... would please. Uh, first item of business is the roll call. Madam Clerk. Miss Feigel. Here. Miss Gordon. Here. Mr. Gray. Here. Miss Henson. Here. Miss James. Here. Mr. Lane. Here. Miss Lawless. Here. Mr. Martin. Here. Mr. McCord. Here. Mr. Meyers. Here. Mr. Stennett. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard. Present. Mr. Blues. Here. Miss Crosby. Here. Mr. Ellinger. Here. We have a quorum, so we'll proceed. Um, it's my pleasure to welcome to the podium, um, Mark Johnson, who is the Senior Minister at Central Baptist Church here in Lexington, for the invocation. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you members of City Council. I am also the President of the Interfaith Alliance. I appreciate your commitment to the wide dimension of religious diversity in our community. In that spirit, let us now have a moment of silence, reverence, and prayer. In the honored silence of this moment, we retreat from the noise of living just long enough to focus ourselves upon a vision that is greater than our individual lives. We hope to listen to this voice at work in us and through us, for guidance and direction. As it has carried the sacred wisdom of the past and the transcendent truth for all the ages, may it guide us even in this moment, to listen and observe with reflection and discernment before we speak. When speaking, to use our words carefully to clarify and not confuse issues. And to recall there is no community without the great unity of working together for the common good. Help us to remember to work not just for ourselves, or for those who are like us, but grant us courage to speak for the forgotten, to be an advocate to the weak and the needy, to represent all persons fairly and equally. Bless these civic servants. Strengthen them, encourage them, inspire them. May they resolve to never tire of the faith necessary for their task, for the solutions possible in their efforts, and the good that will result from their labor in the name of all we claim sacred. Amen. Thank you, Dr. Johnson, for joining us and for your invocation tonight. We have, uh, several minutes from earlier meetings to be approved. Is there a motion to approve them? So moved. Second. We have a motion by Councilmember Crosby and a second by Councilmember Henson to approve the minutes of the previous meetings that are listed on the docket. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Madam Clerk, would you give second reading to the ordinances entitled a second reading. Ordinance number one, an ordinance amending section 21-5-2 of the Code of Ordinances reallocating one position of Director of Streets, Roads, and Forestry from grade 121E to grade 123E in the Division of Streets, Roads and Forestry and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 33. Number two, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to establish six million in bond fund budget for the Lyric Theater Project as approved at the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council Meeting on July 2nd, 2009, and by reimbursement resolution on March 12th, 2009, and appropriating and reappropriating funds, schedule number 34. Number three, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to provide funds for purchase orders rolling from fiscal year 2009 into fiscal year 2010, and appropriating and reappropriating funds, schedule number 35. Number four, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for funds in the amount of $400 for the Division of Parks and Recreation from neighborhood development funds for the S.T. Roach basketball cheerleader T-shirts, and appropriating and reappropriating funds, schedule number 36. Number five, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures and appropriating and reappropriating funds, schedule number 37. Number six, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for funds in the amount of $6,000 for a copier for the Division of Youth Services, and appropriating and reappropriating funds, schedule number 38. Thank you very much. Is there a motion to approve those ordinances? So moved. Second. We have a motion by Councilmember Crosby and a second by Councilmember Meyers to approve ordinances one through six. You'll notice that item number seven is being postponed until later in the evening. Uh, any discussion? Seeing none, we appear to be ready to vote. Those in favor of those ordinances, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay electronically, and Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Miss Feigel. Here. Miss Gordon. Here. Mr. Gray. Yes. Miss Henson. Yes. Miss James. Here. Mr. Lane. Yes. Miss Lawless. Yes. Mr. McCord. Yes. Mr. Meyers. Here. Yes. Mr. Stennett. Here I am. Mr. Beard. Aye. Mr. Blues. Yes. Miss Crosby. Here. And Mr. Ellinger. Here. Thank you. Those ordinances are approved. Takes us down to item number five on the agenda, the ordinances entitled a first reading. Madam Clerk, if you would proceed. Ordinance number eight, an ordinance changing the zone from a wholesale and warehouse business B4 zone to a highway service business B3 zone for a 4.63 net, zero point -- 6.07 gross acres for property located at 1837 and 1844 Plottet Place subject to certain use restrictions imposed as conditions of granting the zone change. Number nine, an ordinance changing the zone from two-family residential R2 zone to a townhouse residential R1T zone for 0.21 net, 0.24 gross acre, and from a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone to a townhouse residential R1T zone for 0.73 net, 0.81 gross acres for property located at 310 Romney Road. Number 10, an ordinance accepting the bid of All Tech Industries in the amount of $86,171 for an aerial cable placer and truck for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 48. Number 11, an ordinance amending certain- Madam, Madam Clerk. Madam Clerk, if you'd wait just a moment, uh, Council Member Gordon has a motion with regard to number 11. Thank you, Mayor. Um, yes, the administration asked me to make this motion. This is a, uh, a purchase order that was not identified in the list on Tuesday and needs to be added. So I move to amend Ordinance 11 on the docket for first reading to add funds for historic preservation to budget journal 35940. These funds are to roll purchase order LF59946 with National Alliance of Preservation Commissions for Board of Architectural Review Training in the amount of $5,500 from fiscal year 2009 into fiscal year 2010. This purchase order was not identified in the original purchase order roll and needs to be included in this budget journal. Do I hear a second? Second. I have a motion by Council Member Gordon and a second by Council Member Crosby to amend Item number 11 as specified. Any discussion? All then in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. Madam Clerk, if you would give Item number 11 as amended its first reading. Number 11, as amended, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures and appropriating and reappropriating funds schedule number 39. Number 12, an ordinance amending section 2152 of the Code of Ordinances abolishing one position of health clinic director, grade 118E, one position of health clinic nurse/RN supervisor, grade 116E, one position of administrative specialist/principal, grade 114E, one position of health clinic nurse/RN, grade 114E, one position of administrative specialist, grade 110N, one position of certified medical assistant, grade 110N, and one position of staff assistant/senior, grade 108N, and amending section 2252 of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing one position of health clinic nurse/RN part-time, grade 114E, and one position of staff assistant/part-time, grade 107N, all within the Division of Family Services and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 40. Number 13, an ordinance amending section 2152 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of municipal engineer/senior, grade 119E, and one position of staff assistant/senior, grade 108N, and abolishing one position of municipal engineer, grade 117E, and one position of treatment plant operator, grade 113N, and amending section 2252 of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing one position of municipal engineer/senior, part-time, grade 119E, and creating one temporary position of project engineering coordinator, grade 119E, ending on June 25th, 2013, all within the Division of Water Quality and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule num- number 41. Number 14, an ordinance amending section 2152 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of administrative officer, grade 118E, one position of operations manager, grade 116E, one position of public service supervisor/senior, grade 114E, one position of enforcement officer, grade 110N, one position of equipment operator/senior, grade 109N, and one position of public service worker, grade 106N in the Division of Waste Management, amending section 2152 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of security officer, grade 106N, and two positions of security officer/part-time, grade 106N, and amending section 2252 of the Code of Ordinances, creating two positions of security officer/part-time, grade 106N in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management, effect- effective retroactive to June 22nd, 2009. Number 15, an ordinance amending section 2152 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of deputy director of enterprise, grade 120E, in the Division of Parks and Recreation. Number 16, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, which grant funds are in the amount of $446,400 federal funds under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program are for construction of the Gainesway Trail, the acceptance of which obligates the Urban County Government for the expenditure of $111,600 as a local match, appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 42, and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 17, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, which grant funds are in the amount of $150,000 federal funds for the continuation of the Street Sales Drug Enforcement Project, the acceptance of which obligates the Urban County Government for the expenditure of $50,000 as a local match, appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 43, and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 18, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, which grant funds are in the amount of $40,583 Commonwealth of Kentucky funds from the Law Enforcement Service Fee program are for support of the cost of police overtime hours for a traffic alcohol patrol, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Urban County Government for the expenditure of funds, appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 44, and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 19, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute supplemental agreement number three with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, accepting a grant in the amount of $360,000 federal funds for the Loudoun Avenue Improvements Project, the acceptance of which obligates the Irvin County Government for the expenditure of $90,000 as a local match, appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule number 45, and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 20, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to accept a grant from the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Health Department, which grant funds are in the amount of $414,712 federal funds, are for the Home Network Project at the Family Care Center, the acceptance of which obligates the Irvin County Government for the expenditure of $31,750 as a local match, appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule number 46 and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 21, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to accept a donation of $300 from Marcela Nazario for books and supplies for the Early Start Program at the Family Care Center, and appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule number 47. Number 22, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for funds in the amount of $380 in the Division of Streets, Roads and Forestry from the Neighborhood Development Funds for connecting sidewalks in the Courtney Commons Neighborhood Association, and appropriating and reappropriating funds, Schedule number 49. Number 23, an ordinance amending section 14-83-3 of the Code of Ordinances to revise the membership of the Stonewall Appeals Board to consist of the members of the Board of Architectural Review serving ex officio. Number 24, an ordinance amending ordinance number 203-80 as amended by ordinances... ordinance numbers 59-81, 103-86, 237-93, 52-94, and 18-96 relating to the industrial building revenue bonds to remove the Lexington Economic Development Commission as a nominating organization and increase the number of at-large members from three to four. Number 25, an ordinance amending section 25-22 of the Code of Ordinances, removing African Americans of Lexington Emerge as a nominating organization and replacing it with the John Rowe Chapter of the National Bar Association, and directing the council clerk pursuant to KRS 65.0035B to submit a copy of this ordinance and proof of publication to the Department for Local Government within 21 days of its passage. Thank you. Councilmember Meyers, do you have a motion? Yes, thank you, Mayor. Um, I move to add an ordinance issuing bonds to Lexington Christian Academy. So moved. I think the- I have a motion and a second, a motion by Councilmember Meyers and a second by Councilmember Crosby. Councilmember Meyers? I think the clerk has the, the title, she's gonna read. All right. Um, any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, those in favor of, uh, adding item number 26 regarding the Lexington Christian Academy bond issue to the docket, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed, "No." Motion carries. Number 26, an ordinance authorizing the issuance of up to $12,800,000 of educational building revenue refunding and improvement bonds series 2009, the Lexington Christian Academy Incorporated project of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, the proceeds of which shall be loaned to the Lexington Christian Academy Incorporated to finance and refinance the construction, renovation, installation, improvement, and equipping of improvements suitable for use in furtherance of the educational and recreational purposes of the Lexington Christian Academy Incorporated, providing for the pledge of revenues for the payment of such bonds, authorizing a bond purchase and loan agreement appropriate for the protection and disposition of such revenues, and to further secure such bonds, recognizing the bonds as qualified tax-exempt obligations under IRC Section 265B3G1 and 2, and authorizing other actions in connection with the issuance of such bonds. Thank you. Are there any other motions? Seeing none, we'll proceed to the next item on our agenda, resolutions entitled to a first reading. Madam Clerk. Resolution number one, a resolution accepting the bid of QuadNet Incorporated, establishing a price contract for transport, transport ventilators for the Division of Emergency Management 911. Number two, a resolution accepting the bid of D&W Environmental Incorporated, establishing a price contract for recycling dumpsters for schools for the Division of Waste Management. Number three, a resolution accepting the bid of the Trophy Center, establishing a price contract for trophies, plaques, and silver for the Division of Parks and Recreation. Number four, a resolution accepting the bids of Montgomery Tractor Sales Incorporated, Central Equipment Company, Reynolds Farm Equipment, doing business as Reynolds Golf and Turf, Prices Tractor Sales Incorporated, and Alamo Sales Corporation, establishing price contracts for tractor and mower parts for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number five, a resolution accepting the bid of Klostermann Baking Company Incorporated, establishing a price contract for bakery products for the Division of Parks and Recreation. Number six, a resolution accepting the bid of ADS LLC in the amount of $536,794 for the SSA Group 2/3 Sewer Shed Field Activities Flow Monitoring Services Contract 2 for the Division of Water Quality, and authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute an agreement with ADS LLC related to the bid. Number seven, a resolution accepting the bids of budsgunshop.com, doing business as Bud's Police Supply, Galls Grants Tactical, Gulf State Distributors, Kentucky Uniforms Incorporated, and US Cavalry, establishing price contracts for police recruit equipment for the Division of Police. Number eight, a resolution accepting the bid of Lexington Foodservice, establishing a price contract for concession products for the Division of Parks and Recreation. Number nine, a reso- Madam Clerk, if you'll hold for just a moment, please. Councilmember Beard? Yes, thank you, Mayor. Um, there's a certain amount of contention over this, uh, this bid letting, and, um, the owner of the underbidder, uh, I guess underbidder, obviously an underbidder, um- ... would like a few moments at the podium to kinda s- explain his position and, uh, I believe Rod Chavez is here also, uh, in case anybody has any further questions of the water quality, um, uh, a- about this subject, but, um, Mr. Richard Lawrence, uh, if you'd like to step to the podium, and if you'd like, if you have the handout, uh, go ahead and ... Thank you, Mr. Lawrence. You'll have three minutes. Okay. Uh, Julian, uh, Beard, thank you very much and thank you, Council, uh, people for, uh, the opportunity to speak to you, to you. Uh, my name is Richard Lawrence. I'm the owner of Leak Eliminators. We are at 1064 Manchester Street. We've been, uh, doing, we've had a, uh, occupational license here for Lexington for like 12 years. Uh, uh, we've, do, uh, uh, primarily s- underground utility work in the last six to eight years. I'm sure we've worked in all of your districts and, um, and, and to help the, uh, uh, sewer service by doing camera and, and other types of work. Uh, reason for me s- to speak here, uh, w- this project was bid in April. It was, we were the low bidder on the project at, uh, $2.7 million and, uh, uh, we had talked to, uh, had a couple meetings about it and we talked to Mr. Markham a time or two and met with other people and uh, we, uh, were under the impression that we were going to be awarded the contract and I'd even met with Mr. Markham last week and asked that, you know, uh, that I be given the, uh, uh, uh, whenever a recommendation was made, that I would be given a copy of it. Well, I just happened to go in purchasing today to see if they'd made a decision on it and then I was presented with a, a, a, a recommendation that they were gonna recommend, recommend the project to a contractor in Cincinnati for $200,000 more than our bid. So all I'm asking is would y- this project has bid in April and I, at the time it bid, I thought that time was really of the essence to get it started, but, uh, you know, it hasn't been an attempt to do that and I would just ask that I would have another, uh, um, be able to meet with Mr. Markham as some of the things that were, information that were given to him I feel like that is in error and I think that we are in good standings with, uh, city of Lexington and, uh, we would certainly be able to provide a, uh, payment and performance bond of the two million seven hundred and something thousand dollars. So, uh, if you have any ques, all I'm asking is you please allow me, uh, the opportunity to have a further meeting with purchasing and, um, and if, if, if, if we can't change your opinion, well, I will have no more objections. If y- if you have a question, I'll be glad to answer it. Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence. If you'll hold on for just a second while, uh, I confer with Mr. Eskew here. Thank you, Mr. Lawrence. Thank you. Um, does anybody have any questions for Mr. Lawrence? Ms. James? I don't necessarily- Ms. James. ... have a question for, uh, Mr. Lawrence, but I do- ... have a question for Logan. Thank you, Mr. Lawrence. Thank you. Appreciate it. I'm glad you were able to make it tonight. Thanks. Logan, is, um, one of the questions that came up, or one of, in, uh, Mr. Lawrence's letter to council talked about that the contractor to which the contract was awarded doesn't have an occupational license for Lexi- Lexington. Is that a requirement for a company from out of state or out of the city to have an occupational license? I believe they would have to acquire a license before, if the contracts were awarded. Yes. After we pass it, but not as, it's not on a checklist of a pre- I'm not familiar- ... requisite? ... with the checklist and I wasn't on the committee, but they would have to be in- I see, uh, Mr. O'Mara stepping down. Mr. O'Mara. They would have to be in compliance with all local rules and regulations before they commenced any work. Okay. Uh, that is correct. And, and purchasing, uh, passes to the Division of Revenue, uh, before bid recommendations to make sure that if anyone is local, they're already registered and that if they are out of town, they've been notified that they have to register if they are awarded the bid. So we coordinate that review during the bid process. Okay, but it doesn't have to happen until after it passes council? That's correct. Okay. And then who checks -- who checks on that to make sure it actually does occur? It's between the Division of Revenue and Purchasing. Okay. Can you report back or can someone in either of those two divisions report back to us if this i- if this goes -- if this does pass tonight and it stays with, um, the company that was the non-low, can you let us know when they do submit that occupational, um, license information to you or the other division? Um, yes, I can do that. Thank you very much. Mm-hmm. Thanks, Mayor. Anything further? Council Member Lawless. Um, is this something that is critical that it be done right away or is... One of the issues I have is that we keep talking about economic development and growing our economy, keeping jobs, finding jobs and, you know, this is a sizable bid and once again, it's not only out of Fayette County, it's out of state. And, um, while we're having people laid off, so... And I don't know how we get around that, but especially when it's a non-low bid. So could we get some more information? Well, first of all, it's not something scheduled to be voted on tonight anyway. Right, this is the first reading. Uh, so it would be another couple of weeks unless somebody moved to suspend the rules, which I don't anticipate before, uh, we'd vote on it. Mr. Chervous is here if you'd like to, uh, hear from him now. He'll be glad to provide you with a little additional information about the rationale. Thank you. Rod Chervous, I'm the Collection and Conveyance Manager for the Division of Water Quality. And your question was about local employment and that, uh, part of the component, one of the subcontractors that's working, uh, on this, in fact about a third of the contract is local. Third- third of it, or about 1100 or le- 1.1 million dollars is local. And that's the company that's doing the, uh, uh, CCTV work. They're the ones that go in the TV and clean the, uh, the pipes. And that's Pipe Eyes. All right. Uh, Council Member Pires. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question about the RFP, and oh, w- can you answer that question? Um... I can answer most questions on the RFP, I'm familiar with it, yes. Okay, okay. Uh, one of the reasons, um, that is given to us for not accepting the low bid is that, um, it did not, did not include, uh, the smoke testing to identify the defects on the property. Um, and that the, um, the water quality is estimated, the cost for this work to be about $350,000. So was that included in the RFP when it went out? In the RFP, there is, uh, a component, uh, for the bid for smoke testing. And along with that in that the paragraph where we're discussing about smoke testing, they, uh, refer back to the sanitary sewer assessment work plan that was developed and submitted to the, uh, the EPA some time ago. Uh, part of that component indicates that you will identify the defects on private property, smoke defects when you, when you smoke test, uh, not only... Defects, meaning if there's a break in the pipe or if there's a connection to the storm sewers and that when you s- put smoke in the system under pressure, you'll see that. Mm-hmm. And part of it is you'll also see it on private property, uh, people's gutters smoking and things like that. And in the work plan, in the sanitary sewer assessment work plan, it does call that out. And we had, uh, uh, 41 questions that we asked of both the first and the second bidders. And during that, uh, one of the questions was specifically asking if they were going to do that and if they were going to use an electronic mapping system for that. Uh, a response to that was that, no, that was not part of that. So- The bid, the bid did not include that. Okay, so when the low bidder did not include that in his, his bid, then that eliminated him immediately because it didn't comply with the RFP? Yes. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I... Is, uh, Mr. O'Mara still back there? My questions go more to the point of, I think it's 83% of our revenue that the city takes in comes from the big three, I think. Mr. Mayor, could you come up? Is it, is it 83% or 83 cents on every dollar come from the big three, insurance tax, um, business license tax, and net profits, or occupational tax and net profits? Council Member Meyer, you have me. I don't know if it's 83% or not. It's a big portion. Okay. Mayor Abramson in Louisville has found a way to require that people that receive bids, to the best of my knowledge, in Louisville have to have an office or, or some type of location in Louisville. And I'm not sure all the particulars on that. What I would like to do is get more information on that because if the vast majority of our income comes from employee payroll tax and occupational tax, net profit taxes, then if we continue to send work outside of Fayette County- ... then we're shooting ourself in the foot. And I think that's kind of what another council member was alluding to earlier. So I guess, and I know we can't answer the question tonight. I know the mayor made a great point that we're not even gonna vote on this tonight. So I guess what I would like to see is maybe get some information on what Louisville does and how they're able to legally require that people are doing business with... in Lex... in Louisville in order to get city contracts. I may not be completely accurate on that. So what I wanna do is, is maybe put that issue into committee and get some information and do some research and see how we can't change our hiring process or our bidding process so that we ensure that work is done with local people when at all possible. So I r- I realize it's not really a question for you. My question was on, on the percentage of our, our income that comes from those two taxes. So I guess if it's appropriate to make a motion right now to put into committee that topic, then I would like to do that or if I need to wait till Tuesday to do that. Um, let me ask our parliamentarian, would a, would a motion to refer a matter to committee be appropriate at this time? And I, and I don't wanna refer this, this bid contract or this piece into the committee. That's not what I wanna do. Then it wouldn't be appropriate right now unless you want to ta- because the motion on the table is number or the discussion is based on number eight. Okay. Or yeah, number nine. So we can do that either later tonight or- Yeah, he can do it anytime. Tuesday or anytime. Okay. Can I do it later on tonight- Yeah. ... at the end of the meeting? Yeah. Okay. I'll do it 10:00 then. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. All right, uh, Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, Bill, just to help me through, uh, y- your processes in, in your former position, I guess, um, when a company is located elsewhere but comes in here to operate, do they pay occupation tax? Yes, sir. They- That's, that's the process for when they are awarded the bid, then they are required to register as a business, uh, doing activity in Fayette County. At that point, they are, uh, required to withhold on all, um, employees working in Fayette County regardless of where they reside and also then they're required to file a net profit tax at the end of the year. Okay. Uh, does this hold true for consultants and other entities that, uh... I know at one time, for instance, Lexmark had, uh, eight or 900 consultants on, on staff, uh, out there. And I just wonder if they fell through our cracks or whether they were, uh, identified and then, uh, we, we got a piece of that action also. Well, uh, I think you're talking about 1099, uh, work- Yeah. ... that is, is subject and we, um, with our information sharing agreement with the IRS, uh, we now have, uh, access to 1099s issued, uh, by employers in Fayette County. And then, uh, state statute also was changed that, uh, would allow the requirement of filing the 1099s within a return as part of the business return. Okay. Thank you very much. That's why I just wanted to get that clear for everybody and me. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I was gonna ask the same question of Mr. Romero, so I, I yield to Ms. Crosby. Thank you. Um, I have, uh, just a question, a couple questions. Did you say, um, with the bid that the, uh, Cincinnati company had partnered with a local company? Yes. They have partnered with a local company, yes. Okay. And, um, as far as the bid is concerned, is there a timeline that they need to complete this work? This work, uh, it was based on the consent decree and we had two, three years and, and six months to be able to finish. We break it up into three different components. This is component two and three. And we were looking at having all the information in by December next year. Uh, if we don't get the thing wet in... next month, we have the smoke, the smoke testing component in that, we are going to lose the schedule and it's gonna be very difficult to make it up for next year. Uh, there are a lot quantities of half a million feet of CCTV and of cleaning the sewers. 13,000 manholes are going to be inspected and about two million feet of pipe that are gonna be smoke tested. We're gonna try to get most of the smoke testing done this season. It's, it's already... We started this process last November and we've had... we've broken the contract up, rebid it, uh, it's been a very difficult process to try to get it on track. So I guess your answer is it's pretty imperative we get it started. It's imperative. And then lastly, um, when, when, uh, these companies come into bid, I just wanna make sure I understand that, um, if they don't... that, that you put something out for bid and it's got say A, B, C, D, E, F and if, for example, one company did not meet AB, then they're immediately thrown out, correct? So you have another company that has met all conditions and that's who awarded the bid regardless if they were $200,000 more because the other ones did not meet the entire criteria of the bid? Yes. In the bid process, yes. So in fact, it could have possibly been a higher bid if all conditions had been met under the, um, conditions? That's possible, yes. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I have a couple quick questions, Rod. Um, one for you. W- uh, in that bid process, um, do you also look at, um, historical information with the companies that have bid? Whether urban county government has had, um, experience with them and w- what that has shown. Under this process, no. If it was the engineering component that we had of it, you would look at the qualifications. We didn't have the component of reviewing qualifications and experience like we do if it was an engineering-type project. Okay. Okay. And then I had a quick question for Mr. O'Mara. Um- ... in the discussions about the occupational license and the fee, um, now- Yeah. ... any company that does the work here in Fayette County will pay, their workers will pay the occupational license fee, correct? It's the responsibility of the employer to withhold on the activities- So- ... in Fayette County. Okay. So is that what you were relating back to the forms? Um, the forms? The 1099 and some of those forms? Or what- No, ma'am. 1099 would be a consultant payment rather than a payroll where they're actually have an employee-employer relationship. So if this bid is accepted, then this company would legally be required to pay the occupational license fee for the work done in Fayette County? That is correct. Do- do we give out-of-town companies or companies that partner with local companies some sort of information piece that says, "This is what is, will be required"? Uh, purchasing, uh, has, as part of their process, informing them of the requirements of being licensed and what our local occupational tax is. It, when they're awarded, uh, we have a little two-page fact sheet that's basically our registration form, and that's delivered to them for, for completion, and then that puts them onto, registers them basically, and puts them on our license fee database. And so you would know eventually if they didn't pay it? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Council member Lawless. Thank you, Mayor. Um, the other issue is, a- and it's not just about this particular one, but I've brought this up before. Um, they don't have to pay payroll tax on their workers that, say, work in the Cincinnati office shuffling paper, et cetera. And then we need to look at where are they buying their materials. Are they buying their materials out of town and out of state? Um, and I really think it's something we need to address in a broader way. But I have one more question. So they didn't answer one of 40 questions to your satisfaction, and so did they have an opportunity to come back and offer more information? How does that work? Or do you just, th- they're next and go? And this is just kind of an educational thing for me . Is there anybody that... No. Uh. Mr. Lawrence. Yeah, it seems... Is that okay? Uh, I really, uh, Council, I really appreciate you giving me much more time than I expected. I would talk fast, but I can't. Um, a couple things that I wanna say is in regards, there's been some misinformation, and that's one of the problems. This, this, uh, bid on the smoke testing, it was to do two million, like, 660,000 feet. Two million, 660,000 feet. May- mayor? Mayor? Or, or, or whatever the eg- uh, requirement was. And all of us bidders bid on the same quantity. Ex- excuse me. Point, point of order, Mayor. I, I- Council member Myers. I'm not sure, ah, that... With all due respect, the gentleman should be able to come back up and continue to interface. I think the council members oughta be able to ask questions if they have questions, but for him to continue to just come up and plead his case, I'm not sure that that's- All right. ... appropriate. It may be that to the extent he's- I- ... he's got an answer to a question raised by Council Member Lawless, it'd be appropriate for him to answer that as opposed to talking about other things. So if you have any, any response to Council Member Lawless- Oh yeah, that's what I was trying to respond to, was her question. The, um, eh, we, all of the people who bid on it bid on the same, on the same amount. It's, it was just in one of the books, it was just a question as to whether we got paid for doing work on private property or we did not get paid for work on private property. And I thought that had been addressed fully after the meeting. And, uh, let me just say one other thing. Uh, a- um, and I appreciate, uh, Mr. Meyer's comment about the, uh, Louisville. We bid in Louisville, and they have a requirement, they penalize you 5% if you don't have a business there. There's also a stipulation there that they can penalize you if you don't have a Ford truck because they're made there. ... uh, uh, I think, I think you've answered the question sufficiently. Okay, but I, all right, thank you very much, thank you. And, and I will- Thank you, Diane. ... try to get with purchasing and see if we can get more information on just the whole process and what we can do. If I could answer the question, uh, that you, that you asked about. Okay. We had a list of 41 questions we gave to both, uh, both parties. Uh, gave them about a week to be able to respond to it. They came back with written responses. Uh, both of them brought in either written responses or verbal responses. Uh, when we had a further question, that we asked them to be able to submit in writing if they had any further information on all of those questions and gave everybody ample time to respond to that. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you all very much. Thank you, Mayor. Vice Mayor Gray. Uh, my comments will be, uh, pretty quick. I, I, um, but I think it's worthwhile to reflect and step back as in the three years that I've been on the council, I think this is perhaps the first occasion where we have had, um, um, a vendor who has actually needed or felt they needed, or the company needed to come to the council. And I think that, um, in, when we consider the literally hundreds of millions of dollars of purchases that are made by, uh, this government, uh, that illustrates that our systems are, are, are pretty sound. Um, having said that, I also believe that it's worthwhile that, that since we have a, um, we will, we will actually vote on this on the 27th, which should give us at least enough time if we need to, if any- to examine, um, the bid tabulation. I assume that there's a bid tab, the purchasing does a nice job of, of tabulating bids and developing a matrix which illustrates the numbers and, uh, the attributes, the criteria that have been examined. And so we should have enough time to do that between now and the 27th. Thank you, Ma- Council Member Beard. Thank you, ma'am. Um, Rob, one other question. I, I guess the, the delay, I, in, in Mr. Lawrence finding out the answer about if in fact he was dequal- disqualified early, why wouldn't he know that early? Uh, I really can't answer that for, uh, purchasing. Uh, we... Purchasing was involved also in the process of asking questions and things like that, and I, I can't. All right, that, that may be something else we might want to explore also. Thank you. Council Member Meyers. Thank you, Mayor. The, the question has been asked a couple of different times as to whether or not companies who are located outside of Fayette County have to pay the occip- occupational tax when they register and then their employees actually do work physically in Fayette County. I want to clarify that my, my questions really don't relate specifically to this application here. And the fact that companies that pay, that occupational tax that are outside of Fayette County is a good thing. But I think the real opportunity loss, the opportunity cost of continuing to give contracts to people that live outside of Fayette County is this, that, that people who live in Fayette County, uh, buy groceries in Fayette County. People who live in Fayette County buy gasoline in Fayette County. People who live in Fayette County buy cell phones in Fayette County. People who live in Fayette County spend their entertainment dollars in Fayette County. That's the opportunity lost or opportunity cost when we continue to send contracts to companies that are outside of Fayette County. When their employees come here during the day and work, we get the occupational tax off of them working here that day. But when they go back home at night, and they spend all the rest of the money that they spend to do their daily lives, that's done in another state or another county. What we want to do, I think, when we turn- when we talk in terms of economic development is grow our homegrown businesses. And if we continue to send the contracts outside, then those outside companies continue to add to their labor force and then just bus them in over here and do work and go back home. What we want to see happen is our employers here in Fayette County hire people and retain people and promote people and give more pay and more income to people so that they can buy cell phones here and gasoline here and groceries here and spend their entertainment dollars here. So when I talk about putting that issue in committee, I'm really talking about that overall issue. Nothing that really relates to this topic today or this individual contractor today. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Um, yes, I just have a followup to Council Member Lawless's question regarding when, um, about the follow up and you said something, um, did they have the opportunity to respond when they didn't answer all the questions or when... Is, is that the case? You said that they did have the opportunity to respond- Yes. ... and they did not? They did respond. And in fact, on the one question that, uh, was of the smoke testing and what was added in the smoke testing, they had indicated that there was some question in their proposal on if that was included or not. And that was one of the main things that we took a look at for this decision. Okay, so when they had the opportunity to respond, you took another look at it, in essence, and then still determined that it was not adequately answered? Yes. Okay. And again, um, are, is, um... Well, never mind, I'll stop there. Thank you. Council Member Blaine. All right. I'm sorry, uh, Mayor, I just felt compulsed to say something here. I think it's important that whenever possible we do hire people who live in Fayette County, but when, um... We also need to encourage a free market economy and a fair, uh, bidding opportunity for every business whether they are in the city or not. ... because our primary thing is to get a quality job at the best price for the taxpayer. And by even having, uh, companies that are out- outside of Fayette County come and bid, that makes it more competitive and gives us more options for, uh, bidding. And, uh, you might, and I think the Vice Mayor would agree, that if this policy, uh, was in effect i- in every county, he wouldn't have very much business because he doesn't bid much in Fayette County, he bids in other cities. Ha- I just, I think it's shortsighted and we have to keep that in mind, that we need a free market economy in Lexington. We want to encourage everybody to come in here and bid and to do business with us and to pay their occupational tax to us. Thank you. W- let me, um, elaborate and, and I would encourage, uh, Commissioner O'Mara to set me straight if I, uh, mischaracterize the situation. Currently, unlike some other cities, we don't give a preference, a quantifiable preference to local businesses. However, we do have in our bid review, uh, requirements a provision that says about a half dozen different factors are to be considered by the bid reviewers. One of those includes the local presence of the company. So I think there was somebody that, that alluded to what goes on in Louisville where you get a 5% benefit or something like that. We do not do that. But at least in, in the list that people are supposed to give some consideration to local presence is one of the issues. Now, that's subject to change. A- and I would just make mention of the fact that once you open the door to local businesses, then you're going to have several others, the, uh, Ford truck pickup drivers that I think somebody mentioned a moment ago, may seek similar preferences and you gotta be prepared to deal with that. You may conclude this one is so important it oughta be the single preference and if so, that's an appropriate policy decision for the council to make. But just wanted to give you that little bit of history for those of you who might not be aware of that. Council member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanna thank Council Member Lane for making the point I was going to, to make. We want the, the, uh, uh, the best job done for the money we spend on these extremely important projects, uh, and that, and that these jobs should be open to all competitive bidders. Thank you, Mayor. Council member Myers. I just wanna remind my good friend, uh, Mr. Lane, that when you look at Louisville, they've got derricks and booms up, and they're building all kinds of construction in Louisville and their economy's booming and they have this policy in place and it doesn't seem to affect their, their economy in a negative fashion. So, um, I think we oughta put it to committee and take a look at it. Vice Mayor Gray. Wanna go over to Louisville, sounds like. Uh- Sure. Y- ca- I, I was gonna make a, uh, observation that, and, and we do, we, we are getting into a lot of ar- arcane, um, issues on this, uh, but sometimes it's relevant that, that in the bid process like this, um, one of the issues that a, a contractor, a firm like Leak Eliminators is faced with is, you know, when they prepare a bid and they put the energy into it and they get, in order to, to offer a bid for a project like this for a government, um, whether it's a municipal government, or whether it's a federal, or whether it's state, they are required to provide a bid bond. And it's not a casual undertaking to secure a bid bond. A surety company reviews these contractors before they will give them and, that bid bond. So, and, that's, and so, a, a significant issue that our purchasing and that we as a council have to consider is the extent to which when we do make a decision to award a bid to a company other than the low bid, now on what basis are we making that judgment? And for me, that question is even more relevant when a scope of a project like this is identified clearly and carefully, and a bid bond and a performance and payment bond is required of the vendor or the contractor, which was the case apparently here. So that's one of the questions that I'll have between now and the 27th that I'd like to ask Brian, 'cause that does present a different, uh, it could present a different point of view. Thank you, Mayor. And, um, just in anticipation of a couple weeks from now, we'll ask Mr. Marcum to plan on being here to detail the process for you at that time. Council member Lawless. Um, I agree with, uh, what Vice Mayor Gray said and, um, Council Member Myers, and I th- I just think referring it to committee and looking at what we do going forward in the bid process, and I also wanna compliment, uh, the purchasing department. I've worked with them a couple of times. I know they work really hard, but we have to put the policies in place to give them the tools to do what they need to do. That's all. Thank you. Council member Wayne. Thank you, Mayor. I, I just wanted to also set the record straight that, uh, central Kentucky has the best educated workforce in the state. We have higher educational levels than Louisville. We have a higher per capita income. We've had a more positive growth rate over the last two decades than Louisville. Our unemployment rate is the lowest in Kentucky. Uh, and the Louisville MSA employment rate is over 10%. So, I don't think their, uh, policies on hiring people have anything to do, uh, with anything. I think we just have a great community here. I think we're ready to move ahead here. I, I'll hold my comments till we put it in committee. Thank, thank you. All right. Madam Clerk. Number nine. A resolution accepting the bid of Woolpert in the amount of $2,933,902.20 for the SSA Group 23 Sewershed Field Activities, Field Services Contract 3 for the Division of Water Quality and authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute an agreement with Woolpert related to the bid. Number 10. A resolution accepting the bid of Tobacco Rose Farm Construction and Development Services in the amount of $1,381,531 for the SSA Group 23 Sewershed Field Activities Raising Manhole Covers Contract 4 for the Division of Water Quality and authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute an agreement with Tobacco Rose Farm Construction and Development Services related to the bid. Number 11. A resolution ratifying the probationary civil service appointments of Sherra Maddox, Eligibility Counselor, Grade 110E 1161.10 biweekly in the Division of Adult Services and Tenant Services effective September 14th, 2009. Robert Andrews, Hostler Grade 104N 13.596 hourly in the Division of Police effective August 17th, 2009. Victor Abano, Computer Analyst, Grade 115E 1,472 biweekly in the Division of Computer Services effective August 31st, 2009. Alycia Smith, Administrative Specialist, Grade 110N 16.540 hourly in the Division of Water Quality, effective August 17th, 2009. Christina Stambaugh, Program Administrator, Grade 117E 2,357.12 biweekly in the Department of Social Services effective August 3rd, 2009. Charles Neal, Public Service Worker Senior, Grade 107N 13.167 hourly in the Division of Water Quality, effective July 20th, 2009. Clarence Steel, Public Service Supervisor Senior, Grade 114E 1,842.32 biweekly in the Division of Waste Management effective August 10th, 2009. Rebecca Weems, Program Manager Senior, Grade 120E 2,634.61 biweekly in the Division of Waste Management effective July 20, 2009. Ratifying the probationary sworn appointments of John Barnott, Rick Branham, Jerome Brown, Shane Callaghan, Eric Campbell, Daniel Clemens, Kevin Clemens, Adam Davis, Joseph Elliott, Chris Gacek, Jeffrey Hallman, John Harris Junior, Jesse Holman, Michael Hurt, Jeffrey Hilton, Shalonda Jackson, Mark Lucas, Stephen Parker, Richard Peak, Anthony Relaford, Matthew Schwurburg, Aaron Sharrow, Christopher Spears, Charlton Sweezy, David Waters, Gary Weddington the Second Firefighter, Grade 111N 17.027 hourly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services effective August 31st, 2009. Jason Walton, Fire Lieutenant, Grade 315N 17.268 hourly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective July 20th, 2009. Leslie Fryman, Fire Captain, Grade 316N 22.368 hourly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective July 20, 2009. Ratifying the permanent sworn appointments of Jonathan Abbott, Christopher Burlyle, Christopher Carrington, Charles Davis, Brian Derman, Mark Evans, Joseph Folinski, Robert Fraser, Timothy Fritz the Second, Christopher Harris, Brad Hawkins, Ryan Holland, Jeffrey Howard Junior, John Linton, Christopher Mason, Brian Missick, Brandon Moravcik, Jason Newman, James Norris, Jesse Palmer, Richard Rader, Marcus Sell, Aaron Sherard, Donna Shepard, Kevin Slowes, Tyler Smith, Sean Stafford, John Steele the Third, Michael Tolby, Nicholas Whitcombe, James Winter, police officer, grade 311N in the Division of Police, effective June 10th, 2009. Approving the unclassified civil service appointment of Shannon Gordon, social worker, grade 111E, 1677.76 biweekly in the Department of Social Services, effective August 31st, 2009. Approving the unclassified civil service salary adjustment in the office of the Irving County Council of Ronald Scott Seymour, aide to council, grade 000E 1856.80 biweekly to 1923.08 biweekly in the Office of the Urban County Council, effective June 1, 2009. Approving the voluntary demotion of Scott Kelly, Client Assessment Counselor, grade 112E 1,346.35 biweekly in the Division of Adult Services and Tenant Services, effective August 24th, 2009. Number 12. A resolution of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government requesting that the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority issue industrial building revenue bonds to finance an industrial building project in Lexington-Fayette County for Goodwill Industries of Kentucky Incorporated. Number 13. A resolution of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government approving the application of the Lexington Christian Academy Incorporated for educational building revenue, refunding and improvement bonds related to an industrial building project, undertaking the issuance of educational building revenue, refunding and improvement bonds to finance and refinance the project, authorizing the execution of memorandum of agreement relating to the project and the bonds and taking other preliminary action. Number 14. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute certificates of consideration and other necessary documents for property interests needed for the Leaseway Drive Sanitary Sewer Project at a cost not to exceed $5,000. Number 15. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute certificates of consideration and other necessary documents for property and trust needed for the Beverly Avenue Sanitary Sewer Project at a cost not to exceed $50,000. Number 16. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute an amendment to agreement with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for extension of the FY 2007 Fiber Optic Cable Installation Project through June 30, 2010 at no cost to the Urban County government. Number 17. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute an amendment to agreement with the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security for extension of Metropolitan Medical Response Systems Project through July 31st, 2009, at no cost to the Urban County government. Number 18. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute a mental health services agreement with Bluegrass Regional Mental Health Mental Retardation Board Incorporated for court-ordered mental health evaluations of clients referred to the Division of Youth Services at a cost not to exceed $2,000. Number 19. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute and submit a grant application to the Knight Foundation, and to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application, which grant funds are in the amount of $4,000 and are for continuation of the Another Chance program for the Division of Youth Services. Number 20. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute two partial releases of easements, releasing portions of sanitary sewer easements on property located at Sand Lake and Estates Properties, Section 2, Lot 2, and at Lot 1, 105 Sand Lake Drive. Number 21. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute an assignment of collateral with Providence Business Center, LLC and Fifth Third Bank at no cost to the Urban County government. Number 22. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute a facility usage agreement with Consolidated Baptist Church for use of the Andrews Center at a cost not to exceed 7-28, $728.90. Number 23. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute a memorandum of understanding with the Kentucky Department of Military Affairs for utilization of the Department of Military Affairs radio communication system at no cost to the Urban County government. Number 24. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute an agreement with the Internal Revenue Service for reimbursement of certain police expenses at no cost to the Urban County government. Number 25. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute change order number two to the contract with G&G Paving and Construction Incorporated for the Valley Park Parking Renovation Project, increasing the contract price by the sum of $9,376.50 from $40,700 to $50,076.50. Number 26. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute a power of attorney appointing Kimra Cole, the Commissioner of General Services, as attorney-in-fact to act for the Urban County government in connection with the US Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency and Community Credit Corporations Programs with regard to all Urban County-owned real property subject to the programs. Number 27. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute agreements with NAMI Lexington Incorporated, $875, Alpha Beta Lambda Chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha, $850, Meadow Loudoun Neighborhood Association, $250, and Beaumont Presbyterian Church of Lexington, Kentucky Incorporated, $250 for the office of the Urban County Council at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. Number 28. A resolution amending section one of resolution number 5002009, which ratified probationary civil service appointments, correcting the salary of Dan Dettman, Environmental Compliance Coordinator, grade 119E from 2289.28 biweekly to 2389.28 biweekly in the Division of Environmental Policy, effective July 6th, 2009. Number 29. A resolution amending section two of resolution number 5172009, which ratified probationary civil service appointments, correcting the salary of Angela Mullins, Probation Officer, grade 110N from 16.062 hourly to 15.062 hourly in the Division of Community Corrections, effective July 20, 2009. Number 30. A resolution making a declaration of official intent with respect to reimbursement from subsequent borrowings of temporary advances made for capital expenditures for implementation of the time and labor payroll conversion of Project Synergy in the approximate amount of $600,000. Number 31. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute a professional services agreement with Berkeley Appraisal Company for appraisal services for Citation Boulevard Phase Two at a cost not to exceed $50,550. Number 32. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute an amendment to the agreement with Kentucky Utilities Company for relocation of utilities for the Liberty Todds Road Reconstruction, increasing the contract price by the sum of $48,318.45 from $96,782 to $145,100.45. Number 33. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute change order number two to the contract with Central Rock Mineral Company, LLC ATS Construction for Loudoun Avenue Improvements Project, increasing the contract price by the sum of $356,025.23 from $4,604,017.13 to $4,960,042.36. Number 34. Resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute change order number two to the contract with Mack Construction and Excavating Incorporated for Meadows Northland Arlington Public Improvements Design Phase 3B, increasing the contract price by the sum of $24,976.85 from $1,209,895.44 to $1,234,872.29. Number 35. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to accept a donation of 11 complete used federal signal outdoor warning sirens from the Madison County Emergency Management Agency. Thank you very much, Madam Clerk. Um, at our work session on Tuesday, eh, I think Councilmember Gordon suggested, um, some additional information from Commissioner O'Mara about the options with regard to number 30 would be appropriate, and I know he circulated a memo. Um, Councilmember Gordon, I, uh, will ask for your guidance about how you'd like to proceed, whether you want him to go through the memo or other suggestions. Well, thank you, Mr. O'Mara, for providing this. It is, um, what I was looking for. I would, I guess I would simply, I, I don't have a question based on what you provided us. I don't know that other councilmembers do, so... Does any- anyone have any follow-up for Mr. O'Mara? All right. Are there motions, then, with regard to the f- resolutions receiving first reading? Councilmember McCord, I understood you had an item you wanted to give second reading to? Thank you, Mayor. Uh, item number 17, uh, this is time-sensitive so that we can, uh, uh, have these funds available. So moved. Motion is to suspend the rules for purposes of giving second reading to item number 17. Is there a second? Second. Councilmember Blues has seconded that motion. Are there others that we can include? Councilmember Lane? Uh, thank you, Mayor. Uh, resolution number 21. And the re- reason for the request is that, um, while we were on break, the mayor was unable to sign documents that's holding up a bank closing. So move. All right. We'll, uh, treat that as a friendly amendment to Councilmember McCord's motion. Are there others? All right, we have a motion to amend the... uh, to suspend the rules for purposes of giving second reading to items number 17 and 21. Those in favor of suspending the rules for those two items, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Madam Clerk. Number 17. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute an amendment to agreement with the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security for extension of the Metropolitan Medical Response Systems Project through July 31st, 2009 at no cost to the Urban County government. And number 21, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County government to execute an assignment of collateral with Providence Business Center, LLC, and Fifth Third Bank at no cost to the Urban County government. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve those two items? So moved. Councilmember, uh, Ellinger has moved to approve those two items. Second. Councilmember Beard has seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll proceed to vote. All in favor of approving those items, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed vote nay electronically. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Miss Vigal. Miss Gordon. Aye. Mr. Gray. Yes. Miss Henson. Yes. Miss James. Mr. Lane. Yes. Miss Lawless. Yes. Mr. McCord. Yes. Mr. Meyers. Yes. Mr. Stennett. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard. Aye. Mr. Blues. Yes. Miss Crosby. Yes. Mr. Ellinger. Thank you. Those, uh, resolutions are approved. That takes us down to item seven on the agenda, communications from the mayor. A motion to approve those, uh, three... those appointments would be in order. So moved. Second. Have a motion by Councilmember Lane and a second by Councilmember Henson to approve the appointments. Any discussion? Councilmember, uh, Gordon. Uh, Mayor, I, um, I noticed that number two, uh, Mr. Paulson would replace Mr. Day and that number... and that, um, Miss Roche Phillips would be reappointed, and I wondered, uh, if you have... um, if we will be getting a recommendation to, um, fulfill Mr., uh, Vaughn's position. Yes. What- I expect that will be probably at the next or the... the... either next week or the week after at the work session for consideration on the 27th. Okay, so that... I'm hoping the planning commission knows that, so they won't go into their 60-day rule. You think that will work out? Yeah, I, I think the 60 days expires the end of this month, and I hope we'll be squared away by then. Okay. Thank you. All right. Those in favor of approving those- Yeah, Mayor. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilmember James. Um, with that same, that same thing, um, uh, tagging onto what Councilmember Gordon's talking about, one of the things that came up today in our confirmation discussions was, um, the vacancy kind of needs on planning commission, and we talked about that maybe affordable housing, um, might be an issue that might need to be... as you think about appointments in the future, that affordable housing is an issue or an... a topic that's an area of specialty, um, might be needed in planning commission. Did you say on the planning commission? Sorry. On planning commission, yeah. Just food for thought. I'll keep that in mind. Planning commission appointments are difficult. Um, obviously there's some very significant issues, and you want to try to make sure you have good folks there, but if any of you, uh, have paid much attention to the planning commission, you know the incredible commitment of time and energy and, and training you have to make in order to participate in the planning commission. Um, but that's certainly a valid topic for consideration, and we'll see if we can find someone with that particular focus. Thank you. Anything further? Those then in favor of approving those appointments, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. There are several communications for information purposes only under item eight. Item nine is the, um, building inspection report. Are there any announcements under number 10? We have, uh, a couple of individuals who have indicated a desire to comment in the public comment section. The first, uh, is Mr. McCarthy. If you'll step to the podium, you'll have three minutes. And then Mr. Keeler? Mr. Keeler? Great. For the record, my name is Bernard McCarthy. My address is 515 Harry Street. I want to say tonight that first, I think you should be building streets, not streetscapes. I would strongly object if this government does anything to any streets that reduce their traffic-carrying capacity, but I also object if you spend money on redecorating the streets in a fashion that doesn't help their capacity any, but uses up a lot of money beyond normal repair and maintenance. I don't really think that we should be spending tax money on decorations and aesthetics, not when we have such a great need for more capacity all over the county. And finally, where there's been much bickering reported in the press lately over whether or not certain utilities should be overhead or underground, and it's been presented as an argument of aesthetics versus cost, would somebody please check the facts on are, are underground wires any more reliable than overhead? I'm very familiar with all the things that knock out the overhead wires, ice, trees falling due to ice or wind, vehicles crashing into poles, et cetera. I'm a little less sure of what sort of things knock out underground wires, or how, or whether those occur more frequently or less frequently than the things that knock out the overhead wires, and that's something that ought to be considered is, what's going to keep the electricity on during the next ice storm or the next windstorm? Not just what looks nicest or what costs least, but need to consider reliability and safety. Thank you very much, Mr. McCarthy. Then is it Mr. Keillor? Uh, thank you for the opportunity, uh, to speak at this time. Um, I'd like to just address a little bit the article that was in the newspaper today about Newtown Pike extension. And, um, I guess after reading it, I have the question, what are we proposing as a city? A gateway to, uh, the horse capital of the world? Or is it just gonna be another town in America that's gonna be lined, uh, with utility poles, signs, driveways, in and out of, uh, businesses and so forth? Now, the drawings and the pictures show us a different scene from that. What they show is, is a parkway basically. There's street trees. There's landscaping, possibly, possibly even some artwork and walkways, a parkway leading to something that is alive and exciting, and we wanna come to this town and be a part of what's going on downtown, a place where I would wanna return again and again. The latter image won't happen if this street is another thoroughfare. I read in the lea- in the, uh, Leader today that, uh, Mr. Kelly, adviser to the mayor, said overhead lines were always the plan. If true, then these lines should have been shown in the illustrations. Also, are the price differences between the installation of overhead lines and underground utilities, as stated in the paper, accurate? There's, uh, some figures quoted there that it's $35 per lineal foot for overhead and a whopping figure of $475 per foot for underground. The streetscape will be cleared land free of most of the problems that would raise such exorbitant prices for underground utilities, at least I would think so. You, the council, need to stand up and be forthright about what is being proposed. What is needed, in my view, is a parkway. If I may, I would like to leave you with some photos of actual scenes in downtown Lexington to illustrate what the Newtown Pike extension will likely look like if utilities are constructed overhead. It may not look like this at the start, but give it time, and it will look like these photos show. I think you will agree it will not be an acceptable gateway for our city. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Keillor. Does anyone else wish to address the council? Chief Hendricks has some disciplinary matters to bring to our attention. Thank you, Mayor, Council. Have, um, three separate disciplinary matters. In each of the three cases, the, um, recommendations have been signed off on by the employee. In the matter of, uh, Joe Nugent, employee number 40034, committed the offense of misconduct, uh, division recommends a written reprimand. And, again, he has, uh, signed off with his concurrence. Councilmember Ehlinger has moved that we accept the recommended discipline. Councilmember Crosby has seconded that. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Chief. In the matter of William Taylor, employee number 42989, uh, also committed the offense of misconduct. ... uh, for which he was -- uh, has been recommended a written reprimand. Again, uh, he has signed with his concurrence. I have a motion from Council Member Ellinger to accept, and Council Member Crosby, uh, has seconded that motion. Chief, did you say what the misconduct was? No sir, I did not. I'd be happy to. Uh, for Mr. Taylor- Both. Uh, for both, uh, with Mr. Nugent, was disrespectful to a citizen and had a public conflict with another professional. Mr. Taylor, uh, m- made or implied a, a verbal threat, and, uh, I might add he, uh, also had mandatory E- EAP Employee Assistance. And was the threat against an employee or a citizen? En- employee. Fellow employee. That's right. All right. I have a motion to accept the recommended discipline. Any, um, discussion? All in favor say, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, "No." Motion carries. And in the matter of George J. Lusby, uh, employee number 30508, uh, has committed the offense of gambling while on duty, and he, too, was issued, uh, recommended a written reprimand, and has signed his concurrence. So moved. I have a motion to accept and a second. Motion's by Council Member Ellinger, the second's by Council Member Crosby. Any discussion? Right. Those in favor, please say, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, "No." Motion carries. Thank you very much. I know we have a public hearing scheduled for approximately this time. I'm sorry. We- Uh, Uh- Do we have a disciplinary matter? There's a police disciplinary. Sorry. I have two employees. Uh, first, on January 17th, '09, while responding to a resisting prisoner at Fayette County Detention Center, Officer Matthew Jordan violated Lexington Division of Police policies by not completing the proper reports and extending courtesy to a citizen. Uh, Officer Jordan has signed an Agreement of Conformity for 20 hours of suspension without pay and Mandatory Employee Assistance Program. I have a motion by Council Member McCord and a second by Council Member Blues to accept the recommended discipline. Any discussion? All in favor, please say, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, "No." Motion carries. Second matter, on April 4th, 2009, while responding to a dispatch call, Officer Christopher Martin violated Lexington Division of Police policy by taking inappropriate actions while dealing with the call. Officer Martin has signed a, uh, Agreement of Conformity for 20 hours of suspension without pay and Mandatory Employee Assistance Program. Motion to accept. I have a motion by Council Member McCord to accept the proposed discipline. Council Member Beard has seconded that motion. Any discussion? All in favor, please say, "Aye." Oppose, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Is anything further to come before the council at this time, other than the zone change? All right. Uh, we don't need to adjourn, correct? We'll recess for, uh, say until 8:30 and- and reconvene at that time. What's the big difference between the mic and the cute- No kick. No, no, no. ... ... a zone of hearing for a requested rezoning and I'm gonna to ask Mr. Bill, if he will please take us through the procedure because as many times as I've done it, I should know by heart now, but I don't. I admit it. And I know you do, because you've done it, well, a couple of times anyhow, right? Yes, sir. So if you would just r- tell us what we're gonna do tonight. Finally. You'll have, er, first thing will be a, a second reading given to the ordinance proposing to rezone the property. Then your public hearing will commence where you'll hear from myself, representing the planning staff. You'll be presented with the staff report on the zone change, the Planning Commission's recommendation from their public hearing. At the conclusion of that presentation, you'll hear from the applicant and their representatives, who are requesting this rezoning. Following that, there will be an opportunity for any citizens present to speak to the request. Following that, there will be a period of rebuttal, uh, for, uh, rebuttal testimony from anything that's been said previously. Following that, usually the council has a period of time where they ask questions of all the presenters in the evening. Then usually the council will consider, after all their questions have been asked and answered, uh, considering adopting findings of fact and then voting on the ordinance. All right. Thank you, Bill. The first thing I need to do is, uh, swear in anybody who is, um, testifying today. So if you all will stand and hold up your right hand. Uh, do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Now I need a second reading, please. Yeah, just keep pro- telling them. An ordinance changing the zone from a single family residential R1D zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for 1.36 net, 1.83 gross acres for property located at 2981 Cadent Town Road and 3097, a portion of Old Todds Road, subject to certain use restrictions imposed as conditions of granting the zone change. Todds Road Development LLC. Um, Council Member Ellinger has pointed out to me that, um, I need to inform the, everyone present that the presiding officer has the authority to make evidentiary decisions to exclude irrelevant and repetitious testimony from the record. Okay. That means try to avoid repeating yourself. That's the way I read it. Am I correct on that? Okay. Close? All right. So, um, Mr. Bill, now what's gonna occur now, for those who are viewing audience, uh, the, um, Mr. Sally is representing the city's planning department. And he will present the planning department's, uh, point of view, um, findings of the planning department. And Bill, will you also tell us about the commission's findings? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. Mr. Vice Mayor, thank you, members of the council. Good evening. As is necessary, I have a number of items to enter into the record of your public hearing this evening. The first is the legal notice that was published in the local newspaper, advertising your public hearing this evening. The next item is an affidavit signed by myself regarding the mailed notices that were sent to all the property owners within 400 feet of the site that you'll be reviewing this evening, and also the two neighborhood association letters that were sent to the nearest registered neighborhood associations. The next item is the recommendation from the urban county council, pardon me, from the Urban County Planning Commission for their public hearing held on May 28th regarding this zone change request. This was distributed to you during the break and to members of the audience as well. I enter into the record a copy of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan that's been adopted by the Planning Commission. Copies of the current zoning ordinance and land subdivision regulations that are in effect for the urban county. And finally, I'd like to enter into the record a few photographs that I'll be showing you during the course of my presentation. And I'd also like to circulate these to you, uh, at this time. The rezoning before you tonight proposes an amendment to Sheet 43 of the Urban Service Area Zoning Atlas. That map is to my immediate left. And the subject property before you this evening is just under 1.4 net acres of property, and it is a portion of two pieces of land that are both north of Man O War Boulevard... and east of Liberty Road. These properties, one has an address of Old Todds Road, which is here, has an intersection with Liberty Road at this location. The other address is on Cadentown Lane, here, and this used to be a portion of Liberty Road. It has been, in essence, replaced, uh, by new construction o- of a much wider and improved Liberty Road. The zone change request that you're reviewing this evening is a, is an application to rezone portions of two parcels from R1D that is a single family residential zone to a neighborhood business, B1 zone. Most of the property is the Cadentown Road address at just over an acre and a little over a quarter of an acre of it is a portion of 3097 Old Todds Road, most of which is already zoned B1, as indicated by the red on this map. There's a blow up of the map on the overhead. I'd like to orient you again to the zoning that exists in this area. Again, the subject property is R1D, as is property on either side of it, across the new Liberty Road, parcel immediately adjacent, and parcels across Cadentown Lane. The Cadentown Lane, pardon me, Cadentown Road is a boundary between H1 zoning in the Cadentown Historic District, uh, and the area of the subject property, which is not bound by an H1 overlay zone. The Cadentown area was approved for an H1 rezoning, uh, in 2001. Again, there is B1 zoning immediately to the south of the subject property and across Old Todds Road as well. There is one parcel that's B3 that has been there for a number of years as well. Like to orient you to the property with a few photographs. This is looking from the west to the east. This is a two-year-old aerial photo, so it does not show the new roadway construction. But again, to orient you, we have Man O War Boulevard, signalized intersection here with Todds Road and Liberty Road. Liberty Road has since been constructed in this area. We have Cadentown Lane, pardon me, Cadentown Road here, and Old Todds Road here. There's an existing CVS Pharmacy at that corner, and the subject property is immediately adjacent to that, and also includes a drive aisle that is, encompasses the rear of that business. That is a asphalt paved area that was approved by the Board of Adjustment a few years ago because that address is split zone between B1 and R1D. This is a view looking almost at the same area, only it has identified the subject property with the shading. This is the area before you this evening, portion of 3097 Old Todds Road and then the balance, which is the 2981 Cadentown Road property here. This is a view looking from the south at the subject property in the immediate area. Directly across Liberty Road, we have townhouse development in the Kennedy Landing area, an apartment complex here, and also the Brighton Shops, which have an orientation to both Man O'War, Helmsdale Place, and to Liberty Road at this location. Here's another view looking at the opposite direction. This is looking from the north to the south. Subject property, adjacent to that is, again, portion of the Kennedy Landing townhouse development, the CVS Pharmacy, and at this location, the Todd Center Shopping Center, an additional townhouse development that's occurred at Maple Leaf Drive and Man O'War Boulevard here. We also have a few on-the-ground shots that do show the new road construction that has been completed in this area. This is a view from the rear of the CVS property, and in the foreground, the center left of this photo, you see the subject property. It is currently vacant, with the exception of the asphalt driveway that I've described to you, and it does have frontage along the new roadway. Mickey Lane is a residential street that provides access to this new road to the townhouse development on either side of it, and if you look at this vehicle here, that is at the intersection of Campbell Lane and Liberty Road. Campbell Lane serves a few residential dwellings, uh, to the north of the subject property. This is a vote- photo at almost the same location looking in the opposite direction toward the intersection of Man O'War Boulevard and Liberty Road, and as you can tell by this photo, these were not taken either in the morning or the evening peak hour of traffic. There's very little traffic in this photo. The subject property is to the right of this particular photograph. You can tell there is a slight grade elevation change in this area. Final photo, this is of Old Todds Road, and this is, uh, at the location that provides one access to the CVS drug store from that facility and does show the Todd Center commercial development across the street from that pharmacy. As is always the case, we looked at the comprehensive plan for its land use recommendation when evaluating zone changes. This is a blow-up of the comprehensive plan for this particular area, and this particular slide was reviewed by the planning commission at their public hearing. The area proposed for rezoning is inside the light blue line, and again, orient with the street system, we have the new roadway, Liberty Road, Old Todds Road, and Cadentown Road, forming the triangle, if you will, in this area. This particular portion, the drive aisle that's on the current CVS property is recommended by the plan for retail trade and personal services land use. Property at 2981 Cadentown Road is recommended for medium density residential use. That's defined by the plan as residential development of five to ten units per net acre. We have a larger version of the comprehensive plan on the board as well. The planning staff and I report to the planning commission at their public hearing acknowledged that the subject property is at the edge of a commercial area, and we acknowledged that there has been a recent improvement to the roadway system in this area with the construction of a much wider Liberty Road. However, we did not agree with the applicant that the expansion of business owning proposed, uh, is appropriate at this location. In our report to the planning commission, the planning staff recommended disapproval of this application in its entirety for four reasons. The first was that for a majority of the subject property, the existing single family residential zoning could be developed in keeping with the residential recommendation of the plan. The remainder of the subject property has already been developed with Board of Adjustment approval. Thus, there is no need to rezone that property. Secondly, rezoning at this location might significantly impact the established Cadentown historic district. Thirdly, no justification was found by the staff for expansion of business owning on the subject property. And then finally, the staff provided a finding that there have been no unanticipated changes of a physical, social, or economic nature in this area since the comprehensive plan was adopted in 2007. The planning commission, or I should say, a majority of the planning commission members did not agree with the staff's fourth finding. Uh, and if you will look at the first page of the recommendation from the planning commission, you will see that at the conclusion of their public hearing on May 28th, where they heard not only from the staff, but also from the applicant, uh, and from one objector, the commission voted six to three to forward a split recommendation on this rezoning to the council. The planning commission recommended conditional approval of the proposed rezoning from R1D to B1 for the portion of 3097 Old Todds Road. That is the property that already has the drive aisle on it. They provided two findings for that recommendation. The first, there has been an unanticipated change in the community area since the comprehensive plan was adopted in 2007. Secondly, the commission found that the existingR1D zoning is inappropriate and the proposed B1 zoning is more in agreement with the comprehensive plan. As part of their recommendation, they are recommending that over 20 uses that are ordinarily allowable in the B1 zone be prohibited for this portion of the property utilizing conditional zoning. Some of those use restrictions includes things like automobile service stations, outdoor miniature golf courses, arcades, drive-through facilities, self-service car washes, upholstery shops, gasoline pumps, funeral parlors, and the list that appears at the bottom of that page. The planning commission did forward a finding for the adoption of conditional zoning at this location. That was that these use restrictions have been offered by the applicant and are appropriate and necessary to protect the established residential neighborhood nearby from the most intrusive of B1 uses that are otherwise permissible. The planning commission did not recommend approval of the balance of the zone change request. That is basically from R1D to B1 for the property at 2981 Cadentown Lane. As is the planning commission's custom, they did also review the development plan that was proposed as part of the zone change. We have it to my left as an exhibit for your hearing tonight. And just to tell you what the development plan was for the property, it has a slightly different orientation. North is in this direction. This is the new Liberty Road. This is the existing drive aisle for the pharmacy that we saw in the photo. And the development plan proposes a 7500 square foot building with associated off-street parking for 38 vehicles. It proposes a detention basin along the frontage of Liberty Road, and in addition has two access points, one proposed to Liberty Road and one utilizing that existing drive aisle that currently serves the CVS Pharmacy. That concludes my prepared remarks. I thank you very much for your kind attention, and as you know, I will be available for any questions you may have later in the evening. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salih. Uh, next we'll hear from the petitioner, um, Ms. Wiseman. Thank you. Um, Rena, yeah, it's... Can you give us an idea of how long you think? 10 minutes? With or without repeating? . Um- We know how concise and succinct you are- I'm gonna try. ... in your presentations. I think w- we will try to deliver this to you in 45 minutes, okay? Maybe shorter than that. Or maybe shorter? Maybe shorter. You wanna err on the high side, right? Okay. Is this counting now? Ordinarily we try to hit 15 to 20, yeah. Okay. Well, it might... We have several things- We know that- ... to go through but we will- ... we're not trying to truncate it, I'm just saying, you know, if, if we can get there- Sure. ... earlier the better. All right. Understand. Thank you. Uh, for the record, I'm Rena Wiseman. I'm here for tonight for the applicant Todds Road Development LLC, the principal is Gary Joy, who is, uh, with us this evening. Also, uh, Nick Nicholson, my associate's assisted me on this, uh, case. And Kevin Phillips of Endress Engineering, uh, is going to speak briefly. Brad Johnson is here from Wilbur Smith to do the traffic engineering. I have listed these three gentlemen as potential witnesses. It is my plan only to have Kevin speak briefly, but I want them to be here if there were questions that they could answer that I could not. Uh, let's see. Does that... Am I started now? Again, this is our application to, uh, ask that both of these parcels be rezoned to the, um, residential... From residential R1D to B1: neig- neighborhood business with conditional zoning restrictions. Um- Rena, excuse me for just a second. Just so, I think, the complexity of this might be worthwhile to repeat, at least from my per- for me. What we are dealing with right now is the commission, let's just confirm this so we know where you're... so we understand where you're going and we understand where, what the commission's recommendation was. I mean you can explain it to us one more time, or Bill? I can- You can? Okay, great, thanks. Again, to reiterate, the Planning Commission considered this at a public hearing. Uh, there are two parcels that you can see in the... They look more of a mustard and a blue that were the... Sorry, that's not the... The Planning Commission considered both of these parcels. The recommendation with respect to the blue parcel, which is now the driveway and part of where the drive-through window is for CVS, they recommended that that be rezoned B1 with conditional zoning restrictions for the findings the staff just outlined on that final report. The Planning Commission however recommended disapproval of the larger parcel, 2981 Cadent Town Road, without giving any reasons. There are no findings of fact to justify why they recommended disapproval, which is, uh, very unusual, because as you know, in order to act on a zone change you have to give findings of fact. This, uh, I would point out about one other fact, background, is that there was a lot of discussion about the appropriateness of the yellow property for business and there was actually a motion to reconsider the denial of the 2981 Cadent Town Road. That motion failed five to four, and ultimately the Planning Commission voted in a split vote of six to essentially rezone the blue, remain, keep the other property at single family residential R1D. So we are here today to ask that you approve both parcels for B1, with conditional zoning for B1, just as they did for the blue parcel. Now, I want to give a little... The, the Planning Commission did note that there have been changes in this area, and there are a lot of changes, and I'll go through these slides and pictures quickly because if you're from here or you've been, lived in this community any length of time, this is an area of the community that used to be out in the country. This is, was old county. These, this was an area that was at the crossroads of Bryant Road, Todds Road, and Liberty Road. There were businesses in this area. We've got pictures. This property was used for business. A large part of it was used for the Lexington Tree Service, which was there until the CVS purchased a portion of this property. The reason this property is now zoned R1D, and B1 in fact, uh, the B1 reflects the fact that there have been businesses on this property for nearly 40 years and maybe beyond. Uh, but the, f- you may or may not know that back in the 60s, before merger, we had a city commission, planning commission, and a county planning commission. They were merged in the 60s, in 1967, and in order to incorporate all the county properties into the city zoning, because they had different letters, they had different zoning categories, since it was gonna be unified- The government adopted one big comprehensive zone change that gave new zoning categories to every piece of property in the county. And that included these properties. So part of this property was assigned R1D. Part of the property was assigned B1. There was never a hearing like we're having tonight to determine that R1D was appropriate for that yellow piece of property. It was given to that property because there were homes in the area, but this property, as we'll show, was actually used as business in 1966 and 1967 when that was made. And the changes, uh, not only it's the construction of Liberty Road, but Hamburg wasn't there when these properties were back there in those businesses. Uh, uh, Andover wasn't there. Man O' War Boulevard wasn't there. So, what you've got with these two pieces of property is, are some leftover properties- ... where development over the last 40 years has encroached and these are, uh, some of the only undeveloped parcels inside Man O' War all the way back to New Circle Road. And the question tonight is, what's the most appropriate zoning for them? We believe it's single... uh, excuse me, that it's, uh, neighborhood business. Uh, again, a little, uh, I wanna go through the photos that are similar to Bill's, but I wanna make some other points with them. This is the frontage of our property on Liberty Road. Uh, our property has over 300 feet of frontage on Liberty Road. Uh, we have limited access on Cadence Town Road, only about 18 feet. This is standing on the corner of the property looking out across Liberty Road to the speedway, Supermerica, where the flag is. Um, I don't know if I can operate two of these things at once, but I'm gonna try. And this location, this is the CVS there. Continuing across the street, this is a small home that's actually on Bryant Road. It's, it's one of those leftover pieces. That's zoned R1D. That house actually has a driveway onto, uh, Bryant Road. Doesn't face Liberty Road. This property and this property is the balance of our property, 2981, that was cut off when Liberty Road was constructed. These are some more pictures again to show you the extensive frontage, over 300 feet, that our property has on Liberty Road. And also to show you that other residential uses on this property back up to it. These are more townhouses down the road. They don't face Liberty Road. They back up to it. They don't have driveways. Uh, we're sort of an island cut off from any of the residential areas. These are the townhouse development, Kennedy Landing. They back up to our property. Again, there's townhouses across, townhouses across the way back up to Liberty Road. One feature about this property is that there's no opportunity for this little piece to be incorporated into any other residential neighborhood. It's barely an acre exclusive of driveway and it's R1D. All you can do with that are four single family lots that can't be tied in to Kennedy Landing. They can't be tied in across the road anymore, because that property is now segmented by Liberty Road. It can't be, you know, part of... CVS is a neighborhood, can't be part of the townhouses. So it... this is an island of one acre that if it stays in its current zoning can only be s- four single family homes with their primary and only access onto Liberty Road. I'm sorry, let me back up. Uh, the blue piece that is on, that was in my first slide and the, the 50 foot that Bill referred to, excuse me, is the part of CVS that's actually zoned R1D and that the Planning Commission recommended approval of. You can see that it's used as the driveway onto Cadence Town Road. This area over here is the, what is 2981, that is zoned R1D. So this is our neighbor, is the CVS. This is the rest of that 50 foot strip that's zoned R1D that the Planning Commission recommended to be B1. This is our frontage on Cadence Town Road, 18 feet. You can't put any sort of two-way road or driveway to access Cadence Town Road in that narrow piece of property. So we're effectively cut off from Cadence Town. If this property remains an island, it won't have any access to Cadence Town Road. And all that's going to be done with that area is that it's going to be used, uh, I think we will have to keep 15 feet buffer from the property on this side and, uh, it will be used for the sewer. Otherwise, there's no, uh, beneficial use that can be made of that property. This is again across Cadence Town Road from our entrance. Uh, the CVS entrance, excuse me. That's the 50 foot. And this house, I don't know if you noticed on the map that Bill went through, but that is a house, but it's also zoned B1 and could be developed today for any use that's allowed in R- in B1, no restrictions. This is, uh, Mr. Adami's house. He's here and will s- speak. He backs up to us. He faces and accesses Cadence Town Road. We don't have access. The purpose of this slide is to show the buffering that there is today and will be retained between our property on this side. And it's very hard to see with the lighting, but this is the, the trees that go down that strip that buffer, uh, that property from, uh, our neighbor's property. Uh, the -- Again, our case is that the zoning for this property is inappropriate and improper. Um ... The -- A little more history to this property, as I talked about the ... At one point, let me -- excuse me, I'm skipping ahead of myself -- access, I think Bill mentioned, if you look at our development plan, uh, one of the features of this that we'll talk about in a bit is the opportunity to have a shared access between the CVS and this property. The CVS does not have access to Liberty Road. If you want to go to CVS from Liberty, you have to turn into the intersection of Liberty and Old Todds Road, and you have to come out that, unless you want to go down Cadentown onto Mickey Lane. Uh, this property will have access onto Liberty Road. This property sold right of way to the state, and the deed from, to the state provides this remaining property, as is the property across the street, is entitled to access to Liberty Road by permit. That means you have to get a permit from the state and if you meet the requirements of the state, and of course, your local regulations, this property has access to Liberty Road. And as I've pointed out, we don't have the opportunity to access Cadentown. Under our plan, what we would have agreed to, should this go forward, is a joint and reciprocal access where these two properties could be joined and people wishing to use, to come into CVS can come in off of Liberty Road from either direction, keeping them out of the intersection of Old Todds and Liberty Road, and likewise, anyone wishing to enter this development from this location can come up Cadentown and go through the CVS and enter it in that fashion. We think that's a, a positive, and this next slide will show you that this is generally the area where that connection could be made. This just gives you a flavor of what this property looked like until, uh, the roads came in and the property was reconfigured for the CVS. Uh, there were actually three parcels. This little piece here was partially zoned business and single family. It had a house. This property, uh, was, at that time, called 3097 Todds Road. We'll have to remember that address. Today, it's 2981. That was changed. And this was 3101 Todds Road. Those properties were used for over 40 years for business purposes. We can find no evidence in the building inspector file that any of this property was ever used for residential purposes. It's got the zoning, but that's the only thing that makes it residential, is that denote- denotation right there. It's never been used for single family residential. And as you can see, it's split zoned. Um ... We also have an aerial photo. This is 2002, but this is before CVS purchased it and you can look at this in your ... It's easier to see it at tab six in your book, but what this shows you are the businesses that were there. This was the Lexington Tree Service. This was a building that most recently was used by an environmental company. Uh, back as long as 1966 this property was used as a wood shop, a electric shop. The balance of the property was used for chopping, uh, chipping the wood. These, this is not grading for development. Those are, that's gravel, that's parking. There's wood piles and wood chips that are stored there. This was a business operation up until the time CVS came along and we've tried, overlaid this property to show you that this property that's now R1D, it was never used as R1D. Always used as a business. And we have in your book, uh, a certificate of occupancy at tab eight from the Division of Building Inspection that shows, uh, they were given permission to operate an electric company as a non-conforming use. The reason they had to operate as a non-conforming use was because even though the front was V1, this back piece was R1D. There's an affidavit from the property owner that says he's been using it, uh, for that fashion for the past 26 years, which gets you back to 1966 from 1992 when that affidavit was, uh, given. I want to skip ahead, if I can, to one more slide. This is the la- this is at tab 14, but this is a plot plan that, when CVS was doing their due diligence to purchase the property, showed what was on there. And you can see it better in your book at tab 14. You can see that there was the Lexington Tree Service. You have asphalt parking. You have gravel parking. You have the building used to, uh, metal building, this is where the wood was processed. These are various piles and stacks of wood. This gravel area is where the trucks came in, picked up the wood, delivered the wood, the wood was stored all over. Uh, Cadentown Road is down here. This does not include that corner property, but this entire property was used for business, and according to the affidavit and building inspection, was used as business, our property, the yellow piece, since it, going back as far as 1966. It's never been used- ... for business. So when we ask you tonight to find that this is appropriate for business, I think we have to keep in mind the fact that the most recent uses of this property have been for business. It has been used for business, and the only reason that property got cleared off was when CVS purchased it in 2002, and this was, they redid the property lines in order to configure their property in that fashion. They went to the Board of Adjustment to use the 50-foot strip, and then the next slide shows how it looks today now that Liberty Road is here. This is the property that we're asking to go to B1 with restrictions. This is the driveway that's still R1D. This is the balance of this property that was cut off from Liberty Road and from the balance of this property. So again, we're surrounded by all sorts of development. All that's left now is this one acre that's zoned R1D that can only have access onto an arterial with five lanes of traffic that carries a lot of traffic, that's next to a pharmacy with its drive lane and its drive-through facility. The only thing you can do here, if you put four houses, they'd have to share a driveway. You can't have single driveways onto an arterial. That's what the zoning allows this property to do. And the test is not whether the comprehensive plan is appropriate or inappropriate. The test is whether R1D zoning is inappropriate for this property, and we suggest that it is. Now, as Bill tells you, that you have to determine also whether the B1 is appropriate. It's not enough to find that R1D is inappropriate. And what we would ask you to think about are, what are the things that make this inappropriate for residential? Well, the fact that it's got visibility, extensive frontage, and access on an arterial, is next to business. Those are the things that make it very undesirable for residential, but make it totally suitable for business. The fact that it adjoins a business. If you look at the staff report, uh, and they said at the planning commission that admittedly single family next to business is not an appropriate land use. And there's no place to provide any sort of buffer or transition between this business use and this little piece of property. With the conditional zoning we're proposing, which is basically a P1 zone with some added business uses, then you will have a property that provides a transition step-down from all the commercial here, this commercial, over to these residential areas. And your comprehensive plan talks about having appropriate transitions and buffers, so you don't put one high-intense use next to a low-intensity use. So th- those are the reasons that it's inappropriate, uh, that it's appropriate for business, but I think the best evidence is the fact that that's what it's been used for. That's the historic use of the property. Now, we're not proposing to put a tree service or an environmental company or an electric shop. What we're talking about is a single building, one-story building, 7,500 square feet. The CVS is 11,000, so that gives you a sense of, that it's much smaller than that. Uh, and it's going to be limited to such uses as retail sales. A veterinarian is one of the potential tenants that we have talked to. Uh, they could go in this space. They would have to go to the Board of Adjustment, but they could do it in a B1 zone. Uh, things like florists. The sorts of neighborhood businesses that every community needs but can't always afford the rents to go to places even like Brighton Place or Todd Center or Hamburg. Businesses like barber shops, uh, bakeries that people need every day, small business owners that wanna have a little bit of retail space in this area. That business site can do that without encroaching on any other, uh, established neighborhood. Again, w- we don't see that we're gonna impact Cadentown 'cause we can't get there, and we back up to Cadentown. We have no relationship to that neighborhood. Um, quickly, I want to talk briefly about the traffic. The issue the Plan Commission had about traffic was access to Liberty Road. And Zach's claimed, uh, that the only opportunity for this property to have any access is by means of Liberty Road. We can't do it here. And we're entitled to it. When we sold the land to the state, or when the owner sold the land to the state, the state didn't buy its access rights. It says in the deed that this property, the remaining property shall have access to this road by permit, meaning you seek an encroachment permit. Now, we haven't formally submitted an encroachment permit, but Kevin's firm has been in discussions with the state and at tab 15 we have an email from District Seven where they are, uh, favorably disposed to our access point. And that's what this shows, is where it is to be located. It's at the high point for good sight distance, both looking back towards the Todds Road intersection, Van Avore, and back towards Mickey Lane. I'm not going to... I'm gonna have Kevin talk about this. This is also in your book and you can't really see it here, but one of the things that you have to, uh, comply with when you build a new access point on an arterial is spacing. How close can you be to a, a, a cross street? So the streets that you have to... ... setback from, in our case, would be this intersection of Old Todds and Liberty and the intersection of Mickey Lane and Liberty. Uh, the orange stake that I showed you was at the optimal location for site distance. And that is a dimension of 468 feet between this point, and this point. It's actually much further, uh, 496 up to Mickey Lane. This is the critical... That's important in terms of stacking and getting cars left turn in here. If you've been out there, this is a five lane, there's a center lane that can be striped, and is striped for left turns in certain locations. It can do that and Kevin will talk about that briefly. Uh, in order to determine if that 468 feet met the subdivision regulations, you have to go through a formula. I don't understand it, but it's in tab 19. There's a chart where the traffic engineer calculates the distance, the minimum distance based on what the land use is gonna be. The point I want you to remember about that when you look at this chart is that, first of all, the assumption is that 50% of CVS's traffic will use the Liberty Road interse- access point. That's important in terms of what's the impact of this gonna be on the adjacent road system. That means cars that today are going and turning in Old Todds and Liberty will no longer have to do that. They can enter and access from Liberty Road keeping them out of this intersection. So when you look at this chart, the 50% pharmacy trips, that is CVS. The other thing that he assumes is that s- on 75% of this building will use it, but only 25% will use the shared access onto Payton Town Road. So, traffic from this building is gonna have minimal traffic impact on Cayton Town Road. The gist of this chart, the ones that are shaded and colored, we can't do those. They're prohibited by conditional zoning. The ones in white that are left, restaurant, shopping center, are well under the 468 feet so our access point meets the spacing requirements. Uh, there's one other chart, I won't go through, you can read that, that just demonstrates that the uses that we're proposing to restrict are the high traffic generators. The ones we're keeping are low generators, such as medical office building. That's seven trips in the PM in, 19 out, as compared to a gas station, 71, 68. If you approve this as we've asked, that use will not be here. It can be on the B1 across the street, but it can't be on this property. The last thing I want quickly, is for Kevin to come up and just discuss a little bit of the functioning of the traffic flow with this entrance, because again, that was a concern the planning commission had, uh, and I think it's relevant to the zoning because if this remains residential, this access will serve only this property. You would not tie in a single family home with a CVS. You would not tie in a town home development with the traffic going in and out of a CVS. So it's relevant to the zoning because if you're answer, asking the question, "What's the appropriate land use?" You have to think, "What's gonna fit best in terms of not only compatibility, but access to the road system?" And if you do the use we're proposing, you have the opportunity to have the shared access that will have, we think, a positive impact on the road circulation. So with that, Kevin Phillips from Enders. And then I'm wrapping up. Uh, Ms. Wiseman, wait, uh, you wanna enter this in the record, right? That, yes. What else? Well, this is Anything else? Y'all got anything else? Okay. Could y'all give me a list of- I'm sorry. You got a list? Susan is always is keeping me on my toes. I have the affidavit that the sign was posted, but I- Right. ... at that the notification sign was posted, uh, within 14 days. So that is now in the record. Okay. I'd like that admitted too, your Honor. All right, thank you, Mr. Phillips. Evening. Kevin Phillips with Enders Engineering. Um, briefly, I guess we just wanted to demonstrate a couple things. One, um, with this slide, y- maybe we can go back to the PowerPoint just for a second. The, um, spacing shown, a- and the access point, as Rena said, um, we would like to, um, encourage, you know, we, we're assuming that 50% of this traffic from, uh, CVS, which is now, you know, 50% of it essentially coming through this, this, uh, wide, uncontrolled intersection at Todds Road and Liberty Road. And if anybody who lives out there has been out there at rush hour, it's, it's, um, uh, something that's less than desirable, I'll say that. Even in the photo, if you look in the, you can't see it here too well, but in the, um, packet, you can see the traffic. It's a single file lane of traffic that backs up to about here somewhere. Um, and that's caused by a, a current deficiency in this intersection. There's only a, a single lane. Uh, the, the, there are two lanes on Liberty Road traveling this direction, uh, but at some point here, there's a sign that says, "Right turn only." So the right hand or slow lane in Liberty Road must make a right on the, onto Todds. I was confused by that myself and got trapped in there one afternoon. You have to make the loop all the way back around to Mickey Lane. You have to do that to get back into the queue. Um, people who are savvy stay in the fast lane and, and queue up to approach this intersection. So this backs up quite a ways. Um, there is an additional left turn lane at, at, the, at some point. There's a very short, uh, turn lane that allows you to turn left onto Todds coming this direction. Um, but you have to pass that point about here before you can swing over into that left-hand turn lane and get onto Man O' War going that way. So this, this traffic is basically all three lanes. It's the left turn, the straight through, and the right turn lane traffic all queue up in a single file, uh, i- in this area. And it does get back into this area here. Haven't s- haven't, uh, can't say that we've seen it, um, cert- go past where we show our access point. It's somewhere between there and the, and, and this point. But it's, it's, you know, 30 cars or so. It's, it's pretty significant. Um, but the, uh, so for the current condition, we feel like we're helping this intersection, uh, which is, is, uh, a bit awkward, again, because the queue stretches across that intersection often. So we want some of this traffic that would have normally exited here and gone to the intersection to turn left on Liberty, uh, or turn right as far as that goes, because that's, there's, again they're, they're, they're entering a single line queue coming, uh, with the right turn out of Todds Road. We want that traffic to be able to circulate through our private circulation system and enter the traffic here, which even currently with this current condition is behind or at the tail end of the queue. So we think it's favorable for them to either come here, make a left turn behind that queue that's established, or make a right turn and enter the queue properly. If they, if they enter the traffic down here, if they're, if they're forced out onto Todds Road and want to make a left, they are cutting through the queue, uh, turning left onto Liberty, or they are turning right and, and, um, asking for graciousness to get into the queue going toward Andover. Uh, so that, that, for the current condition, we think we help that even. Uh, there is, um, currently a plan to widen this road from three lanes currently to six lanes. And I think you all appropriated funds tonight, uh, to K- Kentucky Utilities to move their utilities in anticipation of this widening. I know Columbia Gas has already moved their lines in the area, um, but it will, it will add two lanes essentially to this side. Excuse me. Oh, oh, yeah, yeah. The, the overhead. All right. This is, um- Kevin, excuse me just... Oh. We're, well, let me ask you a question here. Sure. Um, we're running up against an hour here on... How much, about how much longer you gonna need to help us with understanding this? Just two or three minutes. Okay. This, this is it. Thank you. Th- This is the intersection of, um, of Liberty Road. This is Man O' War out here to the left. This is inbound, I would say Liberty Road. This is the intersection with old Todds Road. Our site is kind of just off the page here. This is the existing CVS at this location. So the proposal is to add two lanes, uh, outbound Man o'- o- ou- ou- outbound Liberty Road and one lane inbound. So that will give you a total of two inbound Liberty Roads, two left-hand turn lanes, a, a straight-through to Andover, and a right turn lane onto Man O' War. So whereas we have one and a half lanes maybe now available on the outbound Liberty, we'll have, um, a total of four lanes when the construction's done. So the point of that is the queue should get significantly less, and anticipated that the queues would not extend past this intersection. So it, it will help this intersection, and it, it won't hurt our development that's further down the road, uh, but it will certainly help this one and, um, make ours that much better, I'll say. Thank you. I will conclude, uh, Your Honor, to the last thing I have is I... I think we just have... Could you take the overhead off, please? That's just I wanted to have... Again, that's the property as it sits today with the zoning in the area. I've got findings of fact that I would like to... Um. I will not read those. I'll let you look at them, but they basically say what I've told you tonight, that the existing zoning's not appropriate any longer than the proposed zoning is. This also sets forth the conditional zoning restrictions, the same ones that the Planning Commission recommended with the piece that they did rezone. There is one change I would point out. Uh, w- with respect to the blue strip, the one in this location that the Planning Commission did rezone, that was sent forward and, and we did suggest that with the rec- uh, condition of no drive-through facilities. We would like to eliminate that for that strip given the fact that there already is a drive-through facility there. And it's... Once you start looking at the map, it's difficult to see what would be interpreted as the drive-through facility, whether you'd actually include that lane. So we would ask all the conditions be the same, except drive-through facilities for the pharmacy would still be retained on that. With that, again, we appreciate your attention. Sorry to, uh, go beyond my self-imposed but not obeyed time limit, but, uh, hope you will, uh, uh, approve this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Um, okay, next on our, the routine here is the, um, speak, um, comments by the, um, those who m- may oppose the petition. And, uh, Mr. Abdelkader, right? Come right up here, sir. And if you would, please give us... My name is Abdelkader Alami. I live on 2963 Caydentown Road. Used to be Liberty Road. We changed for the past two years. Uh, wherever these people trying to rezone, they have 18 feet on Caydentown Road, I have 283 road frontage. Wherever they trying to tell me that rezoning don't affect me, I thought I supposed to have a buffer zone of 50 feet between business and residential. I want to keep my residential now. And I like to go in, believe me, it costs me too much to keep just the grass cut and everything else. If we all know that area well, if you travel over there by five o'clock, you will get held in traffic for 30 minutes. If you have another access to this property from Liberty Road, you will have accident after the other. I'm not an engineer, but I see it every day because I'm there. Now, if we look the area around us, 30% out of the businesses is out for lease. So what are we doing? Are we taking this business from this spot and putting it in this spot? If it is for the community, I believe I speak for my neighborhood, we like to see it green better than to see a building empty and have a for rent sign on it. If the economy today is different, we say go for it. I will be the first one to say, "Yeah, develop it." It's making more money for the neighborhood. It's making more money for Lexington. It's not. If you gonna rezone this, I would like to have the maximum buffer zone between me and this business. The maximum I'm allowed to have. I believe when the city come in and say that they don't have it to be rezoned, there was reasons. Yes, there was reasons. When I lived over there, and I lived over there for 20 years now, I owned that place since '93, and I lived in that particular place for 20 years. Yes, there was Lexington Tree Service. There was, that's it. That's where it was. There was nothing, no other businesses. There was a house beh- bes- beside me. It was occupied for a while, and then it was empty. And it was farm on the other side. When you all approved for Kennedy Landing to come in and put them townhouses, they were supposed to put a sidewalk too. Never happened. Never happened. So we don't know what's happened this day and time. We might prove these people to do whatever they want to. And whatever they tell us today, the conditional zoning is not gonna happen. CVS today is over there and they have a drive-through window. If CVS decided to close, another restaurant come in, what are we gonna tell them? No? We're gonna leave it empty? They have a permit for drive-through. They have the window over there. They have everything. You approved it. So with all this said and done, I appreciate for you to look into this. And I appreciate also if you contact the code enforcement and get these people to clean the fence line. I like to see from where I am Todd's Road and Liberty Road. If their fence line clean, I'll be able to see it. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Uh, Mr. Salih, um, do you have any additional comments? When do we have a chance to ask you... We got a chance to ask you a question after we get through them. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I do have two rebuttal, uh, comments to make. Uh, the first is regarding the, uh, former non-conforming use that was cited, uh, whether for The Electric Company or for the tree service. Uh, those non-conforming uses have expired. And as such, in an R1-D zone, they are no longer eligible to be reestablished. Uh, those uses have sunsetted. Secondly, uh, a landscape buffer is ordinarily required between a B1 zone and an R1-D zone. So if you adopt the zoning as has been recommended by the planning commission, uh, if the current buffer is not up to the requirements of Article 18, it would be our expectation through consideration of the development plan, uh, that that buffer would be established in the future. Thank you. Okay, just... A response to a rebuttal? Right, I just wonder, the, uh, the, the buffer area, I think Mr. Alami said it was a 50-foot buffer. It's a fifth-... There's a 15-foot buffer between business and residential so, uh, I haven't measured it, but I think the buffer area that's there, you can look at the pictures, is 15 foot. But nevertheless, we have the 18-foot strip at Caydentown Road that widens out as you get back into the property, and again, that will be our buffer area, so there will be the buffer area. And in fact, he will get the benefit of two buffer areas. Our 15-plus feet, and then the buffer area that's already on, uh, the CVS property. Okay, our procedure calls for- ... a closing summation by the opponent, should you choose to add, Mr. Abticadar. Nope? It's okay? You sure? All right. And a closing by the petitioner. Okay. Now we get to open it up for council, ask questions for y'all. All right. Ready. Okay, everybody. Mr. Stennet is first up, and, uh, y'all, this equipment's working, it looks like, so line up. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Bill, I have a couple of follow-up questions for you. First of all, um, we're doing a lot of sewer work in this area. Um, we're almost completed on the Cadentown and the Campbell Lane sewer projects. Will this property tie into those lines or is there already existing sewer on the property? Have we looked at that? Mr. Stennet, I do not know the answer- Rod, you know, Rod, by chance, if you're here? No? Be glad to let you answer too, if you know the answer to that. Yeah. We did, we did a topographic survey of the lot during the course of this development, and there is no sewer on the lot currently. There is sewer in the, uh, uh, Kennedy Landing townhouses next door. Right. You would have to go through them to get to it, but fortunately, this new sewer construction down on Cadentown will give us access to the sewer, 'cause it's right down the middle of Cadentown Road. Uh, uh, so we'll come down that, uh, the, the, the flag lot, the flag piece of this lot. We'll, we'll be able to get to the sewer through that strip of land. All right, so you answered my next question, 'cause they're actually... We're getting ready to repave that road and so your, your cut would actually break that new paving up. You'd have to cut the road to get into it. I'm not sure if there's a lateral. I didn't investigate it that far, but, uh, there may be a lateral that's already run to the property, because it's not served currently. So there could very well be a sleeve, um, if not a tap, already put into that manhole. It's very close. Okay. And then, Bill, uh, the property across the street, what is it currently zoned? Across from Liberty. Across from Liberty Road? That was cut by the construction of Liberty. That is also zoned R1D. Currently? Yes, sir. Okay. And then, uh, I've got a question for the, um, petitioner. Uh, traffic. Did you all, when you studied the traffic, did you look at the U-turn and how it would be affected by this development on this property to the access to the property, and the current U-turn that's in the middle of Liberty Road? Because th- there's a dedicated U-turn in the middle of Liberty Road in the lane that you all indicated that you can stack cars. So I'd like to know how you're gonna operate the entrance to that property and the U-turn at the same time. I believe the U-turn is further down. Not much, but yes, it is, yes. It's, it's further to the left, so it would not impact any left-hand turns into the site. Right, but if they stack up right there, how are people going to be able to access the U-turn or if the U-turn's being utilized during, during peak hours, which it is often right now because of the situation out there. I- Can we put the slide up where we can see this or something? I don't want to hold you up. I believe you can see... I think you can see those, um, those arrows- All right, all right. ... on, on the aerial photo. Never mind. Don't, don't- Oh. No? Okay. Don't spend a lot of calories on this. Well, like I said, I believe it is past our entry point, so it, it wouldn't affe... Our queue would be going back toward, uh, Old Todds, our stacking queue, our left-hand turn stacking queue would, would be, would be stacking to the right on the picture. A- and your U-turn is to the, further to the right, or to the left. Right. I- i- it's on down, but you're still... You, you could have people wanting to access that. And I'm just trying to figure out- What, stacking for the U-turn? ... when people are coming out of your property, yes, how are they going to come out of your property and merge into Liberty going back towards New Circle Road- Right. ... is what I'm concerned about. Right. Did you all look at that? No. Okay. And also, do you have the... I see your letter in here, but it's from the State Department of Transportation. It's April. Have you... When was the last time you've actually spoken to them about this project and what's happening out there in terms of the widening, widening of, uh, Man o' War and Liberty? That was the last communication we had with them. Okay. They're approval. Well, I'll, I'll just say, for, for my colleagues' benefit, there's been a significant, uh, wrench put in this project out there that may or may not be solved by the let date of the widening of Man o' War, September 25th. Uh, i- i- if the property acquisition that was mentioned earlier today in the council, or Tuesday in the council ration does not take place, this project widening will not happen til 2011. So just keep that in mind that if, you know, the traffic is one of my big concerns out there. I know Councilmember Crosby has this area as well with me, and, uh, that is my big concern right now. I'm not saying this... Your, your, your business zone may not be appropriate, may or may not, but the traffic is a problem now. Um, I can't solve it today. Uh, I don't think you can either, but it is a major issue and impact out there. And, uh, any higher density o- of use on this property would just add to it right now. So those are the end of my comments right now, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Nobody signed up. Is that it? Okay. Oh, Councilmember Hanson. I have a question, and I'm not sure who can answer it, but in the staff report, you mentioned, uh, the Cadentown Historic District. Bill, can you point that out on the map and where it is in relation to this property, I guess? Certainly. Subject property that's before you is here. We have Old Todds Road, Liberty Road. Cadentown Road is here. Mickey Place is just off this drawing. Cadentown Historic District is on the west side of Cadentown Road, meaning it's in this area, and it's on the north side of Old Todds Road. So in essence- This is the boundary of that historic district, and these properties are zoned R1D and also have the H1 overlay. Okay. Any other questions? All right, hearing none then, um, chair, uh, declares that the hearing is closed and next on the, um, procedure is the council will adopt the findings of fact, uh, by voting on the ordinance, uh, by roll call. Um... Mr. Tennant? Thank you, Vice Mayor. Um, I'll go ahead and, and move that we adopt the findings of pl- of fact, um, uh, at the recommendation of the planning commission. So moved. Uh, if I could make a suggestion. Um, it was mentioned that they did not make findings of fact with respect to the disapproval portion. Um, if you are going to follow the same decision that was made by the planning commission, I would refer you to the staff report where- Th- that's what I'm referring to on page, uh, three. Yes, and I... On, on the number one finding, if you're going to follow the exact recommendations of the planning commission, you would want to delete that last sentence that refers to, um, that 50-foot section of the, um, road that they did go ahead and rezone to B1. If you intend to support that rezoning of that section, then you're gonna wanna delete that last sentence, because it refers to that portion of the property. Does that- What page are you on? ... make sense to you? What page are you on? I'm on page three of the staff report. This is the staff report where the staff rec-, um, provided findings for disapproval. Right. And finding number one, the last sentence says, "The remainder of the subject property has already been developed-" Okay. "... with the commercial drive aisle to serve the CVS Pharmacy with Board of Adjustment approval. Therefore, there is no need to rezone the property at this time." So if you are going to follow the exact recommendation of the planning commission, they did in fact rezone that drive aisle area, so you would want to delete that last sentence. Okay. And then the disapproval recommendations, those four disapproval recommendations would apply to your disapproval of the property. Um, is it 20... 2080... I got my addresses mixed up, but the, the property that's totally zoned R1D is 92- Chair, if we could entertain a recess of five minutes, that way we can get this cleaned up and, uh, and, and come back to counsel. 2980- All right. Uh, do I need a motion on that? Move to recess. Okay. Motion second, uh, in favor of recess for five minutes, please indicate by saying I oppose no. Motion carries. We recessed until 9:50. Chair, thank you for the brief recess. Just wanna make sure we're covering our bases on findings of fact. Um, once again, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the findings of fact for the property located at 3097 Todds Road, uh, and the conditional approval and the findings of fact by the Planning Commission, and disapprove the, the rezoning of property located at 2981 Cadent Town Lane for the following reasons. One, the requested rezoning to a neighborhood business B1 zone cannot be found to be in agreement with the 2007 comprehensive plan, which recommends medium density residential land use, defined as 5-10 units per dwelling net acre for the subject property. For majority of the property, the existing single family residential R1D zone could be developed in keeping with the residential recommendation of the plan. Number two, although the subject property is situated at the edge of a defined commercial area and along a recently improved roadway, no justification exists for the expansion of business zoning for the subject property. KRS 100 and Article 6 of the zoning ordinance require a twofold justification to support a zone change if it is not in agreement with the comprehensive plan that both the existing zoning is inappropriate and the proposed zoning is appropriate. And number three, the Planning Commission in its discussions was concerned about the additional traffic impact on Liberty Road and has found that this additional impact would not ... would be detrimental to this area. So moved. I second. Motion and a second. Uh, is there discussion? Mr. Lane. Would it be possible if we bifurcate the vote on this for each parcel? Because, um, the way the motion's drafted, you couldn't, you'd have to vote for and against, but you might wanna vote to change the, the zoning on both parcels. Motion- We are in the process of doing that. Um, we will have, um, one ordinance for 2981, another one for that portion of 3097. We will have to give, because of ... The existing ordinance was drafted in the title to apply to both, we will give two first readings, suspend the rules, and then give second readings to each one. So you will have two ordinances. Yes, one on each parcel. Mr. Ellinger. I guess with the way his motion is set now though, we, if we were for what the Planning Commission, we'd vote yes. If we were against that and we wanted to do both properties, we'd vote no? Or are we waiting to s- that you're gonna separate 'em? We're gonna wait until we separate them. Your vote will be in accordance with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. If you vote yes for 3097 and no on 2981, that will be in accordance with what the Planning Commission recommended. We always draft the ordinances such that a, uh, th- such that an affirmative vote is an approval and a negative vote is a disapproval of the zone change. So that's how we will draft them. And then it, it sounds to me, based on your f- adoption of findings of facts, your votes will agree with the Planning Commission. Am I understanding- Wiseman, yeah. ... that you're ... That the findings are separated? I don't think that's the question that was asked amongst- No, the ordinance -- I mean -- ... will be -- we will have one ordinance dealing with the application to change 2891 and the other ordinance, the application to change 3097 'cause one is an approval and one is a disapproval. Well, did they not ex-... When they did it at the Planning Commission, they did not do them together, so they weren't... They're not tied to each other? They did, but when we have... We have to draft our ordinances. We have to draft our ordinances. We have always a draft, drafted them such that an affirmative vote, a yes vote is approving the zone change. So when the Planning Commission makes a split decision, frankly, this should have been divided into two ordinances when it was originally drafted. Okay. Is -- Don't wanna get confusing when we vote up here. We just gotta make sure we know what we're voting for 'cause we're gonna do -- It does become confusing when they have a split vote. Just so you understand where we are, our... I don't know if this helps or not, but our po-... Our application was to approve both of them or neither, or, you know, all of them or neither of them 'cause the strip is independent of this. So that's... What we are asking is that they either both be approved or just disapproved, both of them. So if we wanted to approve both of them, we would agree with the Planning Commission on one and, and not agree with them on the other? That's correct. And in essence, it would just require eight votes to override them and in which case you would simply adopt in full the findings for disapproval that were prepared by the staff in their report. The impact, I mean, as you've heard from the evidence, the impact is, uh, by Board of Adjustment action, they are already using that section for the CVS pharmacy, but it has not been rezoned yet. Council Member James. Just, um, Rachelle, just a clarification. When I'm looking at the application in response to what Rena's, um, stated, and it... there's a semicolon after, on number two, so to me that separates the two. If it were a comma, it would be inclusive. Do you read it that way? On the application in number two and it has address of applicant's property and it has the two separate properties listed with a semicolon versus with a comma. So I see those as two separate... Well, but it was one application. Okay. I mean, we frequently get one application for multiple aspects. So this is okay the way that we're doing this? Okay. Yeah. I mean, if, if that's the way the applicant would prefer it be done, I don't have any legal issue with that. Okay. Thanks. Anybody else? Okay, so we've got a motion and a second on the floor. Tell us what... Is it clear or not? I believe we were gonna bifurcate, if I understand. I, I think that you will have to probably move for, uh, reconsideration of the previous motion to approve the findings of fact because you're gonna have to adopt different findings of fact if you're going to disapprove this in its entirety. So you would have to have a motion to withdraw the previous findings of fact as adopted. That... Yeah, I think you're confusing everybody. The motion was to approve based on the findings of fact of the Planning Commission, the rezoning of 3097, and disapprove the rezoning of 20... 2981, based on the findings of fact that I read. And that's the simple motion. Period. If someone else wants to amend it or change it, that'd be an appropriate motion. Yeah. But right now, that was the motion made and seconded. So and that is consistent with the recommendations of the Commission. But that's not bifurcating it, is it? 'Cause we're doing it all together there that way, aren't we? That's just on the findings, but we will have to have two ordinances because one is going to have to be approved to grant the zone change. The other, you're going to have to vote no against in order to disapprove the zone change for the other property. So if we bifurcate them, which the applicant objected to, we'll have to do a little bit of work and, and change the ordinance titles. So if you vote it- The alternative, if it- ... down and then you, then you'll, then we'll... If we vote it down and if you wanna, then you will have to come back and come up with new motion and then we'll di- bifurcate that then. The finding, if we follow what the, what the applicant requested and simply deny it in its entirety, if the council chooses to make that decision, it's obviously the council's decision, then you would adopt the findings in the staff report for disapproval of the entire application, and then we would just simply read this ordinance. Second reading as written. I think it's received second reading, isn't it, before the hearing? You would simply vote on this and vote no. It would require eight votes because it would be different from what the Planning Commission recommended. Okay. There's a motion and a second. I'd like to know who the attorney was that wrote this. Do you have anything else to say, Ms. Wiseman, about... Yeah, yeah. Okay, can't... All right. A- a- and again, Vice Mayor, we're voting on the findings of fact right now. We're not voting on the zone change yet. Voting on the findings of fact that I read, the Planning Commission's approval ones and the ones that I read for disapproval. Okay. It's o- okay. So we're ready for vote, Susan? ... the motion and the findings of fact is what you're voting on now. Based on that, the, the outcome of that, as to how the ordinance or ordinances have to be dealt with at that point. All right. It could be a roll call vote. Well, I'm gonna s- I'm gonna se- let, let me, let me just... Can we explore the votes? Can we explore the votes now? Yes, we can. All right. We can't then. Okay, nevermind then. I will later. Roll call. Ms. Figel? No. Mr. Gray? Yes. Ms. Henson? Yes. Ms. James? Yes. Mr. Lane? No. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Meyers? Yes. Mr. Stennet? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Yes. Ms. Crosby? No. Mr. Ellinger? No. Mm. Roll call. Okay, motion passes. I forgot one. There's Blue. I'm sorry, Mr. Blues. Blues. Yes. Okay. It's recorded. Okay, so the motion passes. Now we need to do the ordinance. She's right there. Yeah. There you go. I suggest you recess. So that she can prepare? All right. What's- I suggest that you recess another five minutes so that she can prepare the two ordinances, as necessary. Okay. That's my request. We'll recess for five minutes then. Thank you. Okay. So the council understands what we're trying to do, uh, before I read everything. We'll have to remove the existing ordinance. Uh, there'll be a motion to remove number seven from the docket. And it'll be replaced with the two separate ordinances, uh, one o- of which we'll vote on separately. So, the first mo- mo- motion is to remove number seven, uh, from the ordinance's second reading. So moved. Second. Motion and second. Is there a discussion? Hearing none. All in favor, please indicate by ... Is this ... We get a roll call on this? No? All right. Indicate by saying aye, please. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Okay. And then I make a motion to walk on 7A, an ordinance changing the zone from a single family residential R1D zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for .363 net gross acres. I'm sorry, net .5516 gross acres for property located at 3097 Old Todds Road, subject to certain restrictions imposed as condition of granted zone change. So moved. Second. Motion and a second. Is there a discussion? Uh, Council Member James. Did you say net or gross? I'm sorry. I said both actually. For a ... It's .363 net and .5516 gross acres. Okay, thanks. Is there any further discussion? A- And it was to approve this zoning, right. This is actually just to walk it on. The motion is to walk it on. We're not voting on the actual motion yet. 3097 Old Todds Road. This is the walk-on 7A, is the motion. All right. Uh, is there no further discussion? Ready for a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Then m- make a motion to walk on 7B, an ordinance changing the zone from a single f- family residential .9238 point ... Or 1.2757 gross acres for the property located at 2981 Caden Lane. And this is the disapproval of that zone change. So moved. There's a motion. Is there a second? Second. The motion is second. Is there a discussion? Hearing none. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Then I'll, I'll make a motion to ... You can go ahead and read the first one. Okay. Number 7A, an ordinance changing the zone from a single family residential R1D zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for a 0.4363 net 0.5516 gross acres for property located at 3097, a portion of Old Todds Road, subject to certain use restrictions imposed as conditions of granting the zone change, Todds Road Development LLC. Number 7B, an ordinance changing the zone from a single family residential R1D zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for a .9238 net 1.2757 gross acres for property located at 2981 Cadentown Road, Todds Road Development LLC. Second. I'll make a motion to spin the reels and get second reading for us. There's a motion, second. Well, hold on. 7A and 7B. W- what we will do, since you usually do second reading before the hearing, we'll go ahead and do second readings if this motion to suspend passes. Then we will need to readapt the findings of the fact for each individual ordinance. We'll do those one at a time. So moved. Second. There's a motion and a second to spin the rules. Is there a discussion? Hearing none. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Number 7A, an ordinance changing the zone from a single family residential R1D zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for a 0.4363 net to 0.5516 gross acres for property located at 3097, a portion of Old Todds Road, subject to certain use restrictions imposed as conditions of granting the zone change, Todds Road Development LLC. Number 7B, an ordinance changing the zone from a single family residential R1D zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for a 0.9238 net 1.2757 gross acres for property located at 2981 Cadentown Road, Todds Road Development LLC. The first one, 7A, was for the smaller portion, which was approved by the Planning Commission, so you only need to adopt the findings of the Planning Commission. Thank you, guys. May I make a motion w- w- we adopt the findings- ... of the fact, uh, of the Planning Commission and approval of Ordinance 7A? So moved. Second. Motion is second. Is there discussion? Hearing none- Need a roll call. Roll call- Need a roll call vote on this, right? Yeah. Okay. Madam Clerk. Ms. Figel? Mr. Gray? Yes. Ms. Henson? Yes. Ms. James? Yes. Mr. Lane? Ms. Lawless? Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Meyers? Yes. Mr. Stennet? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Yes. Mr. Blues? Yes. Ms. Crosby? Yes. And Mr. Ellinger? Thank you. Motion carries. Now, Mr. Stennet? Thank you, Vice Mayor. And -- and Rochelle, I assume it'd be appropriate to read 'em all again? Well, that adopted the findings. Susan was telling me, we now have to have the official vote on the ordinance itself. Before we go on to 7B? Okay. Yes. And -- and so an affirmative vote will grant the zone change the same as the Planning Commission did for that small portion of, uh, that particular line. On 7A? We're still on 7A? This is for the ordinance itself. All right. Are we clear? On 7A. Never. 7A. That, we need a motion for that. Move approval of Ordinance 7A. Motion. Is there a second? Second. There's a motion and a second. Is there a discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? Oh, we gotta do a roll call on this too. Madam Clerk. Ms. Figel? Yes. Mr. Gray? Yes. Ms. Henson? Yes. Ms. James? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Meyers? Yes. Mr. Stennet? Yes. Mr. Beard? Yes. Mr. Blues? Yes. Ms. Crosby? Yes. And Mr. Ellinger? Motion carries. Mr. Stennet? Now, be the motion for the findings of fact for disapproval. And you probably should read them again, just to make sure we do it right. Okay. I make a motion to disapprove the zone change at 20... I apologize, different pieces of paper floating here, at 2981 Cadentown Lane for the following findings of fact. Number one, the request to rezoning to a neighborhood business B1 zone cannot be found in agreement with the 2007 comprehensive plan, which recommends medium density residential MD land used to find its 5-10 dwellings per unit acre for the subject property. For a majority of the property, subject property, the existing single family residential R1D zone could be developed in keeping with the residential recommendation of the plan. Number two, although the subject property is situated at the edge of a defined commercial area and along a recently improved roadway, no justification exists for expansion of business owning for the subject property. KRS 100 in article six of the zoning ordinance require a twofold justification to support a zone change if it is not in agreement with a comprehensive plan that both the existing zone is inappropriate and that the proposed zoning is appropriate. And number three, the Planning Commission is in the, uh, in its discussions and was concerned about the additional traffic impact on Liberty Road, and has found that this additional traffic impact would be detrimental to this area. So moved. There's a motion, there's -- and second discussion on the motion? Hearing none. All in favor, please say, "Aye." Aye. Aye. Wait, we gotta do a roll call? Yep. I just remembered that, after I said that. Sorry, folks. Ms. Figel? No. Mr. Gray? Yes. Ms. Henson? Yes. Ms. James? Yes. Mr. Lane? No. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Meyers? Yes. Mr. Stennet? No. Mr. Beard? Yes. Mr. Bluez? Yes. Ms. Crosby? No. And Mr. Ellinger? Motion carries. Mr. Stennet. Motion to approve on 7B, so moved. Second. Bear in mind that a yes vote would approve the zone change. A no vote will disapprove the zone change. A no vote will be in conformity with the Planning Commission. Right. Now we're talking. A no vote is in conformance with the Planning Commission. We're almost there. Yes, in denying the zone change for this piece of property. Does everybody understand that? Yes. Okay. No. No. You're good, you're good. All right. We have a motion and a second. Three yeses. All right. All right. We have a motion and a second. All right. And we, and roll call vote on this. But that's the ordinance. I didn't ask for... I need clarification. Okay. We need clarification on, yeah. Um. On what you said. Rochelle, go through that again. Because we always draft our zone change ordinances in the affirmative, since your vote would be based on your findings of fact, disapproval of the zone change, which is in agreement with what the Planning Commission recommended, your vote will be no. That is what would result in a disapproval of the zone change. If you would want to approve the zone change, then your vote would be yes. Okay. That's good. Reason, and, and if you hadn't been through a bunch of these, we understand completely, because after three years, it's still confusing. So I want y'all to make sure anybody who's new to the- We won't forget, so don't have to tonight. Okay, all right. I just want... 'Cause I was real timid at first, on these things. All right. But you got it down. So now we... If there's no further discussion, we can... Madam Clerk will call the roll. Ms. Figel? Yes. Mr. Gray? No. Ms. Henson? No. Ms. James? No. Mr. Lane? Yes. Ms. Lawless? No. Mr. McCord? No. Mr. Meyers? No. Mr. Stennet? No, ma'am. Mr. Beard? No. Mr. Bluez? No. Ms. Crosby? No. Mr. Ellinger? Okay, motion failed. What'd you say? Speak out. Help me. Ordinance failed to pass. Right, ordinance failed to pass. Okay. That's what I thought you were saying, Suzanne. I just wanted to make sure. There's a motion and a... There's a motion to adjourn and a second. All in favor, please say, "Aye." Aye. Thank you. Thank y'all for being with us tonight too.