Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

City of Frankfurt Board of Commissioners regular voting meeting for March is called to order. Today's March 23rd. It's 5:00 p.m. and we'll begin. For all those who are able, please rise for the pledge of allegiance.

I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Madame clerk, please call the role. Commissioner Richardson here. Commissioner Under here. Commissioner May here. Commissioner here. Mayor Robertson present. And we we do not have any ceremonial recognition tonight. We do have the citizens comments. I'll invite Patricia Waldridge up to the podium. Reminder, we give you five minutes. We'll give you a one minute warning.

It's okay. I won't need it. Um good evening. My name is Patricia Waldridge. I'm a resident here in Frankfurt. I just wanted to come as I did last time and speaking in regards to what is on your action items for second reading uh for your ethics committee and your uh statute of limitations. So I voiced my opinion on that and gave several different options that we could use. one being the 4 plus one, four which is the term of the mayor plus one year after also being um that which is the amount of years after that particular uh person steps down. Um so I just ask that you look into that at least doing since the term for mayor is four years and the longest. Um I think it should just be four years at least plus one after one term of a mayor. Um, so I ask that hopefully you'll vote in that favor to make those changes. And I just want to appreciate um, Commissioner Richardson for discussing this with me and talking with me. I appreciate you hearing that and doing your digging and following up with me on some of this information as well as Miss Milm, thank you so very much and answering my questions and and getting this figured out. But as long as we still have that one um, line in there that says from the moment that someone finds out that something has been unethical, then they have within a year to react. So, and that stays. So, thank you so very much.

And thank you. We now move on to the consent calendar. Mayor, first, could we uh staff request that item number eight uh fiscal year 26 resurfacing list from public works be pulled from the consent calendar. We're still working out some contractual details. What was that? The resurfacing list. Item number eight on consent is requesting that be pulled.

All right. Any objection from the board to remove that staff request? Okay. Seeing none. Item number one, minutes work session February 9th, 2026. Regular meeting February 23rd, 2026. Item number two is a purchase of a flusher truck from the streets department public works. Street department is seeking approval for the purchase of a new flusher truck from String Fellow and authorized the mayor to sign audited documents. Total cost is $243,977. A budget amendment will need to be made as the purchase was not included in the fiscal year 26 budget. This will be replacing a flesher truck that is uh over 26 years old. Item number three is a professional services contract with Hazen and Sawyer for FEMA assistance with the sewer department. Staff recommends a professional services contract with Hazens and Sawyer PSC to assist FSD with FEMA assessments, claims, and reports in the amount of $200,000 and authorize the mayor to sign audit related documents. This contract is not budgeted for fiscal year 2526, but all engineering fees are eligible for FEMA reimbursement. Item number four, professional services agreement amendment number one with Lovo Systems Incorporated, Fort Boon Sewer. Staff recommends amendment number one for the Lobo Systems Incorporated and authorize the mayor to sign all related documents. Uh total cost of the proposal amendment number one is $42,450. if these services are budgeted in fiscal year 2526. Item number five, conditional commitment letter uh A26-012 with the Kentucky Infrastructure for $18,793,49 to fund the construction of the lower PC3 project. Staff recommends a conditional commitment letter for the assistance agreement for $18,793. $18,793,49 with 30% of the principal be forgiven

with the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority be approved and authorized a merit to sign all related documents. This is a project expense and is budgeted in fiscal year 2526. Item number six, contract with HNA resources for bioolids disposal sewer department. Staff recommends a contract with HNA resources to dispose of bioolids and authorize the mayor to sign all related documents. Uh total cost for yearly cost is $261,612. Uh this will allow the contract to run through fiscal year 27. This is a budgeted item. Item number seven is Lucas 3 CPR devices fire department staff requested board of commissioners approve the acquisition of two striker brand mechanical CPR devices and authorize the mayor to sign all related documents. Total cost $45,415. These funds will come out of the telecom tax and will not affect the general budget. Moving on to item number nine, 2026 special events. Staff request authorization for the city of Frankfurt to enter into the following memorandums of agreement uh for community events in 2026 and authorized the mayor to sign all related documents. Japan festivalou DFI event series Jazz Festival Capitol Pride Bourbon on the Banks Festival Veterans Day Parade and Kentucky History Day. Item number 10, a purchase of six cutaway buses transit. Staff requested board of commissioners approval to purchase six replacement buses from Tesco via KPTA bid number 12 and to authorize the mayor to sign all related documents. Frankfurt Transit was awarded a 5339 grant in the amount of $998,439 to purchase six cutaway buses. This grant is 100% reimbursed by KYTC.

Item number 11 are personnel actions. We have appointment Andrew Drain, garage 224 20226 mechanic. Appointment Isabelle Davis, E911 310 20226 E911 telecommunicator. Appointment, Mike Perkins, public works transit 324206 transit driver non CDL. Resignation Emily Bass, police 328 20226 patrol officer. Resignation Jason Sodto public works solid waste 323 20226 public works tech solid waste resignation of Steven Kyle's police 330 20226 police sergeant authorized payout of acred leave resignation Travis Lamb sewer 362026 plant operator and termination Jerel David Warner public works transit 212 20226 transit driver

motion to approve second okay And to clarify this, the motion to approve consent calendar excluding the resurfacing list. Yeah. And a second. And any discussion? If none, I'll ask the clerk to call for a vote. Commissioner Richardson, you abstain. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner May, yes. Commissioner Smith Willis, yes. Mayor Wilkerson, yes. And the consent calendar is adopted. Next, boards and appointments. We have one tonight. It's board of ethics. The appointment of Tom Midkiff with a term expiring December 31st, 2028. Motion to approve. Second.

All right. Any discussion on this board appointment? Commissioner Richardson.

Yeah, I've known Tom a long time. I spoke to him on the phone. Um several people that know him, uh his references. Uh, I think this is a um a a good appointment. Like I said, I've known him since the early 90s. I actually credit him for uh entering a Roth IRA. He got my wife and I into that. He worked for Farmers Bank at the time to tell you what a long time. So, I've known him a long time. Spoke to him on the phone. It was really good to catch up with him. I think he understands the importance of this appointment. Um he has served prior on different boards but I think not to put any board uh above any I would never do that like I would in a department but ethics uh having come from a law enforcement background I think he understood my uh passion with serving with the utmost uh ethical um character. So uh I I I really uh I'm glad that he's willing to put himself out there and serve once again. Any other discussion? I ask the clerk to call for the vote.

Commissioner Richardson, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner May, yes. Commissioner Smith Willis, yes. Mayor Wilson, yes. And that motion carries. And thank you, Tom. And next, moving on to action items,

an ordinance amending ordinance number 20, 2025 series, appropriating the revenue to be received by the city of Frankfurt for fiscal year 2526. This ordinance amends ordinance number 20 2025 series appropriating the revenue to be received by the city of Frankfurt for the fiscal year 2526 by adding the following expenditures and transfers out as noted. General fund $94,853 transfers from general fund 354762 to grant fund 745 capital improvements $29,89 sewer fund 956

626 sorry um and by adding the following revenue and transfers in as noted above general fund $10,000 and these are all aggregate totals. Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion on this budget ordinance? Seeing none, clerk. Commissioner Richardson, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner May, yes. Commissioner Smith Willis, yes. Mayor Wilkerson, yes. And that ordinance is adopted. Action item number two. I'm going to have to recuse myself. It's uh I believe a direct result of a successful suit against the board of ethics on my part. So I will um

abstain. Abstain or excuse myself all together. Yeah. Okay. Um an ordinance amending city of Frankfurt code of ordinances section 39.2 relating to limitation of actions before the board of ethics. This ordinance amends section 39.2 20 of the city of Frankfurt ethics code to specify the conditions under which proceedings can be initiated before the board of ethics and establish a four-year statute of limitations for bringing such proceedings measured from the date of the alleged violation. Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion on this motion? Question.

Commissioner Smith Wilson.

You can go ahead, Commissioner. Um I I'm in favor of redoing this. I've spoke with city attorney about this, but I at least would like to see this to go to five years. Um be being that commissioners um terms are two years. If you do a one term, that's two years after that one term. Um the mayoral terms are four years. At least there will be a cushion that year after mayoral term. I have looked online and done some research by calling other cities. A lot of cities have five years for that same reason because of the mayor's term uh where a lot of cities our size uh have uh the same makeup. I I actually contact a lot with city management form of government. Uh but um I would like to see that change to five years. Other than that, I have no issue with it. Oh, oh, my turn. Okay.

You're in charge. I think you should like I'm in the midst of a thought, too. So, I'm like, okay. Um, anybody else have any more discussion on this? I'm cool with leaving it the way it is. I've talked to a couple municipalities and I'm I'm okay with the way it's written, but I will also let you all But if not, we can take a vote. Correct. Madam clerk, call the role. Okay. Commissioner Richardson, no. Commissioner Anger, yes. Commissioner May, yes. Commissioner Smith, Willlet, yes. And I abstain. Motion carries. Action item number three.

Action number three is a resolution authorizing the mayor to sign an agreement with the Franklin County Fiscal Court for the sharing of animal control and service in the city of Frankfurt. Uh currently the city is obligated through their contract with the humane society to provide animal control within city limits. Uh we had a part-time metal patrol officer uh with a few months or several months ago u we separated ways from that employee and the county has been covering us and with the me working with deputy judge Kennedy we figured that it only needs about a one it's about a one person job animal control countywide and we thought this was a better way to better serve the citizens and financially help so we're splitting the cost with them similar to how we do the electoral inspector so it's no more cost to the city as far as a part-time employee and it would be the county's employee at that point.

Any well motion to approve. Second. Okay. Motion in a second. Any discussion? Commissioner Richardson. That part-time equivalent pay. Whose budget does that come out of? So, we used to have that in PD's budget, but Amber and I have discussed putting that in the uh same budget, which I can't remember if it's in city manager or in city commission budget where the humane society contract is. That's where that should lie. Okay. So it doesn't fall on us. It it it' be I can't remember exactly, Amber. Do you remember? I don't remember if it's in city manager or in commission budget. Okay. But it used to be in police department. And you know why I asked because it used to be in the PD budget. So it is no long administrative budget. Yeah. Commissioner Hunger.

Um quick question. So we we'd be paying half of the budget of the position and also did I see 10,000 for vehicle expense? Yes. Okay. It's Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. Oh, I was just gonna also ask if we need backup. I heard we might, you know, be training an officer or that would that be our backup? Yeah, right now uh currently even even in our old system having two if there wasn't one available then officers would be the backup.

Okay. Uh but like I said, we have uh this has been going on for several months and and uh Deputy Judge Kennedy and I have spoken several times about the nature of this and it it seems to work having the one and it was just more cost effective for both governments to split that cost and this is the exact same agreement that we do for electrical inspection. Okay. Can I just follow up to that too? Sure. I would just like to uh thank uh Richard Sandifer for the job he's been doing and also for his help at u the crosswalk for the schools. He does a great job. I guess my question is how many months have we been doing it this way or is it we've probably been doing this about eight months now with that uh so we feel pretty confident feel pretty confident one is that

it's we're not going to be overrun with animals after this correct and I I will say that uh there we have nothing no complaints or anything operating this way from the main society everything's been smooth sailing any other discussion questions if not ask the clerk to call for the vote Commissioner Richardson, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner May, yes. Commissioner Smith Willis, yes. Mayor Wilkerson, yes. And that resolution is adopted. Action item number four.

We have the transport uh fiscal year 2027 transportation grants resolution. Staff requests adoption of a resolution authorizing submission of fiscal year 2027 transit grant application under section 5311 operating capital 5339 capital and RTAP training to the US Department of Transportation committing the required local share and authorize the mayor to sign all related documents. When adding up all the shares, it looks like 1,429,227 would be the city local share. Motion to approve. Second. Any questions, discussion? Madam clerk, please call the vote. Commissioner Richardson,

yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner May, yes. Commissioner Smith Willis, yes. Mayor Wilkerson, yes. And that is this resolution is adopted. Action item number five, parks department surplus property order. Staff is seeking board of commission's approval for the parks department to surplus and F250 from department 83 downtown division and for the mayor to sign all related documents. Motion to approve. Second. Any discussion on the surplus? I I can is this truck it's no good whatsoever? No, it's it's really run down, Sean. Yeah. Yeah. They can't There's something wrong with the fuel tank and they can't get

Okay. Well, I'm just trying to think the garagee you know where I'm going with this. It's not usable. Okay. Yeah, the garage is deemed this one unusable. Okay. All right. There is a website, pardon me for interrupting, that you can utilize for used vehicles as well, government vehicles. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We had a motion, a second, correct? Mhm. All right. Ask the clerk call for the vote. Commissioner Richardson, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner May, yes. Commissioner Smith Willis, yes. Mayor Wilkerson, yes. And that order is adopted. Action item number six,

declaration of handgun is surplus police department. Staff is seeking board of commission approval to declare one city- owned handgun as surplus for buyback by Captain Kenneth Keith and follow the department's gun buyback policy and have request the mayor sign all related documents. Motion to approve. Second discussion. Madam clerk. Commissioner Richardson. Yes. Commissioner Anger. Yes. Commissioner May. Yes. Commissioner Smith Willis. Yes. Mayor Wilkerson. Yes. And that is adopted. Action item number seven.

Number seven. An amended order establishing the city of Frankfurt technology innovation and sustainability committee. This is what I've presented on at the work session. just finding a place for those sustainability solutions to land in one of our committees and we had discussed this in that committee and it's just approving that motion to approve. Second. Whoa. Richardson got the motion. Second. It was it was a tie so I can Okay, you can pick whoever. Smith Willis. Okay. Was there a special call? Was there a special call meeting from that? For some reason, I have it written down about a special call meeting associated with this in my notes. It could

we're going to we need to have one in the next week or two. I was going to get with the mayor and commissioner May to set some dates. Okay. To go over the records and great watch. All right. Any discussion? Call for the vote. Okay. Commissioner Richardson. Yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner May, yes. Commissioner Smith, yes. Mayor Wilkerson.

Yes. And that is the end of action item. Well, that motion carries and that's the end of action items. We're moving on to unfinished business. We still have solid waste discussion out there. Sarah Anderson, public works director. Extraordinaire. Extraordinaire. I like that. I think Sarah handed you all a handout as well.

Yeah, I gave everyone a new handout. Um, it's very similar to what I emailed to everybody. Uh, whatever that was. Uh, there's one added page, uh, page two. Yes. Um, I had previously given you the the first page, the do nothing costs, which was keeping services in-house, but not um not making any improvements, not trying to go to weekly recycling, not um handling the administration of that program any differently. And then page two is actually if the service is kept in house, how we'd prefer to have it budgeted, staffed, everything. So kind of a I call it beefed up services, you know, ultimately getting back to weekly recycling, um additional staff and facility upgrades. So that's that's new. On pages three and four is where you're looking at numbers related to the RFP for privatization. All the values highlighted in yellow are costs associated with bi-weekly recycling and all the highlights in green are costs associated with weekly recycling so that it was easier to kind of compare those numbers. Um outside of that I don't have a whole lot to say. What kind of questions or thoughts comments do you guys have? What what um what questions do you have that you need answered in order to choose a direction?

Does anybody have any questions or what how would we like to proceed? I don't have any questions. Okay. I don't have any questions. I'm ready to make a motion. I don't have any questions. I do want to thank you for all the hard work that you've put into this information and our our repetitive questions that um we've had as a commission. So, I just wanted to say thank you. Um and I'm also I'm good. Yeah. Commissioner, uh quick question. Yes. So to make sure I understand page three where it says year two final cost, the low end which was the bi-weekly recycling and the high end of weekly. Yes.

So cost from year 1 to year two would jump up.

So that okay. So that those calculated values um we'll just we'll just round it to an even four million. that includes um the calculated value for the contract itself. So the actual collection services, it does not include any revenue received from selling the fleet because that would have happened previously. And it includes the staffing cost to maintain every single staff member that is still that is currently employed. So although that like that 1.45 four or five million for staffing costs that would not actually be all housed in solid waste but it would you know be spread out throughout various um areas in the city. Um I just wanted to include that. Uh of course that number is subject to change if people leave immediately or throughout the year. So these year one and year two final costs at the bottom

include maintaining staff prices or include maintaining in the full staffing level that's there now not necessarily in solid waste again by so this is saying by year two if we just keep bi-weekly recycling it's going to cost very similar to what it costs now. Am I looking at that right? Yeah. So, yeah. So, to go if you're looking at year two, you said bi-weekly. Mhm.

If you're looking at year 2 bi-weekly, you're looking at, you know, like 3.8, 3.9 million all in. If you go to the page two, the in-house, you're looking at 3.8 for us to keep it. Um, and of course, you know, the regular um staffing, vehicles, maintenance, all of that. So, Commissioner May, I apologize if you've answered this in the past.

How much of the projected budget for keeping it in house are we factoring in for the critical pieces to operate the trucks, things like that? How much of that money set aside to where if one of those goes down in the budget? I don't have my break. Do we know roughly? Um the vehicle maintenance costs in in our operating budget. Yes, ma'am. I don't have that. Okay. At the top back there to find it. Amber finding I had an inance of it, but it was substantial. It was It's pretty big. It was a substantial amount. Yeah.

It does say capital includes one to two vehicles a year. $450,000 to $900,000. That's going to be built into the projected 26 budget, correct? Of the 2.39 million, correct? Okay, that does answer my question. Well, it's not built into the operating budget. It's built into the overall. Yeah. Thank you. Yes,

Commissioner Richardson. I I might add in the 10th of March, Amber sent me, I've got a uh estimated reserves and you know, we've got about $2.3 million already um allocated out of our reserves. We're looking to end uh with about a million dollars and that's above the 11.1 that we have to hold back. And we're projecting now this is not I'm not including the funds that were f that we have the overage on and I don't even know how to quote that Amber it was the workers comp and health insurance. Yeah.

What I do know is sitting on both the finance committee and the public safety committee we have some other things to consider buying and and that's kind of where my decision with this um sanitation is. I don't know if we can afford to buy two trucks. And then to me inhouse keeping it, that's not fair to our employees is one thing that I do know when I was at the police department. I just want to be given the the the proper equipment to do my job. And if we can't I mean, I'm not saying we can't do it,

but it's going to take away from somewhere that may be vital that we need. And I'm not pitting an ambulance or a police car against against a garbage truck, but you know, I just really think uh I think this is just the way to go. Go ahead. I'm sorry.

To that point, you were talking about adequate equipment and staffing. Um I know we're looking at just one or two years here, but if if we are going to keep this in house, we need to be prepared to adequately fund it yearly, not just this first year. I mean, it needs to be something that, you know, we've got this full fleet of vehicles, so it needs to be that those are replaced on a more regular uh schedule than they've been in the past. And again, it's not about you guys, but in the past, you know, 10 plus years. Um, yeah.

And to my question to that end, what would what do you estimate we would need to fund it annually? Above and beyond the capital, above and beyond. two new trucks a year probably on average. Plus, what else would be needed?

Two new trucks a year. Uh the facility itself is in need of some upgrades. It needs uh it doesn't have any security. There's no camera. Well, there are a few cameras. There's not enough cameras. There's no fencing. Um the actual building itself has no true ventilation. Um so, it's not as useful as it could be. Um it's fairly uncomfortable to work in. uh you know just regular maintenance of the facility itself. Um included in that is two additional staff, one tech and one admin. Uh we haven't talked about the call volume a lot in here. Uh Belinda is out this week. So I sat at her desk for two hours this morning and returned 20 25 phone calls. All but one were about trash and I was not able to get back to her desk since that time. And she has received over 75 since then. So, we want a dedicated admin for

And what are they calling about this trash? Just everything. My cart's gone missing. Um, just questions about uh schedules, questions about bulk pickups, yard waste, etc. Yeah. And that's not factored into the annual cost of of having the additional advers waste is. Yes. May I ask a question? Not not I mean I guess you weren't here for the citizens comments. I think he came in late as well. I'd like to speak. Okay. Well, we have somebody speaking now. I guess you can ask the question, but we usually have citizens comments at the beginning or end, but I I don't know the your your protocols. You can ask it to us. How about that?

Ask.

It's outside of the protocol. How about that? But what what is the question? Well, I'm trying to learn a little bit as well, but I was wondering in some aspects of have you all looked at other avenues as opposed to doing this like uh I don't know like uh uh from where I stand it it looks like there's several contracts in one waste field. And I've also been hearing that, and I don't know how true this is, that the waste is either going in Frankfurt's landfill or it's being transported to Scott County. But I don't know if that's true or not.

Do you want me to address that? Yes, please. So, currently currently all of the trash that is collected goes to the landfill here in Franklin County. Okay. The only thing that's transported out is collected recyclables. They are collected here and sorted here and then they are transported to Lexington to the municipal consideration. Has that ever been brought up? Uh not directly. No, they stopped doing that years ago. They used to do that back in the 60s or 70s here. But it would help with the recycling and incineration as well as pickup.

Well, that's something we're not in the business. 30% of of uh 100% is is it's turned into 70% is you know gone ash. I don't know. Something to think about. All right. That's not what we're considering tonight though. It's really not to privatize it. You got a question comment? Uh yeah. I had something prepared that I'd like to say. Can you do it from there? Yes, I could. Um uh first off, this meeting for public input was supposed to Wait, what's your name? My name's Alec Fern. Okay. I'm a local property owner. Um this was supposed to be for public input last Tuesday, but it was cancelled without notice. Um

what was that? The public input for people to speak on whether or not there was going to be the public works and infrastructure committee. Oh, okay. Gotcha. Yeah. Right. Yeah. And so I feel that local landlords and property owners should be able to have a chance to speak on this before you all vote in order to go in whatever direction you're going to because this is going to affect us quite a bit. So okay, mayor, if he's going to speak, I suggest we time so that he doesn't get more time. Okay, that's okay. Start time five minutes.

Okay. Um, well, before I get into my concerns, I'd like to note that this meeting was scheduled at what feels like an inconvenient time, and residents I've spoken with didn't know this was happening until recently, if at all. Um, when uh scheduling important decisions like this at when turnout is naturally low, make it hard for people to have their voices heard. Um, it's a major change that affects every household and transparency and broad public participation should be the priority. Not rushing it through when people can't show up. You'll have to excuse me. I had to run here because I wasn't aware that this was happening. I'm Alec Fern and I live and own property here in Frankfurt. I'm here this after this evening to speak strongly against any plan to start charging residents for trash and recycling pickup. Um, we just bought a new recycling truck less than six months ago and taxpayers have already paid for that equipment along with multi multi-purpose trucks now handling both trash and recycling. We invested in this infrastructure so we could keep this service. So why are we now being asked to pay a second time every month? Second, I pay the exact same property tax rates as residents in the old city and downtown. Yet, if this fee passes, while the city continues to handle trash and recycling for downtown residents, I and thousands like me will be receiving less service for the same tax dollars. That is simply not fair. Third, this new fee will be a huge financial burden on small-time landlords and single family homeowners. I own and live in a duplex and already bought my two carts. What happens to those cans if the city switches to a private hauler that requires different equipment? Do I just eat that? And the bigger picture, we own approximately 33 units here in this city. And this is what that would cost me and my family every year at the rate you're proposing from 1899 to 3387 a

month. At $1899, that is $7,520 a year. At 3387, that is $13,000412 a year. That is real money coming straight out of the pockets of small landlords. Many of us have no choice but to raise rent or sell properties, hurting working families who already struggle with housing costs. Finally, I'm deeply worried about what will happen when people cannot or will not pay. We will see more illegal dumping in our creeks, waterways, and out in the county. cleanup will cost this city even more taxpayer dollars and it will damage our beautiful Kentucky River watershed. Charging people for a basic service that used to be covered by the taxes we already pay is a recipe for exactly that problem. This is not saving money. It's double dipping. Property taxes already fund this service. So adding a monthly bill on top of that is just a hidden tax increase that hits the hardest the people who can least afford it. single parents, fixed income seniors, and small landlords like us, trying to provide affordable housing. Frankfurt has always been proud to offer this as a community service. We recently invested in new trucks and equipment. Now is the time to keep it that way, efficient, fair, and funded the way it has always been. I respectfully urge you all to vote no on any residential or trash on any residential or trash recycling fees. keep the service we've already paid for with our taxes, protect our environment from increased dumping, and stand with the families and small landlords who call Frankfurt home. Thank you all.

Thank you, Mr. Fern. And I I want to point out that I don't think we're talking about no charging a fee for this. Okay. So, can I say something? I should have said that at the beginning, but I mean this is something that we would pay as a city and not that as far as I know, no one else has talked about that. It was in the paper. This is our city commission meeting which we do with regularity at 5:00 p.m. or 3 p.m. depending on the work session of the I mean if we do it at 3 p.m. people say it's inconvenient. If we do at 5:00 p.m., people say it's in that was from a 10 a.m. meeting last Tuesday. That was Can we Can I speak? Can I speak United?

Okay. First off, I'm I've encouraged the public to quit reading the newspaper.

The newspaper put that out there and it was absolutely detrimental to the city. I've received a hundred phone calls. No time did any one of us up here talk about the reason we wanted to show the cost was to compare it to what we are currently paying. What's your tax dollars paying that was really a number and and the paper puts out a survey. No one ever said that. No one ever set that up here and I'll defend that. I'm I'm very frustrated. I your passion on that. I agree with you and I I will vote if tonight a motion comes up that we're going to make citizens pay, I will vote no. I never once said that. In fact, no one up here said that. We're trying to be the most efficient with tax dollar we can. But garbage isn't the only issue we're dealing with in a budget. So again, I I am I hope the paper quotes me. I am sorely disappointed, which I have worked in this town and lived here long enough that I wouldn't expect any different. So again, that's the way I feel about the newspaper.

Sorry, Commissioner Smith. Oh,

Commissioner Anger, you can go too. You can go first. Oh, no. Um, I just wanted to follow up and tell say thank you for running down here to voice your thoughts and concerns. I personally appreciate the feedback. Um, I personally did not want to put a fee onto the community. That's not something that I personally want to do myself as also a constituent. I am a single mother and this is also a bill that's going to be added on to my household as well. But I do to Commissioner Richardson's point, I do think we just wanted to see all the angles and avenues that we had. And I was going to ask you Sarah, we did there was an option that we talked about that I think more of us were more inclined to lean towards was to privatize, but also to foot the bill as the city, not to put it on to you all. So just to that point, I do appreciate your feedback. I am on the public works and infrastructure committee. I was out of town, so I think that's why I got cancelled. something that tonight if you said that I probably would have again unfortunately Sarah tabled it so we could at least hear more of the community. So I do apologize that on my end. So thank you for rushing down here. Um and I really appreciate you but I also did not I did not say I wanted to put a fee on the household. So thank you

commissioner.

Yeah I'd also like to thank both of you for coming down. Um um I have been a little uh shocked that some residents didn't even realize we were discussing this until Yes. in the state journal. Um so anytime I can talk to somebody one-on-one, I have done that in public, you know, do you want to privatize? You want to keep it in house? I've heard both. You know, some people are willing to pay to keep it in house. Um, and I just I want to go ahead and say that I would prefer not to privatize right now because I just know if we decide to privatize, we have no control on what that looks like moving forward and there's really no way we could ever bring it back in house unless we just have, you know, $20 million sitting around. So, this is a huge decision that I am not willing to rush on. And I also feel like we have not necessarily internally discussed how we could keep operations in house while looking at efficiencies. I do appreciate this beefed up budget. It gives me a much better idea. Um but I just wanted to go ahead and put it out there. I feel like there's there's plenty of um while I am so proud of our solid waste department. I mean, I get I get more than anything, I get like praise for what what our department does. And I honestly I know that some changes could be made, some things could be worked on, things could be analyzed, but I I just feel like at the moment this sort of um it feels like an easy way out to privatize just because other communities are doing it and there is an initial cost savings, but I don't think that is going to remain moving forward. I mean, look at just the state of the

world at the moment. So, um I I mean that's that's where I am. If we are going to vote to privatize today, I am an a no because I feel like there are bigger and broader uh conversations um about how to improve internal services. And also, we're talking about privatization. Well, we could privatize all kinds of different things at the city if we want to look at cost savings in that very easy way. So, Thank you. And

I want to weigh in too and just say we're talking about privatizing, but really what we're talking about is outsourcing this uh one service that the city provides to a third party. And I think when people hear privatizing, they hear, you know, they think we're just

the public's going to start paying that again. We haven't talked about that. That really it's outsourcing. Now, I'm I I'm with Commissioner. don't think we've done enough to really we already have the service in house and I think that staff takes pride in that. I think a lot of the people in the community take pride in that and we still have an opportunity to make the investments we need to bring it up to the standards that we would be you know even more proud of. But uh but that's not what we're hearing from you know I think from our leadership. It's like it feel like we're getting the privatization is the solution and you know as much as I want to make the investments to do more. Um I don't know if we're you know the staff's giving us that option right now. I think it's it seems like they're suggesting privatization is the best way. You know financially private you know outsourcing makes sense.

I get that it makes sense on paper but uh we do give up some control. We deal and we we don't give up all control. we'd have a contract with whoever we decide to go with and you know if they want to keep the business long term they're going to have to you know service it the way we expect and we can always rebid it later but for some period of time we will be you know we will be with that company

but I would ask if we do that outsourcing and save whatever amount of money here then uh you know that's something we we should add something back to the public I think that's what's not being discussed here is what could be added back and that is you know whether you know maybe it's repaving the streets on an accelerated schedule keep it in the public works um department those savings and you know do we could do more with the savings than we're doing now and I think that's really how it should be framed so right now I want to make the investments keep it inhouse I'm not sure that that's even if I wanted to do that I'm not sure that uh you all want to do that and I'm saying the staff and um but I'm I'm willing to make that investment.

Commissioner May,

uh thank you to everyone that came and spoke today. Appreciate hearing your thoughts and concerns and thank you to the staff and uh members that we met with discussing this. It is a a hot topic. I I've always seen it uh as an opportunity for us to use future monies and staff time to focus on things that uh you know could be more of a quality of life issue for those of us that live here. An economic driver. I look at partnering with uh whichever companies we so choose to go with if we choose to privatize. Uh, I think those companies are going to be motivated to succeed and deliver the best product they can because that's all they do. You know, the city does as as we all know a massive amount of different specialties and and services that we offer, but to have someone who just takes care of the solid waste, I believe they'll be motivated, you know, their names on the line and uh they've proven themselves in other communities. um and knowing what future capital expenditures we have, you know, and facing as we grow, I would see that as an opportunity to save that recurring expenditure to keep the operation running. Um now certainly if if we get to a point where we feel like we can sustain in house and continue to fund it appropriately and not I guess the best way I could sum it up is it feels like we're really pushing the department to succeed at a rate that doesn't feel sustainable to me. And that is my concern is, you know, if you rev keep a car running at 8,000 RPMs, it'll only go so far before it quits. And when

I'm sitting here, you know, I I would love a solution to keep it in house. Um, but I do see it as an opportunity to partner with someone and and give us those time and resources to invest back in other ways. Commissioner Smith Wells,

the last thing I want to say is, you know, being this is a very large decision to make, especially as a newly elected official. Um, when I think about services and when I think about the longevity on what this decision might might come to, you know, I I would love to see that we can sustain this in-house, but I also feel like right now we're on a time constraint. There are needs that are need to be immediately met at this current moment to get the services back to what the community is asking. Um, some of the feedback that I was have received is why don't we have recycling weekly again? And I just feel like at this at this rate that we're at right now, I think if something else happened tomorrow, knock on wood, unfortunately, we we would already have a problem sustaining what we are statutoily responsible for. So, I just feel like when I'm looking at some of these options after talking to this, the other commissioners, the mayor, the community, I, you know, I've talked to the people on my street, I've talked to some small businesses, and it just feels like people are also torn on this decision. But um just in terms of services and longevity and also future development here in Frankfurt, I'm not going to live here forever. Like I might I might not be here, but my child will be. So what are what things are going to be here for his quality of life on top of are we going to have services, partner with people that this is their this is their wheelhouse, this is their expertise. I want to get it right while I'm here in my seat. So that's kind of where I met with it. Um and again, I really appreciate both of you coming to voice things because it it definitely I lose sleep over stuff like this at night time. So, I appreciate you all bringing um your feedback to the table.

Commissioner, have we um talked to the county about a contract with them potentially or working with them if we were to vote to outsource?

I sorry, we miss out of term. I followed I asked this question. They're I think they are still in in the middle of their current contract. Um we would have to wait, don't quote me, state journal, maybe two years I think before their contract is up before we could approach that conversation. Um so I still feel like that's not going to fix the immediate need. But um that isn't that is an option. But that's I feel like that's something that we would have to make the decision now and then approach when we come to it.

Terry, would you like to answer that? Um, in discussions with both of the entities that responded to our RFP, um, it seemed I don't know that we asked I've not spoken to the county about, you know, directly about combining. Um, we did talk about would there be savings in combining the two areas, the two service areas. Um, and my takeaway from those conversations was that generally speaking, a city's rates are going to be if the city and county put out an RFP for the same thing at the same time. The rates that they would charge a city would be ever so slightly less than what would be charged to a county. And that's due mostly to density. And that by combining them there is there's the potential for a small amount of savings but not necessarily um big discount savings because the number of households served, the number of stops made is still the same. The you know tonnage that's being collected and dumped is still the same and the mileage on their vehicles and their human hours are still the same. Um, so yeah, my takeaway was that by combining there might be a tiny savings, but it didn't seem like it was necessarily a lot. Does that sort of Okay.

There's no 50,000 population threshold that once you hit that, then there's you get it. That was Yeah, that no threshold like that. Again, I'm not I'm not the expert in this, but that was my understanding. Yes. Yes. Commissioner May, have we talked about uh with any of the entities about the con the contracts getting started having uh is there minimum amount of years that we have to agree to at the jump or can we we

if we chose to move forward with the outsourcing, do we still have the opportunity to ask for a yeartoear for say the first three years to make sure that we're happy with how things are going and tweak it if needed. Um, so the when we sent the RFP out, we said that our intention was to issue a 5-year contract with the option to renew for another five, so up to 10 years. Okay.

The responses that we received were based on a fiveyear and possible 5-year contract. Um, in talking to the companies, we did discuss other options like having five two-year terms instead of two five-year terms. Um, and so the feedback that I got was that at least initially in order to keep prices lower around where they were quoted, they need about a 5-year contract for that first time and for that first stint at least because that is how they're going to um they have to put some capital into it upfront, whether it be vehicles, um, routing, hiring personnel, um, And in order for them to recoup those initial costs, they need to look at spreading that cost out over a five-year term. Does that

that makes sense? Okay. Absolutely. Yeah. Commissioner Richardson, and I might am I right on this quote, we only have about 36% participation rate in recycling. That is correct. Um, last time we looked, and I I I don't know exactly when that went, but it was recentish, um, we had approximately 36% uh, participation rate. And that's not that's not 36% of households with recycle bins. That's 36% that are putting their carts out for collection. So, yes. Which in turn can affect the pricing,

correct? Yes. to favor the city.

It could. Yes. So, we received uh of the two bids we received two types of breakdowns. One um had a lump sum trash and recycle together. One had it broken out trash and recycle. Um they both have the ability to do both kinds of quotes. But yes, if if you're looking at breaking it out, trash fee, recycle fee, and charging only for those households that participate in recycling, the the overall charges are going to be a slightly higher for each because it's more administrative work for the for the company doing it. Um, but at 36% it could be lower for us if we're footing the bill to to have it broken out. Um, conversely, if we're if we're trying to encourage recycling and we're trying to get our numbers back up to where they once were, there will come a point where that tips, right? And it goes the other way where it'll be cheaper for us to go with a contract that has a lump sum price that's administratively less work for the provider.

Yeah. Yeah. And and am I correct? We are a pass through for recycling. Is that fair to say? currently. Yes. We the the citizen does the sorting. Hopefully you're correctly at home. The citizen puts it out to the curb. We collect it. We take it back to our recycle center on Rouse. Um there's some sorting that occurs to try to get out as much trash as we can. We load it and then we have a contract to have it hauled to Lexington where it is ultimately truly sorted and packaged and sold. Yes. Can I make a motion? You may make a motion.

I'm going to make a motion for we enter in a partnership, not specific to any one of these bids. Uh, and we pay for it. The motion is to How specific do we need to be on this? Yeah, how I'm sorry. Maybe I wasn't specific enough. Is that specific enough? Motion to direct staff to proceed with partnering with a private company to um outsource outsource according to one of these proposals. Is it are we deciding which proposal tonight? If we I would like to decide.

Can we can we make can we is there a way that if we proceed forward with this that proposal A and B and C is not even on here no more? A and B is is there a way that we can like they can communicate to the public as well what what is to come from or is there are we so like on a time constraint sorry let's get this prop let's get the motion down I'm going to second the motion

okay a motion to pro direct staff to proceed with partnering with one of these private companies to bring back a contract Um, I think proceed is is enough. Uh, we'll also have to look at any potential franchise requirements and some other things. I just don't want it to be too. That's why I kind of tried to make it a little broad. Sure.

All right. We have a motion to direct staff to proceed with partnering with one of these private firms. And along with that motion that the city would absorb the cost. Yes. Second. Then we have a second. All right. Any other discussion on this? Commissioner,

I'd just like to um if we're moving for outsourcing and the year 2 final estimated costs here, I want to make sure I'm understanding this. It says pay for service, maintain all staff on page three. Yes. And the year two final cost is for the low-end and the high-end. It is technically more than what we have listed for the do nothing, keep it in house and the in-house beefed up services. Is that right? But not all of those costs are for solid waste. Again, that includes it includes the salary. Staff to do other things. Correct.

Okay, I understand that. So, if we're talking about potentially keeping staff, which I would love to do, I, you know, not saying I don't want to lose anybody. Um, at what point are we going to feel like we have to charge for outsourcing? I just feel like it's going to come really fast. And I want everybody here that's voting for that to think about what that looks like in the next couple years. I mean, just putting it out there. Commissioner Smith goes if we did put it if we did keep it in house at what point would I feel like would it never come a time that a fee would not go on in the households like and so I just feel like it if we're going to if if it ever comes to that which

I would hope that it would not but if it does come to that I would want the service to be so well executed that it is a service that is worth taking care of right now I feel like the the feedback that I've received understanding that you've had good feedback back. I've also heard not the best feedback either. So, I'm just kind of I'm kind of just I feel like if if a fee is ever going to go on, is it well worth it? Just kind of where I'm at with just one last thing. It's okay. Commissioner,

this is just like huge decision. It's really hard. I'm like once it goes, it's not coming back. That's all I got to say. I love that we have a bit of control to like change and work with the department and just figure out how to keep things running better if we have to. So, just putting it out there. I'm willing to do that that work. Commissioner Richardson,

I might add, we talked about and and Mayor, you mentioned this about what what the public the positive for the public. Let's look at the positive. Uh some of the positives just to name some, we still have to keep some trucks for special events in sanitation pickup. We could possibly do more with bulk pickup uh with what we have the personnel and the trucks we have. Am I correct? Yeah. And and yard waste.

Waste definitely. Those are things that we could pick up a little more with with having and and again I'm I'm not talking about getting rid of staff, but what I do know, having been a longtime government employee, tier one days are over. And what I know about going across the state of Kentucky, all government, tier three is not retaining employees for any city right now. I would have to say if we done a study, we don't have HR here. Would you is it a fair say that the turnover rate with tier three is much different than it is with tier 2 and tier one employees? Absolutely. Absolutely.

And that is out of our control. So we have to as a government, we have to think about things that are not in our control when it comes to a pension and and everything else. Those things are affecting cities all across Kentucky. And when I talk to other cities, that's what they take into consideration when it comes to entering into a partnership and privatization about, you know, we may have some of our employees want to go work for these two entities, right? Because as a tier three employee, you know, we can only pay so much, right? Correct. We cannot be competitive with the private sector. I know that unfortunately

in really a lot of ways, right? In in a lot of ways, in a different way. So that's where this is coming from. I I I I cannot predict the future. I would hope that that maybe while we're digging out there, do we own the property out there at the paddics? Is that ours technically? The old property the where the target is. No, I thought if they were digging and they struck some gold, we would be good. I'm trying to add some humor, right?

I'm trying to add a little bit of humor to the mere fact of the doomsday thing that's going on. But what I'm trying to say is all this is and Commissioner Hunger makes a good point. This is not an easy decision. We we've talked about it, but after looking I've got the budget pulled right up this reserve estimates that Amber did to see that. Yeah. That Can I get that in an email? Well, I asked for this. I asked for this. I asked for this almost monthly uh because we eb and flow through the budget. And I can tell you right now, we bought three police cars at $199,000. And we need more police cars.

And I'm not again, I'm not, and I know uh the fire chief, we need ambulances. Am I correct on that, Mr. City Manager? I'm not putting I'm not Well, I will. It's okay. Those things are vitally important to our community. I'm not trying to say a garbage truck isn't, but we cannot We have to choose. And I'm choosing a fire truck or I'm sorry, an ambulance and a police car. All right. I'm just I'm just kind of gonna go with that. So, I'm done. I do hope we strike gold out there.

I just want to No, that and on Commissioner Younger's point on the dollar amounts here that it it does assume that we would keep in the 4.3 million next year in our all-in cost. So first year in any scenario we're in the good because of the potential upfront for the Yes. But the the next year it would be more but that's keeping all staff in to do other things. Now realistically some are going to go to the private Yeah.

firm. So but some won't because of the tier one status. So it it still financially it does make sense. I get it. I I just want to if we are ever going to consider adding a fee to this, I think we just keep it in house. I mean that's and just charge for it now if and and do that. But if I don't personally I don't think it's a good I think property taxes should cover your waste management pickup even though every other community around us and perhaps throughout the whole state besides Franklin County charges extra or they bill it to you directly. So every other almost every other citizen in the state's paying for this service some way somehow except in Frankfurt and Franklin County. But I think that is a differentiator. I think it is something uh that sets us apart. Uh and I want to keep it that way. So uh I just want to say if we're ever thinking about charging a fee, let's make the commitment now to just keep it in house and do it the way we need to do it. But if that's not the case, I think the way where we stand right now is that I mean frankly the service we the service has gone down the last couple of years. We we didn't have recycle for a year and we we dropped it from weekly to bi-weekly and I think so we have and we've now made it harder to do yard waste. We still collect it but we have to make an appointment. You have we have diminished the services the way things have been going. So for me, outsourcing will enable us to bring that service level back and keep more money to do other things that the public expects us to do like the streets. I think we keep going back to the streets. But I do think we need to add something else to this and that is something with yard waste, composting, something else. We need to we're going to have staff to do it. We're going to have the trucks to do it if we if we move forward with the outsourcing on the actual waste

management pickup and recycling. Commissioners Willis, did you have No, I forgot. Thank you. So, we have a motion and a second. Is there any other discussion to proceed with a private company and partnership on this without charging the public? Commissioner May, just to make clear, this is just directing staff to move forward. This isn't an agreement that we're gonna do it. We still get a chance to review contracts. We have a lot. Yeah. And we can still say, you know what? No, we're going to keep it in house when we get that back.

That is this gives us the direction to know that that's how you all want us to keep moving. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Commissioner May, because that jogged my brain about what I was going to ask earlier. Is it now that we've agreed to proceed forward, I guess my question is for next step action items in my head. When if everything goes well contractually, is there a way for transparency and visibility and so that we don't let the state journal write our narrative? Is there a way to be able to perfectly execute and communicate what the options are for households and families and landlords and all the people? or do you mean um

whatever options that after we after we sign or after we sign? Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. I think like a town hall form some sort. Whatever. Yeah. I mean, whatever is best in terms of getting I mean I imagine if we do this it's a change for everybody. So I imagine there's a lot of outreach, right? Different formats. Um yeah, absolutely. Thank you. I ask the clerk to call for the vote. Commissioner Richardson, yes. Commissioner, no. Commissioner May, yes. Commissioner Smith Willis, yes. Mayor Roberts,

yes. Motion carries. That's it for unfinished business. Any new business to come before the board? Any board comments? Anything anybody would like to say? Motion to adjurnn. Second. All those in favor of adjourning say I. I.

We'rejourned. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.