# Council Work Session - February 23, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · February 23, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1237 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1237?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-02-23 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: June 18, 2026 - **Length**: 29,720 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The City Council met with the Mayor presiding over a session that addressed two agenda items spanning housing policy and land use regulation. The meeting included one informational presentation on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and concluded with the approval of a Commercial Signage Text Amendment. Across the course of the meeting, five motions and votes were taken, reflecting deliberation on the items before the council. No public comments were heard during this session. ## Attendance All 14 Council Members were present at the February 23, 2010 meeting. No members were recorded as absent or late. **Present:** - Council Member Ellinger - Council Member Blues - Council Member Stinnett - Council Member Beard - Council Member Lane - Council Member Gordon - Council Member James - Council Member Wallace - Council Member Crosby - Council Member McCord - Council Member Feigl - Council Member Lawless - Council Member Martin - Council Member Myers ## Votes and Decisions The Council took five votes during the February 23, 2010 meeting, all of which passed. - **Approve the Docket as Amended** [timestamp: 00:02]: Council Member Ellinger moved and Council Member Blues seconded a motion to approve the docket as amended. The motion passed by voice vote. [timestamp: 0:02:49] - **Approve Budget Amendments** [timestamp: 15:45]: Council Member Myers moved and Council Member Blues seconded a motion to approve budget amendments. The motion passed by voice vote, with one abstention. [timestamp: 0:15:45] - **Move Item N to the Intergovernmental Committee** [timestamp: 41:02]: Council Member Crosby moved and Council Member Ellinger seconded a motion to refer Item N to the Intergovernmental Committee. The motion passed by voice vote. [timestamp: 0:41:02] - **Schedule a Public Hearing for Turflyn Mall TIF** [timestamp: 47:33]: Council Member McCord moved and Council Member Ellinger seconded a motion to schedule a public hearing for the Turflyn Mall TIF. The motion passed by voice vote. The public hearing was scheduled for March 25th at 7:00 PM. [timestamp: 0:47:33] - **Amend Commercial Signage Text Amendment** [timestamp: 1:21:44]: Council Member Blues moved and Council Member Martin seconded a motion to amend the commercial signage text amendment. The motion passed by roll call vote, 14 ayes to 0 nays, with 1 abstention. [timestamp: 1:21:44] ## Budget and Financial Actions The Council addressed two financial items related to the purchase of recycling and waste management containers during the February 23, 2010 meeting. - **Resolution 475-09** authorized a purchase of recycling and waste management containers at a cost of **$126,819**. No vendor or recipient was identified in the meeting record for this transaction. - A second, additional purchase of recycling and waste management containers was also considered, valued at **$70,930.20**. This item did not carry a separate resolution number in the available record, and no vendor or recipient was identified. Combined, the two container purchases represent a total expenditure of **$197,749.20** in recycling and waste management equipment. No further budget amendments, transfers, grants, or other financial actions were recorded for this meeting. ## Appointments The Council took action on two appointments during the meeting. - **Bobby Owens** was reappointed to the **Airport Board**. - **Mr. Frye** was appointed to the **Masterson Station Park Advisory Board**. ## Contested Items Two items generated notable disagreement during the February 23, 2010 Council meeting. - **Reappointment of Bobby Owens to the Airport Board:** The reappointment of Bobby Owens prompted debate among council members, with concerns raised about past issues at the airport. Despite the opposition, the reappointment ultimately passed by a vote of 12–3, indicating that while a majority supported Owens's return to the board, a significant minority had reservations sufficient to vote against confirmation. - **Commercial Signage Text Amendment:** A proposed text amendment governing the size of signs permitted in commercial areas sparked heated discussion. Council members raised concerns about the potential impact of larger commercial signage on surrounding neighborhoods. The structured data does not include a recorded vote outcome for this item. ## Affordable Housing Trust Fund Presentation [timestamp: 1:23:49] Mary Brooks delivered a presentation to the Council on the benefits and funding options for an Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The presentation was informational in nature, providing the Council with an overview of how such a fund could be structured and what it might mean for the community. Brooks highlighted examples from other cities that have established Affordable Housing Trust Funds, offering the Council a comparative look at how similar programs have been implemented elsewhere. Her presentation also addressed the potential economic impact of creating such a fund locally, underscoring the broader community benefits that affordable housing investment can generate. The discussion covered various funding options that could be used to capitalize a trust fund, giving the Council a sense of the financial mechanisms available for establishing and sustaining this type of program. No formal action was taken as a result of the presentation; the item served as an educational opportunity for Council members to learn about the concept and consider it for future deliberation. ## Commercial Signage Text Amendment [timestamp: 1:21:44] The Council took up a proposed ordinance to amend the commercial signage text, which would allow larger signs under certain conditions. Council Member Blues and Council Member James were the key speakers during the discussion of this item. The amendment was debated with modifications considered before a final decision was reached. The Council ultimately approved the amended ordinance. *Note: Additional details regarding the specific conditions under which larger signs would be permitted, the nature of the modifications made during discussion, and any concerns raised by individual members are not available in the source material for this meeting item.* --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the docket as amended - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve budget amendments - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Move item N to the Intergovernmental Committee - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Schedule a public hearing for Turflyn Mall TIF - **Motion** — passed (14-0): Amend commercial signage text amendment --- ## Full transcript Agenda is public comment on issues that are on today's agenda. Does any member of the public wish to address the council? Seeing none, we'll move ahead. We have a docket to approve. Um, I have a motion by Council Member Ellinger. Mayor. Motion by Council Member Ellinger to approve the docket. Do I hear a second? Second. Second. I have a second by Council Member Blues. I understand there's a zone change on number seven, uh, item seven on the docket. And we need to, uh, determine whether or not there will be a hearing. The zone change here 333-333. Move to put it on the, put it here. Second. I have a motion and second to put item seven on without a public hearing. Any discussion? All in favor of amending the docket to add number seven without a public hearing, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Opposed, "No." Motion carries. We're now ready to vote on the docket as amended. Mayor. Council Member Stinnett. I had a question on number eight, as also was placed on the docket today, uh, in regards to the, uh, changes in a text, uh, amendment to the street addressing in the subdivision regulations. I think Mr. Salih, I, I think you're here to answer this. Uh, I wanna be clear on what we're accomplishing with this zone text amendment or, or text amendment, um, because as I understand it, and, and please correct me if I'm wrong, we currently are approving changes, uh, in addressing, where, whereas a business wants to change their street name, their number, et cetera, into the Office of Public Safety. That's correct. This would transfer that changing, those, those requests from that office to the planning commission. No, sir. Uh, currently there is a conflict in our regulations between the code of ordinance and this provision of the land subdivision regulations. This section is much older than the current code of ordinances, which has been established to set up for the new way of addressing property and dealing with changes to those addresses. This section of the subdivision regulations, though, was not amended years ago when that was set up. So if you will, this is a corollary change to those already that have been done to eliminate the conflict. This conflict was, uh, discussed at a couple of planning commission meetings on specific development plans, is how it came to light. So this would be on, the planning commission would be changing the address on future developments? Yes, they will, they will not be deciding the addressing of property in their regular meetings anymore. Okay, very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Anything further? Seeing none, those in favor of approving the docket as now amended, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, "No." The motion carries. We have a summary to approve from February 16th. Do I hear a motion? Move to approve. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Beard, and was it Council Member Lane that seconded the motion? I did. Th- to approve the summary? All right. Any discussion? All in favor, please say, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, "No." Motion carries. We, uh, have a budget amendment. Okay, Council Member Blues. Council Member Blues, need your microphone. Sorry, you want me to start all over again? Uh, if you would. I move that budget journal 40815 for Logos Digital X-ray system upgrade for the bomb squad grant be removed from consideration of budget journals on page 10 of the work session packet. This item was included with a new business item at the February 16, 2010 work session, and will receive first reading at Thursday's council meeting. So moved. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Blues and a second by Council Member Gordon to remove item 40815. Any discussion? All in favor, please say, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, "No." Motion carries. Council Member James, did I overlook- For budget amendment? Yes, I'm sorry. Um, I just have a question on mine. Uh, all right. Thanks, Mayor. Um, there are two budget journals on page nine, 40803 and 40626-27 that both deal with, um, computers, desktop computers and laptops. And I just want to confirm that, um, confirm or not confirm, that I thought during our budget process that all computers were budgeted in IT's budget for each one of the divisions. So I'm trying to figure out what happened to that funding that was allocated in IT for computers to where these folks are having to move it from another line item. If you'll give us just a moment- Thank you. ... we'll, uh, see if we can get somebody to address that issue for you. One of them is a grant, and one is replacement computers are budgeted in IT, but new purchases are budgeted actually in the division itself, so they know where they would need if they have a new employee coming in. Um, that's how it's budgeted currently. Okay, but I guess... Okay, so the 40626-27 was from the grant. I'm guessing that's the- That's correct. ... community development one, and then the public works, they actually didn't budget for it. It was... They're actually moving money from some other line item. If they are purchasing a new one and if it wasn't budgeted as a replacement, then it has to be budgeted in the division. Okay. How is the... What's the line item description, do you know, for the, for desktop computers and laptops? You know what the line item description is? Because they're moving it from operating supplies to provide funds, and I'm trying to figure out what the line item is that it... How will we know this when we're going through our links process, how much someone has, um- Spent on PCs? ... budgeted. Mm-hmm. Is that correct? Yes. Well, we have, uh, in, in PeopleSoft, we can find out how much something was spent on PCs from, uh, what PCs were purchased. So we do have that capability, and you can have a total cost o- of how much was spent. Okay, from each one of the different divisions, not just from IT? Yeah. The... Thank you, Linda. Um, there is a, an account set up for PCs. Okay. And the line item here does say desktops and laptops, so from that account, we will be able to see how much was spent on desktops and PCs. Okay, so... And you're saying this is for... Um, that line item would only be used for new and not for replacement? Well, I, I have to verify that, because what I'm saying is, if you are in a division and you're buying a new PC for a new employee or something that is not on a replacement schedule, then the division budgets that and then places the order through IT. Okay. And if it's on a replacement schedule, let's say that the lifetime of a PC is five to seven years or three years depending on what the PC is, once we reach that, we replace it with a new PC. That is budgeted in IT, so... Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I had a... Same question, Uh, Commissioner Rama, or Rumpke. Sorry, but ba- but the same issue that Council Member James brought up, I was just curious, um, which urban services fund this is, and where... I- is it- Are you talking about the- ... actually coming from the urban services and urban services fund and which one? Are you talking about the current one? The very same, the computers that we were just talking about, uh, budget amendment 40803. But it's coming from public works, isn't it? It is public works, so it would be general funding. Because the summary of the budget amendments says there's nothing from urban services, so I was just curious. The public works is coming from their operating expense, uh- Just general fund? ... and it's, it is part of the general fund. I don't think that's open to services. So... Okay. Let me ask Elizabeth if she- The fund name is Urban Services Fund. I think, sorry, we walked up here with nothing. So y- you're thinking it's really general fund money? What does that say? Urban Services on the list? I don't see it says fund name. Did you get it? Yeah. Um, this one for, uh, public works is the Urban Service District Fund. Which one? There's only one Urban Service District Fund. I mean, is it street lights? Is it- It's the f- the fund as a whole. It, it's not a particular, any particular service that's going to fund this. It's the fund as a whole. It's funding the administrative portion of public works. Okay. So- So I'll... I, I suppose a portion of all of these services will be funding this. Okay. I wasn't aware that we weren't keeping track. Could you please- W- we are keeping track as far as the services as they relate to the waste management, street lights, street keeping. Yes. But this is an administrative function within that fund, so it's being funded from other sources, not necessarily the property taxes themselves. There are other sources of revenue within the Urban Service Fund. What are those? Can you remind me? Um, I can get you the detail for it. I don't have it right off the top of my head, but there are, there are a variety of, of, uh, revenues within that fund. Okay, and then should the summary of budget amendment requests reflect that there is something from Urban Services Fund? It says zero- No, the, the summary is correct. That is the name of the fund. So then that's what's being provided here for you. Okay, and nothing... There's no movement there? It's not with... It is within the fund itself. Okay. It's not coming from anywhere else, but I can get you w- information on the revenue sources- Okay. ... within that fund, absolutely. I appreciate that very much. Yeah, no problem. Thank you. Council Member Wallace. Oh, it is my turn. Thank you. Um, Mrs. Rama, Commissioner Rama, uh, this is for you also. Um, are we still using Dell as the sole source provider for our computers? That's correct. And, um, so if there's a more competitive price than Dell, it has to go through Dell, which is... Well, um there are competitive prices that we can get online and from different groups all the time. And, uh, I'll, uh, answer this. M- Mr. Beard had a, a similar question to me this morning, and I'm sorry I didn't get to respond to it yet. Um, the state price contract, the UK's price contract, and there are others who have better purchasing capacity, and they've gone out to bid and we can use their price contracts. So there's a range of commodities we can buy from these price contracts and we treat PCs as a commodity that we buy from them. So whether it's 625, depending on the type of PC, for example, an administration... A- administrative person would require a PC that, uh, needs lower processing power. The GIS folks will need something different. We use the purchase contracts available to price which type of a PC we want, and we buy it from the existing contracts and we make sure they're typically... Th- most of the time they're pretty competitive because they've gone out to bid and the state buys about 30,000 PCs and we buy about 1800 in three years. So we don't have that capacity to, um, buy it at the lowest price like the state does. So we're able to use their contract and get a lower price. Well, if we had, um, more than one source that we could purchase them for, from, um, as we do with many other commodities- Mm-hmm. ... um, we might be better off and also be able to buy locally, which I've s- been concerned about for some time. Sure. Um, when it come u- when it comes to a PC, we have to burn the images on. There's an operating system. There are certain things that go into place. When you break that out, it's very difficult for us to manage it. With Dell, we send them an image, they upload it in any PC we want it. So the total cost of ownership of a PC is what we look at. And during the lifetime, what does it cost to own this? We could buy it cheaper somewhere and then we're in house putting four people to update Word, you know, put all the other things that need to go on it. That really doesn't save us any time. Yeah, the price of the PC might be cheaper, but we just spent, you know... In terms of people who we need to install that, that's more expensive. So we look at the total cost of ownership of a PC and look at the lifetime of that and see what does it cost us. That's what, uh, goes into the evaluation. Mm-hmm. And we have... You know, we've done a lot to break down contracts, for example, and others, in terms of programming, gathering requirements. We've broken them down from the bigger contracts and local companies are able to compete and bid for that. And they have done it successfully because we've done that. So there'll be... When will that opportunity for them to bid on it? Are you talking about the PC here or the programming piece? Because there are two separate pieces. Either. Well, the PC, we've already decided it, it's cheaper for us to go with the state price contract. So that decision's made and we've been doing that for two years now. Okay. And unless... Uh, you know, when the state goes out every three years, we look at their contract and we see is it cheaper to get it somewhere else. And if it is, sure, we'll be glad to go out and, you know... As long as, as I said, if they're willing to do everything we've asked in terms of put all the operating system, the things that need to go in there and it's going to cost us less, that's what we're looking for. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anything further on the budget amendments? We need a motion to approve them, then. So moved. Do I hear a second? Second. Council member Myers has moved to approve the budget amendments. Council member Blues has seconded that motion. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Mayor, I'm going to abstain. On the budget amendment vote? Yes. All right. Um, your abstention is noted by the clerk. Madam Clerk, we have some items of new business for your consideration. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. Council member Lane has moved to approve the new business items. Council member Gordon has seconded that motion. Any discussion? Council member Stennet. Thank you, Mayor. On item A, I assume... Um, I know Rama is back there, uh, still, but item A under the copy machine for the Department of Finance, I assume it's the same discussion we just had on computers that we have a, a state contract we're using to provide these, these type of machines 'cause I, I, I know we have a large cost in copy units here in this government building. And I think you and I have had this discussion before as to do we have a one source provider? Is it A.B. Dick for copy machines or digital imaging units or are we using a state contract? How do we award these contracts? 'Cause it seems like different divisions are giving it to different people. Well, um, this is in purchasing and I probably have to defer to Brian Markham at this point, but we do use the state price contract and, uh, uh, I think it is one provider from what I understand. Did we bid that one provider out? For using the state price contract? But, but we don't- I don't know. It wasn't individually bid out, no. Well, but, but what you and I have talked about is we use one specific company locally to get those machines. Correct. Do we get a- And they are a local company. Right. But do, do we bid that out? I mean, why not, why not, uh, have the ability to use any company locally if it's a state price contract, as long as they can provide that machine at that price? Well, I guess it's an administrative issue if you want to... You know, I have no problem as long as all the needs are met with... Uh, you know, I have to defer to purchasing on that and see what the rules are in terms of- Well, can, can you do that and get us the, the information about what the process is? Can each council member use a different copy company if we need to get a new printer or something? I mean, we need to understand that because I think that there's some information out there that's incorrect. Okay. They're saying we only can use one, one company locally to provide those contract prices and- That's not true. We can use any company as long as they're willing to provide that state price. Well, my assumption is that the company that bid on the state price contract and got the bid, if you're using the state price contract, we have to use that contract number. So a company that didn't bid and win the contract at the state, we wouldn't be able to use them technically, because we, we have to refer to that. But that's my point, we are. We're using other companies. So we just need to clarify that and make sure. Right. And then Mayor, on number, uh, item K, uh, Division of Water Quality, again, we're moving positions around, creating positions, abolishing positions. What specific position are we doing on item K and what department? Is it Water Quality? Is it Sewers, Storm Water? All right. Uh, I think Commissioner Taylor may be able to shed some light on that. But since Mr. Marcum just walked in, Brian, if you could come up and elaborate just a little bit on the state purchasing contract, perhaps we can resolve that issue now. Yeah. In the past, we did bid on contract. And, uh, at the time we were bidding it, A.B. Dick was the one that was awarded the contract. Since then, we've been, uh, purchasing off state contract because what happened was you have a lot of difference, uh, different variables in the model numbers, okay? So some, some vendors carry 30 page per minute and then some 35. So it's difficult to sort of equate, so we chose to use the state contract. We were trying to standardize machines using the Konica model that's on state contract. But since then, we've also been talking to some other local vendors that also supply Konica. Konica gave dual vendors the, uh, ability to sell their product in Fayette County, which makes it more difficult on us trying to divide up the business. So we've been talking to that other vendor and told them that future, future copiers, we would present those to them. We're thinking the prices are gonna be equal, so how do we draw the line on, you know, who gets w- which ones? And, and so we're gonna put the cost per copy back on them. If it's the same, then it's really ult- ultimately up to the user to decide which one they wanna go with. So there are two different vendors we can use for copying? There's probably multiple. I mean, I mean, I think there's more than two. I think Xerox is actually on state contract- Right. ... and Canon, but what happens is then you, you sort of divert- Yeah. ... from your strategy of standardizing your equipment and then your supply cost, you can't gain the economies of scale on your supply cost by having a contract for supplies for one machine. You have to have supplies for multiple machines. So you sort of lose that economy by diverting back to multiple, uh, sources, I guess. But it's really optional. We use the state contract and any of them that are on there that we can use. We were just sort of trying to stay with the standard machine. I just think, Mayor, during this tough budget time, um, there's an opportunity here government-wide, every building we own, every office we own, to standardize one copy lease or contract for either a 12-month or 24-month period to save a lot of money. And I don't know if we've looked, really looked hard at it lately, but, um, there's an opportunity there since the market technology has changed a lot lately. Well, we're having the a- we have the ability, we have a software, a print audit software to put on. Because in order to sort of do a consolidated contract where we're really prai- paying a total price per copy for the whole organization, we have to have that data back out to present to all of the pr- providers to make sure that they can submit a competitive bid. So we're working with IT right now to make sure that print audit software is attached to the, to the network servers so we can get the data back out. So then we can go out with an educated proposal, okay? So is this the same for printers and or copiers, same system? It, it really, uh, it really is. There are some groups that will, uh, provide maintenance on all devices. Right. And so we can look at it both ways. We could break it down as a printer and a copier and then do it as a total to see where we're at in the print per copy to see if it- We've kind of gravitated to the multifunction machines. Yes. And there's really no big difference, so that's what I'm trying to get to is, we have separate printer needs, we have separate cop- but really they're one need now. Yeah, the only difference is, uh, Councilman Stennet, is sometimes the copiers have a, a more beefed up engine, work engine- Sure. ... and then, then the multifunctions. Okay. So- I just want to make sure this was within our contracts and it, it sounds like- Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Yeah. And Mr. Marcum, you, if you would, uh, Council Member Stennet, if it would be helpful for you all to have a further conversation about this, I'd, I'd like for you to get with Council Member Stennet and- I will. ... discuss that so we can get the best price possible. Okay. Now, Commissioner Taylor, if you'll come up and, uh, talk a little bit about the position changes. Yeah. Um, as part of what we're doing in the Division of Water Quality in order to meet the requirements of the consent decree and improve the systems that we really haven't had in place for 30 years, we are doing some reorganization in, in bits and pieces. Um, these particular positions are actually in sanitary sewer portion of the work. Uh, and if you, um, take a look at, I don't know if you have this attachment in the back, page 32, but it explains, we had three vacancies from the way we used to do work. Um, and what we have done is created two from three. Uh, each of those positions is a little higher level of skill, and the primary area that they're going to assist us in is the miles and miles and miles of sewer camera work that we're doing, the data that we're collecting, making decisions about repair. As we're going through the city, we're finding many, many, many problems in our sewers. So we have one crew going through, getting data, assessing data, and then creating a work list for the second crew that's coming along behind to repair. So that's, um, two positions that we needed more than the three vacancies. Those were, uh, lower skilled positions and we didn't need them as much. O- O- One thing that would be helpful to, to the council as we do, 'cause we're, we're doing a lot of this, it seems like, in Environmental Quality is one, identify the, the area, whether it be sanitary sewers, storm water, whatever it may be- And then also, se-- I know we have a, a plan for how many new positions we need. Give us a, a running total of, we filled, you know, we needed 34, we've already done 35, or, or 25 of the 34. So we know- We have a plan and as we move forward though, we have made adjustments to plan, because we, we're finding the data as we go. So we have a preliminary plan, but then we're ch- altering the plan based on the facts. So- So, again, I know during- ... we can, we can keep you posted. ... the stormwater management fee discussions, we said we were gonna hire 60, 90 people, something like that. We need to understand where we're at in that process, now that we're collecting these fees and, you know, moving these positions around, it's hard to track where we're at in the overall plan on that. We have an org chart, if that would help, and then we can k- show you where these positions are. We have a lot of vacancies in, in both operating areas right now, and we're trying to fill those. And when we fill them, we try to make sure that the position that we create meets the skill need that we have, as opposed to just filling something that we had in the past. So ... Thank you. Then Mayor, one last item, L. If we could get a map for the public to see of what the clean, uh, zone will encompass on item L, because I think they're, they're still, the public doesn't understand what that clean zone and the, the parameters of that area. If we could get that on our website or, or somewhere, so people could actually see it, that'd be great. Thank you. Ms. Greathouse, if you'll make sure that happens, it's a good request. Anything further, Council Member Stennet? Council Member Crosby. I'll actually defer first. Council Member James was ahead of me. Our names keep getting take- removed from the list. I don't know wh- Thanks, Council Member Crosby. ... why that was, but- Appreciate that. My question's on item K. Um, and I'm not sure if this is, uh, Commissioner Taylor will need to respond. My question, Mayor, is really what, what is the difference between the division's personnel contingency fund versus budgeted for personnel? And so that might be more of a Commissioner Rumpke or whoever wants to take a shot at it. That's three of 'em. Can you restate your question? I just wanna make sure- What's the difference between a division's personnel contingency fund versus budgeted personnel? So in item K it says, "A savings of $5,118.26." Or I'm sorry, "$118.26 to the division's personnel contingency fund." What does that mean- Yeah. ... versus personnel line item? You can start that one, and I'll find out as well. No, I'm not. Okay. Well, my understanding of the contingency fund is that's probably not the best name for that particular line item, but what it is is at the beginning of the year, as I mentioned earlier, we had a personnel plan and it takes quite a bit longer to fill the spots sometimes than you've budgeted for. And so we, it's, it becomes sort of the area where we have personnel funding that's available, but we haven't filled the spots. Um, so we have, as we've changed these positions, we're actually saving $5,000. We're going from three positions to two. Mm-hmm. So the, the money that would've been spent on those positions is now being spent on the new position. Okay. That explains contingency fund as you understand it. Now what's the difference between budgeted personnel cost versus the contingency fund? Okay. I would, I would add one thing to what the commissioner said. Um, I think also in addition in, um, water quality, at the beginning of the year, they've budgeted funds to deal with some of these issues very specifically that they've got, where they know they're going to be reclassing some positions related to, um, the consent decree. So we have budgeted some contingency funds to apply toward, in their personnel, that aren't necessarily associated with a plant operator, you know, any of these specific positions by name. But we know that they're gonna need those funds in doing some of these reclasses that are coming forward. Okay. So there, it's a little more sophisticated than just a division's vacant positions. There are specific funds that we've budgeted within their, keeping their plans in mind, to take care of some of these reclasses that are being brought forward to you. Are there other divisions where that contingency exists? Not, not in this way that I, I can think of off the top of my head, but I'll, I'll verify- Awesome. ... that when I go back to the office. And were these, um, susceptible to the, I always forget the name of it, the reduction management plan? These are in a, uh, not in the general fund. Okay. So typically, no, they wouldn't have been impacted by that. But, again, I can verify that for you. Um, but the division has a personnel budget as a whole- Mm-hmm. ... of which this contingency is a component of that. Does that help you out- Okay. ... a little bit? Yeah, I think so. Thank you. So it, it is budgeted overall, but very specifically, the funds are coming from this contingency that we've got budgeted to deal with these reclasses and situations as they come up. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Now, Cro- Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question on N, as in Nancy. Sorry, I have a little cold. Um, I'm not sure if Logan might be the appropriate person. I'm more specifically looking at page 40 of our packet. And first, I know that this is based on an executive order from the mayor to review, uh, legal, lega- legal bills that are in excess of a certain dollar amount. Correct. S- my question is, one, do we have anybody in-house who's capable of doing this? We are doing that currently on all outside counsel legal bills, but there are certain cases where we have very significant bills, and that's what the executive order suggested, that we get an independent set of eyes on those bills. So that's the reason that this RFP was issued. Well, I guess, why would we need an outs- I, I, I'm looking at number one first that we're gonna get into a three-year contract with an attorney and increase their hour billable rate first year, second year, the third year. And then number two I find probably to be, uh, the most concerning is the fact that the contractor, the attorney who's looking over these bills, will be paid 12% of any savings achieved on a defense firm's monthly bill. I mean, that sounds to me like a bonus or an incentive or, or a contingency based on their work and a- are we allowed to get into that type of contract? I think the answer is yes, and I was not involved in the RFP process. I know this worked through Mr. Markham's office and I know he's still here and I don't know how many... I think we had two or three proposals as I recall, but it was my understanding that this was the best proposal that, uh, was submitted. Maybe Mr. Markham could come up to the microphone and... Um, we did receive two. There was an evaluation done on the, uh, the both proposals, and we brought forth the, uh, recommendation of the selection group. Um, the proposal requested that you provide us with a percentage rate to... And we developed that scope with the help, I think, of Tom Sweeney. I think that's who Candy worked with. So it was, uh, it wa- it's an added incentive for them, yes, on top to try to collect more back. So I mean, I guess o- on one hand they're reviewing at an hourly rate, and then you have to go through the process of then trying to collect those. Okay, so if we're gonna ask outside counsel to justify their bills, that we have a team of attorneys who w- I would think, as you said, c- can analyze these bills. If they're having to justify their bills, I guess the next question would be, are we getting billed for them to justify... 'Cause that's time spent that they're justifying what they've billed to us. Are we gonna be billed for those hours too? And then are we incenting two attorneys, outside attorneys, against each other to question legal bills when we're... Go ahead. I'll stop. Uh, I think that, that is actually the position of the RFP was to hire an outside law firm to then investigate those bills as they're comin' through to see if there are things on there that are suspect, or maybe I shouldn't say suspect, that are something that we should question. So yeah, they would be reviewing the bills of other attorneys. That is a possibility, and the two firms that we believe would, under the executive order, where this would apply, I've had discussions with both of the principals in both of those firms about our need to do this. And so they're aware of it. And so is that a possibility? Yes, it's a possibility that that could happen. There could be some disagreement about, you know, entries on bills. That's a possibility. Well, we're, we're, we're incenting somebody to, to basically do that ab- ab- above and beyond, I guess, w- we're still gonna get billed from the other people justifying their bills probably, because that's work they've done for government. Well, I think- And then we're, we're... Oh, go ahead. I was gonna say, and then we're incenting somebody to look for questions in a certain dollar amount of bills when we have in-house people that I would think would know if somebody was on the phone for however length of time, if that was reasonable towards a case. I understand we have some big things going on, but we also have a whole legal department and if you c- I g- I guess my point is, if we can do it for a $50,000 and under case, what's the difference if it's $100,000 that, that, that... Let me try to chime in on this, because this is something I specifically recommended. In the 2007 state of the merge government address, I pointed out that we had a number of very significant pieces of litigation that were then pending. We still have a curr- a couple of those items that are, uh, still with us because they're very complicated and very expensive pieces of litigation that we are still wrestling with. It is increasingly the practice to have external review of law firm bills, particularly when they are in substantial amounts. I think the order addressed bills in excess of $100,000 if I recall correctly. In a year. A year. And, and, you know, maybe a different amount is appropriate. If you want to go to 50, I certainly have no quarrel with that. I would be reticent to go higher. The whole point here is to have somebody else outside the law department who isn't accustomed to working with outside counsel on a day in, day out basis scrutinize those bills to make sure what we are paying is an appropriate amount. Now, yes, there is an incentive element in the contract to, um, encourage people to scrutinize those bills. If you have some discomfort with that, that's fine. I'm not hung up on exactly what the structure of the contract is, but I do think it is prudent practice for us to have external review. ... of, uh, those cases where we're incurring substantial legal fees, just to make sure that the amount we are paying is appropriate. W- uh, i- i- you mentioned that this was a practice, a common practice. I guess, is, are you d- are you referring across the governments or- No, I'm talking about nationwide. O- o- o- okay. So against, I mean, on all cases or just, um, w- within governments that this is a national, this is a national practice? No. I said it is increasingly common for there to be an external review of substantial legal bills just to make sure that the amount we're being charged by outside counsel is appropriate. And if it is, then there's some peace of mind associated with the fact that the amount we're, we're paying is, uh, fair. And if there is a sense that we're being charged inappropriately, that is too much, uh, we will far more than save the amount of money that we're talking about paying under the contract. I guess, maybe I'm just still unclear on who, a national practice of who? Of, um, j- of government, is- I'm thinking of- ... governments or of private industry or... Particularly private industries where I've seen it. I mean, uh, uh, for instance, the firm where I used to practice was routinely hired to review bills from firms all around the country for some of the larger clients because their in-house legal departments wanted to know if the amounts they were paying were appropriate. The next question I have, maybe I- I don't know if Brian or Logan is, why are we getting into a three-year contract with this person and increasing their, uh, billable hours year to year? Um, all I can say on that is, uh, that was the scope that came down from the law department. I th- I think it's, uh, common in some of their other contractual arrangements to have a three-year. There's nothing at this point that says we can't reduce that to year to year for sure. Well, I would just say because the executive order, as Ms. Straskey stated, was over th- th- th- th- the hours billed in a year are in ex- excess of $100,000 per year, so I'm not sure why we would enter into a three-year contract with somebody when we're looking at a yearly dollar figure for one and also then increase their billable hours and then offer incentive for them to earn more money by trying to question all the legal fees. There's no doubt that we have a lot of, um, ongoing litigation that's quite costly. I s- I guess I'm still struggling with the fact that we c- we don't have anybody who can do this in-house, that this could become quite costly. It might be helpful, um, if I could send you all some information about the kinds of cases that we're talking about and how those bills are currently processed. Um, you all receive information currently on your litigation reports that show what we're paying by quarter and total on some of the litigation. Uh, there are two matters that have been going on in excess, well, one of 'em has been going on since '06 and the other's been going on since 1998, that, uh, where we have significant amounts that have been expended for legal service and those matters are ongoing and those are the only two matters that I am aware of that would fall within the purview of the executive order. So I can try to give you all some more information or if you want some more information about what's done nationally, we can try to get that as well, if that would help. I have more questions on this and it's been suggested maybe by a few of my colleagues that we put this into committee and look at- That's fine. ... how to deal with this, so I guess I'll make a motion that we move this into intergovernmental committee and so moved. I have a motion and second to move item N to the Intergovernmental Committee. The motion was by Council Member Crosby, a second was by Council Member Ellinger. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Um, Council Member Wallace. Yes, I have a couple of questions and, um, Commissioner Ask you, uh, one of 'em is on the end, I just, while we're on this, you said you had talked to the principals of both of the law firms. What law firm does this, um, attorney work for? Uh, there are two law firms, Frost Brown & Todd, uh, in the, uh, Guy versus LFUCG at all case, the Ron Berry case, and the other is Greenbaum, Dahl & McDonald that's providing environmental, um, legal- No, I mean- ... assistance with the consent decree. Oh, Mr. Boscani. One- Mr. Boscani? Mm-hmm. What about Mr. Bos- I'm sorry, I misunderstood your question. No, what law firm does he work for? I believe that he and his wife practice together. I believe it's Boscani and Boscani, if I read this correctly. I, I do not know him. Okay. Just maybe when we get to that in committee. Um, and also, I had a question about K, um... I don't know if this is an H -- thank you. Sure. Um, I don't know if this is an HR question or a question for Commissioner Taylor. If you could tell us what the question is- The question is- ... we'll take it. ... um, who is doing this work right now? Or is there somebody on contract doing this work? And secondly, um, have these positions been, already been, um, published and do you, are there people that are expected to get these positions? So firstly, is there somebody that's been doing this work on contract? Uh, I can't tell you for certain. I would expect that to some extent that the contractors that we're using who are actually running the cameras and collecting the data- Mm-hmm. ... that data is actually going into Rod's Services Group and we are trying to absorb and create as much as we can, but the data's coming in much faster than we have people to deal with it. Mm-hmm. A lot of it involves, it's beyond my ability, but maybe Rama could explain it, but we have videotape, data files, monitoring and all that kind of thing, photos, and all that has to be downloaded and then decisions made about what to do to repair. So right now because we've been doing this for about 12 months, we're starting to get a lot of this data in and we need two more people to be able to, to use it. So right now it's either our people are doing it, you know, by working extra time or using some contractors to help us with some of that, but in general it's not getting done. Okay. And then the three positions that we're eliminating are vacant currently and they were really designed around the old way, I mean, it's a, it's a... We have I think right now seven levels of engineering something in water quality, um, so we have it kind of sliced and diced pretty small. We're trying to eliminate some of these grates that really aren't of value at this point. And then the two positions, equipment operator senior, rather than having people operating equipment, what we need is people to manage the data and develop the maintenance strategies. So are we expecting to put the people we've had on contract in these positions? No. These would be new positions. We're eliminating three vacancies and then we'll have two, and if, if the council approves that, then those positions would be open for people to apply. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Any further discussion of the new business items? All then in favor of approving, uh, business items A through M let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Um, we're now down to, uh, the presentations and I had a request from Mr. Simpson to go out of order on the agenda. I think all Mr. Simpson needs is a hearing date on the TIF application and we may be able to, uh, let him and his client who has, uh, travel arrangements to make, be, be away. That's correct, Mayor. I'm Bruce Simpson on behalf of the Rubaloff Group in connection with a TIF application that we have filed, uh, for the redevelopment of Turflyn Mall. Um, we have had a meeting with the nearby neighbors that went very well. We've appeared before the Planning Commission. Received approval from the Planning Commission that our, um, request is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. The next step in the processing of the application is to have a public hearing and, uh, my purpose in being here today is to ask for a public hearing and we're asking for March the 23rd, which would be a work session. Uh, we don't anticipate there to be a, a whole lot of, uh, debate about it, which would be consistent with some of the other TIF hearings that this body has had, but, uh, at this point, we look at March the 23rd as an appropriate time to have that hearing. Uh, I take it March 23rd at 3:00 PM? Yes. Yeah. All right. Um, is there a motion to schedule a public hearing at that time? So moved. Second. Have a motion by Council Member McCord and second by Council Member Ellinger to schedule a public hearing on the, uh, Turflyn Mall TIF for March 23rd at 3:00 PM. Any discussion? Council Member Gorton. Uh, yes, um, Mr. Simpson, is there a reason that you wouldn't want this after work sessions so that neighbors who work during the day might be able to attend? No reason. Um, if you want to put it on for- I, I was- ... a 7:00 meeting, that's fine as well. Well, or 6:00 or 5:30 even. Hmm. That's fine, either one of those. Work. I... Would it, would it be appropriate to have it in conjunction with the council meeting on a Thursday evening? Sure. Does that create any problem? That would solve your concern would it not? And are we scheduled to meet on the 25th? Yes. All right. That'd be fine. I take it that's a motion to amend- Yes. I move that we schedule the public hearing at, do we want to do it at 7:00? Seven? Yes. And then right before the council meeting. On the 25th. Do I hear a second? Second that amendment. Motion to amend. So moved. I have a second, uh, from Council Member Hinson. The motion now is to amend the original motion to change the date from the 23rd to the 25th and to have it at 7:00 PM. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Um, we had a very astute observation by one of our frequent council meeting attendees, um, about display of information prior to public hearings. Um, Mr. McCarthy, um, expressed that he would love to be able to see the documentation and I wondered if, if I could make the request to have the TIF documentation on display somewhere within the Government Center, um, for that week of. So beginning that Monday leading up till the Thursday, um, we have it on public display. If you have panels that you can display- ... um, and constituents could just come down and -- and take a look at and browse around during that week. We can do that. Thank you. Absolutely. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you. Any further discussion on the amendment? All then in favor of amending the motion to schedule the public hearing on March 25th at 7:00 PM, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed, no. The motion carries. The -- the motion is now amended. Those in favor of holding a public hearing on, uh, March 25th at 7:00 PM, uh, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed, no. The motion carries. Anything further? Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Get back on the agenda now, um, the next item is the planning committee report. Council Member Court. Uh, I was not present and my vice chair, Council Member Blues, is going to give the report. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, the planning committee met at 1:00 PM Tuesday, February 16, with eight of 10 members in attendance, uh, as well as Council Members Martin and Henson. The, uh, committee first took up the commercial signage text amendment, which was approved by the Planning Commission on September 24th, 2009. The main issue at, for the -- for the planning commission was the, uh, the extent to which to ex- ex- ex- uh, uh, to, uh, in, uh, expand the size, allowable size of -- of, uh, commercial real estate signs. The, uh, propert- the Commercial Property Association of Lexington had recommended, uh, a 64 foot, uh, square foot maximum. The planning commission on, on the recommendation of the staff opted for 32, uh, square feet. That text amendment, uh, as, as then approved by the, by the commission was brought to council, uh, for consideration and it was referred to the p- planning committee at the request of Council Member Martin. Following discussion at Tuesday's meeting, uh, which a- again addressed the issue of allowable size of the, uh, of the commercial real estate signs and members of the Commercial Property Association of Lexington, uh, brought forward a compromised, uh, recommendation. After that was discussed, the, uh, uh, Council Member Ellinger moved to forward the text amendment to the full council, uh, as amended according to the recommendation of the, of the prop- of Commercial Property Association. That motion was approved by 62, by a six to two majority of planning commission, planning committee members. Excuse me. Therefore, I move to place on the docket of the February 25 council meeting, the Planning Commission's September 24th, 2009 commercial signage text amendment itself amended as follows, that commercial real estate signs up to, but not exceeding 64 square feet be permitted in any one or more, if any one or more of the following circumstances is present. One, the building to which such signage pertains contains 100,000 or more square feet. Two, the site to which such signage pertains contains two or more acres, and three, the property to which such signage pertains is located along a four-lane public highway. So moved. Do I hear a second? Second was by Council Member Martin. Any discussion? Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I s- I sit on the planning committee and voted against, I was one of two votes against, um, this change. Um, and I wanted to explain a little bit why, um, really in hopes that I could gain support, um, of my colleagues on council of understanding this. Um, fortunately or unfortunately, some of our residential areas are in four-lane highway areas. Um, many of those are right now, um, being, uh, subject to signs that are greater than, um, probably, probably at the 64 sq- uh, square foot maximum. Um, definitely at least at the 32 square feet. Not even had a council member, um, ask me what, what can I do about the, what, what am I doing in my district about the signs, um, along this major road? Um, because it is, it's an, it's a disruption. Um, I think in the days of computer technology, people are going online to look at things. Um, I've not heard of very many people that are just riding around town seeing where things are and looking for the biggest, most giant, um, s- fluorescent signs, um, to, to choose their property. A lot of them are using the online services. I don't think the size needs to be bigger. Um, I think maybe, um, that we think, um, the bigger something is and the more we can put it in somebody's face, then the more they a- are apt to acknowledge that and choose that and I don't nes- know necessarily that that's the case. I think there might be a crisis now in commercial development. It may not be... It may not be that people are buying them. New businesses may not be starting. Um, but I don't think the- the deal is to- to get bigger signage. Um, I think we need to work on an alternative plan to that, so maybe there are some other ways that we could he- the commercial, um, group of getting their words out, whether that's involving them, engaging them in neighborhood associations and talking about commercial properties that are available and introducing retail, um, establishment, um, providers to neighborhoods so that they can support those types of things. Um, one of the problems is we currently are not enforcing the existing sign, um, ordinance as we should. Um, that's our oversight and because of that, then these folks have put up these signs that are illegal. Um, so what we're saying is that's what everybody's using, so let's just make it legal to do so. That's what this- that's what's gonna be helpful. I think that's the wrong way to go. I think we should enforce it. There was a- there was a reason why the planning commission approved the 32 square feet. I do approve that. Anything larger, it doesn't matter to me whether you're along a four-lane highway, uh, 100 square feet, I don't think that makes any difference. I think we can look at other ways to expand it and help, um, but I don't necessarily think that bigger is better. Our neighborhoods will suffer, um, and I would look, if- if this does pass, I would look for a way to exclude the areas that are, um, that abound, um, primarily residential areas because it is an intrusion, um, on that residential lifestyle. I can give you some roads to ride down. Take Broadway for existence, for, um, example. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. The, uh, the cour- current ordinance as amended, um, and it was approved by the planning committee, um, is more restrictive than what has been the practice in Lexington for possibly several decades. Um, I think this represents a- a compromise between, uh, the applicant and I guess the, I guess they represent the- the commercial, um, real estate community. Uh, but as it represents a- a sort of compromise to- to maintain at least the status quo, uh, with respect to these three categories of properties, um, so that, uh, um, so that, uh, the- the- the size of the project and the scope of the project, um, is- is sufficiently large enough to, uh, uh, to warrant, uh, a sign that- that, uh, of the type that's being currently used. I mean, we're talking about signs like on- on I-75, uh, and signs that have fairly large project, uh, f- footprints and things like that. So, um, I guess especially in this down economy, I think these businesses are very concerned about n- uh, us moving toward a very, uh, restrictive, uh, type of- of ordinance, particularly with respect to these larger types of properties. So, uh, I- I do support this. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I am sorry I couldn't be at that meeting. Was there discussion about, I think Council Member James made some good points about neighborhoods and four-lane highways. Was there any discussion about perhaps just having the two conditions so that you had to meet one or the other and that it couldn't be that... You're shaking your head no. That it couldn't be in a neighborhood on a four-lane road. Was that potential discussed? Hmm. Well, that would be one way to solve the problem would be to amend it. Um, since I wasn't in on all the discussion, maybe some of those of you who were could think about that. Council Member Lawless. Um, admittedly, I was, uh, I've been in the process of juggling extra chainsaws last two or three weeks and, um, had, um, had some concerns also because in the third district, and I'm sure it's not the only district, the, uh, real estate signs and residential areas is not being enforced, um, a lot of times and I had trouble about how this would impact the neighborhoods as far as, um, the commercial signage and, um, there's a difference between driving down Broadway or Main Street or Richmond Road, which is a four-lane highway and driving down I-75 between... And I don't know where I-75 goes, so I'm gonna say Louisville and Cincinnati or whatever out- out beyond. Um, there- there's a real difference there, so, um, that too is my concern. Thank you. Council Member Beard. I didn't push the button hard enough. Um, if in fact we're doing our zoning properly, you're not gonna find many 100,000 square foot buildings in a residential neighborhood anyway, so... Pardon me? I was just speaking to the four-lane highway. Oh, well, no, I'm... The- the neighborhood question, which is I think what is the primary concern of everyone, I just don't feel that there's m- much exposure there, uh, that- that- that- that might, uh, uh, be a problem to us. I mean, all of us recognize that, uh, uh, we wanna take care of our neighborhoods, but at the same time, uh, uh, these builders, especially with the economy being what it is, these builders are trying to move these properties and, uh, and, uh, get leases signed. So I just wanted to remind everybody o- of that and, uh, I do support the, uh, am- amendment. Thank you. Council Member James. Um, Mayor, I will make an amendment, um, that the third criteria of the four-lane highway, um, be with the exclusion of residential areas. That's a motion. Could you restate the motion for me, Council Member James? Um, the motion, Mayor, is that, um, on criteria number three, which, um, refers to location along a four-lane public highway, exclude residential areas. All right, I have a motion by Council Member James and a second by Council Member Lawless to amend Council Member Blue's motion by modifying the third criteria to say, "Property located along a four-lane highway excluding neighborhoods." Yes. Residential neighborhoods. All right. And just in an effort to try to avoid confusion later on, when you say, "Residential neighborhoods," are you talking about any particular kind of zoning or h- how do we know what a residential neighborhood is is where I'm- I'm trying to get. I would think that any corridor that has any zoning of R1 through R4. Okay. All right, that helps. Any discussion now on the motion to amend specifically? Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member, uh, James, d- does this apply to the zone 'cause w- what y- the words you just used were, "Any corridor." There's many corridors that have those zones, but also have other zones. Uh, I think it- it would be a- I could understand it within a- a residential zone, certainly, but, um, r- uh, Richmond Road has a part of Richmond Road that is residential, but certainly along the entire corridor, there are many, many types of- of commercial structures on that. Further discussion on the amendment. Council Member Blues. As I understand it, the amendment would leave the three criteria, but change the third criterion, uh, which currently reads, "The property to which such signage pertains is located along a four-lane public highway." And so you would change that to say... I'm not exactly sure what your wording would be here. Uh, "Located along a four-lane public highway zoned other than R1 through R4." I- I think the way we had it a minute ago was, "A four-lane public highway excluding corridors with residential neighborhoods designated by R1 to R4 zoning." Is that accurate? Uh, yes, that would be the corridors that include those, the R1 through R4. Further discussion on the amendment? Now, I've got some people who've indicated a desire to speak here. Is this on the amendment? All right, Council Member Feigl. Um, I- I- I was just hoping that Mr. Salih was still here. I saw him here earlier and he might be able to help us understand exactly what- what kind of risk, um, the residential areas have relative to a 100,000 square foot building. Uh, I don't... You know, I can't speak to that. I don't know if that's a common occurrence or if it's, you know, seldom ever occurs or if it ever occurs. It- The amendment, as I read it though, requires all three of these provisions to be met. It says, "And." Okay, the- the original- Okay. The original motion dealt with all three criteria. And is it one, two, and three or one, two, or three? If... Uh, acc- according to the... Uh, no. According to this- this- this compromise, a sign could be 64 square feet in area if it meets one of the three criteria. Okay. Any one of the three criteria. So the motion... The- the amendment that's on the floor right now for discussion focuses on the third criteria, which i- is a four-lane public highway. And we're talking about trying to exclude public highways that are corridors with residential neighborhoods. Yes. Any further discussion on that amendment? I- I would just say that the- the verbiage on here is a little confusing because it doesn't say, "Or the property is located on a four-lane highway." It says, "And the property is located on a four-lane highway." Council Member Lawless and Council Member Gordon. Um, excuse me, um, yeah, I was a little confused by that also. And maybe, um, if, uh, Council Member James would accept a friendly amendment, we could say, "The portion of those, um- ... highways that include R1 through R4 on either side of the street. Uh, and an example that I would think, I'm guessing Coach Calipari, Perry, um, wouldn't want Idler Country Club to have a 64 square foot sign across the street from his house. Council member Gordon. Well, I, that was, I wasn't going to make that exact point about that specific location, but I think there are locations where neighbors line four-way streets, I mean, four-lane streets, and there could be a commercial building right in the middle. I'm thinking of Nicholasville Road right now, where the neighborhood then could be looking at that sign, and it doesn't have to be a 100,000 square foot building if the on- if the criteria that have to be met are just one of the three. So, I'm supportive of this amendment simply to protect neighborhoods. Council member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, first of all, this is not somehow loosening, uh, what has been common practice for, for several decades in Lexington. Uh, these signs have been up for, for decades and, um, and so this is not a, a, you know, it's gonna suddenly gonna loese- loosen up the flood gates on, on signage. It's, it's been sort of fairly common practice. I support, um, a, a type of amendment which would, uh, certainly prevent these from being located in, in, you know, a, a residential zone such as R1 through 4. Um, but the way it's currently phrased, uh, it would exclude basically signage on any of our major corridors. Uh, for example, Turflint Mall is across from a residential, um, neighborhood. Um, and Turflint Mall would be excluded from signage such as this, even though it's an extremely large development, um, and I don't think there's any, um, been any great outcry of that, that signage at Turflint Mall has somehow been, been inappropriate for the area. Um, these have a, a very real impact on, on our businesses and, uh, um, you know, the, the commercial realtors can come in and talk about nationwide studies about signage and things like that. But, uh, um, the, uh, s- so, the, the, the, it's hard for me to support this amendment in its current language. Um, t- to, the way it's currently worded, um, the fact that, that Richmond Road has, uh, a residential section of it would prevent signage of this type out in one of the large shopping centers out Richmond Road, which is not across from shopping center, which is n- not across from a residential neighborhood. Um, and so I, I would support an, an amendment to, to the amendment, I guess, which would restrict, you know, which would prevent these, uh, signs, the 64 sign, uh, being in residential neighborhoods, but, uh, or R1 through R4. Um, but the way it's currently worded would, uh, essentially obliterate the, the, the ex- the exception throughout Lexington, um, b- by excluding it anywhere on a corridor that has residential because that would, that'd be an extremely broad, uh, reading of that. Thank you, Mayor. I guess, excuse me, may I make a motion then to amend the amen- amendment that we, uh, that we designate it for, um, uh, residential neighborhoods one through four, uh, R1 through 4, um, and, uh, um, and... And, and, uh, I, I don't think we've, we've voted on any other type of thing about being across the street, so I guess that'd be my amendment. I'm sorry. I'll need for you to restate that . That's quite all right. It's hard to draft a, it's really hard to draft these things on the fly. It really is. But, uh, Bill, Bill Sally ha- has, has come and, uh, we, uh, perhaps he can help us with this. But the idea would, that, uh, Council Member James' amendment would be amended to read that it would be only applicable to, uh, residential zones R1 through R4. Bill, please come save me. Mr. Sally, have you been able to follow any of this, uh, discussion? I have missed about the last, uh, seven or eight minutes of it in, in transit, so. Well, let, let me tell you where I think we are. And Council Member James and Council Member Blues, uh, correct me if I'm wrong. I think you were at the planning committee meeting. Yes, sir. Council Member Blues brought forward the amendment, the, the motion to, uh, alter the text. Yes, sir. So that we could have 64 square foot- Mm-hmm. ... signs in certain buildings that met any one of three criteria. You're familiar with that? Yes, sir. Council Member James then moved to amend that third criteria, which deals with four-lane highways- Mm-hmm. ... with a view towards trying to exclude corridors that have R1 through R4 zoning along them, the goal being to try to minimize the number of, uh, neighborhoods that were adversely impacted by the large signs. Mm-hmm. Council Member James? Mm-hmm. Okay. Now the discussion has been how do we protect our neighborhoods withwithout, without unduly constraining businesses located along corridors like Richmond Road or Herodsburg Road, which have extensive portions of R1 through R4 neighborhoods along them. Mm-hmm. I think that's where we are right now. If you have any insights about that, we would certainly welcome them. Thank you, Mayor. Again, members of the council, good afternoon. I think in, um, terms of how the zone, the zoning ordinance should be structured, I think it will be much easier for the building inspection folks who do issue the sign permits- ... if the restriction is drafted in a way where it is based on the zoning of the property, rather than being in a corridor that has certain characteristics. Um, so I think, for instance, if there was a differentiation between the single family residential zones, or even the multifamily residential zones, from some of the business zones, that would probably be the easiest for the folks that, by and large, do a lot of the enforcement on the signs, uh, rather than attributing them to entire corridors. That- that would be my recommendation. Well, let me see if I understand what you're suggesting. Are you proposing that we only limit signs on properties that have an R1 through R4 designation along a four-lane highway? Well, for instance, the- the portion of the corridor may be where there's R1 through R4 rather than the entire corridor itself. Okay. If the corridor then had P1 or B1 or some other business zone, perhaps then it would be viable for the larger sign. All right. Now, Council Member James, does that make ... D- Does that reflect what you want to try to accomplish? I think ... Yeah, I think so. Um, the wording bill that we had was, um, amending that option three criterion to say, um, except for on corridors ... oh, allowing it along corridors. Uh, no, it's not- it's not typed right on here, but it's with the exclusion of corridors that have residential zonings R1 through R4. So help us with that wording to where we're getting ... You understand where we're trying to get? I- I think so. Um, I think the ... Inserting the restriction for the zones- Uh-huh. ... is going to be clear for building inspection. Perhaps the- the part about corridors, I- I don't see that as important for this section of the ordinance. Okay. So, uh, we could just say, excluding residential zones R1 through R4? Mm-hmm. I think that will be easy. Then the building inspector, based on the zoning of the property, will be able to determine whether that larger sign is permitted there- So that still would only deal with that one individual piece of property and not necessarily if a- if you live across the street from a- a P1- That's correct. ... and the P1 would still be subject to it? That's correct. Okay. I don't know if that's going where I wanted it to go. Um, so at this point ... Thank you. At this point, I- I would- I really wanna look a little bit more at that Criterion 3. Um, so I would- I would pull my motion, um, or my amendment and actually ask that we pull number three completely at this point and refer it back to planning, um, committee for us to take a look at the language that we would, um, put with that. So I make a motion that we take Criterion Number Three away from this, um, motion. We can leave the other two, um, and refer that back to the planning committee for more discussion. Can I get a second? Second. All right. If I understand correctly, you've withdrawn your motion- Yes. ... your original motion to amend, and I don't believe Council Member Martin ever got a motion to amend the amendment on the floor, so I hope you didn't anyway. So now we're back to your proposal to amend Council Member Blue's motion by deleting the third criterion and, uh, only have the two, first two. And Council Member Wallace has seconded that motion. Can I ... Mayor, can I include in that motion the referral back to planning committee? And that was ... y- you did already, so I ... and I didn't- Okay. ... reflect that. Thank you. Um, so the motion is to eliminate the third criterion and to refer that issue back to the planning committee. Any discussion on that amendment? All in ... Council Member Blue, is that ... Have you indicated you wish to speak here? Is that erroneous? All right. All then in favor of the motion to amend Council Member Blue's motion by deleting the third criterion and referring that back to the planning committee, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. Okay. Let's do a, uh, electronic vote. Those in favor, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay. It i- it appears as though, uh, we have a seven-seven vote. I will vote, uh, the chair will vote in favor of the motion to refer that back to committee and, uh, delete item three. Now, we have the motion as amended on the floor, which, in effect, requires, um, two criterion to be eligible for a 64 square foot sign. One is 100,000-foot- square foot building or larger and a site of two acres or more. Correct? Any discussion on the motion as amended? Council Member Blues. Uh, I just wanted to add here for the record that I was the other dissenting vote, uh, on the- on the planning committee and I- and I oppose the, uh, uh, the amendment because I thought that the Planning Commission, uh- ... did a very considered job of, of, of reviewing the ordinance of, of, of, uh, comparing the, uh, comparing the, the, the, the size of commercial real estate signs to com... in comparable communities, not one of which has the, the 64-foot size. Uh, Planning Commission, the majority of the Planning Commission members, I think it was a nine to two vote there, uh, concluded that 32 feet was, was perfectly adequate to, uh, to advertise commercial real estate and that's why I oppose the, uh, uh, the motion as amended and expect to, to, uh, I don't have a, an objection to putting this on the, you know, on the docket, but I do expect to oppose it when we, uh, gi- give it a second reading. Thank you, Mayor. Further discussion? All then in favor of the motion, uh, let's see, I've got Council Member Lane listed as interested in speaking. Ah, sorry, Mayor. Could I- I, I have you listed as wanting to speak on this issue. Is that incorrect? No. 100,000. All right. But, but 100,000. You're, I think your recusal is noted. Council Member Beard. Just a quick qu- uh, question for Mr. Salli. 100,000 square foot office building, similar to what you see out in Hamburg, um, would that normally be on a two acre or greater lot? Probably in most instances, yes, sir. It would be. I, I, uh, what I can't get a feel for is the parking requirement. I, but, uh- And, and that's why it would take a lot of that size. Yeah. I mean, quite typically, 100,000 is like one half of the Chase Bank building across the street 'cause that is a 200,000 square foot one. And they, they of course have a parking deck, but, uh, most of that would be surface parking out there for instance. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Blues, anything further from the planning committee? Yes. Be my guest. Maybe we didn't. We have not. You're correct. Uh, we're now ready to vote on the motion as amended. All in favor of that motion, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay. Motion carries by a vote of 14-0 with one recut... recusal. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, it's a, it's a, it's a privilege to deliver the longest Planning Committee report in history. The second item on, on our agenda was a discussion of residential additions and residential zoning ordinances, referring mainly to the work and recommendations of the moratorium task force. Uh, Director of Planning, Chris King explained the processes by which a zone text amendment can be initiated. Uh, Rochelle Bowland of the Law Department summarized the work of the moratorium work group, uh, centering on its consideration of revised definitions of family, of boarding and lodging houses, of, uh, fraternity and sorority houses, and the creation of a, of a, of a new, uh, definition of, of functional family. Following discussion among council members, the floor was open to public comment. Uh, Richard Murphy representing the Greater Lexington Apartment Association, uh, spoke on, on these issues also, Craig, Craig Harden, uh, two university area neighborhood association presidents, uh, expressed their concerns on, on this question. Uh, Council Member Lawless then moved to hold a special planning committee meeting at 11:00 AM Tuesday, March 2, to continue discussion of this agenda item. That motion was unanimously approved and the meeting was adjourned at 2:50 PM and there's an end on it. Thank you. Any questions for Council Member Blues? All right. We're now ready to move on to, uh, the presentation on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. And, um, Ms. Brooks, if you'll step to the podium, please. You'll have 15 minutes. Thank you very much. Uh, thank you for your time to, um, hear about housing trust funds. I'm Mary Brooks and I am director of the Housing Trust Fund Project for the Center for Community Change. We're a national nonprofit organization based in Washington, DC. I happen to live and work out of California where it's 80 degrees. Um, that's a joke, but, um, I'm, I, I appreciate your giving your time to, I, I know there have been discussions about a housing trust fund here. I'm gonna go through quickly some of the, um, advantages and reason to consider, um, a housing trust fund here in Lexington and hopefully give you some background that you can use to, um, inform your deliberations and debate about this. Um, I think one of the, um, k- a, a very compelling reason to consider a housing trust fund is actually not part of my presentation. ... my, um, but I wanna give it to you, because I think it may be more compelling than anything else I have to say to you. My husband is a avid sports fan, and avid basketball fan, and totally unavailable for household chores during the NCAA playoffs. And, I know you g- in the newspaper you get this chart, you know, that shows which teams are playing which teams and how they advance. He fills that out based on teams that he hates and teams that he's in favor of, either because he went to school there or some other reason. So, putting my marriage entirely in jeopardy, I took the chart and filled it out based on whether or not the team was located in a place that had a good housing trust fund. And I won. So, if you support UK's Cats- ... you will think seriously about a housing trust fund. Anyway. To get serious. That one, that was pretty serious. Um, housing trust funds have been around for a good 20 years now, and are, um, perhaps the most rapidly advancing, um, kind of new approach to providing affordable housing in the field. And the idea behind the housing trust fund is that we have an ongoing, dedicated source of public funding. I recognize right off the bat how controversial that is, and how difficult that decision is to make, and I will talk a little bit about, um, what other jurisdictions have done in this field. Um, the idea is to have that revenue supporting affordable housing. It's committed to the fund and the fund can use that money, uh, to support a wide variety of, um, of different affordable housing projects. Housing trust funds tend to be the most flexible money that jurisdictions have with regard to affordable housing. So there are a number of advantages in moving in this direction. There are nearly 700 housing trust funds around the country at this point. Um, there are 40 states with housing trust funds. Kentucky, of course, is one of those. Um, there are, um, I know, um, extreme challenges, particularly in today's economic climate, to find dedicated revenue to commit to housing trust funds. This is a list of revenue sources that other jurisdictions have used throughout the country, um, to support affordable housing trust funds. This does not include all of them. I don't know why the type is funny on this. I, I hope you can read this. Um, but it does show the range of options that jurisdictions look at. I have never walked into a jurisdiction where they just, um, happily turned over a revenue source to support the housing trust fund. I also have never seen a, a, even in today's economic climate, a jurisdiction not look at revenue source options and be able to come up with some good solutions. So I do think it's doable. I admit readily it's difficult. There are real reasons for looking at dedicating public revenue to affordable housing. We know the private market is not going to address affordable housing. If they were, frankly, they would've done it already and we wouldn't be in the horrendous backlog that we are right now, in terms of addressing critical housing needs. They will work with affordable housing if we work with them, but we need to do that, and can do it, through the creation of an affordable housing trust fund. Affordable housing is fundamental to the health of any community. It's good fiscal policy. It relates to a number of other objectives that we want to pursue within any community, like stabilizing neighborhoods, reducing, reducing health costs, making it easier for children to advance in schools. All of those factors are affected by affordable housing. The, um, I got questions before I c- came here from folks about the issue of, of leverage with housing trust funds. We know through looking at housing trust funds around the country, and I track this quite carefully, that by, by jurisdictions making an investment in affordable housing, they actually attract additional funds to, um, to those developments and to the jurisdiction. Might be federal money, it might be the state housing trust fund, it might be financial institutions making, um, making loans, it might be equity investments. Could be any number of different sources, but we know that cities, on average, for every dollar that they commit to affordable housing through their trust fund, leverage another $6.50 on average. Meaning some do more than that, some do less. Um, counties leverage a little bit more than that, and states, um, in between. So, I have given you an example from Portland, but, um, and showing where some of those monies have come from. Um, truthfully, the trust fund committed $100,000 for an $8.1 million, um, development, so that's, um, a pretty impressive, uh, leverage ratio, and there are, um, d- just enumerable examples of that. Everybody thinks in today's economic climate, folks are not being supportive of affordable housing. Frankly, because I track this all over the country, I watch, I work with as many as, um, 30 campaigns to create a housing trust fund at any given time. Um, folks were a little surprised that Albuquerque said, the voters said, um, "Yes we do, we do want affordable housing." This is the second time that they've approved a $10 million housing bond, um, and they did so just this October. Seattle is even a little bit more amazing to me. Although this is, um, perhaps the fourth time that voters have approved a property tax levy to support their housing trust fund, and they just did this, um, this November. Um, now, Seattle has been very, very smart in its, um, uh, education about and presentation of this housing levy. They identify exactly what they're gonna do with the money. Um, they track very, very carefully what they've done with the money previously, and they ca- the campaign for this slogan, for this campaign, was "Let's keep a good thing going." Property taxes are pretty personal, and for the public to say, "I'm willing to invest my property taxes and affordable housing" means they recognize the value that it has for Seattle, or they, or they wouldn't have done it. I think St. Louis is a good housing trust fund to look at if you're interested in models around the country. They actually use a use tax for their housing trust fund as the dedicated revenue. It's been around, um, since 2001. A use tax is a tax on purchases made outside of the state. Okay? So it's a sales tax that made that equivalent to purchasing something within the state. Um, they get about $5 million a year. Um, it's not a huge, uh, tax. It was actually, um, approved and even reconsidered and has been, um, uh, sustained. Highland Park is an example of a community that really struggled with looking for dedicated revenue, and they've gone to, um, looking within the development community, and this is probably the most popular approach at the city level for finding, um, revenues for a housing trust fund. They looked at permit fees, uh, a demolition tax, inclusionary zoning, um, a tax and, and other fees within the development process. It's a small housing trust fund. Charlotte would be another interesting one to look at. They've done a huge amount of work around providing housing for, uh, elderly within the community and people with disabilities and promoting, um, energy-efficient housing. And this has been a focus of their trust fund. It's supported with bond revenues. Indianapolis, Marion County is a unified government. Um, they started out their trust fund with an electronic filing fee of property sales disclosure form, something we wouldn't even have thought about probably 10 years ago. Um, so that if you file these forms electronically, you pay an additional fee. That fee goes into the housing trust fund. The state just approved increasing document recording fees, um, for local housing trust funds. And Indianapolis is the first jurisdiction within the state to add that to their housing trust fund. The hos- the Health and Hospital Corporation in Indianapolis recognized the connection between health and housing. They said, "People that come into our emergency rooms, our children that are having asthma attacks, and other instances that are impacted by substandard housing, we recognize the connection." And they've given a million dollars a year to the housing trust fund. Milwaukee is using a tax increment district, um, financing to fund their housing trust fund along with some other funds. Actually, they're not doing this yet. They're just looking into this because Wisconsin made this a, um, a revenue source that they could explore. So, um, along with a few jurisdictions in California, this would be another example of a revenue source that is just beginning to be considered by housing trust funds. Columbus, Franklin County, Ohio is an example of a city-county housing trust fund. The city puts hotel-motel tax into it. The county puts real estate transfer tax revenues into it. They combine this. This is a hugely popular fund. Um, they have an oversight board, as do most housing trust funds, um, that, that, uh, govern the use of the funds and evaluate and report on the progress of the fund. Columbus has spent a lot of effort through its housing trust fund to purchase and rehab foreclosed or abandoned structures so that they have really had an impact on neighborhoods, um, within Columbus. It's a... it's just been a very popular fund. Uh, I'm gonna hurry through these because my time is running out. King County, Washington is one of the examples that has really focused on housing for homeless. They recognize, as is widely recognized throughout the country now, the value of the, of Housing First program, and they have taken their housing trust fund to focus specifically on housing trust funds. You know Louisville is working, has created a housing trust fund, have put a million dollars into it. They are also working on finding a dedicated revenue source. I've stressed throughout this the importance of housing within communities. Um, the evidence is clear. Children do better in school when they don't have to follow their parents moving from home to home looking for a decent place to live. Healthcare costs are reduced when we address issues of substandard housing. We also know that housing is extremely, um, um, connected to, um, a healthy economy. By investing in affordable housing, we create jobs. ... we add to the tax base, we provide households who don't have to pay so much of their income for housing an opportunity to took, take that income, invest it in the community by buying the things that they do need. Um, all of this is well documented, and we can provide you with studies or other information. Um, Congress did see fit in 2008 to pass a National Housing Trust Fund as part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. It has not yet been funded. Um, the House has, um, has funded it through the, uh, Jobs for Main Street bill. Um, the Senate is looking at different options. That will be another source of revenue that will come into Kentucky, um, to the tune of several million dollars, um, if it is funded at the one billion level, which is what is being proposed. Thank you. Ms. Brooks, you, you have about another minute. I'm done. All right, great. Questions for Ms. Brooks. Council member Myers. I think ... Will you ... Thank you, Mayor. Um, thank you for coming in and making your presentation today. I guess, my one question is, what is, is your organization's recommendation for a funding stream for this? Um, I could give you several, frankly. Um, your task force has looked at this and has recommended, um, um, a surcharge on insurance premiums and looked at some other revenue sources. Um, I th- uh, uh, th- that is a perfectly good revenue source. I always ... The reason I'm hesitating is because it differs in different states in terms of what Lexington or Louisville is enabled to do fiscally. So, um, I could tell you what I think are good revenue sources, um, and, and you may or may not, in fact, be able to do that. Um, cities have consistently looked at developer fees as probably the most common revenue source used at a city level. County's the most common revenue source, it's been a document recording fee, and that's what's used for your state housing trust fund. There's no reason why you couldn't add to that and make that a possible revenue source for local housing trust funds in Kentucky. Um, a hotel/motel tax is actually a good revenue source as well. It builds on, on tourism and other f- other, um, uh, activities within the jurisdiction. You probably commit that to tourism. You may commit all of it to tourism or you may not. I don't know, but that's another good revenue source that's been used at the local level. Um, I, I mean, I th- what I'd like to see folks do is develop a goal for the housing trust fund, let's say, you know, one or two million dollars a year, um, and look at revenue sources that will generate that. Um, because I think there's a lot of value to, um, having a sufficient housing trust fund to do the kinds of things that you need to do here in Lexington. Based on the, um, the need that you see here, um, what would your recommendation be for an amount of a, of an annual dedicated fund? You would be, um, in a good range with equivalent communities to be anywhere between two and five million, in terms of annual , excuse me, annual revenue going into your housing trust fund. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mary, for coming to- Of course. ... our cold state. I w- I would love to go back to California with you. I'm ready for spring. But, um, as co-chair of the Affordable Housing Task Force, I know, you know, you mentioned, it is very difficult to get this fund established. Um, but I, I feel like that it's something that is important to this city, and, um, I think that it is a economic and, it has an economic and community impact, if you reduced the number of homeless folks, and, um, which can be costly. And, um, and then there would be m- money generated from the new structures- Right. ... and the renovations. Um, and then, um, I've spent 20 plus years finding employment for individuals, and I do think that it is very difficult to find jobs for individuals when they don't have a home. Uh, once they become employed and become, um, self-sufficient, then that too is an economic boost for a community, I believe. Um, and then also look at when an individual, um, is paying 50% or plus, whatever, for rent, and they're able to get into something that is 30% income, um, then that puts extra money into their pocket to buy things in the community that they couldn't afford before that. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. So, I am very much in favor of funding a trust. Um, and I would urge this council and administration, if at all possible, to find some funds to get this started, um, in the fiscal year 2011. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mary. Mm-hmm. Some things that jurisdictions have done, g- given how- ... tight budgets are at every level of government, is to make a commitment to, to create the Housing Trust Fund, commit even to maybe an annual revenue source that would grow over time. So it might start out smaller, uh, because that's just where things are today. But that the... and, and then you could demonstrate what the impact of that Housing Trust Fund could have in Lexington, including the number of jobs created and, and households that have been assisted through this, and then build it over time as the economy improves. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. And, and, uh, thank you very much for, for being here and for this presentation. I also am one of the members of the, uh, uh, Affordable Housing Trust Fund Task Force and, and have thereby learned, uh, uh, quite a bit about the, the extent to which th- uh, uh, having a trust fund is, is a, is, uh, a wonderful economic development tool for, uh, for, for a community like ours as, uh, as w- as, as well as a way to, uh, you know, to put a floor under people's feet and a roof over, over their heads and get them, uh, uh, started on being truly productive, uh, citizens in the community. One of the issues that we talked about, uh, , in, in our meetings was w- the, uh, whether, whether it's such a fund if and when it can be established should be sunsetted. Uh, do you have any guidance for us on that? Um, I can only say I don't think that's ever happened, so you would be the first. Um... So we would be breaking new ground. You would be breaking new ground. Um, it runs a little bit afoul to, of the, you know, the idea of a housing trust fund, wh- which is, um, that government needs to take a bigger role in providing affordable housing, that we, we, we think the private market can handle everything that needs to be done and it's just not the case. Um, and there are always going to be people on fixed income. Uh, we're always gonna have some families that have disabilities and can't afford what the market pays, and the truth is, there are a lot of people working that can't afford market rate housing, um, because their wages are too low. And, and if you look even at what minimum wage pays, pays, um, in most states, those families can't afford housing within the market unless they have more than one wage earner, so that has implications for families, it has implications for families that have somebody who's disabled, its implication for families that have somebody they're taking care of, a parent or an aging grandparent. Um, so there are always gonna be people that somehow we need to work with because we want them and they are part of our community, they're part of our families. Um, so I think it's unrealistic to say, you know, we can do something that will address affordable housing right now and, and five years down the road we're not gonna have this issue, um, and maybe this is discouraging bad news, but I think we will have this issue and five years down the road. I do think that it behooves us always, particularly when we're talking about public revenues to, to evaluate and address the progress that we are making. So if we invest in a housing trust fund and it is not doing what we thought it should do, then we should do something else with those public dollars. I have n- I have never seen a housing trust fund decide to undo itself. But, um, but I do think we owe it to the public and we owe it to ourselves to evaluate every year, um, the progress that we make with the housing trust fund, particularly when we're using public dollars. Well, I think that would be built into, you know, any, any, uh, legislation that set up such a fund in our, in our community. Thank you for that advice. Mm-hmm. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, it was per chance that I was, uh, having a, a meeting in the library, uh, uh, last week sometime when, uh, I kept overhearing, uh, the, the, a group in the table next door, uh, counting council votes, trying to decide how council members would vote one way or the other. So I thought at some point I needed to stand up and sort of introduce myself and I think many of those folks are here today. Uh, and, um, you know, it's, uh... and I... last year I met with, I guess, was a Bill Embry, is that right, with your group? Is that right? Yeah. I said, uh... and, uh, uh, about the, uh, Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Um, the, um... my son and I, uh, uh, per chance were looking for the George Privet Recovery Center and, and, and ended up at the Hope Center 'cause I ha- uh, haven't really been to the, uh, the, the Privet Center before. And, uh, my son is, is, uh, i- is nine years old and, uh, and it... when we went in and had all folks with backpacks and, you know, parked outside. And, and it was an opportunity to talk to my son about, about homeless. And, uh, he, he had really never thought about that before. And, you know, with all the, the, the incredible bounty that we have, uh, in these modern times, uh, my, my son has more toys than I had my entire childhood growing up. Uh, to, for him to think that these folks, all they have in the world are in that one little backpack they have. Mm-hmm. And, and it was a, a, a really moving discussion that we had. Uh, there are many things that we spend $2 million on in this community that are far less worthy than trying to tackle our homeless problem. Uh, our affordable housing needs in the community are great. Uh, the homeless issue downtown is increasing. Um, I support trying to find funds, uh, to fund the affordable housing trust fund. I, I think it'll require some tough choices, uh, in this economy, uh, but it's tough choices I think we have to make. I think it's hard for us to sleep at night knowing that there are folks outside who are sleeping under bridges in, in back places and off abandoned properties and things. Um, I met with the Heritage Hill Neighborhood Association on Sunday, and they have had a, a, an increasing homeless problem there. And the parks cut back, uh, you know, some of the, some of the honeysuckle there so that, uh, ho- you know, hopefully address that type of an issue. But that really just moves it. Uh, those folks need a place to stay. And so I support trying to find, uh, some financing to do this. And, uh, so, uh, I think we all should, should try to, to look hard, uh, a- at the choices we make when budget time comes around to, to try to find a way to do this. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council- Council Member Lawless. Thank you, and thank you for making this very long trip to help us. Um, I'm the other co-chair of the Affordable Housing, uh, Trust Fund, but I will say that, uh, Council Member Henson has really done the heavy lifting on scheduling and staffing the meetings, and I'm very grateful to her. Um, I'm, I'm very supportive of this. And I think some of the comments that, first of all, I r- the, the asthma issue, uh, Lexington has the highest incidence of asthma of any city in the United States. And I think that's really, uh, uh, linking those, that was very interesting. With your analogy with NCAA brackets- ... maybe Coach Cal could hold a fundraiser- ... for the affordable housing trust fund every year. I think he raised like $2 million for Haiti. Um, but we have people suffering here at home too. Um, and, but I also wanna point out that a large portion, we've talked a lot about homelessness and, and living under bridges and the Hope Center, but a very large portion of this goes to, uh, people who have an income and the working, working people who are very productive. And this is an opportunity for a road to homeownership, for affordable rent. And this isn't just about homelessness. In fact, it's a very small portion of it. And, um, having been a single parent, uh, not making a lot of money in a social service agency when my kids were young, I know how hard it is. Sometimes you just need, if you have just this little bit of help, it makes a huge difference in your life and, uh, your quality of life. So I think it's really important to, for, for people out there watching and for council members to understand that this is not just about homelessness. This is not just about helping people become productive citizens. It's about, in large part, helping productive citizens, citizens that were productive their whole life and now they're senior citizens or maybe have a disability and are on a fixed income and didn't ever expect to find themselves in that place. And also helping with education and, um, financial education and, um, workforce housing and homeownership. So, and also revitalizing some of our neighborhoods that we've all been talking about in, uh, areas that have become unbalanced with, um, lack of enforcement and, um, demolition by neglect, to revitalize those, those areas, um, to give balance and m- more vibrant neighborhoods. So this is a, a win all the way around. And, um, with the Big Blue fever that, that goes on here in Lexington, you're, you're not gonna find any place that loves basketball more than Lexington, Kentucky. And, um, so you find more basketball fans and more kids with asthma. And so maybe we can combine those two and come up with some real creative ways to fund this. Um, it's not gonna happen overnight. We know that. But I think we're moving in the right direction. And I thanks, my thanks to everybody that's been a part of that and, uh, to so many people in the community that have supported it. But I, I certainly support this and I think it's really necessary and we can do some really neat creative things with it. Thank you. A- and thank you for your travels. Thank you. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. And again, thank you for, for coming. And, uh, I think at the beginning of this, uh, I, I don't think anybody, uh, disagrees with there being a, a need and, and everything that has been said being a, a reality and, and it's a matter of, uh, you know, what, what do we do and how do we do it? So I think that as a starting point, I, I wanna make sure that, uh, that it's stated, I, I, I just can't see anybody that would be against, uh, homeless folks or kids that have to move from place to place and, and, and finding better circumstances for that. But, um, you know, how do we get there? ... and, and what our community needs and, and, and so forth are those, those very real questions. And I appreciate your candor in, in coming forward and saying, you know, "Look, this is never easy and, you know, here's a, a way of looking at it." And I, I've got some questions that you don't have to answer on the mic, but I would just love if you don't mind just sending it to us at some point in time. One, you, you had compared us to, uh, to a couple of other cities or, or a number of cities. Uh, I would like to just see what the median housing prices and median incomes are for, for cities, kinda how you're comparing us. And so that, that I know that it's apples to apples and okay, that I- I have a clearer picture of what's happening in those communities. I- if that's something that you could do for us, I, I would appreciate that. Um, you know, what I'd, what I'd also like to see is what is the private side doing as well to lead? And what, what opportunities are the private side bringing to, to bring the public side in, in, uh, to the fray? I mean, obviously we're in a situation where, um, you know, revenues are shrinking and nonexistent and finding new ones is, is more than difficult. And, and so how can the private side and the public side really work together to find a, a very creative solution and, and attack this issue? Um, that's the other piece that I'd really like to see is what are some, some, uh, things that the private side is doing? Uh, I know the BUILD group is very passionate about it and they show up, uh, and, and they want to see this and they champion this. And, you know, what can we help them see is, "Here's a, a role that you can play besides just being an advocate to raise awareness. Here's how we bring real dollars to the table and, and create a partnership." Um, the, uh, I have a very specific question at the very end, but, um, but one of the things, I just got off the phone with Louisville, because you threw Louisville up as an example and I, I wanted to know, well, what did Louisville actually do or what is this? And I want to take council members, uh, through, through Louisville's progression in this. And this was basically a number of years ago, a very similar situation where people were advocating, uh, very strongly. Uh, Council, again, is, is very much in favor of, of, uh, seeing folks in a better situation. Uh, basically set up by ordinance a affordable housing trust fund, um, but no source was ever really identified as to how you funded it. So what the council did was they put a million dollars in with the caveat that said, "Until you bring forward a plan, you can't activate the money." Um, and so some, a number of, of, uh, months and years went by. Recently, there was a group that came forward with a plan, uh, but still as of today, there is no funding source identified. And one of the, the troubling parts of their ordinance is is that money that is in this particular, uh, fund can go to rent subsidies and some other things. So there's, there's a number of issues that, um, how this is managed is really, really key. So I, I, I would really appreciate some information as to how these things are set up, um, because in principle, again, I think everybody's okay. Uh, and, and I, I think that there's some mechanics that really need to be made, or, or f- we need to be made aware of, of what's happening, uh, around, uh, the country specifically. Uh, my, my question to you is can CDBG money be used for affordable housing trust? Is that something that you've seen or is that something that we can look to? Well, it certainly can be. I mean, you could put CDBG dollars into a housing trust fund. It wouldn't be an ongoing dedicated source. Okay. So of course you're, you're given a certain amount of CDBG dollars that are federal funds. Okay. Um, it, it, it wouldn't be my recommendation for a source. It could certainly, um, augment a, a housing trust fund and I have seen it used that way. Um, but again, it's not, it's not like a local ongoing dedicated revenue source. Can I ask you, just clarify why you feel like it, it isn't a good ongoing place or, or why you say it, it may not be the, uh, a good idea? Um, because it is a, you're, you're still dependent on an annual decision process to make that money available to the housing trust fund. And, um, for folks that work in the affordable housing field, to put a development together takes years often and multi sources of funding. Okay. So if they don't know the money's gonna m- this is one of the huge advantages to housing trust funds is that there is a, a reliable source of revenue th- and the, and the program is set up so people know what they're playing with. Um, with CDBG, that wouldn't necessarily be the case. Okay. La- last thing I'll say, I know my time just expired, is I, I, I think that one of the things that everybody in this audience that cares about this issue, everybody, uh, that's, that's talking about this issue also needs to recognize is is that, um, while we have, are expending lots and lots of calories on this for a lot of good reasons, um, there has not been the calories expended on things that affect all of us, um, such as public safety and roads and sewers and so forth like that where there's dedicated revenue for those types of things as well. And I think it's just a reality of where we are that, uh, it's very difficult to, uh, to say this is absolutely a critical need, we have to have this when some of those other things, uh, that, that were just mentioned, uh, do not have dedicated funding and dedicated revenue and there's a strong push for them to see those types of things. So it's just a, this is our community and this is kind of where we are today. Um, and it's not an insurmountable thing, it's just we have to be a lot more creative than just finding one stream and putting it in this because there's some other things that, that probably take priority, um, that, that need that funding. But again, I appreciate your expertise in coming to this community and, and if you can just send us the information whenever, that'd be fine. Thank you. Thank you. Council member James. Thanks, Mayor. Um, thank you so much, Mary. This isn't your first trip to Kentucky to Lexington. You came, I believe before- Yes. ... and spoke to the commission, the Mayor's commission. ... um, and we appreciate your, your input. Um, Mary, for council members that don't know, Mary has been, um, as a consultant, sort of, um, from a distance, a part of the past, I guess, what are we on, two and a half years, two years or so of discussing this issue. Um, and we have appreciated your ability to pull, um, for, for some folks, it's a very passionate issue, for some folks, it's just basic numbers, um, and the need to f- fulfill, um, the gaps there. Um, but you've been able to bring, uh, s- uh, people with passion and the people, just the factual folks, even some that would be seen as antagonistic at times, um, to the table around the one consistent issue, which is we all, as Council Member McCord said, we all see the need. Um, but making that happen and, and you've helped to get, get it to the point where we have been able to, to deal with the funding issue. Um, so that's where most of our time on the, the task force recently has been spent on the funding issue. Um, so I really do appreciate that and your knowledge is, um, I c- and val- I mean, I can't even put a price tag on your knowledge, appreciate it. Um, I did pass around, council members, a l- a little, um, article. It's issues and trends, um, and this goes to what Council Member McCord just said, it, it, it, he just, he just divided the group. He just divided some people in the room, um, when he said, you know, that there are some things, that this doesn't affect everybody. Um, and I would, I beg to differ on that. And I think some of the proof positive, um, is in the research, um, and for those who have been involved in this issue and seeing it not just from the perspective of having friends, family members, um, that are homeless, um, and that are precariously housed, um, and marginally housed and doing the homeless counts and seeing the people that are living, um, among the trees in our city, um, and under the bridges. Um, but a deeper thing of knowing the k- the cost of healthcare, um, th- the cost of how much money we spend to partner agencies, um, to support homelessness initiatives, um, and to keep people in their housing, um, food banks that we all donate to, um, and that ask us for money. Um, it does affect all of us. Um, and so I, I think first of all, we need to bec- we need to reach agreement there. Um, if we can't reach agreement there, we, we won't be able to reach agreement in funding this trust fund. Um, but as long as we have folks that have that opinion, um, we've got barriers. Um, so review that article, if you don't mind, and I would hope that the, the committee would continue its work towards finding a dedicated source. Mary has been on, um, talking with us from the beginning about a dedicated source is necessary. W- we can't wait to see how much the federal government may give us in CDBG. And you know, we've got our CDBG list is pretty much, um, spoken for for the next 20, 30 years or so, um, because of all the road projects that were previously obligated before us. Um, we're, we're bonded by that so we don't, Council Member McCord, we don't have any, we can't do anything with CB- CDBG, um, but we can recognize that this is an issue that we all need to work on together and that it does affect all of us, whether it's, um, today or tomorrow, um, or our children down the road. Thanks, Mary, and thanks, Mayor. Council Member Lawless. Um, I too, um, I wanna agree with Council Member James. Um, this, like trails, parks, um ... everything we do is economic development and everything we do, um, impacts our community and makes it sustainable, livable, and viable, and a place people want to come live. Schools, I don't have children, but I pay school tax. I did have, but they're all adults now and I like, I love adult children, by the way. Um, so to say this doesn't impa- you know, there are things that we're short on funds with, that affect all of us, um, everything we do, everything we do, either positively or negatively, impacts the community and impacts us all. So, uh, also, I, I wanna stress, and you may have, but that the average is six to seven dollars for every dollar, um, that the trust funds nationally bring in, in grant funds and federal funds and, and other kinds of grant money and private sector money. Um, they leverage about six to seven dollars for every dollar that the trust fund, um, brings in with their funding source, whatever that be and however we do it. Again, um, at, uh, uh, it's economic development . Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mary. Mm-hmm. I too have served on the commission. Now, I'm on the task force, and I think our main issue there is looking at funding. Couple things I wanna see if I can, uh, drill down, the matching grants. In the, in, on page six, I guess you talked about Portland, Oregon and the 100,000 was able to come up with eight million. Can you guarantee that for us? 'Cause that'd be a nice return on our investment if we could. I wish I could. Uh, h- how do you come up with the six to seven times back on your, on your money on the leverage? H- how does that work? This comes from a survey we did in 2007 of, um, existing housing trust funds and we asked them that question. ... um, we said for every dollar that you put into affordable housing, um, how much do you leverage, and we averaged it out. Okay. You, you said at one point, you said the goal would be one to two million, and then you... somebody asked a question on how much we would need, and you said two to five, so we're looking at- I said for comparable j- jurisdictions. Um, but the need, obviously, is far, far exceeds that. I mean, I... when we worked in Ohio on their state housing trust fund, we actually looked at the need for affordable housing, tried to figure out how much that would cost, and it was some astronomical amount I won't even present to you 'cause you'll kick me out of the room. But, um, a- and so, you know, we divided it by 10 and came up to something that was reasonable. Um, the, the truth is th- th- what really needs to happen in addressing affordable housing is probably more than the revenues you're going to find. But, um, but you need to set a goal so that, uh, we have a way to evaluate, um, the revenue source options that we have. Um, if you have a, a trust fund that has a million dollars in it a year, you'll be able to do certain things with that. If you have a m- a housing trust fund that has five million dollars a year, you're gonna have more flexibility with, with what... the, the types of, of, um, um, issues that you can address. So y- you're, you're setting kind of l- limits on yourself by how much money you have coming into the housing trust fund each year. But for comparable-sized cities, anywhere between two to five million would probably put you in the range of existing housing trust funds. In our discussions, we talked about having a dedicated fund because if you do, I think, what Louisville did, and they put a million in, and then you don't know where the resources are gonna come the year after that and the year after that. Is it worth even trying to start the program or is it kind of fruitless then 'cause you can't really expound on it? The only reason for putting some money into the trust fund and starting it is so that you can actually demonstrate what can be done. So you might win over some folks that aren't so convinced of the value of a- an affordable housing trust fund at this moment. And I guess that was gonna be my segue. If we had to argue what would be the benefits to the whole community and, and some aren't gonna see it because they're not gonna be b- provided the housing, but there are gonna be benefits to everybody in the community. Could you talk about that with the economic development also, um, the cost savings of social services that would be, um, provided for the whole community too? There are certainly studies that have been done that... I mean, I... when we worked in Ohio, on their State Housing Trust Fund, we actually looked at the need for affordable housing, tried to figure out how much that would cost, and it was some astronomical amount I won't even present to you 'cause you'll kick me out of the room. But, um, a- and so, you know, we divided it by 10 and came up to something that was reasonable. Um, the, the truth is th- th- what really needs to happen in addressing affordable housing is probably more than the revenues you're going to find. But, um, but you need to set a goal so that, uh, we have a way to evaluate, um, the revenue source options that we have. Um, if you have a, a trust fund that has a million dollars in it a year, you'll be able to do certain things with that. If you have a m- a housing trust fund that has five million dollars a year, you're gonna have more flexibility with, with what... the, the types of, of, um, um, issues that you can address. So you're, you're setting kind of l- limits on yourself by how much money you have coming into the housing trust fund each year. But for comparable-sized cities, anywhere between two to five million would probably put you in the range of existing housing trust funds. In our discussions, we talked about having a dedicated fund because if you do, I think, what Louisville did, and they put a million in, and then you don't know where the, the resources are gonna come the year, year after that and year after that. Is it worth even trying to start the program or is it kind of fruitless then 'cause you can't really expound on it? The only reason for putting some money into the trust fund and starting it is so that you can actually demonstrate what can be done. So you might win over some folks that aren't so convinced of the value of a- an affordable housing trust fund at this moment. And I guess that was gonna be my segue. If we had to argue what would be the benefits to the whole community and, and some aren't gonna see it because they're not gonna be b- provided the housing, but there are gonna be benefits to everybody in the community. Could you talk about that with the economic development also? Um, the cost savings of social services that would be, um, provided for the whole community too? There are certainly studies that have been done that, I mean, I... when we worked in Ohio on their State Housing Trust Fund, we actually looked at the need for affordable housing, tried to figure out how much that would cost, and it was some astronomical amount I won't even present to you 'cause you'll kick me out of the room. But, um, a- and so, you know, we divided it by 10 and came up to something that was reasonable. The, the truth is th- th- what really needs to happen in addressing affordable housing is probably more than the revenues you're going to find. But, um, but you need to set a goal so that, uh, we have a way to evaluate, um, the revenue source options that we have. Um, if you have a, a trust fund that has a million dollars in it a year, you'll be able to do certain things with that. If you have a m- a housing trust fund that has five million dollars a year, you're gonna have more flexibility with, with what... the, the types of, of, um, um, issues that you can address. So you're, you're setting kind of l- limits on yourself by how much money you have coming into the housing trust fund each year. But for comparable-sized cities, anywhere between two to five million would probably put you in the range of existing housing trust funds. In our discussions, we talked about having a dedicated fund because if you do, I think, what Louisville did, they put a million in, and then you don't know where the, their sources are gonna come the year, year after that and year after that. Is it worth even trying to start the program or is it kind of fruitless then 'cause you can't really expound on it. Of course you can. 'Cause I've seen that report, but I think it'd be good if, if everybody, um, was able to see that, and then I wanna bring something up here that's probably gonna be, um, kind of astounding for the council to hear me say, but I think when we start looking at seed money and if we're not gonna look at doing the f- trust fund this year 'cause I think we were on a deadline, and I'm not sure we're gonna be able to meet that deadline for this year if we were looking at one of the options was insurance, but a budget has to deal with priorities. I think it's time that we start looking at priorities and maybe this is the time that we start stepping up to the plate and saying, "Affordable housing is something that we need to put on the, on the forefront of our plate and look at." So there might be other programs that we're gonna have to, to not be able to, uh, to address and some things that we've talked about in the, in the committee is look at possibly the infill redevelopment, land banking, PDR. There's programs out there that might not be as important as this one and this... and that's what I think, Mayor, when you, when you look at your budget, I think we need to look at this being part of that budget, if possible, 'cause if we can't put it towards, um, a dedicated fund this time, but at least look at trying to get some seed money and show the good faith that we want to do this and move it forward. Thank you, Mary, for coming. I think, Council, we need to really look at addressing this. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Ellinger. Um, Ms. Brooks, um, I know you've been involved in this process extensively all across the country and here in Lexington as well, and I appreciate your efforts. As I recall, in October or November of 2008, p- my administration submitted a proposed, um, affordable housing trust fund ordinance to the council for their consideration. Have you had a chance to take a look at that draft legislation? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Does it generally accomplish what needs to be accomplished other than the funding issue? So the only issue, uh, that... I mean, that hasn't been approved yet, but if it were to be approved by the Council, you think we'd have an appropriate mechanism in place to accommodate the trust fund? I do. Yes, I do. I'd be happy to look at it and I'm a great nitpicker and I could- All right. Now, about a year ago, I had some discussions with the folks at Build about the prospects of doing a public-private partnership to get the ball rolling, as you mentioned a moment ago, where I proposed that we put in $250,000 from the general fund and that Build and others in the private sector generate $250,000 in, um, matching funds so we'd has... be able to start with a half million dollars. Have you been privy to any, any further discussions? And they weren't interested in doing that at the time. Do you know if there's been any discussions about that proposal recently? I do not know. Okay. Well, we're getting ready to go into the budget process and to the degree you might re-initiate those discussions with whomever in the, in the private sector to see if we could find some matching funds as I think someone suggested, maybe it was Council Member McCord a few moments ago, um, that offer still stands as far as I'm concerned and, um, if we can get the ball rolling on that basis. ... would love -- would love to do it. And, um, I'm also a- advised that a Ms. Ferringer, Clara Ferringer, may wish to speak on this issue. Maybe she -- she's left . All right. Um, anything else for Ms. Brooks? All right. Thank you very much. Of course. And if questions do come up later on, you know how to reach me . If somebody does. So, I mean, don't hesitate if you're looking for more examples or other questions come up, that's what I do. Great. Thank you. Thank you. I think we're now ready for council reports. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, first I wanna thank Council Member Tom Blues, who, uh, did fill in for me at planning committee on a very, uh, full agenda. Thank you very much. Um, the, uh, this was during the time when we had five of our Kentucky soldiers who returned from Afghanistan, and, uh, the other thing that I wanted to mention is that I wanted to thank, uh, you, Mayor, as a signer of the regional, um, Bluegrass Armed Forces Community Covenant on February 13th. And I wanted to thank Council Members Blues and Council Member Crosby and Council Member Martin who attended the signing ceremony for the, uh, 17-county region on February 13th. I really appreciated your support and your being there, and, um, it was a fairly grand occasion, so thank you for your support. Thanks. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor . The Division of Traffic Engineering has completed a, uh, a study of the intersection of Old Georgetown and West Short Streets and approved a multi-way stop at that location. And so I have a motion to place on the docket for Thursday, February 25, 2010, a resolution authorizing and directing the Division of Traffic Engineering pursuant to Code of Ordinances Section 18-86 to install multi-way stop controls at Old Georgetown Road and West Short Street. So moved. Second. Have a motion by Council Member Blues and a second by Council Member McCord. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. And I have two announcements. On Monday, March the 1st, Georgetown Street Neighborhood Association will hold its monthly meeting at 6:00 PM in the Orera Center in Douglas Park. And at seven o'clock the same evening, the Green Acres Hollow Creek Breckenridge Neighborhood Association will meet at the community center in Green Acres Park. Thank you, Mayor. Thanks. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. So I provided, uh, each council member with a copy of a speed limit analysis that was prepared by Bradley Frazier, traffic engineer manager for the Bowman Mill Road. And I'd like to walk on this recommendation, uh, to be put on the docket for February 25th council meeting. This would reduce the speed limit on Bowman Mill from 40 miles -- 50 miles an hour to 40 miles an hour. So moved. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Lane, second by Council Member McCord. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Anything further, Council Member Lane? That's all, Mayor. Thank you. All right. Council Member Wallace. Um, thank you, Mayor. Uh, is -- this was just brought to my attention a couple o' hours ago, um, well, before this meeting started. Guess that was several hours ago now. Uh, Commissioner Webb, if you could please, um, it seems that there's an impression that the lampposts have changed location. And I spoke to you briefly about it when I was racing home to get something between meetings. Um, and I was wondering if -- do you know if there's -- uh, uh, and the reason I'm bringing this up during council report is they're starting to set the lamppost. And so we know now's the time, if ever there's a time that if -- and if this can be changed. Uh, actually- I- on South Limestone Street, I'm sorry. This is- This is- South Lime, uh- From the Soundbar. Yeah. Uh, actually, I called George Milligan after I spoke with you. Mm-hmm. And George was already in contact when I got him. It wasn't immediately after I spoke with you. There were some other things I had to take care of. And they're working on adjusting, to the extent possible, the- Okay. ... street light there. Thank you very much. You're welcome. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Actually, that -- uh, they got -- Soundbar gotten in touch with George without me ever contacting George. Okay. And they were already in the process. Okay. Thank you so very much. Oh, and I'd also like to, um... There -- there are so many city employees that work hard and go above and beyond the call of duty in a million ways. And right now, today, I'd like to give a shout-out to David Barbary in the law department. Um, I'm sure that he, um, like me, is ready to set his hair on fire and put it out with a hammer. Um, but anyway, so shout-out to Dave . Thanks. And that's all I have. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Crosby. Uh, thank you, Mayor. I'd like to announce, um, that we're having our first Waste Management Task Force Committee meeting Monday at 10:30 on the 5th floor. Uh, this is on the schedule of meetings, but I just wanted to make sure everybody knew that that was gonna be going on. Uh, the other thing that I just wanted to bring up that I might, I guess I might have a few questions about is I've gotten some feedback regarding our new, um, recycling and waste management containers that are now all through downtown. And, um, I guess my question is, oh, I'm getting different answers when I'm kind of asking people about these. And the first question I would have is I, we did a resolution, I think it's 475-09 that authorized $126,819 for these expenditures and then we did a purchase order for that amount. Then we did a second purchase order for the amount of $70,930.20 for these, which doesn't equal what our ... And it, it refers to, the second purchase order refers to resolution 47509, but that would be an additional expenditure based on what we approved. So I guess that, I see Commissioner Taylor coming up. And I can't find where we did any budget amendments or anything like that, so I was just wondering ... I'm sorry, what did you want to know? I'm asking, we approved a resolution back in June of '09. Yeah, June 25th, and that was a resolution to purchase the first group of cans, which was 77 cans. Um, I had a call from Brian Markham this afternoon. At the second group of cans was purchased with this fiscal year funds, and there were 43 cans purchased. I don't know whether or if, I don't have any record that it came to council. I'm not sure why it didn't come to council, but it wa- there were two separate purchase orders. One was fiscal year '09 and the second one for 43 cans was fiscal year '10. But I think that without the information I was able to get was that the second purchase order referred to the resolution. Ah, it did. Um- I think it referred to, that was a single source and I, I need to go get my iPod and look at it. But the second one w- referred to the original which was the single source portion of it. Um, these particular cans, as you know, were, um, pretty much special order. They have laser cut, they have half recycle and half waste. The reason we bought these cans was because they have a very small footprint. We looked at 10, 12 designs of cans for recycling to provide that downtown and other than just pushing more rosies out on the street, and we decided that we would find a can that had the smallest footprint so that we wouldn't take up more sidewalk space. So it was a single source and that's what went through on June the, well, the last meeting in June. So- And so it was, um- Sorry. It was done for single source provider and then when the second purchase order came in with the next round of funds for fiscal year 10, it just went forward wi- as a single source purchase and I'm not sure why it didn't go to council, but my understanding was a single source purchase didn't have to go back to council. So I guess then my question would be if we spent $70,000 on a single source provider and then decided that we were gonna stay with that provider because it's a single source and you wanted to spend 200,000 more dollars, you wouldn't necessarily have to come back to us because it's a single source provider is what you're, are you just- I'm not sure. Ah, w- we bought two, two purchase orders of the same can from the same place. It was a single source provider. The first PO went through in fiscal year '09, the second one went through in fiscal year '10. And so I don't know, I don't know the rules around whether or not it has to come to council each time if it's a single source. I'm not, I'm not the expert on the purchasing rule. But, but I can tell you what we bought and what we paid for it. Okay, so I guess my question would be if we decide to buy more since it's a single source, the same can, you could technically base your, you s- that's what you were telling us is how you did it, but so if you wanted to buy more you could go back and spend X amount of dollars on additional cans and not have to about that. I'd have to check with Brian Markham about that. I do know we bought two separate purchase orders with, for the same can for the same supplier and for whatever reason the second one didn't come to council. So, I guess so and maybe Logan can help us or somebody 'cause based on your reasoning you could do another purchase if it's the same can, single source. Without talking to Brian I couldn't tell you yes or no whether that was acceptable. I'm just, I'm not sure. I just know what we did, I don't know why it didn't come to the council for the second one. Well, I, I would, I guess I would like to clarify that because that could be an issue not just with this, but I think with any type of contract we enter. If we're using a single source we co- I mean, we, that's $206,129 that we've spent when technically the council only authorized 126,819. Um, and then I've gotten other contrary reports and I just started asking questions that we had purchased I think 204 of these which that math doesn't add up at all. But- We bought, we bought 77 on the first and 43 on the second. They've all been installed. Well, I ha- I have that 'cause I have the purchase orders in front of me but I was told by our director of solid waste that that's how many we ordered. So when I did that math, of course then it came out to be a whopping number. As did the piece, that's who I worked with before I got here, Richard Boone and Steve Feast, we had two purchase orders, 77 cans were bought in the first one, 43 in the second. So I guess this is- Do -- d-d-do we not know how many then when we're requesting this information or do we intend on purchasing more? The numbers I have are 120 cans were purchased and installed. Do you intend on purchasing more? Do you know the answer to that? Not at this point, no. Okay. I'm just trying to figure out where that 204 number came from. Th- I can, I can- It may be that that's the total spent. There were two purchase orders. The first purchase order was $126,819 that purchased the 77 cans and that one went through council with a walk-on, on the 25th of June. The second purchase order which I need to add up here, was $70,820 that was for 43 additional. I understand. I-I understand that and I understand the math. I guess, I'm getting different reports on how many we've purchased, how much we've spent on it. Council technically approved one purchase for 126,819. And that was for 77 cans. Correct. Right. And I -- w- I -- a- I'll w- I'll just email you further questions about the expenditures and maybe we can clarify- Okay. ... why, or- o-or- or maybe we need to put in a committee about the single... That might even be a better idea. I don't know if anybody wants to look at that, but clearly, we have expenditures and we have a single source going over what we're approving and without our, I mean, our Director of Purchasing is not down here, but, um, clearly we've already spent 70,000, almost 71,000 more than what we as a council thought we voted on and we're spending on this item. So, I- I guess I would be curious to know what other areas are we doing this in and how much more money are we spending so- I think the person that can answer that question is Mr. Marcum, and we'll try to get him, um, to pull together the information for you- That'd be great. ... right away. So he'll do it across the board or just for this? I- I think it's a legitimate question to ask across the board. Thank you. And then the only other thing I would mention with these is I have had some complaints that at night, um, we've spent so much money, I believe they're over $1,600 apiece, and if it's dusk or dark out, it is very difficult to read, um, the writing on the side to where to know where -- which side is waste. You know, put your waste on the other side, which is recycling and what goes in there. I had a picture, but I've had so many p-papers up here I can't find it right now, but, um, when you look at it at night, it- it- it kinda seems like a... And I'm sure many of y'all have seen them because they're all over downtown now. You- you really cannot read which... Where you're supposed to put the recycling versus the waste, and I- I would think for that type of expenditure that it would be shouted out if that's our intention is to encourage recycling that it would be very clear to everybody where that recycling goes. So, thank you. That's all I have. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I have a motion. I move to place on the docket for the February 25th, 2010 council meeting, a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute and submit a grant application to the Cabinet for Health and Family Services for federal funds for the continuation of New Chance program, the mentoring program, and the Local Governance Council project. Second. Mm-hmm. Uh, I have a motion, second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. And I have a couple of announcements. Um, just so everyone on the council knows the next, um, affordable housing task force meeting is scheduled for Mar-March 16th at 9:00 AM and that's on the -- in the fifth floor conference room. Um, I- I just... Even though we had... there was a deadline if we were gonna go with the funding like, um, Council Member Ehlinger had said earlier, but, um, this is something that I don't feel like we should let, um, let lie. We should keep it going forward. So I think it's very important for our city and the people in our community. Um, also, um, Headley Green is having their annual Homeowners Association meeting March 1st at 7:00 AM... 7:00 PM, I'm sorry, at Gardenside Christian Church on Holly Springs and, um, the Mayor's Commission for Citizens with Disabilities meeting is in the morning at 9:00 AM in the government center, fifth floor conference room. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Feigl. Um, I just wanted to announce that, uh, last night we held our circ- second district-wide, um, Fifth District meeting and we had 70 to 80 people, which was just a fantastic turnout. And I'd like to thank Shriners Hospital for allowing us to use their facility for that. Um, and I'd also like to thank the mayor and the vice mayor and Council Member Gordon and Ehlinger for being there last night. Uh, appreciated your participation. And I wanted to thank a lot of the staff people for being there. It was a very lively discussion and- and our staff members were extremely, uh, knowledgeable and willing to answer the questions. So for those who were here, I'll- I'll thank Commissioner Webb. Um, the others were David, uh, David Jarvis, Kenzie Gleeson, and, um, we had four police officers and they were there to discuss some- some crime issues that were in the Fifth District. So again, I want to thank all of you for participating and to announce that we will probably have another one again in August, and this will probably be more, um, toward the, um, the, um- ... Montis -- uh, excuse me, Monte Vesta part of the district. So, uh, if you have questions that you would like, or topics addressed, please let me know. Thank you so much. Thanks. Council Member James. Thanks, Mayor. I sent out an email to council members, um, I guess it was a couple weeks ago, um, asking that if you got... No, it was last week. If you received any emails or phone calls regarding the snow emergency plan- Yeah. ... to forward them to me. And I have... Thank you to those that have sent some to me. I have received some. Um, and based on, at least, uh, we've got se- we've ha- we had several calls, um, within my district about, uh, the plan. Um, cars that were towed or doors that were knocked on and citizens really not knowing how the information got out, um, where the signs are supposed to be versus where they are and such. So I thought, um, instead of just dealing... Since it's not just a district-specific thing, um, I thought I would place this issue under Services. So I make a motion to place the issue of the snow emergency plan into the Services Committee. Move to approve. Second. Have a motion and second to place the issue of the snow emergency plan into the Services Committee. Any discussion? All in favor, say, "Aye." Aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. And that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other member of the council wish to report? All right, takes us down to the Mayor's Report, which was circulated. Since that report was circulated, um, Council Member Feigl has raised a question about one of the appointees on the Town and Gown Commission, uh, Robert Boone. And I'd like to withdraw his, uh, nomination for the time being, and we'll do some further investigation on that. So motion to approve the Mayor's Report other than Mr. Boone on the Town and Gown Commission. So moved. Move to approve. Second. Have a motion and second. Any discussion? Council Member Gray, or Vice Mayor Gray. No. Okay, Vice Mayor... Excuse me, Council Member James. I thought that was leftover from the last. No, that's okay. Thank you. Um, Mayor, did you also have a, a chance to review my email that discussed the out-of-towners on the boards and commissions? Did you have any changes based on that? I do not. Uh, Mr. Boone, I think, fell into that category, um, but the, the reason for his, um, or the withdrawal of that nomination wasn't related to r- his residence so much as it was his, um, involvement with the Town and Gown Commission. The question you raised was to the ex- centered around the extent to which non-Fayette County residents were being appointed to, um, a couple of different boards. Uh, I think those appointments are appropriate because, um, in the first place, there's no requirement that folks be members of, uh, or residents of Fayette County. And in the second place, with regard to, uh, one instance, uh, it was an individual that had a substantial property investment in the affected area, which was the Town and Gown Commission appointment. The other involved a regional asset in, um, the airport. And in that particular instance, the individual lives just across the line in Jessamine County, I'm told, but is a long-time Fayette County employee and taxpayer who travels extensively. So I'm proceeding with that one, Ms. Long. Okay. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gray. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I wanted to, uh, speak on and to explain my vote on the, uh, appointment, on Bobby's appointment, uh, recommended appointment, Bobby Owens-recommended appointment to the Airport Board. Um, I think we've all found in our tenure in a, in this role that we sometimes have really tough votes to make, and votes that we might even want to avoid, and that we aren't able to do that. And that's where I am today. Um, sometimes w- we vote with our head and our heart, and sometimes we vote with our head or our heart. We're lucky if we get to vote with both. Um, my vote, my vote against Bobby's nomination today is a vote from my head and not my heart. It's a vote about policy and not about person. Um, I've said it before and I'll say it again, and he's here so I can say it with conviction, that, uh, there's nobody more competent, um, or more committed that I know. Uh, and many... The word honorable fits perfectly. We differed, and we differed fairly vigorously, about... the airport, the issues associated with the airport, about the management of the process going forward. We differed in the respect that the council recommended in the course of the, as we, when we recommended and urged the auditor to come in, we also recommended and asked that the then-chair of the board step aside so that the burden of that, um, the history, we would be able to move beyond it. And that wasn't followed. That counsel was not followed. My sense has been that we needed a fresh start, fresh points of view on the board, and a clean slate. And that moving forward, from the city's point of view, not personally but from the city's point of view, would be better served that way. Now, having said that, one thing I've discovered is that there's a l- lot of wisdom in a remarkable thing called democratic processes, and as remarkably messy and awkward as they can be. The optics that we view things sometimes influences our judgment. I've spoken about this from the conviction that what we do is very symbolic, and that that -- and that is why I have used the word policy to describe my vote today. But I also recognize that there's a lot of wisdom in the optics of this collected group, and if the will and the wisdom of this group is to make this appointment, then I will willingly support Bobby Owens' appointment. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Mayor. Um, this, too, isn't a personal issue in any way. Um, I know that at one point there were several council members, uh, Council Member Meyers, um, being one of them that asked the entire airport board to, to step down for a clean slate. Um, and you know, in our, um, exchanges during council meetings, um, I have expressed my disappointment, um, in past and current responses, um, to the council. So for that reason, I too will be voting no on, uh, Mr. Owens. I- again, in no way, um, in no fashion to impugn your, uh, character or actions, but, um, for that reason. Thank you. I think we need a fresh start on our airport board. Council Member Lane. Th- uh, thank you, Mayor. I, I was appointed to serve as the mayor's representative on the airport board about this time last year, and this was about the same time that Bobby Owens was selected as chairman of the board, and I've served on the board with, uh, Bobby Owens for a year, and in my judgment, he and the other board members have done a superior job in managing significant change and improvement at the airport. And I, you know, I am supporting him to, uh, be reappointed to the board, and he has my unqualified support, and I would encourage other council members to support him. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I actually was just going to speak in general, uh, based on what, uh, Council Member James said, and, um, I too believe that we probably should be appointing, if we can, some of the most qualified candidates in, who live in Fayette County. I know I've brought this up many times, and so I agree with Council Member James, um, this doesn't have anything to do with any board specifically. But, um, I do think also that there are times, um, for example, with the airport board, where it serves a region and, and there may be, uh, people who are not necessarily Fayette County, uh, residents, and they may be very qualified to help on these boards. So I would say just as a general rule, um, to all my council colleagues, I know that I have been encouraging at every meeting I go to for people to apply to boards since you've told us it's a problem for you to find qualified candidates. So I would just encourage other council members, we know there's lots of people who want to serve and want to help in Fayette County, so let's try our best to encourage people to apply so that the mayor, um, can, can appoint those people who live here. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, I wanna speak to the issue of Mr. Owens', uh, reappointment to the airport board. As Vice Mayor Gray correctly noted, um, Bobby's reputation in the community has been and continues to be impeccable, and that's a starting point. But it is by no means the ending point of my analysis about this. I think the members of the airport board and Bobby specifically have done an outstanding job of addressing some very, very difficult, um, problems that existed there. No one can tolerate or justify or condone, um, the, the conduct of certain employees there, but I think the board has done a f- a, an extraordinarily good job of addressing those problems. I also think the board has served as a valuable, um, resource of continuity at the airport. It was necessary for the board to maintain, uh, the continuity of leadership, and they did an outstanding job of, of doing that, and that need, uh, continues, and, uh, I think the leadership that Bobby has brought as chair of the board is, um, a- ... has been excellent. The board members continue to support him in that regard. I know I have spoken with several, not all, but several of the board members and they have been enthusiastic in their endorsement of, of his efforts. Um, I certainly realize there would be, uh, folks who would criticize this decision. Make no mistake about that, but there are times when it is important for whoever is serving as mayor to make tough decisions that are in the long term best interests of the community, and I am convinced continuing, um, with the current leadership on the airport board is, um, a step that serves Lexington's best interests. And, um, I have circulated a letter to, uh, each of you, which you should now have received. I wanna read it for the benefit of those folks who may be watching and don't have access to the letter. It's, uh, addressed to me from, um, the Office of the Auditor of Public Accounts. Dear Mayor Newberry, we're in receipt of your February 17th letter inquiring as to whether the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Airport Board responded diligently and provided appropriate leadership in addressing the recommendations resulting from our examination of certain financial transactions, policies and procedures of the Lexington Bluegrass Airport released on February 25, 2009. The comments below are based on our interaction with the board chairman, J. Robert Owens and others during the examination process, as well as additional updates and discussions we have received regarding board activity. During the examination process, we interacted often with the airport board chairman. Mr. Owens was engaged and cooperative throughout the process and had an in-depth understanding of the serious nature of the issues identified at the airport. He was responsive to information requests made during the examination and provided timely, informative responses. Mr. Owens is a certified public accountant with a strong knowledge of internal controls and processes, demonstrated experience and effective leadership throughout the examination that assisted the board in taking corrective actions that included the development and strengthening of essential policies and internal controls. Auditor Lewallen has publicly stated that we believe the board has taken the recommendations made in our examination seriously and has worked to implement each of them. We are encouraged by the progress detailed in the 60-day report the board sent to our office that provided an update on the status of their work to implement the recommendations of our examination. We are confident that if the board continues to follow the implementation of our recommendations and any recommendations that may be received through its annual financial or other audits, trust and accountability can be restored to this important public agency. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to your inquiry. Please contact me if you have any other questions where I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Brian Likens, the Executive Director of the Office of Technology and Special Audits. As those of you who have followed the airport, um, situation, Mr. Likens was the person on the ground dealing with the airport board and staff members on a day-to-day basis, and, um, on the strength of their recommendation as well as, uh, my considered judgment about what is in the long term best interests of the airport and our community, I, I am recommending we reappoint Mr. Owens. Um, Mr. Myers. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I guess I'll start out by saying that as Councilwoman, um, Lawless correctly pointed out that when this issue came before the council upstairs in the fifth, uh, fifth floor conference room, back I guess maybe in December of last year, I was the first person to call that, to have the board completely reconstituted, and didn't waver from that throughout the whole process. Um, the mayor let me know last week that he intended to make this reappointment and, uh, asked if I would have a conversation with him about it, as a result of that, and so we had a conversation and he said that, "You know," I raised some questions that I still had. He said, "It might be a good idea to get Mr. Owens and, and you and, and he together and have a conversation and ask the tough questions and see what the answers are, um, before I, I made up my mind." And, uh, so actually, Councilwoman Cheryl Feigel and I, uh, took that offer up yesterday and had, um, I think probably about an hour and a half meeting with, uh, Mr. Owens and the mayor, asked several tough questions and got the answers that made me feel comfortable in agreeing with the mayor that he ought to be, uh, reappointed to the board. So, I'm gonna vote in the affirmative. Thank you. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I just wanted to say, not necessarily in regards to the airport, um, board recommendation, but to all of our boards in general, um, we've heard many times on many issues that come across this council that, eh, we've got to remove emotion from it, um, and it's gotta be based on what's good for our city, um, holistically, um, and I have, eh, I did raise the question, um, in general, um, of the, of those, uh, citizens I believe that need to reside in Fayette County, um, because there are plenty, plenty of, um, well-meaning, well-educated, um, experienced folks in our city that can sit on our boards. Um, and unless appropriate, the airport board, I agree with Council Member Crosby, that is a reg- a regional component, um, that is something where someone living outside of the county could serve and it, and it'd be good, um, that that occurred. Um, but I think, um, we've got to remove the emotional component to that and look holistically first, um, and look factually- ... um, and then drill it down to personal accomplishments and recommendations. Um, but we s- we could set that policy beforehand, so I commend the recommendations for all, um, from, from my colleagues, um, as well as, uh, letters from, um, from other officials in our city. Um, but I think that anyone that applies for a position can get a letter of recommendation, um, from someone, um, of some prestige in our community. Um, they wouldn't do so probably without that. Um, they would seek it, um, and if they have proven themselves as a, as a good citizen in our city, they would have that to back that up. Um, so I appreciate those things. I just know that there are, there are accomplished citizens of Lexington that could serve as well, um, especially on the boards that deal specifically with our city issues, um, not necessarily the regional ones. And, and I could take a look at those and consider those. Um, but please know anyone that is not, that I don't favor, it's not a personal attack on you. Congratulations on your accomplishments. I think it's wonderful that you're dedicated to community and I hope you'll continue your work. Um, but there's a holistic need of engagement of our citizens that we've been talking about since we've been sitting around this horseshoe and that's why they voted for us, um, is to get them engaged and involved. Um, so, um, I will vote as I will today. No personal attack against anyone. Congratulations on your work. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I'll just reiterate some of the things that Council Member Myers, uh, mentioned. Uh, I actually was prepared to, to vote against this nomination. And, um, I w- I did say that I was willing to go in and talk with Mr. Owens and keep an open mind. And I was f- convinced in my mind that he probably couldn't change my mind. And we talked for quite a long time and I believe that the p- p- professional expertise that he has to offer our city is, uh, is an asset that we, uh, we struggle to find this kind of expertise, uh, in our community who's willing to volunteer time. He takes time away from his full-time career to give to the airport board and that has been an enormous amount of time as they went through the audit process. Uh, but what really changed my mind, I think, uh, was that this expression of, of support from the auditor's office. Uh, I think that he has spent a good bit of time helping them sift through all of the, the m- minutia that they've had to sift through and, and he has the ability to provide that continuity as they go forward and begin to comply with all the recommendations that came from the audit. Um, a new person on the board is not going to have or offer that kind of continuity. So because of that, I feel like that he also is a good choice. Um, in addition to that, he shared with me that many of the, the egregious expenses that we looked at occurred long before he ever became a board member. And, um, eh, you know, to hold him accountable for those is probably, uh, difficult in my mind, although somebody certainly needs to be, um, to be held accountable, and I think that's what the auditor's office has done. Uh, but because the auditor believes that he was a real asset to them as they went through the audit and I believe that he can provide the continuity as they try to rebuild and restructure their, their internal processes out there, I have changed my mind and I will be supporting Bobby Owens. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I wasn't going to speak today on this subject, although, uh, I'll say from the get-go that I, uh, I do support, uh, the reappointment of Mr. Owens. Uh, probably the thing that, uh, uh, would have changed my mind if it was the other way was the fact that probably two of the hardest headed people on the council changed their minds . And, um, there's no telling what, um, what this has cost, uh, Mr. Owen in, uh, in time, hours that he could, uh, be billing to, uh, uh, in his profession and, um, f- fixing a situation like that, that, that was not a very pretty situation to say the least, uh, is not something you can get done in a year, I don't think. And, uh, so I th- you know, I believe we need the continuity and, and I, I hopefully, uh, uh, my colleagues will agree with me. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council- Thank you. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. Just real briefly, I wanna add my, my sentiment to that and I wanna thank you, uh, Bobby, for leadership over the last year in, in some very difficult times. And what I hope that today's vote, uh, shows, and especially with Council Member, uh, Myers' and Council Member Feigl's comments, um, is that we have reached a new day at the airport, um, that all of the, the things that were brought up and the things that ha- had, had continued to be brought up, um, I think are, are moot with a letter like this from the, from the auditor saying, "Well done." ... and letting us know, "Well done." And to drag that out any further, um, is really unnecessary. And so my compliments to Eric and your staff for coming in and, and taking on a tough job, and Bobby, and, and all the board members, um, leading in this community during a very difficult time. You didn't waste a crisis, and I, I appreciate that. And I appreciate, Council Member Myers, your willingness to, uh, to go one step further and to, to meet with them. And I thank your leadership, because a lot of folks look to you as, uh ... Because you were so staunch in your, in your view on this. And, and it's one of those things where what that shows is, is that, uh, you can move past where we have been, um, and, and offer some very clear, level-headed rationale, and I, I appreciate that very much. So, uh, my hope is, is that from this vote forward, that, that we, as a body, um, start looking at the new day that is at the airport, and we start to support, uh, these folks in a way, um, that really makes that an asset. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Wallace. Again, I'd like to say that, um, while, uh, Mr. Owens wasn't responsible, a lot of those things happened before he was on the board. He was on the ... He was the treasurer, um, the first time he came to council. I was very supportive and felt very badly for him, and said ... I thanked him for stepping up as chair at this difficult time. But, at the same time, when a- when I asked questions about why weren't policies and procedures followed in his position as treasure, um, he said he had asked the finance, and then flight 5191 happened, and they just never did get around to it, and ... I ... The last time he was here, I s- I said that I was, continued to be disappointed not to hear, um, ownership or responsibility taken by any of the board members I had talked to. It was constantly, "Well, the old board was there, I wasn't there, I was here." You know, et cetera, and, "I'm sorry we made a mistake, I made a mistake." That's how we move forward. And, um, again, I think you're an admirable person, I think you're someone who has contributed a lot of time and energy to this and other good causes, but, um, the lack of contrition consistently has been very difficult for me, and also using 5191 by many people surrounding the airport issue has also been very difficult for me. I was the first mental health person on the scene that morning, um, with the families, and that, that was rough. So, again, um, that, that's my shtick. Thank you. All right, I see no one else interested in speaking. I think it might be, um, um, appropriate to separate out the vote on the, um, reappointment of Mr. Owen from the others. Move. Any objection? Second. I have a motion and second. To that end, Council Member James. Um, I would ask also for a motion to separate the one that has the re- the nonresident. Ms. Sloan. No. Um, the Masterson Station Park s- Ah, yes, Mr. Frye. Yes. All right. Thank you. Uh, we'll have ... If there's any further discussion, all in favor of separating along those lines, uh, Council Member Bliss. I wanted to speak to that last motion to separout- separate out Mr. Frye. All right. Council Member Bliss. It troubles me that, that, uh, that, that we would make a, a, what I think of as an artificial distinction based on an address. What really matters is whether an individual is engaged thoroughly and, and, and, uh, and enthusiastically in our community. Professor Frye has taught at the University of Kentucky, in Lexington for more than 30 years. He's a member of the Lions Club, which has a substantial investment in Masterson Station Park, has been designated as the ... A representative of the Lions Club on the Masterson Station Park Advisory Board by the president of the Lions Club. If that is not being a part of Lexington, and being a part of this community, I don't know what is. And to set up a, an arbitrary boundary strikes me as the essence of provincialism. Uh, and so, uh, we can vote separately, but I'm gonna support enthusiastically that appointment to the board. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. The motion on the floor is to separate out votes on Mr. Owens, Mr. Frye, and then the balance of the group. All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, "No." Motion carries. Let's begin with the vote on Mr. Owens. Those in favor of approving the, um, appointment of Mr. Owens, please indicate by voting, "Yes." Those opposed, vote, "No." Electronically, I'm sorry. Electronically. Jeanette, can you... Here we go. I see 11 in favor, three opposed. Has everyone voted? All right. Mr.... Has everyone voted? No, not yet. Someone... Okay, we need to... Let's reset this vote, because it's apparently not tallying correctly. Madam Clerk, if you could... Could you reset the, uh, vote? All right. Now, those in favor of approving Mr. Owen's appointment, please indicate by voting aye. Those opposed vote nay. All right, the m- motion carries by a vote of twelve, twelve to three. Uh, now those, let's move ahead to address Mr. Frye's situation at Masterson Station Park. Um, those in favor of approving Mr. Frye's appointment to the Mast- Okay. Um, the issue now is Mr. Frye's appointment to the, uh, Masterson Station Park Board. And I'm currently showing 10 in favor and two opposed. This is Mr. Bennett. On the screen. And I'm... Okay. My screen, my screen shows 13 in favor, two opposed. And the screen above us shows twelve in favor, three opposed. All right, now I'm showing Council Member James and Council Member Feigl voting against Mr. Frye. Is that... Does anyone else... Okay. That, that appointment is approved by a vote of thirteen to two. Now, the last question is on the approval of the remaining, uh, recommendations in the Mayor's report. Let me, uh, if you're in favor of the remaining recommendations, approving the r- remaining recommendations, please indicate by voting aye electronically, or oppose vote no. Just lost everybody. Let's try again. This is on the balance, everyone except Mr. Owen and Mr. Frye. And I'm currently showing twelve ayes, no nays, three, thirteen ayes. Has everyone... Okay. One more. Council Member Blues? There we go. Fifteen no. Thank you very much. That's all on the Mayor's report. That takes us down to public comment. Does anyone wish to address the council? All right, Council Member Myers, I think you have a motion. Yeah, we can't let the party end too soon here, so- ... unfortunately I have a motion to go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.810(1)(c) for the purpose of discussing pending litigation and pursuant to KRS 61.810(1)) to discuss the acquisition of real property and open discussion about which would likely affect the value of a spec- specific piece of property that may be acquired. So moved. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Meyers and a second by Council Member Gordon to go into closed session. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. Motion carries, despite the vigorous dissent of Mr., Council Member Stennant. He's in my house, 1410, number 1180 - Who is, who is it? Who's there? Patrick Kennedy. He's beating me up with a gun. He's trying to break in now. Does he have a gun right now? Yes, he does. He's already beat my head. If you don't get here, he's going to kill both of us. Okay, we're on the way, ma'am. Now. Are they on the way? Uh, they're on their way. Quickly. My head is stopping with all the blood. He's, he's in this house, he's going to kill us. Stay on the line with me, ma'am. I'm staying on the line. Oh my god. How close are they? They're on the way. Patrick. I'm the only one here. Well, Peggy was a 32-year-old college student out in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was trying to take some undergraduate classes, um, so she could go on to med school, and she met Patrick Kennedy in one of her study groups, and from there, they began-