Special COW Budget-Restructuring

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Council met on May 12, 2011, under the presiding officer of the Vice Mayor. The council considered eight agenda items focused on government restructuring and organizational changes. All eight items on the agenda were deferred, including proposals for reorganization of government structure, placement of Human Resources under the Department of Law, integration of Budget and Payroll into Finance, consolidation of Environmental Quality and Public Works, establishment of a CIO Office and IT Strategy, review of management audit and prior recommendations, creation of an Office of Economic Development, and reorganization of Building Inspection. The council heard seven public comments during the meeting and took one motion and vote. No items were adopted or rejected at this session; instead, all matters were postponed for future consideration.

Attendance

The following individuals were present at the meeting on May 12, 2011:

Mayor and Council Members: - Mayor Gray - Council Member Beard - Council Member Farmer - Council Member Martin - Council Member Crosby - Council Member Ford - Council Member Lawless - Council Member Lane - Council Member Myers

Staff and Other Attendees: - Richard Maloney - Sheila Huff - Janet Graham - Jane Drister - Cheryl Taylor - Melissa - Chad Coggle - Mike Nugent - Kevin Adkins - Anthony Wright - Sam - Marwan - Rod - Steve - Charlie - Susan Bush

No members were recorded as absent or late.

Votes and Decisions

Motion to Approve Organizational Restructure

Richard Maloney moved to approve the proposed organizational restructure of the government 1:13:04. The motion was decided by voice vote.

The motion was postponed. Council members requested additional time to review the proposal and advised against rushing approval. A supermajority of nine votes is required for any reorganization to proceed.

Public Comment

Council members and the Mayor addressed several concerns regarding the proposed reorganization and related governance matters.

Chief Information Officer Position 31:50 Council Member Beard expressed concern about the absence of a Chief Information Officer, arguing that a visionary leader is needed to coordinate IT across departments and prevent uncontrolled software spending.

Management Audit and Reorganization 37:14 Council Member Martin questioned whether the reorganization undermines prior management audit recommendations and emphasized the need to preserve proven systems and avoid discarding valuable past investments.

Applicability of Management Audit Recommendations 44:55 Council Member Crosby noted that some recommendations from the management audit were not applicable due to lack of expertise in public safety, citing the FIRE study as an example. Crosby questioned the value of implementing recommendations without local context.

Implementation Readiness 45:28 Council Member Ford asked whether the proposed reorganization is fully ready for implementation and whether the government is prepared to operate at optimal performance immediately after approval.

Organizational Evolution and Past Studies 55:21 Council Member Lawless shared personal experience with burnout and emphasized that while the reorganization may not be perfect, it should be allowed to evolve. Lawless noted that past studies should not be preserved merely because they were paid for.

Construction Management and Project Oversight 1:00:29 Council Member Lane expressed concern about the scale of spending and complexity in the Department of Environmental Quality and Public Works, recommending the hiring of a construction management firm to ensure efficiency and accountability.

Project Management Office 1:03:46 Mayor Gray confirmed that the idea of an Office for Project Management has been discussed and is under consideration, with the goal of improving systems and oversight for large capital projects.

Contested Items

The May 12, 2011 meeting included three significant areas of disagreement among council members.

CIO Position

Council members were divided on whether to establish a Chief Information Officer role immediately. The split centered on competing priorities: some council members advocated for hiring a visionary leader to drive IT innovation, while others supported a wait-and-see approach focused on maintaining current IT stability. No resolution outcome was documented.

Reorganization of Environmental Quality and Public Works

A heated discussion emerged regarding the proposed reorganization that would combine Environmental Quality and Public Works into a single department. Council Member Martin and Council Member Lane expressed substantive concerns about the structure's viability. Specifically, they feared that consolidating these functions under one commissioner would create an overwhelming workload and that the proposed structure would provide inadequate oversight of construction management responsibilities. The discussion reflected worry that a single administrator could not effectively manage both the breadth and complexity of the combined department. No resolution outcome was documented.

Management Audit Reversals

Council members raised procedural concerns about the administration's handling of prior management recommendations. Specifically, they questioned whether valuable recommendations from a previously commissioned and paid management audit were being discarded without sufficient justification or explanation. This dispute centered on process and accountability rather than the substance of specific recommendations. No resolution outcome was documented.

Reorganization of Government Structure

3:30

The mayor and commissioners presented a proposed reorganization of government structure designed to improve operational efficiency, reduce bottlenecks, and align functions around shared missions.

Key Changes Proposed

The reorganization included several structural modifications:

• Moving the Human Resources department to the Department of Law
• Integrating budget and payroll functions into the Finance department
• Consolidating six divisions under Environmental Quality and Public Works

Stated Objectives

The reorganization aimed to achieve three primary goals:

• Enhance legal compliance across government operations
• Strengthen financial oversight and controls
• Improve citizen service delivery

Key Speakers

The presentation was led by Mayor Gray, with participation from commissioners Richard Maloney, Janet Graham, Jane Drister, and Cheryl Taylor.

Outcome

The matter was deferred, indicating that a decision on the proposed reorganization was postponed pending further discussion or consideration.

Human Resources under Department of Law

Commissioner Janet Graham presented a proposal to move the Human Resources function under the Department of Law 12:59.

Rationale for the Change

Commissioner Graham explained that consolidating HR under the Law Department would provide several benefits. The move was intended to improve legal compliance across the organization, reduce litigation risk, and enhance training and information sharing between departments.

Structural Approach

The proposal included structural changes designed to manage workflow without requiring additional personnel. The plan would utilize savings from an unfilled HR manager position to support the reorganization, allowing the department to absorb the HR function without increasing overall staffing costs.

Outcome

The agenda item was deferred, meaning the decision on this proposal was postponed and not resolved during this meeting.

Budget and Payroll Integration into Finance

17:27

Commissioner Jane Drister led a discussion on consolidating budget and payroll functions under the Finance department. She argued that this organizational restructuring would improve financial oversight and align the city's practices with approaches used by other major cities.

Drister emphasized the importance of implementing checks and balances within the consolidated structure. She supported her position by citing input from Chief Financial Officers at top companies, indicating that this model represents a best practice in financial management.

The discussion resulted in a deferred outcome, meaning the matter was not resolved during this meeting and will be addressed at a future time.

Consolidation of Environmental Quality and Public Works

23:00

Commissioner Cheryl Taylor presented a proposal to consolidate six divisions under a single department to improve operational coordination, clarify departmental ownership of services, and enhance overall service delivery.

Proposed Changes

The consolidation plan included specific organizational restructuring:

• Stormwater maintenance would be moved to the Water Quality division
• Urban forestry operations would be relocated to the Environmental Policy division
• Streets and Roads would be refocused as part of the reorganization

Outcome

The commission deferred action on this proposal, postponing a decision to a future meeting.

CIO Office and IT Strategy

Council members discussed the potential establishment of a Chief Information Officer (CIO) position and its role in guiding the organization's IT strategy. 30:04

Key Speakers and Positions

Council Member Beard and Council Member Lane presented differing perspectives on the proposal. Richard Maloney and Melissa also contributed to the discussion.

Debate and Arguments

The discussion centered on whether hiring a CIO was necessary at this time. Proponents argued that a visionary leader would be valuable to guide IT strategy and provide direction for the organization's technology initiatives.

Conversely, other council members advocated for delaying the hire. They emphasized the importance of focusing on cross-training staff and maintaining existing systems before adding a new leadership position. This group prioritized stabilizing current operations over expanding the administrative structure.

Outcome

The council deferred the decision on establishing a CIO position. The administration acknowledged that the role may be appropriate in the future, indicating openness to revisiting the proposal once conditions were more favorable. No immediate action was taken to create the position or move forward with recruitment.

Management Audit and Prior Recommendations

35:06

During this agenda item, council members raised questions about whether the organizational reorganization was consistent with prior management audit recommendations. Council Member Farmer and Council Member Martin led the questioning on this matter.

The discussion centered on concerns that the proposed changes might reverse or undermine recommendations that had been made in a previous management audit. Council members sought clarification on how the reorganization aligned with those earlier findings and recommendations.

In response, Sheila Huff and Richard Maloney, representing the administration, explained that the changes being proposed were made to better align the organization with current leadership expertise and organizational needs. They indicated that while the reorganization might differ from prior audit recommendations, the adjustments reflected evolving circumstances and the capabilities of the current leadership team.

The outcome of this discussion was deferred, meaning the matter was not resolved during this meeting and would require further consideration at a later time.

Office of Economic Development

Council members raised questions about an Office of Economic Development that appeared on the organizational chart despite having no dedicated staff or budget allocation. 40:01

Concerns Raised

Council Member Myers and other members questioned the status and function of this office, noting the discrepancy between its presence on the org chart and the absence of resources assigned to it.

Administration Response

Sheila Huff clarified that the Office of Economic Development exists as a functional designation rather than a separate department with independent staffing. Kevin Adkins fulfills the responsibilities of this role without additional personnel being hired specifically for it.

Outcome

The discussion was deferred, with no immediate resolution or decision reached during this meeting.

Building Inspection Reorganization

1:11:26

Richard Maloney presented a proposal to reorganize the building inspection function by moving it back into the public safety department. The reorganization was framed as a way to align building inspection responsibilities with fire marshal duties and strengthen public safety oversight.

A key component of the proposal involved separating zoning from the inspection process. Under the reorganization plan, zoning responsibilities would be transferred to the planning department, while building inspection would remain under public safety authority.

The outcome of this agenda item was deferred, indicating that the proposal was not finalized or voted upon during this meeting and would be revisited at a future date.