person to blame. It's a whole es- whole series of adjustments have been made to the payroll, um, check writing process over a long period of time. And that's where we are. I'm sure you have some questions, so feel free to, to ask anything that you have. Okay. Uh, Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. Now my, uh, my question is have the errors that we're, we've been doing in the past, have they impacted the accuracy of the payments we've made to our employees? And can you just sort of address where we are there? Yes. Okay. Th- they're, they're numerous. Uh, in, in most cases, we overpaid. Um, and in some cases we undertaxed. And we are not proposing to, uh, harm the employee in, in any way. Mm-hmm. We're wanting to correct and go forward with the proper application. Most of the things that have been, um, uh, discovered were implemented, uh, in this last payroll. Both we went back to the mainframe, and if it was an error, we tried to make sure that the mainframe so that as soon as we knew it was wrong go forward, it was corrected. Same thing with Kronos rules, standardized, making them proper so that the feed would all comport to what is, uh, correct and best practice, uh, going into PeopleSoft, which PeopleSoft demands. That was the reason we were beating our heads up against the wall, is it was saying, "This isn't right. I'm computing one thing and you're telling me another." Uh... Well, do we have a plan now in place to meet with the employees that, how are you gonna, you gonna meet with en- employees individually on a departmental level and review it, or how do you going to discuss that with the employees so they'll know what the situation is? Our communication was, um, we put something in the, uh, employee extra. Uh, we had a meeting with, uh, division directors and we also had, uh, I think two meetings with payroll coordinators, uh, so that, uh, they would have a more, um, uh, be able to handle the one-on-one- Mm-hmm. ... questions that the employee had. Uh, so those were the things we did in July in order to, uh, try to be ready to communicate to, with the changes here at the end of the month. All right. Well this is a, is a, a difficult situation and, you know, I might just say and maybe you could correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we were using Cobalt software which has come out of the 1950s before we converted to PeopleSoft. I said '80s, so maybe off- So this process has been a very difficult one. I may be off a few decades, so. Oh. I mean, it might have been '30s. It might, it might, no. I said '80s, so '50s may be close. Oh, okay. All right. Okay. Well, that's, that's all I have. I, the only closing comment I'd like to say is, you know, I hope our employees will be understanding that, you know, this is technology issues and not something that's been done intentionally, and that we will do everything we can to address those issues in an equitable way. Okay, thank you. Councilman Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, first maybe a comment. Cobalt or no Cobalt, things, things balance. I've, I've seen it for 30 years and it, it works. It may not work as efficiently as some of the newer languages, but it does work. Uh, Bill, can we assume that if $50,000 buys a week, that $600,000 buys an additional 12 weeks? W- what we are proposing, uh, in order to have those two successful, uh, uh, parallels, because we need to run the payroll and we need to produce the checks and then to do the reconciliation, so it's, yeah, parallels don't happen quickly. Uh, we're proposing to go live with PeopleSoft Time on September 28th, and then Time and, Time and Labor and Payr- Payroll October 25th, with the first paycheck 100% from the new system, uh, October 30th. He's saying it's not r- the running rate is not 50,000 a week, I was just saying what our balance was. Um, what else? Is there anything, any other part of the human resources system in general that needs to be done after this is done? Yes, sir. Um, we had hoped to, uh, ask for funding for a, a development list of PeopleSoft applications, which because of the domino effect, resources, time, and energies going to this, we're reassessing that. And, and that's my last point, that we want to come to you, uh, within the next month, uh, with a total strategic plan for the next two years of development. Uh, but to answer your specific question, we, we would want to have some onsite help for the, uh, fall, uh, open enrollment, since this is the first time it will be e, e, um, enabled. And also there's what's called the HCM Warehouse, is a whole different module that we want to, uh, uh, implement. It has, uh, uh, position budgeting and tracking on it, as well as, I'm, I'm not good at telling you the array of others, but those are the two that are HR-related that we still anticipate. We now see the HCM Warehouse as a 2011 project, not a 2010. Is there any possible way to have a number from day one to day X of what this whole thing is costing us or has cost us? I, I can, I can give you what is known today. Um, we, we, uh, have 15.5 million, uh, invested in, uh, PeopleSoft. Mm-hmm. Uh, 4,450,000 of that is dedicated to the HCM that we have talked about just now. Uh, so, uh, it's 15.5, we're asking for 600,000, and that would bring it to 16.1, before we come forward with any other development modules. We still haven't talked about, uh, we want to come forward with real estate management. There's an inventory management. There's some ... I'm, I'm out of my league now. Portals and other things, uh, that have, uh, advantages to us, but we need to get financial up and g- uh, operating. We've done that. We need to get HR up and operating. We need to do that. So, have you modeled what the costs will be if we do all these other add-ons that you mentioned, uh? Actually we, we have not. Not that we haven't tried, but we just, uh, had meetings as, as early as yesterday afternoon with MetaFormers telling them to, that we wanted, uh, estimates and they are working on those now. And that's why I don't have hard numbers to answer your question today. Um, and, and we actually see it as two parts. Hopefully you will too, in- We see this as, as immediate, um, "We need the funding right away, otherwise we'll have to stop the project." Um, so we felt like that needed to stand alone. We need to then talk about the strategic development and where we want to put our resources and our money o- on a go-forward. And we felt that, that... We need hard numbers, and we need to discuss that as its own, on its own merits. Okay, I look forward to seeing what that is when that happens. But, uh, of course, I think we... I personally think that we've gotta obviously g- get this one cleaned up. Th- thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Lawless. Um, I guess I would like to echo, uh, what Councilmember Beard has to say. Uh, when I was an undergraduate, our accounting classes, we didn't even have handheld calculators, so regardless of what, you know, things balance. When was PeopleSoft implemented, and how soon after that did you start getting error messages saying, "This isn't computed right"? Are, are you talking about the, um, 2006 financial implementation, or are you... Y- you said that you all were getting... PeopleSoft was saying, "This can't be right," because... Well, in, in the development phase of HCM, which has been this spring, uh, we were not able... We, we tried to do parallels and had difficulty reconciling, "Why does PeopleSoft come up with a totally different paycheck for me than the mainframe?" And so, we would drill down and find these hidden messages in the Other Pay category, or over here, where, "Well, Kronos in this division has given us the right answer, but Kronos in this division for the same thing has not. What's going on?" And that's where we found that the Other Pay and the Kronos issues were the unassessed scope of, of more effort that was needed in order to sync this into PeopleSoft. So, when did we start using this software? Or- We, we have not. It is all in test. Okay. Um- It's all in a test environment. I guess I'm confused. Do you know how far back the errors go? No. Excuse me, I'm sorry. Uh, to be technically correct, we do have Core HR, and we went live on that in June? June. And then the benefits went live, I think- About June. ... uh, the end of June. So, we did one, and two weeks later, we did the other. So those are already in place, but I think you're talking about the Time and Labor and Payroll piece. Right, the... That is still in a test mode. The incorrect pay and incorrect taxing. Is it local taxing or are we gonna be dealing with federal tax and... It's all tax, all withholding taxes. But not on every paycheck. There are... They're only in a convergence of events. So, I don't mean to say that everyone's paycheck has been taxed wrong. It's when certain events occur. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the report, I think. Wh- just one more thing for clarification. Wasn't the original budget for this $10 million? Probably, in 2005. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gray. Bill, I recognize those tire tracks that you were ... Those bus tire tracks. Yeah, right. Um, I- I'm glad that Councilmember Lawless brought up the, the original budget, because the original budget was... Unless I'm mistaken, the original budget was $10 million. And we... Yeah, there's no way to describe this, in my view, except to say that, that this is continued to be a terribly inadequately managed project. There was all... You know, it... The budget went from $10 million comprehensive to $15 million, and now we're at the, uh, eleventh hour and thirty minutes, and you're basically coming to us and saying that to keep the plane in the air, we've gotta have another $600,000. And I understand that, but it is really awkward management of a project that is as enormously significant as this is. And I... And the reason that I am expressing it this way is because I was on the record early on saying that before we claim that the previous administration was so deficient and derelict, that we'd better be very careful and overwhelm this project with skills and talent to get it under control. And on the heels of other projects seeing 50 and 60% budgets that are, in the language of the trade, busted budgets, it is awkward and difficult to hear this one. Now, and I just wanna understand what it is we're being asked for. Because the history for me on projects that have busted budgets is they just get worse. And the first appeal or the second appeal, it usually, and I agree with, you know, not expressing blame or anything like that, not personalizing, it's just the patterns on these sorts of projects, any project where the budget is failed, the pattern is that it is very difficult to really evaluate and get the full scope of the needed funds to address the problem when it is first revealed. So the pushback or the question that I would have from my own experience is, are you sure? What level of confidence is there that it's a $600,000 fix or that it is a arguably going to be a million or 2 million? 'Cause that's a really, that is not a disingenuous question, that is a question that is motivated from the experience of seeing, um, not just systems, automated systems and projects like this, 'cause I haven't seen that many of these, but I've certainly seen projects which once they start failing, it's very tough for people to really reveal how much of a cost it's going to be to really close and get it completed. That's my question. Okay. How sure are you? Um, I, I, I really don't know how to give you, uh, an answer. Uh, I can give you my honest answer, and we, we have priced this with two parallels, not three, because we have done a lot of parallels prior to this in order to identify so many of the errors. So we felt that proposing to you three parallels instead of two was taking the soft approach. We thought that it was financially and business sound at this point to price it at two parallels, not three. If, if, if we want to take a three-parallel test, it would be more money. And so- You're, you're, you're- ... you know, we, we have to have a goal and we, and we feel this is a realistic goal. Th- that's the best way I can answer. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Thank you. I was wondering if we've had somebody from the outside, like a third-party consultant or anybody look at some of these issues and determine whether or not there's any liability associated with the amount of money that we continue to pay for something that clearly is not working. Well, w- we're not paying... We have not implemented, um, uh, PeopleSoft time and labor and payroll. We're still on the main train. Excuse me, I missed the last sentence. Less- We're- You're still on what? We're still on the main frame for our payroll. So that's where we found... We didn't find the problems in the software we bought, we found the problems with the software we've been using for the last 20 plus years, and the Kronos time and labor middle ground between those two. So- So these are- So did they not understand that this could be a problem when we purchased the software that it would not necessarily be compatible with what we already had? And then we're continually coming back for budget amendment, after budget amendment, after budget amendment to make it compatible. And who, who ultimately is responsible for this? Us? We are, yes. The, the software will function properly if set up properly. And so all the big money is the PeopleSoft setup because they can do it a thousand different ways. We didn't buy software that said, "Pick one of three. You can do it A, B, or C. That's all your choices." We bought a tier one application, which is PeopleSoft, SAP, those type. They said, "We can conform and be configured any way you need for your organization," which means a very high level of technical expertise is needed in order to do that initial setup. The sweet spot is the scope definition. The, the expert knows what PeopleSoft can do. They need to adequately assess what is it that you are currently doing so that we can figure out how much effort to go from A to B. So that was an assessed before we purchased the software? It was... We, we went to an outside person with no affiliation with anyone's software, which was Government Finance Officer's Association, feeling that they would not have a bias toward a certain type of software. And we paid for their advice to evaluate and help us build the scope that was used for the consultants to estimate what it would cost to do that, that design. I hope I've said that correctly. So ultimately, they're the one, the third party, whatever association you just said you went to, made a recommendation to us on what we should purchase that's not compatible with w- what we have in place. Correct? No, I would not- Um- ... use the word not compatible. Or... Oh, go ahead. A- a- as I said, I think the scope was not completely defined. Now, should it have been in 2005? I... Th- this is not my expertise. I'm not sure that the way our system was, that they, in true honesty, without spending another $300,000 to assess first, would've discovered all of these, I call 'em bomblets, that we have found. Um. That's my opinion. Mm-hmm. No, and I understand you've inherited a lot of this. So could we get a... It would h- be helpful, just from my perspective and maybe others, 'cause it seems like we have done budget amendment after budget amend- amendment on this, if we could, from the time we initially decided to spend whatever it was, 10, did you say $10 million, can we get kind of a timeline and what the budget amendment was for regarding this project? And I mean, we obviously know where we stand today, but, uh, at what date and what was it for and how much was it? So... Uh, the original, uh, bond that, uh, was approved, I think in, I have to look at my timeline, '05- '06. ... or '06, was $10 million. Uh, then an additional bond of 5.5 was issued. Um. And we're now coming and asking for 600,000. Can, can we get the details of what, like, the 5.5 was for? You know what I mean? Like, get it so that the wording and everything. You don't have to give it to me now, but if you could just get that to me, I would appreciate it. That's all I have. Thank you. Council member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. O'Mara, I am incredibly im- and continue to be inc- incredibly impressed with you. You give us great answers. You, you come and, and really take on really difficult things. But I am reminded of the money pit, the movie The Money Pit with Tom Hanks. Um, it, it's, uh... But, but I gotta say, I'm glad you're the Tom Hanks in our Money Pit movie. Because I think that, uh- Thank you, I think. ... I think you're bright. I believe you get straight answers. And I think you take a personal stake in this and that you are gonna do everything you can to make this work and be successful. Um, I, I think you're a, a, a diligent hard worker who's, who is, is gonna s- uh, really take a personal investment in this and, and really do everything you can to make it work. And I'm, you know, I'm, I'm glad you're the one there giving us the bad news an- 'cause I think you're very competent. Um, the, the 600,000, my instinct is that we're gonna be short this year. I don't know, but, but I feel like we are gonna be short. And so, I guess I'd like to, to see some sort of a, a, a budget offset. Uh, 'cause I, we can't print it. Well, I have a proposal. I'll turn it back to the mayor then. Thank you. Um, Council Member Meyers has a question or two and then we'll, we'll try to get in Mr., uh, O'Mara's proposal. Thank you, Mayor. I- it seems like if you go back to what Council Member Crosby was asking, I, to me it doesn't seem like the issue is with the new system that we have and moving forward. It's just what's kinda happened in the past. So if you look at, at whether or not there was some things, there were some things done in the past that we may be able to recoup some money for, when we implemented the krono system, is it... Can we go back and look at that implementation and see if we hired a third party to come in and implement that software- ... and that hardware package and maybe they did some things incorrectly that helped lead to where we are today? Or is it just a situation where you said you've got accountants and engineers and computer analysts and different people, um, computer engineers, interpreting things maybe differently in different divisions of government or different departments and it was just sort of that, the lack of a comprehensive understanding of that implementation that kinda led us to where we are? I think your second point is closer as well as I would make this point. The, the history is to let each division have their own way and that latitude, uh, and that approach has exasperated our trying to do everything consistently and the same way. And that's a cultural thing that's been going on for, for decades and I think this has put all of that out to show. Okay. So, really, we're at a situation where it's just time to cut our losses and move forward and, and make things right and then learn from our mistakes. Unfortunately. Yes, sir. Okay. And I think you raise a significant point there. It's not so much the implementation in the past has been bad with our software as it has been a matter of multiple people in multiple divisions making multiple decisions that don't comport with the law. Or with what our obligations are to the employees. And so, all of these other pay categories that, that Bill spoke to a few minutes ago have gotten to be- ... very, very voluminous and they've created, er, a whole series of, um, issues that the implementation of the PeopleSoft software has brought to light. Yeah. And now we're in the process of trying to clean it up. You know, we're out on, uh, off Liberty Road and Star Chute, replacing, putting tens of thousands of dollars into replacing a pipe that should've been replaced 10 years ago, after it broke twice, or three times, or whatever it was. Now we're on our eighth break and we've got, we've got a problem that has accumulated over, uh, a protracted period of Time. It needs to be cleaned up. That's what this additional money will enable us to do. Nobody likes it, um, but I, I think it's, um, a reasonable expectation that with the injection of the additional 600,000 plus a discussion about what the strategic plan ought to be going forward, that we'll have a, have a course we're comfortable sailing. Bill, could you outline what you propose to do on the 600,000? Um, yes. Um, w- we are proposing to, um, divert 150,000 in the IT budget that was going to be for development of things that we were gonna do in 2010 that looked like our realistically 2011 development, um, and of 450,000 from the Urban Service Fund. And that would, uh, get us to 600,000. Then we would come to you with our strategic plan, our proposals and why we feel that these are good investments, talk about what we can realistically accomplish in 2010 and what we hope to accomplish in 2011, uh, with a- as best an estimate as we can. And if, if you feel that those are good, uh, developments, then we would ask that to be added to the bond package. Councilman Lawless. Um, Mr. O'Mara and also Rama, um, I have the utmost respect for you also and I'm sorry the bus is on you. My question, I guess i- this is a statement. My frustration as a council member and what I've been saying for a long, long time, way before I was a council member, um, is that we have so many areas in our government that operate in silos. And it sounds to me like, and to quote Vice Mayor Gray, who says, "When, uh, everybody's in charge, nobody's in charge." And this seems to me to be another one of those situations. And I really admire that you found it and you're moving forward, but there are many of these situations in different areas of our government where everybody's doing their own thing and when you ask they say, "Oh, well, we always done it that way." So I hope that we can use this, um... Councilman McCord's gone, but I'll quote him, "Use this crisis to, um, find ways for better communication within and between departments and government." And, um, this is just another one of those illustrations. And get project managers for things like this instead of having everybody, everybody doing it. But thanks to both of you and thanks for bringing us the news. Councilmember James. Thanks, Mayor. Bill, whose idea was it to use the Urban Services Fund? Was that your idea? Um, I'll, I'll... Okay, it was mine. I mean, it was a disc- I don't believe you. It was a discussion. Um, let, let me tell you why we're proposing that. Uh, if you look at the groups that, uh, use the Kronos, which became such a, a monumental... Uh, there's corrections, but they were on Kronos version six and were not a problem. It was Environmental Quality, um, Streets and Roads, uh, Waste Management, E911. And so we're looking at where were so much of the issues that caused the delay that was around the other pay in Kronos and Urban Service was a major player of that challenge, so we felt that it was appropriate, uh, for Urban Service to participate in the funding of the additional monies needed. Okay. Th- that's a stretch, um, in my opinion. Okay. Um, and I would, I would really defer to the actual definition, um, whether it's an ordinance or whatever it is that says how the Urban Services Fund can be used and should be used, um, and ask for that, you know... I'd really want to see the wording within the law that says how that would be used and to show that obvious connection, um, between that, because I... This is a trend we do not want to start. There are already many folks looking at the Urban Services Fund balance and wanting to utilize it for tons of things, um, and they can draw a connection too. ... I'm sure. Um, so I just would throw caution and ask for a clear, very distinct, um ... And also ask you to consider, you know, looking at some other possibilities for fund, because if that does not pass this council, y- you may wanna look at alternatives, um, for funding other than the urban services. Because at this point, until clear, a clear connection is shown, um, 'til I'm feeling a little bit better about that, I would have to vote no. Not- not to say everybody else would as well, 'cause there are people that would love to tap into that and see it as a fund balance that is not being used for anything, so let's tap into it. But help me draw that connection a little bit clearer. I- I see the stretch you're going to, um, but here's my deal with that, is Kronos, if it's been that much of a problem, it's been that much of a problem for years and should have been addressed at that point. Um, and it's not necessarily the fault of that- those particular divisions because that was not addressed. Is it human resources? Bonded it in their budget. I mean, what- who's- if you wanna go back and track things to fault, let's really do that. But s- 'cause there's a fund balance. Let's- I just would throw caution and ask, I need a clear, clear connection, um, a- and, um, thanks for taking ownership of that idea. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you. Council member Gordon. Thank you, Bill. Um, what other funding sources did you look at? Bonding. Did you look at the economic contingency fund? I did not. Did not consider that. Did anyone consider that? Um, no ma'am, I don't believe so. Um, I, I would, um, echo what council member James said. When the citizen... And this is my own personal opinion, when the citizens pay a fee for their streetlight, I don't think they see that they're paying for a Kronos system or an HR implementation. I think that is a stretch. Um, I th- oh, this council voted to study snow- I mean, um, street sweeping as a water quality amenity to improve our water quality. And so, I would say that the taxes that our citizens pay for street sweeping would be more appropriate in something like that. I, um, I would much rather see us lower people's urban service taxes than take fund balances to pay for things that don't have an absolutely clear cut relationship. And I think it is problematic. I think what Council member James brought up is very problematic. The only reason we have these taxes in place is to pay for those services, and I do understand that there are, um, you know, the- many people in our government work to see that street cleaning occurs, for instance. But I don't know that the people who pay the taxes will see this kind of connection, so I would ask that you bring a different proposal, um, or a menu of proposals. And I know there are not many out there, 'cause I understand what we're up against, but maybe this is a time when the economic contingency fund should be used. Um, I- I just throw that out as a request to you to look at some other options. If- i- if I could just, one comment, uh, to- to both, uh, your point and council member James, as far as a direct connection, to me there's a direct connection in paying the employees who work in that fund. So- The indirect cost. The- the direct connection to me- Right. ... was y- you have to pay for the people who are using the Kronos. Is it $600,000 worth is the question? Pardon me? Is it $600,000 worth is the question? We were proposing for them to pay 450. Okay. And to direct, uh, general fund dollars from the IT budget of 150 for the total of 600. Well, I think the, the, the precedent of doing this is, is very important to look at. And I, I mean, I, I'm very curious about, and I would like to know why the economic contingency fund wasn't looked at. This is already a budget that's five million over budget, basically, uh, over the original budget. And so, I- I just would request that we have some other proposals, if you could do that. Or, we'll have an up and down vote and see how that goes. Thanks. Council member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Mr. Mayor, you said when Council man, um, James asked you whose idea it was to use the urban service fund balance, you said there was a- well, you said you, you took ownership of it, but you also said there was a conversation. So, can you tell us a little bit about that conversation and what other- you may have only had this one option, but the conversation speaks to other people in the room talking about it. What other, uh, fund balances or s- or funding sources were discussed? Um, well, w- we talked about the, um, and, and, and the term has now left my mind. Um, you can redirect... You have a total payroll if everyone is hired, you have the total payroll that is expected to be experienced throughout the year. There is a space there, there is a place setter- Personnel allowance. ... and reduce that by the amount needed in order to, uh, to finance that, to finance this. Um, we're 30 days into the year and HR has a huge list of, of people to, to, uh, to fill. Um, we, we talked about putting it with a total request, but we don't have hard numbers for that total request. We're, we're reassessing what we want to do because of the domino effect of these projects extended. Um, so, uh, we, we did not... I did not talk about economic development, uh, contingency fund. I'm sorry, I butchered the name, but you know what I refer to. Um, so w- we did see where there was, uh, a lot of linkage to the problems that we identified to the Urban Service Fund, which drew our attention to that fund. Um, we also have the $4 million left over from '08, right? We hope so. I guess what I would ask is that you look at the combination of, if you wanna take the 150 from, um, Rama's shop, look at that four million that we have from '08, look at the personnel lapse, and I heard a number today that was average time it takes to employ someone here is like 200 and something days. I think we've got a list of 180 people that we wanna hire that are budgeted. So can we do an analysis of not stretching it out to the full 200 and, and something days to hire each person 'cause I think that's ridiculous and we're, I think we're trying to do something about that too, but could you look at an analysis of taking some of that personnel lapse, the money from Rama's shop, and then the rest of it from the 4 million balance from 2008? And the reason I say that is because I've always been, and I've said this over and over this year, in favor of rolling back the taxes that are associated with the urban fund, Urban Service, um, Fund rather than using that money elsewhere. I know we had one of the professors from UK come in and talked about trying to change some legislation so that we could do that. I think that's the worst thing in the world to do. I think that the citizens who agreed to those taxes to go for specific things and to change that is not right after the facts. If we implement a new tax and we wanna put legislation on there that says if we get to a certain point, we can divert some of those funds somewhere else and the people know about that upfront and they're okay with that and agree with that, that's one thing. But to go after the fact to take money out of one of these funds to do something different, I don't think that's the right thing to do. I do understand that, that you have a connection there. I just don't think it's a strong enough connection to do that. Um, I respect that you're in a, in a tough position and some hard decisions to make and I appreciate, you know, the way that you look at things with honesty and bring forward things that you think would be the best option. But I'd really encourage you to look at using part of that fund balance from '08, using part of the personnel lapse, and then the 150 I think you said that you could take from Rama's shop for, for 2010 projects that are diverted to 2011 and see if we can't get it done that way. I'm, I will not support taking money from the Urban Service Fund for anything like this. I'm, I'm gonna stand solid that if we've got that much money in there that we don't know what to do with it, we need to give it back to the people who put it in there and not divert it for other things. And I'm not lecturing you. I appreciate you and, and what you're doing. I don't mean this to be a lecture to you, I'm just saying that this is, this is my position and, and asking you if you could do that analysis and see if we could come back and do it that way. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Um, if you're gonna follow your timeline, you've gotta have a decision from us last week. Um, we would welcome a, a walk on for Thursday night. For Thursday night, did you say? I, that's kinda what I thought. Um, you know, the economic contingency fund w- we may need for other reasons depending upon what our revenue projections and how they become. I'd hate to see us tapping into that right away. I, pro- probably the bond situation would be, uh, my pick of all the various options we've heard so far. Um, 450,000, we, that, and that's how we funded, uh, the first 15 and a half million, so, uh, you know, what, why stop now, I guess. So that would be my suggestion. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Stennet. Thank you, Mayor. I know when we created the urb- our Economic Contingency Fund, we put in the rules as to when we can and cannot use that, and I'm not sure if this occasion would apply to those rules, but I assume that you're gonna pull that ordinance and see if we can. I will do the research, yes, sir. And then I will remind my, my colleagues here who are speaking that we're using the Urban Services Fund, or in this case would be, other than that what we collected or that, what the taxpayers are paying for. We already use it to supplement our general fund and that's Lex Call, and I guarantee the taxpayers are not paying for that benefit, so we already have made the crossover. There already is precedent for using this to supplement our urban services operations. So while we do supplement the general fund via Lex Call with the Urban Services Funds every year in the budget, so there has been precedent. Um, I know you're thinking outside the box and trying to use it, uh, in this instance and the 450,000, um, is not the total bill, but it is the portion that you've tried to narrow down. I do think it's a little bit of a stretch. I would much rather see you bond it, uh, going forward in next year's capital bond package, or in a bond package you're gonna be seeing here in January. Um, that, that's just my preference, but, um, you know, I disagree with using it for Lexacall. I mean, but we do, every year in the budget, and, uh, that precedent was set a long time ago. Um, the situation you're dealing with started in 2005 when we took the advice of someone, said this is the best solution. And ultimately, it hasn't been, and that's why we're here today, and, um, I look forward to getting your timeline as to how much money we've really put towards this. We've changed the name on it a couple times. What's the name of the project now called? Synergy. Synergy. Okay. Hopefully, we won't be buying hats and T-shirts on this o- on this name, but, uh- I won't be. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I, I think first I would say that with regard to this precedent that was supposedly set on the Urban Service, Service Fund for Lexacall, I believe what we did was said that Lexacall takes calls directly for those divisions of government, and so there is a direct cost. They're actually working for those divisions of government, and that's why that money's being used, which is not the same thing that we're talking about doing here today. I would ... And this motion may be a little premature, because we don't have the analysis, but I mean, we've all, I think, understand that we have to fix this problem, and we have to find the money somewhere. So I would propose that we take, this is kind of an arbitrary number, but the 150 from Rama's Shop that they've already donated to the cause, that we take, um, um, $300,000 from the personnel lapse, if you will, and then take the other 150... It was 600, right, or was it 650? 600? 600. And then take the other 150 from the, um, '08 fund balance. And if the analysis looks like 300,000 would be too much to take from the fund, the, uh, personnel lapse, then I would reverse that and take that out of the, um, fund balance and take the 150 from the personnel lapse. And so I know my numbers are off the top of my head, and they, you know, they're not concrete or anything, but I would move that we do that, so at least that we move in a direction of trying to find a solution for the funding. So moved. Second. Have a motion and second, which I think is to place on the docket for Thursday evening a resolution authorizing a budget amendment that would address the $600,000 issue by funding it with $150, $150,000 reallocation from, um, uh, computer services or IT budget, $300,000 from the personnel lapse or whatever the applicable term is, and, um, $150,000 from the FY08, um, surplus. And I had a second by Council Member Gordon. Any discussion on Council Member Meyers' proposal? Council Member Wallace. I don't feel like I have enough information. Uh, I think that's a good idea, and I agree with what most everybody's said. Um, but to try to solve that problem right now of where we're gonna get the money, um, but I, I, I will support it. Um, I would like to ask Mayor, Mayor Newbury, I'd like to ask, I mean, we've all kinda weighed in on this and what solutions. I'd like to know what your thoughts are and what your solution recommendation would be. It's Mr. O'Mara's proposal. I do think there is a direct linkage between the Urban Services District Fund and this because of the fact that it's no different than providing them with the other support necessary to collect the garbage. Um, making payroll's just as much a part of the process of collecting the garbage as putting gas in the tank, so that's why I agree with the proposal he's, he's made. I don't have any heartburn with what Council Member Meyers has proposed particularly. I do have some reservations about dipping into the economic contingent fund, um, but there, there may be other ways to ... And, and I wouldn't have any problem with bonding it either, if you prefer to do that, but this, this is a good proposal. C- can I ask a question? The, the funding that I talked about from the '08 balance is not the contingency fund, right? Everybody understands that. Right. Okay. Right. Thank you. Council Member Lane. All right. I just wanted to say that this is really a capital expenditure and not a ordinary, uh, operating expense. And because of the tight money conditions that we have right now, uh, I would support, uh, Council Member Meyers', um, proposal to go ahead and fund this, uh, work because I think it's a emergency situation. I'd just like the council to keep an open mind that we might be better served after, uh, we evaluate this further to convert this to a bond, incorporate it in a bond. I don't think spending the 600,000 c- cash outright when we can amortize it as a capital expenditure and bond it, think that would be a preferable thing to do under the circumstances. Vice Mayor Gray. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'll s- I will be supporting this as well, but I do hope that we can step back a little bit when we make this kind of decision and look systemically at the patterns that we're noticing, um- ... occur. As long as I've been on the council, and I think I've tried. You know, you enter a new social system, you try to adjust and adapt and listen first before you declare your opinion about things. But the word, and Council Member Lawless used the word, project management. And, um, the theme runs all across. If we have a $9 million budget for South Limestone and it comes in at 13, and then it moves to 15 or 16, in the absence of effective controls and effective management, we continue to make the same mistakes. And I think someone described that as the definition of stupidity. What I would ... And I'm sor- ... Insanity, right. And, uh, it- it goes back to Council Member Crosby's earlier comment about a timeline, and, you know, really fully examining and, and, you know, I know how hard Rama, I know how hard you've worked on this project. I know how l- hard a lot of people have worked on the project. But unless we examine, and Bill, appreciate you're taking, taking the, the front on this today. Um, but it does seem to me that we could examine this at the same time we vote to fund it. That we could examine the root cause of the problems, the history of the project, and not just dismiss it as a previous regime. And that we actually, we actually do examine the root cause. Thank you. I think Rama probably had a comment on project management. I'm not ... Did you- No. I, I mean, I just wanted to address a little bit of what's been discussed here, is I think there's been a lot of talk about software management, um, project management, a number of issues. In the $5.5 million that was set aside, the project was on track to be completed until payroll practices had to be audited. We could have pushed it through, got it done. It would have costed us much more than $600,000 down the road to fix that. When we don't, uh, when we're not in compliance with, uh, I'll sum it up by saying, you know, some of the, what the feds expect us to do, then no consultant coming in here has an option to vet that. I mean, they're building the scope based on assu- an assumption that you are doing the right thing as far as the payroll goes. So, uh, we have spent a tremendous amount of time, it's, uh, uh, in terms of detailing how this project is done, uh, is gone on. Resources have been poured in at a, at an unprecedented level from when, I believe, um, I took over a failed implementation. And, uh, you know, I, I give a lot of credit to the council members in support of this project, because on the backend, we're gonna continue to save a lot of money in the business processes w- which we're changing, which we're having to do, which was initially at about 150 customizations for this project, which we said we're not gonna do that. We're gonna adopt the best practices because ongoing it'll cost us more money if we didn't do that. So, uh, in the totality of it, I hope this project is viewed as something that's eventually gonna have an 18-year lifespan and is gonna save, uh, is gonna have a return on investment. Um, I urge you to look at other projects of this magnitude. It's very complex. Other states have done and failed, cities have done and failed. Um, we're very close to the finish line, and I hope ... I, I thank you for your patience on this issue because it's really- And, and, Rama, there's, just a final comment. And this goes back to an earlier t- you know, the, um, to an earlier comment that I made. The ... There is an inclination when you're in a, at a point like this, I suspect you know it as well, you know, that bad news is n- is something that nobody wants to share. Sure. And I think that my sense would be that, um, just to, uh, caution that, um, we, we certainly don't want to short change or ... And I know that you wouldn't want to do that. You wouldn't want to sh- compromise executing the project excellently. And the question would be, um, now that you've got this budget of 600 that you think it's gonna represent the fix for the payroll issues, right? That's correct. Um, are you pretty confident that that's going to represent adequately closure on the funding for the project as the scope as, as we have funded so far? I mean, the reason I'm saying that is that, again, sometimes, you know, under the pressure of bad news in a project, I've certainly experienced it myself, done it myself, had folks that have done it, you know, you can underestimate. So like if, if more bad news might come, then I think it's probably better for us to hear that now. ... that, you know, it could happen. This, you said it, it's a complex project. Three years ago, I was thinking, you know, "Let's not declare victory prematurely." This is a tough, tough deal. You're changing over a whole system. Sure. Um, uh, I'd like to describe this as th- uh, victory is short-lived in, in, in what I'm doing. You know, you don't get to celebrate a lot, um, because there is always the next problem the next morning. Um, we could have brought an estimate back in June, but our steering committee decided we'd get together and analyze this complex issue, which was related to payroll. And we found most of the inconsistencies and things we wanted compliant with inaccurate pay practices, all of that had been corrected. And, in fact, to the extent we've already implemented the changes in the mainframe system. So, at this point, we've gone through several stages of testing, and with what I have today, I can confidently say that I, I can bring this project to a closure with that amount of money. Now, if I find something, I'll be the first to bring it to you. And we've, you know, spent a lot of time to make sure we're not going to find anything. So we, we have spent all of July working on that, um, very diligently. And i- if, believe me, if there was anything else left, I would have brought it up today. So, thank you. Um, Council Member Martin Blues, and then Thank you, Mayor. And again, I, I appreciate that, that both you all are working hard to leave city government better than you found it. I think you, you really wanna get it right. I just wanna respond quickly to something Council Member Lane said. I guess I would have some concern about bonding this. Uh, I look forward to future meetings of the finance committee where we can look at our, our bond exposure. You know, I think in these uncertain economic times, I'd like to try to pay as you go as much as possible. So I'm gonna support Council Member George, uh, Council Member Meyer's, uh, motion. And, um, um, you know, I, I, I think that, that that'll sort of, uh, we can take the pain now than, than rather than to put it off in the future 'cause I, I think we've probably got, uh, some other things that we're, uh, we're gonna be looking at with that. So thank you, Mayor. Sorry. Council Member Blues. I wanted to come back to Council Member's Lane, Council Member Lane's point because maybe you can clarify for me because I, I, I agree with you. I think you said that this, that this is a, a capital project and, and, and appropriate for bonding, and yet you said you would support Council Member Meyers' motion. Uh, so I'm not clear on where you're going here. My, my inclination is toward bonding on, on this, and, and, and, and for that reason, uh, not to support that, that particular motion, but- Would you like me to respond? Yes, I would. Okay, well, I concur, uh, I think we should bond it. But all I'm saying is I would support, uh, Council Member Meyer's resolution today so that we can get, move forward with getting this work done. Then we could always go back and modify that motion and change it to bond at a later date. But if, uh, I just wanna make for an interim, the key point is to approve that we get the work done and then we can either pay it outta cash or we can bond it if we elect to at a later date. That was, that was my point. Now, you know, if you wanna vote on the bond or the cash, I could go for that today, but I just feel like we need to expedite. We don't wanna delay the process. Well, I think that's right. We don't wanna delay it, but, uh, but we, uh, we wanna know . I think it would be, it would be helpful to know now how we're going to move forward with the process. Are we going to, um, uh, are we going to follow these, these, these different outtakes, or are we gonna bond it? So- Well, if you'd like to modify the motion, I, with the bond, I would second that . Well, it probably would be less awkward to go ahead and vote on Council Member Meyers' motion and, and, and see where we are. And if, if it prevails, it prevails. And if it does not, then I would move or you could move to, uh, to, uh, to bond the project. Thank you, Mayor. I, I, I think Mr. O'Mayer may wanna speak to the bonding issue, uh. This is not my expertise, but this is my understanding. Um, if, if you have an intent to bond at any time, a reimbursement resolution needs to happen now. You can't go back and bond already-spent dollars without the reimbursement resolution on the front end. I don't know if I'm saying that right, but I, I think it's a key point, um, to, to make. All right. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Rama, when I was talking about project management, I think you've done an outstanding job. What I meant by that is it sounds to me like part of the problem happened because different departments were doing different things with payroll, rather than it being under one roof and one... And that's what I was talking about- Sure. ... with the silos, not about you and your project management abilities 'cause I've seen 'em firsthand and you're fabulous. Uh, so I just wanted to clarify that. And I also feel like if we're looking at an investment that is going to, uh, hopefully last, uh- ... 18 years, that bonding it does make sense, and that I'm concerned that if you are shifting $150,000 out of your shop, um, w- what are we gonna not get? And there's another module that needs to be added. So- Yeah. ... would we not be better off to bond it? And... Well, th- that is a discussion I'm gonna have with Bill because part of it was revenue-related. I mean, we need to take a look at that. That's a complete sep- separate software package- Mm-hmm. ... that was also homegrown and built inside. Um, we do have concerns that there could be inefficiencies there, so we're beginning to look at everything. And, um, as you said, um, you know, we... Internally, IT itself is gonna have an internal project management office at some point because we have to. And we do more projects- Yes. ... than any place I've been at, so- Yeah. ... w- we'll definitely address that. So, and if we put off the module that was planned for another year, are we gonna find something when that's implemented that's like this, that we've lost money by not implementing it? So that, that's my point, is maybe we should bite the bullet and do it right, do it when we need it. And I certainly don't wanna cut your shop short of money. Thank you. Council Member Stennet. I'm just gonna make a point Bill said about the reimbursement resolution, but also, don't we have another module on this go- that we approved and we just haven't bonded, we haven't floated the bonds yet? I think it was, it was the HR module. We haven't truly bonded it yet. N- I, I don't believe so. We, we talked in the budget requesting dollars for the real estate module and what I talked of the HCM warehouse, but it was not approved. Oh, but there, there's another one, I thought. Not that we also bond- Well, we originally had inventory. Um, my, my recollection was HCM warehouse, real estate, and inventory management. Inventory and maintenance. And inventory and maintenance management. Um, those were all proposed. I don't believe Council approved funding, so that's why we're talking about coming back with a strategic plan for 2010 and '11 and talking about it. I'm talking about for one for FY08 or '09 that we have held off the bond on, the second piece. It was about $6 million that we haven't officially went to market with it, or $3 million. For the next module. I, I, I am not... Yeah, total bonding package. Are you talking about the, um, asset management piece, which is part of CRM, the citizen relationship management? That's a separate project, if that's what you're referring to. Have we bonded that money yet? Uh, that's- M- maybe at the next budget and finance meeting, Bill, we could have an update on all of our bonds and where we're at in the process, because I think we have to go to market here sometime in January. But however, whenever timing allows. Let me, let me rephrase that. The economy allows us to. W- we're, we're getting ready to, uh, to do a lot of bond work. And, and this could easily be added in, to, into that work? It can be. Thank you. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I would like to go back to a comment that, um, Council Member Gordon made early in this discussion . And that is to ask you to come back to the next meeting, uh, with our options, so that we know what all opt- all our options are before we start to vote on anything. Uh, I'm very concerned about taking the $150,000 from, from IT without knowing what it is that we're going to give up. Um, and while, you know, we're looking at bonding as, as an option tonight, I, there may be some other options out there that we haven't considered tonight. So I would like to follow through with, um, with Council Member Gordon's request that you come back with the options, unless you need some action tonight to actually, you know, meet some deadline. Hmm? Our budget is exhausted. Uh, so in, in order to stay on track, w- we're looking for, uh, action on Thursday if possible. Uh, I would be glad to come Thursday night and, and address things. Um, that's one option. Uh, I could float an email. Um, I, I don't know the appropriate response. I, I don't wanna go where I'm not supposed to go, but, um... An- and if Council is comfortable with entertaining something for Thursday night. If that works with everybody else, I think, uh, we could have the presentation that would address some of the concerns that have been raised today on Thursday evening. Thursday evening? Thursday evening. Um, so I just... That's an option for you. No, it doesn't preclude it, it just adds to the length of the evening, is the issue. So we can- May- ... certainly raise this. Um. ... response to that. Oh, okay. Council- Just if, if we can... If that does happen, can we get the information as early as possible? I know it's not a lot of time, but if we can get it Thursday morning or afternoon, it would give us some time to take a look at what you would be presenting. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Anything else, Council Member Feigl? I- is that all that you had? Council Member Meyers. Thank you, Mayor. I, I guess, um, a couple quick things. Rama, could you talk about... The only reason I put the 150 on there was because you had already kinda offered it up. Are... 'Cause it sounded like you were saying that the projects that, that was going to fund aren't gonna happen in 2010, they're gonna happen in 2011 now. Yeah, the -- there is gonna be a resource issue because this project is being extended from a personnel standpoint. And, um, while IT is gonna take a hit, I think we can sit down and analyze that again and see what pro- it, it's gonna be revenue related that project has to be postponed. A, a large portion of that, 75% of that money is for that. And, um, HCM warehouse, which we can't start this fiscal year as well at this point because we had to do it in August, and the people who are gonna be on that are the same folks who are working on the payroll project right now, so. Okay. So I guess what I wanna do is ask a question. I'm not sure, maybe Bill might be the person to ask the question, but I'm not sure he can answer it though. If I make a motion to amend my previous motion or the motion that's on the floor, to add in the reimbursement resolution so that if we do decide to bond it, we can still do so, does that mean we have to bond it? If ... I, I don't wanna take my original motion outta play by attaching the reimbursement resolution. I'm looking for- Because I'd rather pay as we go along. But if we can't bond it later, if we don't do the resolution now, I don't wanna, you know, cut our arm off to save our head or whatever. I'm sorry, Mr. Myers, I was talking to someone else. Could you repeat that question? Um, what I'd like to do is possibly make a motion to amend the motion on the floor to include the, the, um, reimbursement resolution so that if we decide to bond it, we have that option. But I don't want people to think that I wanna move in that direction. I'd still rather- Sure. ... pay for it as we go. So if we add that resolution, we still don't have to bond it, right? We can still- Correct. The reimbursement resolution expresses your intent to bond it in the future, but it doesn't commit you to doing it. So you still have the option not to do it should you choose not to. If you don't pass the reimbursement resolution in the beginning though, you can't later recover, you can't later issue bonds to recover money you've already spent. Right. If that makes sense. Well, that's dangerous 'cause my position is pay as we go, but I understand probably my responsibility would be a better motion to include the resolution in this, but I hope that the council doesn't take that as a move to just jump to bonding it because I don't think that's the right move. Right. If- I think we need to pay as we go. If you approve the re- excuse me, if you approve the reimbursement resolution, it lets the project continue. Uh, should you decide later not to do the bonds but to pay for it through some other means, you can do that. You have the option to do that. Okay. Well, I'm gonna go ahead and make the motion to amend. My intent still is to pay as we go, even though this resolution says our intent is to bond , if that makes sense. But, but I think that's more the re- the responsible thing to do is pass a resolution along with this so that we have that option if we wanna take it. So can we still do my motion as written and then just add, I mean, how does that legally work? Well, I think what we're, we're talking about here are two mutually exclusive options. On the one hand, you go to the bond market and sell bonds to raise the money. On the other, you take money from various bond fund, uh, excuse me, budget funds, uh, to pay for it. So in light of what, what we have heard, I think if you wanna maintain your flexibility, you try to do the reimbursement resolution now. If you later decide you wanna pay cash for it, you can. Hmm. But you can't do the reverse. So really what I'm gonna have to do is take my original motion off the table and substitute it for this other one basically because legally, it doesn't make sense to say- Right. ... money from- I wouldn't say both. Yeah, I wouldn't say both. I'd say one or the other. Right. Okay. Well, I'm gonna let somebody else do it then . All right. What I would recommend is that you, you, uh, adopt the reimbursement resolution Thursday night. As I said, that, that lets the project go. It also takes the pressure off you to decide how ultimately you wanna pay for it. It gives you some time, some further time to discuss those options. Uh- And, and I, I understand that. I don't feel any pressure right now. I think that this is a viable option right here. Um, I just understand that if we go full bore with this one, then we don't. So I'm gonna ask that the council vote my resolution forward and then if someone wants to take up on Thursday the resolution to, um, do the reimbursement option or reimbursement resolution, that we do that on Thursday. All right. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Um, this is kinda like ordering from a Chinese menu. Um, there's no requirement that we make a decision about where exactly, except for the reimbursement, where exactly we're gonna get the funds and how much funds are coming from which pot and how much are coming from that pot, but there's no requirement that that be bundled in with the decision that we're going to do this $600,000. Well, I, I think there is a requirement that we identify where the money's gonna come from to do the work that's necessary to be done, whether that is through a reimbursement resolution or through taking money from existing budget funds as outlined in, in Council Member Myers' proposal. I'm, I'm talking about today as opposed to Thursday night. No, you're correct. We've got until Thursday night to make a decision. I, I think, you know, we're, we're, we're scuffling around here and, and going around in circles, and, uh, I really don't have enough information, uh, at this point to, to vote one way or the other. I agree with you about, uh, pay as you go, but then ag- again, there's a whole lot of, uh, of, uh- ... thought about, uh, going ahead and bonding, a-as we had with the rest of the project. So, um, I would move that, uh, we, um, go ahead with the reimbursement, uh, resolution. Sure. Do you wanna move to amend his, his motion? I would like to move to, to amend it, yes. All right. Do I hear a second? Second. Have a m-motion and a second to amend Council Member Myers' resolution to authorize the issuance of reimbursement resolution in the amount of $600,000. Correct. P-point of order. Yeah. I think that would be a mo-motion to substitute rather than amend. All right. Technically speaking. I guess it would have to be. Then a motion to substitute. Any discussion on the motion to substitute? Council Member Gordon? Well, um, one of the things that I s- had a sidebar with Council Member Stennet about is, we have not had a bonding report, uh, for a long time, and I would really prefer to see that first before we bond something else. And so I will probably vote no. Yeah. Well, I'm, I'm not saying we necessarily gonna do this, I'm just saying that we're, we're... I'm teeing it up so that we have the flexibility. Council Member Myers. Well, to your point of teeing it up so we have the flexibility, why don't we just go ahead, excuse me, why don't we just go ahead and vote for my motion as it stands. And then Thursday night when we get more information from Mr. O'Mara, if we want to substitute it out at that point for the motion to do a resolution for reimbursement, we can do it at that time. Mo- This gives the administration the clear direction that we're gonna move forward, and they can go ahead and start doing the things they need to do to get this project back on track. The mo-motion on the floor is to substitute Council Member Beard's motion for Council Member Myers' motion. Any discussion on that, that point? Or are you current still or... Okay. Then Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. I, I agree with Council Member Myers, the more flexibility seems to be with his motion rather than the bonding motion, because we can, at that point, based on information we receive Thursday, go back, either substitute the motion or vote down his motion, whatever we wanna do, and then offer the bond reimbursement. Thanks, Mayor. Well, I will, I will withdraw my motion, so long as everybody will keep that in their mind that we, w-w-that is an option we can look at when we get a little bit more information come Thursday. Do you withdraw your second? No. All right. Then the motion on the floor, uh, at current, a-as it currently stands, is Council Member Beard's motion to substitute a reimbursement resolution for Council Member Myers' motion. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'm, I'm the one who, who, or one of the ones who had mentioned pay as you go, and, uh, and I do have concern with that, and I share, uh, Council Member Gordon's, um, concern with seeing the bond numbers. Looking at the decision tree on this, um, it, it, it seems like the bonding is easier to undo than to do. And I don't... B-because you have to have the reimbursement resolution, and you can always withdraw that later. My concern is that we're not, still not gonna have sufficient information by Thursday to know what our bond situation is. And so we're not really gonna be any better off on Thursday than we are right now, at least from my standpoint, 'cause I wanna see what the bond numbers are. So I guess I'm, I'm inclined to, uh, to change my vote on the, on the... And vote in favor of the, the amendment, uh, uh, k-knowing that once we see the bond n-numbers at the next Finance Committee meeting, we can always come back and revisit this and undo the bond. And I think, uh, Council Member Myers, I, I think, uh, u- I really appreciate your, your insightfulness and thoughtfulness, 'cause I think that's a great solution. I am not convinced that the bonding is the way to go, but I think this preserves the b-the bonding function. I just don't know if I'm gonna have enough information Thursday to, to satisfy my doubts about it. And so I think we're gonna have to wait until when the next Finance Committee meeting to come, and, you know, we may come back and undo the bond, and, and y-y-yours sounds like the best pay as you go, and I personally like that, but I do respect the folks who wanna look at the bonding of it. And I'm just not gonna know more than I know now, I think, before Thursday in order to do that. So I just wanna explain my, the change in my vote. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Gordon. Uh, I just had a technical question, Bill. Um, if the, w-i-if the council passes the reimbursement resolution, um, you will go forward with the project, um, and then the council decides not to bond it. Does that... And, and comes up with maybe Council Member Myers' proposal or whatever. Do you, time-wise, do you care? I- does it matter to you? I thought I heard you say you wanted something in place by Thursday, but does it have to be the permanent solution? It, it has to have our authority to continue paying the, the, um, um, consultants. A reimbursement resolution would do that. A budget amendment would do that as well. A budget amendment requires two readings. I don't know if reimbursement resolution can be done twice in one night or two readings, but it doesn't matter. The two readings, either/or, would give us the a- the authority to continue paying the consultant, uh, which is the first c-concern as far as project management is concerned. Uh, so we can stay on, on, on schedule. So no matter how this works out down the road, maybe after Budget and Finance Committee or whatever, as long as you're confident that the council wants to fund this- Well, a-as long as it replaces- ... in some, in some way. Y-yes, ma'am. If, if what you passed first- ... has to be replaced with something -- with an alternative, as long as the replacement is there, then our authority is still there and we have not spent money that was not authorized. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Crosby. I just want to say after almost an hour and 45 minutes of this, being thoroughly confused since we just got it today, and I -- and based on something Rama said a little earlier ago, that, that you could have reported to us in June and then, um, you know, you ha- you worked on it all of July. I just have to say that I'm a little shocked that this was not added to our agenda as a presentation and that we didn't have any time to really be prepared to, um, note that this was coming forward today. And then we're being asked to, uh, come up with snap motions and make decisions to let you proceed forward on something this big that we've clearly gone over-budget on. So I just want to go on the record saying this clearly should have been a presentation and, you know, not that it would have slowed down or, or sped up the amount of discussion time, but I think you all have known for, based on what you said, a few months that this was an issue and you could have report it in June, but you held off on Jul- until July so your committee could meet. And so clearly, there was, um, at least I, I believe, on you all's end that this, this isn't a surprise that happened today at 3:00 or anything. And you, and you said you didn't have numbers from the other company, but you didn't have those yesterday either. So I just want to go on record saying this should have been a presentation and we should have had the information before 4/15. Thank you. Sure. If I may respond to that, um, I didn't have all the data in June. We knew that there was a problem. We didn't know the extent of it, um, and, uh, as I explained earlier, uh, the Kronos problem, we didn't know how big it was until we fixed it in July, and what that left us after that was the payroll issues that we had to fix and, uh, uh, totally, did we have a presentation to give you? If we did, if, if we had all the information I have today, we would have certainly brought it in June, absolutely, or July. I'm not suggesting June, I'm just saying you've, you've given a presentation today that was not on our agenda in any way, shape, or form, and it's clearly been a presentation and it's August 11th. And I think prior to last Thursday when you have to turn in information for a presentation or to try to get on the agenda, that that clearly could have been done because you, you clearly knew there was a problem June. You may not have had all the information to present it to us then, but you knew you were gonna be working in July to be able to come forward to us and here we are August 11th, and this was dropped on us at 4:15 on August 11th. Thank you. Let, let me speak to that issue, because, um, first of all, the problem wasn't quantified until we were deep into July. And by the time we knew what the problem, uh, the scope of the problem, Bill O'Mara was on vacation. He came back Wednesday. I suppose, theoretically, we could have sorted through it and had a proposal that would have been under, uh, item six on the agenda, but it was not until yesterday afternoon that, uh, the information had been compiled together to the point at which we could discuss it. So, um, that's where we are. I wish we'd had more time. And I guess then to my point is, w- would a week have made a difference and we could have gotten it, the information this week so we could have had a thoughtful and also a, not that we haven't had a thoughtful discussion, maybe that's the wrong word, but where we would have been more prepared, um, on the subject for next Tuesday's work session? And I, I'm just making a point of order with how this has come about this, this evening. Thank you. All right. You don't need, you don't need to add... I'm just making a point. Thank you. All right. The motion on the floor is whether to substitute Councilmember Beard's motion that we issue a reimbursement resolution for Councilmember Myers' motion that we amend various budget funds. Those in favor of substituting Councilmember Beard's motion for Councilmember Myers' motion, please indicate by voting yes electronically. Those opposed, vote no electronically. May I, point of order? I thought Councilmember Beard withdrew his motion and Councilmember Lane withdrew his second. He did not. No, he did not. He did not withdraw his motion. He didn't? Okay, thanks. His second, rather. Oh, thanks. He, can I... He withdrew the motion, but the second was not withdrawn. Okay, thank you. Right. So if you vote yes, you're voting for budget resolution. If you vote no, then we'd have the opportunity to take the funds from the various budget funds that we're identifying. That's, that's a rogue motion. The, the, the next mo- Okay. The motion carries by a vote of 10 to four. Uh, so now this motion, the substituted motion that's on the floor for your consideration, is to put on the docket a resolution, uh, authorizing the reimbursement from bond funds in the amount of $600,000 for purposes of, uh, completing the, the implementation. If there's no further discussion, we will proceed to vote. Those in favor of that, uh, motion, please indicate by saying ai. Opposed, no. No. Motion fails. Let's vote electronically. Can you repeat- Let's- ... the motion, please? Yes. If you can clear the, um, voting machine. Yes. If you support the motion that we amend the docket to add a reimbursement resolution to the docket for consideration on Thursday night, please indicate by voting yes electronically. Those opposed, vote no electronically. The motion passes by a vote of 10 to four. No, no, there's just one on the docket. There's just one on the docket. All right, um, we have several people who have indicated a desire to speak on issues not on the agenda. The first is, uh, Mr. Mar. If you would, uh, step to the podium, please. You'll have three minutes. I'll go really quickly 'cause I know you guys had a very long day. Uh, I gave you guys a handout at your seats before the work session started, and you guys have had ongoing discussions, as have lots of Lexingtonians, about our local economy. And so, I don't know if you guys can see that on TV, but I've done some research over the month while you guys have been on break just to see where we are with actual data and facts of Lexington's economy, that way we can structure our conversation going forward based upon facts. Uh, per capita income levels per the U.S. Department of Commerce, along with cost of living indexes, you see that Lexington compared to cities like Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Nashville, whatever. Our cost of living is actually higher than those cities, and our per capita income is considerably lower than those cities. Uh, if you account for cost of living and income, you'll see that we're 37% behind Atlanta, 20% behind Pittsburgh, et cetera. So this is just some raw data that we need to look at in order to move forward. Also, the next slide, please. On your same handout is the jobs matrix that you guys have been requesting from Commerce of Lexington for quite some time. I did an open records request over the break, and I found this matrix. Just for information, in the last, uh, five years, we've created about 4,700 jobs here in Lexington, average salary about $30,000. And the only reference that I had, I don't know any other ones, Austin, even though they're bigger, of course, a lot more jobs and about 50% higher salaries. And so just to frame the conversation moving forward, I wanted to share that with you guys. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next, I have Graham Pohl. Mr. Pohl? Appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. Um, I'm Graham Pohl, um, 239 South Hanover. I'm here to speak about the Newtown Pike extension, um, and to alert, uh, the, uh, mayor and council, um, uh, and anyone interested to what is, uh, happening with the, uh, plans for the extension. And, and, uh, my primary, uh, purpose is to bring to your attention the plans for power lines, uh, to be built along the Newtown Pike extension. Um, I also would like to mention that the, uh, uh, during the planning process for the Newtown Pike extension, uh, you, I'm sure, saw, uh, plans for, uh, elegant crossings, uh, crosswalks, uh, pedestrian-oriented crosswalks with landscaping, um, and so on. Uh, the... all of those plans are no longer, um, uh, to be, uh, to be exercised. Uh, um, the, uh, brick crosswalks that we all saw in the planning process have gone away, and, uh, uh, so I, I, I wanted to alert... I've, I've, I've had some communications with some council members, and it seems that, uh, no one's really aware of the... where the planning is for the new town bike extension. And, um, so, uh, first I wanna, uh, I'm, I'm gonna just focus on the power lines 'cause I think this is the biggest issue. Um, although I, I do think there's an issue with a sort of bait and switch situation that's gone on with, uh, showing us really fine drawings and plans for what would have been a really elegant addition to our community and then, and then pulling all that stuff. And, and, uh, what we're gonna be delivered is a, is a, is a sort of a highway that's gonna course through the city and is not gonna have the sort of amenities that we've been led to believe that it would have. Um, so I'm very concerned about that. Um, the primary concern I have with regard to the power lines, I, I brought a couple of images that were, uh, that were put together. You're just seeing one of them there that's labeled visual clutter. Mr. Pohl- This was a photograph- Pohl. ... that I took in, uh, 2003. Um- Mr. Pohl, you have about 25 seconds left. Oh, okay. Um- The -- the power lines are being planned from, uh, Main Street, all the way down. What we need to do, what I'd ask the council to do is consider, uh, burying the power lines. Uh, we need ... Th- there's a signature bridge that's been proposed. Um, betwe- that- that it is gonna be built between, uh, from, uh, just south of Main Street to, uh, n- near Manchester Street. Your time has expired, Mr. Pohl. Can I -- can I, uh- I'd like to move to give you three more minutes. ... All right. I have a motion and a second by Council Member Martin to grant Mr. Pohl three additional minutes. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Oppose no. Motion carries. Um, i- i- it's interesting that today, uh, Council Member Feigel introduced, uh, um, a- a motion to, uh, require that new subdivisions bury power lines. And here we're gonna have a major, uh, capital improvement for our city that will have massive power lines running all the way along it. Um, the state has agreed to improve the bridge that we u- that we had, uh, been told was gonna be a signature bridge so that it was a real, um, uh, would be a- a portal to the city, that people would be proud of, that would speak about the city. The bridge was redesigned so that it would accommodate public art. Um, the- the state agreed to an increase in the budget to make that bridge possible. And now we're looking at having power lines running alongside of that bridge. So the whole idea of public art on the bridge is sort of, uh, becomes a joke if- if that happens. What needs to happen at the bridge is, um, they're ... It's- it would require four six-inch conduits that would be mounted under the bridge or alongside the bridge somewhere that would prevent the necessity for power lines to be run next to the bridge. Um, and finally, I wanna make the point that the, uh, new town pike extension is to be, uh, built at a much higher, uh, grade than was originally anticipated, and this means trucking in an enormous amount of fill to put, uh, the- the roadway in, which means that to bor- to bury power lines, we don't actually have to dig into existing grade. We can- we can put the conduit boxes in- in as the grade is brought up. So, um, uh, that's- that's the end of the ... Of- of- of my presentation. Um, what you're seeing here is a photo ... Uh, two photos actually. One that's been retouched, the other was not. Uh, and it w- they were taken in 2003, a matter of weeks before the, uh, major ice storm and they were demonstrating the effect on visual clutter on our- on our environment. Um, i- it was a coincidence that they were published just weeks before the ice storm, but I think that if you- if you move from one to the other, you can see very quickly the effect that power lines have on our world. And, uh, so I would ask the council, uh, and the mayor to think about a way to get power lines buried at least from Main Street to the south side of, uh, Manchester Street, and in the Distillery District. Thank you. Next on the list is Clive Pohl. Again, if you would give us- Thank you, uh, Mr. Mayor. ... if you'd give us your des- ... Uh, and you'll have three minutes. Appreciate the opportunity to speak to the same issue. I'm just gonna build on what, uh, Graham has introduced to the council. Uh, I think in- in- um, in- in understanding, uh, what's being proposed, we have to first understand, uh, what has been designed and what wheels are already set in motion. Uh, with respect to the probably the most visual portion of the new town pike extension, which is between Versailles Road and- and Main. As our visitors for the World Equestrian Games land at the airport, they'll travel, uh, immediately to this first phase of a four-phase, uh, project to go to the horse park and conversely, folks coming into town, uh, arrive at the g- the intersection of Main and the new town pike extension and immediately develop a first impression of Lexington. What we want, and I think we're all in agreement, is we want those folks stopping at Main and the new town pike extension to see the Town Branch Trail full of people on, uh, bicycles, uh, folks walking along the Town Branch Creek. We want to see a- a- a bridge which has already been designed to accommodate visual public art that speaks about who we are and where we want to go, and we don't want to see visual clutter. And so just in, uh, the name of supporting, uh, uh, my brother Graham and others who were here but didn't stay long enough to speak including, uh, Stan Harvey of Urban Collage and a number of others. Uh, this would be tremendously short-sighted to spend the amount of time and energy and money on the ... What will be a very prominent visual feature for the city, truly a portal to the city, and then to, uh, shortchange the final details by elevating these, uh, awful power lines. And I wanna just add that it's not just power lines, it never is. It's power poles, power lines, and many guy wires that are- are there by necessity to stabilize those lines, and I've seen a preliminary plan. They are running hither and yon. ... uh, across diagonally, across intersections, uh, across Manchester. And lastly, and I'll, I'll leave you to deliberation, the Distillery District, uh, of which I am a small part, has a stated aim and it has been a stated aim for nearly two years now, when we first got our development plan, to bury the power lines along the entire district. The power lines are being buried on South Limestone because Lexington recognizes the need to bury power lines. Just about every municipality in the states recognizes that progressive development does not put up awful-looking utility lines and power lines and guy wires running hither and yon. And, uh, so with that, thank you for the time and the opportunity. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Last person ahead- Mayor. Let's see. Councilman Boyce. Could I say a word in, in response? Uh, the, uh, I, I can appreciate the, um, you know, the, the, the strong desire on the part of all of us to, to, to have, uh, power lines buried on, on, on, on this stretch of, of, of road. I can also appreciate the, the, the expense and the, and the enormous complexity of, of, of this. I think it would be helpful to the council to have a, a, a, a more complete discussion and I would, um, uh, I wonder if we could have, in the near future, a presentation from, uh, from Andrew Grunewald, uh, to ex- to ex- to explain the, uh, the, the, the, the difficulties and the complexities of, uh, of this project, and- I'd be glad to arrange that. I would also suggest it might be appropriate to include some folks from either the, the State Transportation Cabinet or the District 7 office here in town, inasmuch as, uh, the highway building part of this, including the utility construction, is a, is a state project. So we'll see if we can arrange to have both of them here shortly. I think that, that would be helpful, because it would be , it would be wonderful if we could, if we could do this, but I think we have to look at , you know, at all the, the contingencies that are, are involved here. All right. I have a question. Please, Mayor. Vice-Mayor Gregg. Uh, what's the bidding? What's the status of the... Uh, contract was let July 24th. I believe Andrew happens to be in the back of the room. Do I have my date correct? Um- So it's already been awarded? Yes. The RFP was submitted in the latter part of June and the, and the contract was awarded on the 24th. Um, it was advertised July 12th. The letting date was July 24th. And the Transportation Cabinet has awarded the project on August 7th. And incidentally, uh, do we have a start date on the construction now, Andrew? I, I think that was something we thought we might learn today and I haven't heard that yet. Um, yes, sir. Um, we do have a start date. It will be August 17th, will be next Monday. Okay. So are we basically saying it's a mi- were there any alternates in the bid to include the buried utilities? Um, no, sir. Um, typically when the Transportation Cabinet runs these projects, the utility phase, um, runs prior to the actual construction phase. In order to expedite the, this project, they are running simultaneously. Um, we are dealing with utility companies at the same time the project was, was bid. Um, we are right now coordinating with different utility companies in order to get them relocated so the construction can proceed. Um, the construction company will begin to do work, um, working around the utilities as they relocate. All right. Councilmember Lawless. Sorry. Tired. Uh, I really appreciate the email that you sent, Mr. Pohl. Um, whose decision was it to change the design? Because I remember seeing the design and it was... Well, I'm not sure that there's been any change in the design of the Newtown Pike extension. What has happened is there, uh, at least the drawings I've seen, involved the streetscape design around the Newtown Pike interchange and that, or, or intersection with Main Street. Is that, are those the drawings that you all are talking about? Yeah, but there have, there have... And- There have been changes to- That work remains to be done, yet. It just hasn't been funded. Okay. Uh, thank you. Could I, could I just say one brief comment? All right. And that is that I, I spoke before the council some months ago about the power poles on campus, and that led to a conversation about the problem with, uh, critical design elements being undertaken behind closed doors and in, in private. And, uh, I would not have known about these utility poles, none of us would have known about these utility poles until they were built had I not, had we not been, uh, stakeholders along the Newtown Pike Extension. So we were asked to sign an easement. We would not agree to sign that utility easement because we don't believe it's well-advised. And, uh, so here again, we're dealing with, uh, elements of the NPE being undertaken in private and without any kind of public input. Now, I wa- I don't wanna point a finger at Andrew or specific people. We have had an ongoing dialogue on a number of fronts. But it's only because I'm a stake- we are stakeholders, uh, that we were made aware of this issue. And so we felt it's our duty to bring it to the attention of the council and to, uh, the attention of the public, uh, as quickly as possible, because we, we want to make clear that we do not want to hold up the Newtown Pike Extension. That is not our intention. But we also do not want to have regrets, uh, the, a year after it's done, a day after it's done. We want to feel really good about it from the day it begins to the day it ends. And clearly, littering it with power poles is not a way to minimize regrets. Uh, so, uh, any mechanism we can, uh, engage to address this ASAP, we would support and, uh, participate in if, if we're invited. Well, Andrew, y- I know you have regular communications with the folks at, uh, District 7 office and perhaps the ones in Frankfurt involved as well. Um, if you could work with Mr. Green to try to get, uh, um, someone here as promptly as possible and in the interim if there's an opportunity for us to make some change there, let us know. Yes, sir. I'll, I'll try to have somebody here, um, as soon as I can. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. I, I'll try to have, um, uh, somebody here as soon as I can. All right. Vice Mayor Gray. I would just add that it, based on what you said, Andrew, in terms of the sequencing of the work, or the, the scopes of the work, I heard you say that, I heard you say that the, uh, highway contractor, and I presume the, the, the contract that's been let by Transportation Department does not include the utilities. So in order for us to have a meaningful conversation about this, we need the utility companies here. You've got a separate, appar- and from what you said, you're operating on a parallel track with the utility companies. Is, is the Transportation Department also managing that? Yes, sir, they are. Okay. So they would be able to speak for the utility work as well? Um, e- each individual company is responsible for its own, um- So, so Kintec Utilities, in other words, has negotiated this work with the Transportation Department? Yes, sir. Correct. Okay. So, the bottom line then for us is what we're doing would be appealing to Kentucky Utilities to, don't take the cheapest route, but take the route that will have the longest, most sustain- the longest term sustainable benefit to the city. Is that a fair way of describing- Yes, sir. ... the issue? That is very fair way of describing it. Plus, we'll have to get the state involved because whatever additional expense is associated with the undergrounding of the utilities will have to be part of the project. Yeah, but I, I don't think the vice mayor asked that. He said, "We, there will be more money and it'll have to come from either the state or the city that the utility company will not pick up the additional tab." So the- Problem. Well, how do you know that? you could ask. There's lots of negotiations- Right, I'm just saying- ... in life. ... today on our docket today, we have three of 'em. We're talking about the future of this city and we're talking about everything we talked about this morning in our, in our economic development task force meeting and how quality of life is such a big deal. I'm saying we reimburse 'em- Yeah. ... on every project the cost it costs to move the utilities. We had two today on our docket. Yeah. Okay. Last speaker we have today is, uh, Mr. Cobb. If you'll step forward, you'll have three minutes. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, first giving honor to the Most High, thanking him for his mercy since the last time I seen y'all. I wanna welcome all the councilme- men and women back. I want to thank the mayor for meeting with me personally, had a chance to sit down and talk with him. We talked about change that he's brought to Lexington. It, it's been a great deal of change, but some things are staying the same. Uh, I'm proud to be a Black man today. And my history, my heritage is just important as anybody else's history in here. I wanna thank, uh, Councilman Beard for getting his shoe shined at the, uh, Lyric groundbreaking. And I know he don't care too much for me, I don't care too much for him, but he overlooked that issue and I overlooked him, and he played the game fair. He got his shoe shined. So that's what we need to do. Whether y'all like me or not, whether I like y'all or not, we gotta move forward. Because I'm taking the necessary steps to fight for my life. I'm not gonna sit idly by and watch every nation prosper and I don't get a hand of the prosperity. The Hispanics are prospering. Your nation is prospering. The Europe is prospering. All over this state is prosperity in the midst of economic collapse. But we want a part of the prosperity. Now to the leadership in our community, if you're not gonna represent us, you need to go on and step down. We got some serious issues at hand in the Black community. We need some representation, some serious representation. -- without number. And I'm asking the whole council to open up your hearts. All of you got shoes on. I keep saying this over and over, it's not just for me, it's for the homeless. A-thank you again, Mayor, for, uh, giving me a chance to speak. We have to take our responsibility to straighten our own problems out. I don't expect the council to straighten my problems out, but I do expect the chance. Y'all give foreigners a chance. Y'all give your own people three and four and five, six, seven, eight, nine chances. Give us a chance. Create some jobs for us. When I say us, it's gonna benefit y'all as well, because we tied together in a single garment of destiny. What affects me, affects you. If I die, you die. And right now, we dyin' as a Black race. You can have all the visions of 2010, but we need a urgency for today. 2010 might not get here. We need a urgency for tomorrow morning, to make up a, a plan for somebody else to survive. Not just for y'all. Other people have answers. We can't rely on the immoral man to lead us no more. The blind leading the blind, we going straight to the ditch. We need somebody, the fear of God, to stand up for us. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cobb. Does anyone else wish to address the council? Do I hear a motion we adjourn? So moved. Council Member, uh, Crosby has moved we adjourn. Council Member Stennet has seconded that motion. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. You're welcome to come upstairs, if you have time for a soft drink.