Special Inter Governmental Committee

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Special Inter-Governmental Committee met on December 1, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. at the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Center. The meeting was presided over by Jiin Gray. The committee addressed 11 agenda items, including informational presentations on council standing committees and streamlining the council role, as well as updates on committee items. The body took 4 votes and heard 5 public comments during the session.

The committee approved several items related to property and project execution, including deeds and easements for bike trail and sewer projects, closing statements for property transactions, and the execution of easement releases and encroachment agreements. The committee also approved the grant application process, extensions of existing grant agreements, execution of contracts not exceeding $50,000, professional services contracts, and execution of change orders. One agenda item—the acceptance of donations of goods or services—failed to pass.

Attendance

Present: Jiin Gray, Linda Gorton, Chuck Elfinger, Aadrea James, Tom Blues, Diane Lawless, Julian Beard, Cheryl Feigel, Kevin Stinnett, K.C. Croshie, George Myers, Jay McChord, Doug Martin, Pegey Henson, Ed Lane, Logan Askew, Susan Lamb, Glenda George, and Brian Markham.

Absent: Temple Jewlett.

Late: None.

Votes and Decisions

Four motions were voted on during the meeting, with three passing and one failing.

Motion to Approve Items A, B, D, I, and K 1:03:50

George Myers moved to approve items A, B, D, I, and K for inclusion in the resolution, seconded by Tom Blues. The motion passed by voice vote. Nineteen members voted in favor, including Jiin Gray, Linda Gorton, Chuck Elfinger, Aadrea James, Tom Blues, Diane Lawless, Julian Beard, Chery! Feigel, Kevin Stinnett, K.C. Croshie, George Myers, Jay McChord, Doug Martin, Pegey Henson, Ed Lane, Logan Askew, Susan Lamb, Glenda George, and Brian Markham. Jiin Gray voted against the motion.

Motion to Amend Items G and H 1:26:25

George Myers moved to amend items G and H to lower the threshold from $50,000 to $25,000, seconded by Ed Lane. The motion passed by voice vote with all nineteen members voting in favor: Jiin Gray, Linda Gorton, Chuck Elfinger, Aadrea James, Tom Blues, Diane Lawless, Julian Beard, Chery! Feigel, Kevin Stinnett, K.C. Croshie, George Myers, Jay McChord, Doug Martin, Pegey Henson, Ed Lane, Logan Askew, Susan Lamb, Glenda George, and Brian Markham. No votes were cast against the motion.

Motion to Strike Phrase from Item L 1:32:37

George Myers moved to strike the phrase "and any amendments thereto" from item L. The motion passed by voice vote with all nineteen members voting in favor: Jiin Gray, Linda Gorton, Chuck Elfinger, Aadrea James, Tom Blues, Diane Lawless, Julian Beard, Chery! Feigel, Kevin Stinnett, K.C. Croshie, George Myers, Jay McChord, Doug Martin, Pegey Henson, Ed Lane, Logan Askew, Susan Lamb, Glenda George, and Brian Markham. No votes were cast against the motion.

Motion to Approve Item F 1:40:11

George Myers moved to approve item F (acceptance of donations of goods or services) for inclusion in the resolution, seconded by Ed Lane. The motion failed by voice vote. Fourteen members voted in favor, while two votes were cast against the motion by Jiin Gray.

Budget and Financial Actions

The meeting included discussion of estimated savings totaling $74,000 from reduced publication costs and administrative time. This amendment reflected operational efficiencies identified during the budget period.

Public Comment

Several speakers addressed transparency, public access, and government efficiency during the meeting.

Transparency and Notification Process

Ed Lane suggested that the mayor should communicate all planned actions to the council before execution, with a three-day window for reconsideration to ensure transparency and accountability 1:36:44.

Transparency and Public Access

Council Member Stennett expressed concern that eliminating council votes on many items reduces public transparency. Stennett noted that the public currently has three opportunities to view items via television, newspaper, and web 1:00:37.

Council Member Lawless countered that moving to digital access improves transparency for citizens who may not have newspaper access, and that the public can still access information through the website and public libraries 1:00:02.

Efficiency and Perfunctory Items

Council Member Myers suggested that items like deed executions and grant acceptances are low-risk and perfunctory, and should be approved without formal council vote to improve efficiency 1:01:43.

Sole Source Contracts

Council Member Lawless raised concern about sole source contracts and suggested that they should be included in council review, especially when only one bidder exists or the lowest bid is not accepted 1:05:12.

Contested Items

The December 1, 2009 meeting included three significant areas of disagreement among council members.

Council Approval of Employee Appointments

Council Member Stennett and others argued that council approval of employee appointments is essential for payroll oversight and fiscal responsibility. They contended that maintaining a voting requirement ensures proper checks on administrative hiring decisions. Other council members supported eliminating the approval vote, citing statutory hiring processes and the minimal administrative discretion involved in routine appointments. This split vote reflected differing views on the appropriate balance between council oversight and streamlined administrative operations.

Transparency of Administrative Actions

A heated discussion emerged regarding whether eliminating council votes on routine items would reduce public transparency. Some members argued that removing votes on administrative matters would diminish public access to decision-making processes and expressed concern about relying solely on digital access and mayoral reports. They insisted on maintaining traditional transparency mechanisms, including public access through newspaper publication and multiple council readings of items. Other members countered that digital access and regular mayor's reports provide sufficient transparency without requiring formal council votes on every administrative action.

Sole Source and Single-Bid Contracts

A procedural dispute arose over whether sole source contracts or single-bid contracts should be exempt from council approval requirements. Disagreement centered on accountability mechanisms and concerns about potential conflicts of interest when contracts are awarded without competitive bidding processes. Council members differed on whether such contracts required the same level of council scrutiny as competitively bid contracts, with implications for oversight of municipal spending and vendor selection practices.

Council Standing Committees & Streamlining Council Role

7:09

The council discussed proposals to restructure standing committees with the goal of improving operational efficiency. Aadrea James presented the discussion on this agenda item.

The restructuring proposal included several key components:

• Reducing the frequency of standing committee meetings
• Aligning committees more closely with government departments
• Replacing work sessions with a Council Oversight Workshop (COW)

This restructuring initiative had been previously considered but was not adopted in December 2008. The council revisited the proposal during this meeting to reconsider its potential benefits and implementation.

The outcome of this discussion was informational in nature, meaning the council received and reviewed the information without taking formal action to adopt or reject the proposal at this time.

Update on Committee Items

8:13

The committee reviewed proposed changes designed to streamline council processes and improve operational efficiency. The discussion focused on eliminating the requirement for council approval on several routine administrative actions, including employee appointments, deed executions, grant applications, and low-value contracts.

Key Speakers

Logan Askew and Susan Lamb led the discussion on this agenda item.

Proposal Overview

The proposed changes aim to reduce costs and improve efficiency by removing unnecessary approval steps for administrative matters that do not require full council review. By delegating authority for routine actions, the council would be able to focus its time and resources on more significant policy and governance matters.

Outcome

This item was presented as informational, with no formal action taken during this meeting.

Execution of deeds and easements for bike trail and sewer projects

15:48

The council discussed a proposal to streamline the approval process for deeds and easements related to bike trail and sewer projects. The discussion centered on eliminating the requirement for council approval on these documents for projects that had already been approved by council and included in the budget.

Key speakers: Logan Askew and Glenda George presented on this matter.

Main argument: The proposal characterized deeds and easements for already-approved and budgeted projects as routine administrative matters that could be handled without requiring full council approval at the execution stage. This approach would allow the administration to move forward with these documents more efficiently once the underlying projects had already received council authorization and funding.

Outcome: The agenda item was approved.

Closing statements for property transactions

This agenda item proposed removing the requirement for council approval of internal closing statements used in property transactions. 18:38

Presentation and Rationale

Logan Askew presented the proposal, explaining that internal closing statements are not official records but rather documents used solely for financial tracking purposes. The proposal sought to eliminate the need for council approval of these statements, streamlining the administrative process.

Outcome

The item was approved.

Grant application process

The council discussed a recommendation to streamline the grant application process by eliminating the requirement for council approval before submitting grant applications. Under the proposed change, council approval would only be required upon acceptance of a grant, rather than at the submission stage.

Logan Askew presented this agenda item. The recommendation aimed to reduce administrative delays and expedite the grant application process.

The council approved this proposal.

Execution of easement releases and encroachment agreements

27:14

Summary

This agenda item proposed removing the requirement for council approval on routine easement releases and encroachment agreements. The proposal was based on the premise that these agreements are legally required actions that do not necessitate legislative oversight.

Presentation

Logan Askew presented this item to the council. The proposal sought to streamline the approval process for easement releases and encroachment agreements by eliminating the need for council authorization on routine matters.

Rationale

The underlying rationale for the proposal was that easement releases and encroachment agreements are legally mandated actions that do not require council-level legislative review. By removing this approval requirement, the process would be simplified for routine cases.

Outcome

The item was approved by the council.

Extensions of existing grant agreements

28:35

Summary

The council considered a recommendation to eliminate the requirement for council approval when extending existing grant agreements that do not involve additional funding. The proposal characterized such extensions as routine administrative actions.

Key Speaker

Logan Askew presented this agenda item.

Outcome

The item was approved.

Execution of contracts not exceeding $50,000

24:57

The council discussed modifications to the contract approval process for agreements not exceeding $50,000. The primary proposal involved lowering the threshold for council review from $50,000 to $25,000, meaning that only contracts exceeding $25,000 would require full council approval, while those below that amount would be handled through an alternative process.

Key speakers George Myers and Logan Askew led the discussion on this agenda item. The proposal aimed to streamline the contract approval process by reducing the number of smaller contracts that required full council review and action.

The council approved this ordinance.

Professional services contracts

The council considered a proposal to lower the threshold for council approval of professional services contracts from $50,000 to $25,000, with all contracts exceeding $25,000 to be reported to the council. 25:28

George Myers and Logan Askew were the key speakers on this agenda item. The discussion centered on adjusting the financial threshold at which professional services contracts would require council approval and notification.

The proposed change would increase council oversight by requiring notification of contracts at the lower $25,000 threshold, rather than the existing $50,000 level. This modification would ensure the council had visibility into a broader range of professional services spending.

The item was approved by the council.

Execution of change orders

This agenda item addressed procedures for executing change orders on contracts. The discussion focused on contract language designed to prevent circumvention of established thresholds.

Key Recommendation

The recommended action involved removing the phrase "and any amendments thereto" from contract language. This modification was intended to ensure that the original contract price remains the benchmark for evaluating change orders, preventing parties from using amendments to circumvent the 10% threshold limit.

Key Speakers

Logan Askew and Council Member Blues participated in the discussion of this item.

Outcome

The item was approved.

Acceptance of donations of goods or services

22:54

The council debated a proposal regarding the acceptance of donations of goods or services, specifically whether to eliminate the requirement for council approval for donations that do not require budget amendments.

Key Speakers and Discussion

George Myers, Council Member Stennett, and Council Member Lawless participated in the debate on this agenda item.

Issues Raised

The discussion centered on concerns about transparency and public awareness of donor contributions. Council members expressed concerns that removing the council approval requirement could reduce transparency regarding who was donating goods or services to the city and under what circumstances. The debate reflected tension between streamlining the approval process for routine donations and maintaining adequate public oversight of such contributions.

Outcome

The proposal failed.