Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned before, I represent the Greater Lexington Apartment Association and the University Area Housing Association. And between those two organizations, there are over 18,000 dwelling units which are represented. And we're doing that because the definition of family, which you're going to be discussing today, applies citywide. It applies to every owner or manager of a rental unit in Lexington. And if I can, Mr. Mayor, would it be okay to have the people who are here today who are opposing the definition of family as it is to stand, if you're opposing the definition of family today, if you could stand here. Appreciate that. And there are more coming in and signing up downstairs, Your Honor. Not all of them are going to be speaking, though. Our members are not here to advocate vinyl box additions. Our members have been, we feel, positive contributors to this process throughout the few years it's been discussed. However, we have many members here who have purchased property, spent a lot of money fixing it up, taken out mortgages, taken out loans to do what they feel is a service to this community and to the university area by providing housing to University of Kentucky students in places where those students can walk or bike to school. We oppose this definition of family for a number of reasons, and I'm going to be trying to be real brief to describe them to you. Number one, we're concerned about the fact that this ordinance does not recognize the legally required principle of nonconforming uses, so-called grandfathering. It does not recognize that legal uses which were there may continue to be used for that in the future, as has been recognized by state statute and decisions of the Kentucky Supreme Court. We are also opposed to it because we are opposed to people having to go to a public agency and a publicly televised forum to have to describe to a public board how they are related to each other or what their relationship is to each other before they are allowed to live together. We're opposed because this ordinance is very similar to an ordinance that was passed in Oneonta, New York, which was recently struck down by the Supreme Court trial division in the state of New York as being in violation of that state's constitution. That ordinance also had a provision that above a certain number, three or four, if you were unrelated, you had to go to their equivalent of the Board of Adjustment and have a hearing to determine if you were a functional family unit. That ordinance was struck down by the New York court less than six months ago. We are concerned because of other aspects. I spoke to the executive director of the Human Rights Commission yesterday, and he said that he does not recommend changing the definition of family. We feel the Human Rights Commission and Fair Housing Council should be involved in this before it is sent to the Planning Commission for further discussion. We're also concerned that students have not been involved in our discussion with student government leaders. They have said that probably the number is six. Six unrelated people living together constitutes a housekeeping unit in their view. Above that, it becomes difficult. But six or below is the number they feel is an appropriate housekeeping unit. That is, there would not be 18 student vinyl box additions under the proposals we have set forward. We're concerned that all this would do would be to force students into other neighborhoods in this community. We don't think there has been thinking forward about where the students that will be displaced by the passage of this ordinance will go if it is passed. We know they're going to go to other neighborhoods in this community, though. We know this is not going to be the solution to this so-called issue about student housing. I do want to point out to you also the existence of the solution to the vinyl box issue which was presented a few years ago, and that is the ND1 overlay zone. The ND1 zone was once called Historic Zoning Light. I think Bill Lear called it, but it was designed for one reason. One of the reasons was to prevent vinyl box additions. The Chevy Chase neighborhood is covered by an ND1 zone overlay, and there will not be vinyl box additions in the Chevy Chase neighborhood. I want to point out to you that there used to be a requirement in ND1 that required significant neighborhood support to be considered for an ND1. Some people are saying, well, we can't do that because there's not enough owner occupiers left. Even in areas where there's not many owner occupiers, that ordinance has been repealed. There's no longer a requirement of showing significant neighborhood support in the ND1 zone. As I mentioned, this is working in the Chevy Chase neighborhood. They do have ND1 protection and they will not have vinyl box additions. The definition of the family you have will not be going to the size of houses and the density and the paving and all that which has been the issue. It's only going to relate to who can live with who. It's not going to relate to solve density issues or other issues. We have proposed a compromise to you, which sets the limit at five going forward and six grandfathering, which we think would solve these issues and we think would be a reasonable compromise and let the owners of these properties that have invested a lot of money be able to proceed with their lives and not be concerned about their mortgages and the safety of their notes and everything that they have purchased. I won't discuss that a lot because that's not on your table today. I want to just say that we do have a proposal to you which we think will solve these issues. We think the definition of the family which you have before you today will not solve those issues and for those reasons, we're asking you to vote against putting it on the agenda for Thursday night. Thank you very much. Any council on matters that are on today's agenda? Mr. Moyser, Mr. Barker, and right here. Come on, if you would, and stand up front. My name is Steve Olszewski and I live at 220 Westwood Court. Some of you remember me coming around and talking about this issue in the past. I don't have enough time to address my objections or disagreements with what I've just heard. I want to try and maybe focus on what I will agree with. If, as you've heard proposed, the number should be six, and by the way, on my end I'm hearing should it be three or four. If the number should be six, then the number should be three. That is, I would have thought four would be a good number to limit it to, but what does that mean in that neighborhood? If it's three, well, that would be three people plus their significant others, their date for the evening, the person that they're hanging out with, you know, that they're partying with or whatever. We're talking about a problem and trying to address it in this way that I'm not particularly thrilled with, because I don't think that legislating this problem is the answer. The sooner we get this to the council where it can be discussed and addressed by the public and so forth, this was very much a last minute thing. I got an e-mail less than an hour ago saying urgent, a bunch of landlords are going to come down to the da-da-da-da-da and present their position. I just want to let you know I do not agree with the analysis of law that I heard. I've only taught real estate law class one time myself. I'm more on the income tax side. For example, we have had our neighborhood on Westwood Court there, that one block neighborhood destroyed in less than the last year, and to say that now they should enjoy grandfather status because the house across the street from me was erected and the problem created and within a matter of just a few months put on the market for sale. These are opportunists who come in, take advantage of the existing laws for profit. Who can blame them? But to come in and take advantage of the laws as they exist and then try and squeeze what they can out of the deal and clearly not care about the end result is not the purpose of grandfathering or any other legal premise or precedent. So, I mean, I have to say in every way I disagree with some of the positions I've already heard. I cannot imagine any detriment or harm to passing this forward to Thursday's council meeting when people can have adequate notice to come down here, express their views, get involved, submit in advance, if you will, proposals, which, by the way, there's been plenty of time over the last year or so to do that. I can't believe that there's any need for delay in this regard. I'm going to not wind out the rest of this time going on and on about this, and nervous myself and my neighbors are about this issue and hopeful to see this move forward. If it's defeated, if a compromise is found, if an alternative is suggested, if you guys decide to do something different at that council meeting, that is your business and that's the way it should be. But there is no reason to deny us the due process, if you will, of allowing this to come to the council's agenda on Thursday. Thank you. All three of them in the order of the people appeared. Mr. Oshetsky was first. Michael Moiser is second. Janet Callen. You can come around and be standing by, please. Members of the council, my name is Mike Moiser. I live at 336 Linden Walk in the Aylesford subdivision. I'm on the Board of Directors and I also was the chair of the Student Housing Task Force, for a year and a half, trying to wrestle with these issues. This is not an easy issue, and the reason it's not easy is we've waited 30 years to address this. It was Dick Murphy who first wrote a memorandum when he was in the Department of Law saying that our definition of family allowed students to live together, unrelated people to live together, as long as they shared a kitchen and it didn't run afoul of the zoning ordinance. And now, 30 years later, we're here to deal with the problem. It's not easy, but the things that are being raised to you as obstacles to doing this, I submit, are not valid. First, Mr. Murphy mentioned grandfathering. If you read Article 4 of the zoning ordinance, a nonconforming use, if there's an amendment to the zoning ordinance, remains valid after that amendment is passed, unless they cease using it in that way. That's also embodied in KRS 100. So that's not a real issue here. Second, the Board of Adjustment approval would only be required when you attempted to do a nontraditional, by this definition, family occupancy of a single family or a duplex property. So you're not talking about everyone having to go down and justify their family relationship. Third, this is a very reasonable approach. Cities all over the United States have wrestled with this. They've settled on unrelated and definitions that are not discriminatory, as the law department has used here. Three is a very reasonable number for some reasons one of my neighbors will tell you in a minute. But the bottom line is for you to do this is going to take some political will. One of the problems is that people are wearing out with the difficulties that we're facing every day. We've gone through Student Housing Task Force, ND1, rezonings, and we're still facing the same problems in increasing numbers. And the problem relates to density. And the only way to deal with density is to reduce the number of people. Take on the thing we've been putting off for 30 years and come up with an appropriate definition the community can live with. And I would submit the planning committee has done that for you, and I'd ask you to move it forward. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Cowan. I'm going to take a moment to thank all of you for the support that students on Columbia Avenue have for 25 years, and before you 12 years ago, 2 years ago, and begged, and I'm begging again, do not put this on hold. Our neighborhoods can't take it. We're not opposed, as I've said before, to students living in our neighborhood. I sent an e-mail to all of you regarding an article in Southern Living where neighborhoods had tackled these issues and had made comebacks. One of the landlords said, I got your e-mail, but those houses didn't already have vinyl boxes on them, as if to say, let's just throw this away. I'm not willing to throw it away, and as I've said in e-mails to you, I will be down here begging you each time I have an opportunity to talk about this. I don't see any need to not pass this on so that we can have everybody have an opportunity to be here at night to give their opinion. I also would like to clarify, I think, some misunderstanding of the mayor's group meeting. I was at two of them. They weren't secret. They weren't meant to leave people out. They had representatives from U.K., from the neighborhood, and from the landlords. So I think his, while I don't always agree with everything Mayor Newberry does, he was attempting to, in my estimation, let people come together to avoid all of these battles before the cameras. So I'm begging you, don't put this off. Please, please let it go before the council. Thank you. Stand by, please. Hello, I'm Ann Marie Stamatiatis, and I live on Barbary Lane in the Seven Parks neighborhood. Thankfully, our neighborhood is on the edge of all of this, so we don't directly suffer from a lot of these problems. But being on the edge is a pretty scary place to be. One thing I want to say, aside from that I agree with everything that the neighbors up to now have said, is to please don't let the scare tactics that the lawyers and their landlords, or the landlords and their lawyers are using here today, especially the seeming threat that students are going to move into other neighborhoods in vast numbers. That is exactly a scare tactic. They're hoping that everybody will hear only that and think, oh my God, I can't have that happen to our neighborhood. Let's just keep them all together in that one area where we can at least know they're there. That is not the case. If students do move into other neighborhoods, which is highly unlikely, they have to behave themselves, because I'm sure that the neighborhood associations will not stand for any misbehavior. Unfortunately, in the neighborhoods they are, the neighborhood associations have been weakened greatly by the fact that a lot of the homeowners have been chased out. So that is, of course, the reason why the neighborhoods are in the shape they're in. So please don't let these scare tactics get to you. This has to move forward to the full council. And this is not an issue of profits. Everybody has to make money, but we don't really care about their profits. Thank you. Ted Cowan, I live at 612 Columbia Avenue. Excuse me just a moment. Ben Duncan, you'd step around and stand by, please. Mr. Cowan. Just very briefly, I understand that an issue was raised earlier about the constitutionality of the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance. I want you to understand that the case that was referred to as a New York case, it was decided on the basis of the New York State Constitution. The United States Constitution has been held not to invalidate ordinances such as the one now being proposed. There is no case in Kentucky that has addressed these issues. Cases in other states have gone both ways. Some have not, but it has not been dealt with in Kentucky and perhaps it's time that it be dealt with. The issue that I'd like for you to think about today is maybe a little different. What is the legacy that you intend to leave? You know, for many of us, the legacy that we want to leave is having lived a good life. Having treated other people fairly and judiciously. Not wanting to have accumulated much in the way of wealth or property. Sometimes it's to leave wealth or property to our family. All of those are worthy goals. There may be a great many worthy goals. And what I guess I would hope that you do today is to think about the legacy that you as elected representatives are leaving for this community. Will it be the neighborhoods undesirable as places to live and raise a family? Or will it be a legacy that somehow says that Lexington should be and can be a good place in every neighborhood for its citizens to live? What kind of legacy does each of you really want to leave this community as an elected official? Thank you. Ben Duncan, if you'll step forward, and Joseph Quinn, if you'll stand by, please. Actually, I think Joe is going to yield his time to me, if that's okay. That's fine. You'll have six minutes now. Thank you. My name is Ben Duncan. I'm here on behalf of student government, the University of Kentucky, and the 27,000 students that we represent right now, as well as the hundreds of thousands of future Wildcats that are out there. We're trying to be involved. We've been involved in the mayor's meetings. We've been talking to Diane's office. And it's a busy week for us right now. A lot of us are still on the hangover of Dance Blue, of raising over $600,000 for pediatric oncology and still getting over a 24-hour dance marathon. It's also midterm week. A lot of students are busy right now. Next week is spring break. A lot of us are taking off on Thursday. But please bear that in mind. Obviously, our schedules are a little bit conflicting. The other thing is, I'm not here for the landlords. I get at least an email a week from the landlords telling me what to say. And honestly, I wish I could create a filter on my inbox to just send them to the trash. But I think students, we have our own interests. A lot of them do align with the landlords. A lot of them do align with the neighbors. And I think that gets overlooked a lot. I get emails from the landlords and everything. And we're here speaking on behalf of students. So I'd like to make that clear right away. We believe that this is not a safety issue. It seems to be a talking point that this is a safety issue. The students are trapped in the middle of statutes. The city has not enforced them. And then the landlords have ignored them. And we're just trying to live in a house that is safe and affordable and near campus. We're bearing the brunt of two entities not fulfilling their duty. If the issue is locks or fire alarms or emergency exits in the house, that's going to be the same whether there's four students living there or 40 students living there. That's not an issue of density or who's living where or anything. That's simply enforcement. And the real issue here, obviously, is density. The four unrelated persons number, obviously, that's a pretty arbitrary number. We can sit up here and argue four or six all we want. If the residents say they don't want to live next to four or five or six students, my question would be how is that different than a family who has two, three or four teenage drivers? The parking problems are the same. You've got the same number of cars. Water issue, all that good stuff, that's still an issue whether it's students living there or whether it's a family living there. So why are we making this discrimination between temporary seasonal residents I believe is the exact definition as it's worked in. And so we see that as discrimination. And so you can call it what you want or put talking points on it however, but we see that as targeting students. You know, we are being realistic though. We're not going to come up here and pretend like it's not an issue in front of us right now. We do realize you guys are trying to redefine the definition of family. And so as such, we would like to ask that you grandfather in the existing structures that are already there. And the reasons we believe are simple. You know, besides the legal implications, you know, we're not really concerned with all that. From a student perspective, the less beds that we have near campus creates the problem where students are going to go out to other communities and other surrounding areas around Lexington. That's simple. If there are no beds around Lexington, they're going to go, or in the third district, wherever, they're going to go elsewhere. That's fine. The issue that's been created is you have that many students driving in that then need to park on campus, that then that creates a problem. If anybody's been down Nicholsville during rush hour, you know that road is not suited for more traffic. And then the other issue that obviously from a student perspective is the economic issue. It's simple. I've only taken Econ 201 and 202, but I know that when you have less beds near campus, when you decrease the quantity of something, that increases the price of it. We already pay an outrageous amount for tuition, and it goes up every year. And so this would essentially be a tuition hike for the 75% of students who live off campus. And that's a lot of students want to live near campus, want to live within walking distance. Pushing them out and then charging them more to live there just seems unfair to us. And the other issue besides the grandfathering of structures, obviously, is that we think four is too low of a number. I do, again, realize that's arbitrary, but we do think that six is a more fair number. Just because you're not going to have the vinyl box additions with six. Obviously, a lot of those structures are already four bedroom. I don't believe any landlord would create a big box for two extra bedrooms. It just doesn't seem economically worth it. And then, you know, that's a whole other issue. But we do believe six is a little bit more fair of a number. Is this going to affect, how many houses currently have over four students in them? I don't know the number of that. I don't know if anybody knows the number of that. The other issue is how many beds are we losing? How many houses currently hold eight and then there are going to be four? You know, how many students are going to be displaced and how many extra beds are going to need to be found? And then, again, is the city really prepared for the increase in traffic and parking that's going to result because of moving students away from campus and having them have to commute in on a daily basis? You know, the university created an Office of Off-Campus Student Housing, as well as numerous other enforcement recommendations from the Student Housing Task Force, so we would just ask that we continue to look at those and to look at the enforcement issue if it really is a safety issue, as well as the obviously bringing in the university. It's a key part of this because they have agreed to create an Office of Off-Campus Student Housing. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you very much, Mr. Duncan. The next person on the list is Mr. Simpson. Bruce Simpson. And then Anthony Humphress. Mr. Simpson, if you'd come forward. Mr. Humphress. Anthony Humphress. Okay. Come around, please. Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mayor and members of the Council. I'm Bruce Simpson, an attorney. In a case he's a defendant in from a suit brought by this government, I'm not here to talk about the merits or facts or anything to do with that case. I'm here on Mr. Haley's behalf to offer a brief comment with respect to the proposed ordinance changes. I'm mindful of Dick Murphy's presentation earlier. I think his comments about nonconforming uses and their application in particular, as it applies to current property owners, is a very important concept to bear in mind any time you change the law to reduce the number of units from the way it's been enforced in the past. I think there's a legal question there that needs to be more finely looked at. I do disagree with Dick insofar as not hearing this thing on Thursday. I think it's time to hear it. It is an issue in this community. Mike Moiser said it's been an issue for 30 years. I can tell you, I've lived here on the ground all my life, it's been an issue for more than that, dating back to when I went to the University of Kentucky. So let's hear it, let's decide it, let's move on with it. I would, and I'll reserve my comments about the language of the proposed text change later, but I would ask this body to consider this as you move toward whatever decision you're going to make. It is not a rush to judgment, because at some point in time, this body is going to have a second reading on the proposed changes, then it goes to the planning commission, which will have another set of hearings, then it comes back to the council for another hearing. So it's not a rush to judgment. We're still a couple, three months away from a final decision. I would ask you to think about this. There are a number of landlords that went to banks and said, I want to continue uses that have been in this particular area for 20, 30 or 40 years. And the banks looked at the profile of economic return on investment and said, you're right, those are houses set aside for students, we're going to loan you the money so you can continue that use. A number of people went and borrowed money to do that. And now they're facing the prospect of losing a lot of money if you change the rules in the game that have been in play for 20 or 30 or 40 years. I think that's an inequitable position to take. And I think that a fair position to take would be to recognize either by benign neglect, looking the other way, or simply having serious doubt, as Dick Murphy's memo pointed out 30 years ago about the ability of the government to enforce its ordinances, that you know, I think we need to consider the past the past and let's look forward prospectively to deal with issues that can be more legally enforced and that can be more equitably shared among the citizens of our community. Landlords may be few in number, but their interest and their families are just as important as any single citizen that comes before this body. Thank you. And then Katie Humphress. You want to yield your time? We can work that out. No problem. Go right ahead. We'll have plenty of time. I'll try to go quick. I'm Anthony Humphress at 1108 Fontaine. I just want to say that I'm happy with the system of government that we have that allows citizens to come here and just vocalize our opinion so that we can try to come to a win-win situation on this whole thing. And I want to commend you as well on what you've already done in a very short amount of time. You have motivated the SHIP program, the UK Off-Campus Housing Director position, increased police enforcement and inspections. You've had the moratorium to stop vinyl boxings. And now we're clarifying the definition of a family. So you have done a lot, a lot, a lot in a short amount of time. And I think those things are great. I'm thankful for them. They've obviously made neighborhoods better and our community as a whole better. So if there's anything I can add to the process, I hope it's just the full disclosure of facts from my point of view and what I feel like represents a lot of other property owners, not to mention hundreds of subcontractors that work with us, as well as thousands of students that Ben just pointed out. So here's some facts of my personal background. I moved into the neighborhood. You can't see it really well, but I moved into that house and I primarily moved into this neighborhood to work with at-risk youth who lived in Ingleside Trailer Park. And as I learned about community development, I realized that fixing up homes was a key to bringing respect and vision to that community. So that's what I set out to do. Okay? This particular home had indoor, outdoor grass in the front yard, had broken windows. The kitchen and bathroom floor was falling in from urine. At one point before I bought the house, there were 15 people living here, not to mention a pet goat. So it's ironic that it's less dense now than it used to be. I lived in that home. My plans were to stay there the rest of my life, where all my other student renters are and live right next to them. However, my wife found an old money pit on Fontaine, ironically, across from five other college students. So that's where I ended up. The next slide shows another house that was right next door. The top one, that's the after picture. The two previous owners were so horrible, I bought the house for way too much so I could control who lived there. And I wanted to have five responsible college students actually live there and live next to me for my whole life. Okay? And, you know, if you reduce it to four, that fifth person is the only one that helps me make the mortgage or any profit on that thing. I'll lose it if I go to the bank, probably, if you pass it the way it is. Okay? The bottom picture is not my house. It's right next to one of my houses. And if you can see all the junk on the front porch, how that's allowed to go on, I don't know. The guy actually had goats living in his backyard last year that, ironically enough, my own students called complaining that these goats were screaming, keeping them up at night. Okay? So this is just pure irony. The next picture, please. Next slide. This is a house that used to be a crack house on the top. Okay? It had over 92 code violations. I bailed the owner out of the house. I didn't even want the thing. But in order to make it work with current financing, I had to turn it in to basically where five people could use it. The after picture is on the bottom. As you can see, I spent a lot of extra money trying to make it, if you slide it over a little bit, to look like a one and a half story. The other way, please. Okay. The old lady across the street thanked me. Okay. So here are the facts. Only a few are abusing the system, and a lot of us are improving neighborhoods. So let's target this and make it a win-win. You've done a lot of helpful things so far. So all I want and all the landlords, I'm going to go out on a limb. I don't care if you change it to two from here on out, but at least grandfather in at least five, because a lot of us are going to be completely under. So... Thank you, Mr. Humphress. Ms. Humphress, you'll have three minutes. And then the next speaker will be Craig Harden. Mr. Harden, if you'll come around. Stand by. You're there. Thank you, Mr. Harden. He can't be away from me. So it was tricky to get here. But my name is Katie Humphress. I live at 1108 Fontaine Road, the Money Pit. But I do live across from five college students, and we love where we live. But I'm here today as a wife, as a mother, and as a property owner, just desperate to keep my job. I've agonized over how to plead for this, and although balancing leasing calls and scheduling appointments is no easy task with a two-year-old hanging on one leg and that big old boy on the other hip, I do it gladly because this is how my family survives. And the only thing that I could think to say today was just to really relate to you my experience with this issue of student housing. And two and a half years ago, my husband suggested I give my alma mater, Ohio State, a call, see what they've been up to. And we ended up going on a trip to go see Willie Young. And I'm not going to go into the solutions that we came up with there that were really great or struck with the difference of how Ohio State had changed. But he did give me a list of people to call, and one of them is worth mentioning. Susan Stafford, who is the director of off-campus student housing in Colorado, is faced with a really tricky situation. The city passed a law that limits the number of students in a house. And so now she's faced with just a bunch of students just crammed into houses illegally because they can't afford to live in such few numbers. So now you have a whole world of her. The city is spending tons and tons of money trying to enforce this thing. The students are living in dangerous situations just because they've crammed themselves in and no one knows they're there. The landlords are in a world of hurt and can't do anything about it. And so it's just a really tricky situation. And the neighbors are really annoyed, too. So it's just, it's definitely worth mentioning. And as for a win-win situation, on behalf of the hundreds of hardworking family businesses out there who will just be decimated if these definitions go through as is, I just, I just beg you to consider grandfathering in at least five or six of these bedrooms, because my family will be under, and as you can see, that's part of my family there. But I do think that with UK promising an off-campus student director, that's going to be a win-win situation. And as for the SHIP program, the moratorium, you guys have done so much. And I just really beg you from the bottom of my heart to continue to pass solutions with win-win in mind. So many of us are just depending on you, and especially my kids. So thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Hardin, you're next. And then John Roberts, you'd stand by. Mr. Roberts. I'm Craig Hardin, 228 Lexington Avenue. I'm representing both the Greater Lexington Apartment Association and more so the, I guess, some of the views of the University Area Housing Association today as well. I asked to have this put before you. This was a letter that we sent recently. Some of the, this pretty, hopefully clearly outlines our positions on a lot of these things. And rather than, I think there's a lot of folks here today that will express to you that all the things that they do not want, any of these definitions to go forward. I'd like to spend my time on some of the things that we do support, and in more of a positive tone. I think it's important to point out that we are supporting and doing what we're doing, and we're doing it with a commitment. We did compromise last year as we sat through the many meetings, what, a year and a half, and Mike Morrison did a great job of leading us through all of that, and the council members that sat on it. And we came forward with the expanded enforcement options. They were recommended and passed by this council, and there were actually eight items that went forward for there. I'd like to point out a couple of these items, and these are the things that have been done. Number one, approve, I say they have been done. I think some of them are in process, but you all will know better than I will, but most of these things I think have been done or are in process. Item one, approve adequate abatement funding for each budget cycle for the Division of Code Enforcement. There was a note there of $200,000. Number two, lift hiring freeze on approved additional positions in the Division of Code Enforcement. Number three, resume and conduct regular comprehensive sweeps by the Division of Code Enforcement in affected neighborhoods. Number four, increase fines for key property violations, including up to double the current total maximum fines for maximum multiple violations within a 12-month period, and following the loss of an administrative appeal. Number five, create systems for civil fines and abatement and placement of liens on offending properties for violations of any code enforced by the Division of Building Inspection. I believe that's in committee now. Number six, create a system of civil fines for activities undertaken without a permit from the Division of Building Inspection. Number seven, improve systems to better document violations and ensure sharing of information. Number eight, draft and adopt a definition of the fraternity and sorority house. All of these items were things that were well discussed, we compromised on, thought we did a good job in the community, and supported. Again, everybody supported that, and we did as well. So I wanted to point that out. Those things have been dealt with by this council and have not had time to come forward and really take effect yet, and will change a lot of the things around the campus areas. As far as expanded policy, then we had things, several things that came up in the committee report. We had the adopting spacing or density limits on student homes, which was also known as the Penn State plan. That had no motion come forward, but that is essentially going to be the same type of thing that this is dealing with right now. It's essentially a down zoning, moving students out. Because it also had portions in it where it said no more than three unrelated. The next item was the adopt rental licensing that was voted down, and so on and so forth. There were several other things down through there. The ones that I, one that did get endorsement by the council was the student housing and partnership program, which was renamed that later, the SHIP program that Officer Keith Gaines, of course, has spent so much time on. I'd like to point out that he did get a lot of consensus from neighborhood people. He didn't give us everything we wanted, but he worked hard on that, and I think it deserves time to work. It will change behavior, and when I say behavior, I mean by property owners and students. So it needs to be pointed out, it's not just a behavior control of students. If it's allowed to work. So in summary, I just would say that there are several things that we'd like to support, and including have other time to mention parking restrictions. We think there should be additional parking requirements that would then reduce the size of buildings that could be built. I don't think that's been looked at seriously. We keep mentioning it. We've put it in writing a number of times. That's the way it's handled in other higher density zones. You have to have more off-street parking spaces, then you can't build as much building. That will work. Unfortunately, we've met a lot of resistance there where people don't want the backyards paved. We understand that issue, too, but there has to be a balance. If there's more people and more cars, we've got to figure out what we're going to do with them. That issue is not going away, and it seems to be one that we just battle with and battle with year after year. So please, we need to deal with the parking. The last thing I guess I'd mention would be the zoning around the university. The high density zoning has been absorbed by the University of Kentucky over the last several decades. I don't know where the students are, where we expect them to go. It's gone. They've taken all, Rose Street used to be R5, R4, right up through Rose Street. I knew Mrs. Hale that had a lot of property right up through there, and that's all gone, owned by the university now, and large buildings there. It's being taken for the, I'm sorry, am I out of time? Out of time. Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate your time. Thank you. Mr. Roberts, if you'd step up, and then Mr. Burton, you'll be next. Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of the council. The moratorium will end soon, and I don't know if anything has been done on that issue. But nothing today is going to solve that issue. We need to work on that. Not all of the options have been explored. We need to possibly define students and require that they stay in one bedroom, rather than redefine family. We need to explore square footage, so much for the living room, kitchen, bath, and bedrooms. Some examples that I've seen say that students are not allowed to stay in one room. Seventy square feet is required for one bedroom. I'm not sure where Mike Moser gets his two-person per room. Most students want their own room, and therefore, they want to move out of a two-person dorm room and move into our one-person bedroom. I think it's the most important maturity issue. We are dealing with students just out of high school, and they're concentrated in this area. And so it's a matter of maturity. I believe that we will have unintended consequences if you change the definition of family. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Burton, if you'll step up, and the next speaker will be Anthony McIntyre. Mr. McIntyre, if you'll step around. Good afternoon. I'm David Burton, 2109 Bridgeport, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'll keep my comments brief. Much of what I was going to say has already been spoken, and if it's okay with you, I'll be brief. That's not true. I do want to start by agreeing with Mr. Olszewski, actually, our first speaker, an old friend of mine, and I sympathize and also agree with some things he's saying. He is in a particular situation where he has seen, what I would say, abuses of the zoning ordinances and the way they were written. He has been very concerned about that, and he has been a first-hand witness to that. And he and people like him need relief, and I'm wholeheartedly for that. And I think most people who own property, whether they rent or live there themselves, would agree with it. That is the need, and that is hitting the target on the head, if you will. Along with that, I believe that density actually is good. That used to be popular. Lately, it seems like we're not quite in this agreement. The question is where that density is, of course. I don't think that's going to be a problem. The problem with the way this is worded so far, what's before you right now in advancing it forward, it makes no distinction between what's on the Jesmond County line and what's sitting down in the middle of downtown. For example, in his case, he's got a property where I understand, I understand why that would be egregious in that situation. I personally bought a property, a five-bedroom stone's throw from campus last year. It, at this point, is a five-bedroom. I paid probably more for it than I would have paid for it, and I should have. It's a 100-year-old house. It was totally renovated. It was beautiful. I liked it, and I went ahead and bought it. But if this were to go through in its current form, I would be in danger of losing the ability to use that fifth bedroom, which makes the difference for me between paying for it and actually losing money on it. And I think that situation is why you have a lot of people showing up. They are in fear that they're going to lose the bit of the profit or just enough to pay for it where they're at. And that needs to be addressed. So we have some complementary things here. I don't think most would have problems with density where this house is. It would be probably a mistake to take it back to four bedrooms. It needs to be five. It could even be bigger, but it needs, that's a great place for density. And the way this is, like I said, spread out, this doesn't allow for that. So what I propose is that while there may be some merits in what's being pushed forward at this point, I don't think it hits the nail on the head. And I think if we go back and do better homework, we're going to find solutions where there won't be much opposition here. You will find enough people who agree on it, and there will always be some who don't, but you'll find enough that will concur on this. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Burton. Mr. McIntyre, if you'll step up. And our next speaker after Mr. McIntyre will be Mr. McIntyre. Mr. McIntyre will be Ike Lawrence. Mr. Lawrence, if you'll stand back, please. Hi. I'm Anthony McIntyre. I will try to keep this to just a few brief recollections of a tired old queen. It's like a flashback to 1990. I'm sorry. We're talking about the definition of family. Okay. Well, I've heard that the definition of family is that these proposals are nondiscriminatory. I've heard also that only nontraditional families will be on GTV explaining themselves. Well, I've been on the receiving end of both of those. Thank you. I'm really not too happy with going into this. Traditional family, are we going to have a bunch of people yelling and screaming now that traditional family is two or more people related by blood and marriage only? I mean, that's more or less what the IRS says. Why can't we go there? I'm probably not too happy with going into this. I'm not in a better position to survive this effective down zoning than most people here. Some of my employees probably would have different views because it'll, yes, cut into the bottom line, which will cut into their bottom line. And I guess my final observation is I'm sure there have been people in neighborhoods I've moved into in the past who have been exactly thrilled by having the two queens moving in. But they got over it. And I think actually we've come out pretty well. The measure of a community is its ability to live in peace with itself. And I suggest that's really what's at stake here. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lawrence. If you'll step forward. Next is Mark Barker. Mr. Barker, if you'd step up. Can I show some pictures? Sure. Mike Lawrence, 221 Clinton Road. Some of the pictures I wanted to show you were Mr. Gray had asked that we visit the neighborhood and see some of the policies that have been in place the past 10 to 15 years with these vinyl box additions. So I thought I'd bring the neighborhood down to us and actually see what we're talking about. So what I found when I had never really been over to the westward side is four of the seven vinyl box additions that have been in place are already for rent. So they don't have the density issues. I don't know if they're underutilized or planning for August. But clearly by the cars that we had here, everything, four out of the seven were for rent on Floral and Forest Avenue as well as on Westwood Drive and I did not see the compaction or density six months after probably the lease started. They seem to be underutilized. They certainly weren't doubled up in having 16 people in an eight-bedroom, nowhere even near that. If we get to, so these are, if you can't see them, I wouldn't have taken the picture if there wasn't a for rent sign in front of them. They don't always get shown. If you keep flipping. The next picture here is Aylesford where there are seven for rent signs. What I found distinctive about this is if people were doubling up in a vinyl box, why wouldn't they move to all the others at a much reduced rate and rent from a landlord who obviously wants their money too. So compaction, I think we have to sometimes question compaction in some of these areas and whether or not more than eight people are living in an eight-bedroom or seven people are living in a seven-bedroom. This is Waller Avenue also has seven, you can't see it totally, but there are seven for rent signs on Waller Avenue where people would go to for a much reduced rate and get away from any vinyl box additions. I am for wanting to make some changes. I am very much against the language of this way this family ordinance is written. One thing I am for is maybe changing the floor area requirement from 70 percent down to 50 or 60 percent. I think that would solve our problems going forward. Thank you, Mayor. So I am for reducing the floor area requirement going forward and then getting more Herbie's where we went to once a week pickup. So if we can get more Herbie's, I think that would solve the trash problem and also if we would just look at not going forward on this family ordinance. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Mr. Barker, if you would step up. And then the next speaker's name is Sally, is it Barango? Hello, my name is Mark Barker. I live at 439 Park Avenue in the Columbia Heights neighborhood. I got some slides. I'd like for my time to start with my slides. The first slide is some data compiled by planning people. It's the 2000 census. If you go to the bottom of that, you'll see a number circled. It shows the number of five or more persons living in the university area, households. And it's five. I mean, it's 131. So that gives you a rough handle on what we're talking about. We're talking about 131 households or maybe a little bit more now that it's 2010. Go to the next slide, please. This is what those 131 households translate to when we allow what's happening to continue. I believe that is a Craig Hardin house right there. And I think this is what they're referring to as the parking solution. This is what they're talking about. They're talking about paving in every single inch of green space they possibly can and saying that's the solution. Well, that's not a solution. We currently have, this is according to your civil engineers, a $10 million problem in my neighborhood with storm sewers. There's 400 houses. That translates to $25,000 per house. And that's not coming out of their pocket. That's coming out of the taxpayers pocket. So that's not a solution for this problem. I'd also like to say that we do not have a problem with the amount of housing near the university. There has been recently 4,000 additional units. There is currently a plan to take a Good Samaritan and make it a good Samaritan, and make it a good Samaritan and make that into mixed use. There's been huge apartment complexes next to South Broadway. And I think you're also missing the trends in terms of how universities are used. There is a growing trend of people not living near the university because they're taking their courses online. Right now about 10% of the students take their courses online. In another 10 years, it's estimated 50% may be taking their courses online. So where are they going to live? Are they going to live in the neighborhoods right near the university? Or are they going to live everywhere? So this problem has come to your neighborhood, whether you like it or not. And I have a solution. Our solution would be take the $10 million it's costing to allow them to build this stuff and tear them down and put in clauses requiring them not to build anything and make these backyards retention areas. That would be cheaper than the $10 million, and it would restore these communities. I just want to say that what you're seeing is happening often. These people are going to, when they add these additions, they're saying there are four bedrooms, and they're saying everything else is going to be four bedrooms. in their four bedrooms and they're saying everything else is a den or living room, but then when they actually rent them, they're renting them as de facto boarding houses. So what we've done is created boarding houses in single family neighborhoods. This is Cheryl Figo's house. And I bring this up, and I hesitant to bring this up, but I and a lot of people are very concerned about that she has a very major conflict of interest. And I would just like to again ask all of you to recuse yourself from voting on this, because I think clearly she has been biased. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Barker. Ms. Barrango, if you'd step up. And then the last person I have signed up to speak is Terrell Holt. Mr. Holt, if you'd come around. Ms. Barrango. My name is Sally Barrango, and I live in 1765 Chandler Lane, Lexington, Kentucky. Is that better? Scary. Anyway, I represent the Haley Green subdivision. I don't know how many of you are familiar with that. But I moved there in 1997 with the understanding that it was a senior citizen community that pleased me. I'm a grandmother with five grandchildren, two sons in college now, one granddaughter already finished, and they never lived outside the campus where they lived. The landlords were required to provide off-street parking. Chapel Hill and also Appalachian State and Boone, North Carolina. But the reason I'm here is because I'm appealing to all of you to help us maintain and preserve what we have there in Haley Green. It's a wonderful situation. It's a wonderful neighborhood. I'm a widow. I have four neighbors, women who are widows. We support each other. But we're having a great influx of college students moving in. And some of them are dear, kind, sweet people. And we have a few people in our subdivision that have babies. It's kind of nice to see some young faces, and particularly those sweet little children who are going to be college students someday. And they'll have grandparents that want to live in a subdivision like I live in. Quiet, nobody speeds, nobody peels out in the middle of the night for whatever reasons. And so we're trying to do something about it. Please help us to preserve our little subdivision. We don't mind quiet, polite students. That isn't the problem. It's property devaluation that we fear. This is the largest investment that most of us have made. And a lot of us are widows down the road. We may need some of that money from that investment to help us live in a retirement or worse yet different kind of a situation. I think it's called warehousing the senior citizens. Thank you very much. I hope you can do something to help us. Thank you. Mr. Holt, if you'd step forward. Thank you, Mayor, Council. I'm a longtime landlord for students at the University of Kentucky. And it's been over 40 years that I've owned property around the university with very, very few problems. And I realize that we have a problem with that. It's been created over several years. But I'm also very concerned about an ordinance that would be passed that would be discriminatory against our students. It would be negatively impacting the landlords and property owners that have purchased property in this area over the years. And I want to urge the council to adopt the eight exceptions that we have in the expanded enforcement options that recommended by the Student Housing Task Force that was referred to by Mr. Harden earlier and passed in November of 2009 by this council. And also urge the council to adopt the two policy options, number three and eight, again recommended by the Student Housing Task Force referred to by Mr. Harden a few minutes ago. I have personally witnessed firsthand the improvements that have occurred in many of these areas, especially the Elizabeth Street area and Transylvania Park area. And I'm totally convinced that this is due to the actions that you've taken, Mr. Mayor, in terms of stricter enforcements and also making the owners of this properties more responsible and more aware that they have to respond when there's a problem. And I urge the council to adopt the two policy options, number three and eight, again recommended by Mr. Harden a few minutes ago. And I'm totally convinced that this is due to the actions that you've taken, Mr. Mayor, in terms of stricter enforcements and also making the owners of this properties more responsible and more aware that they have to respond when there's a problem. And I'm 100% in favor of stricter, come down harder on property owners if they don't comply. The safety of our students. Thank you. Thank you. Are there others that wish to address the council on matters that are on today's agenda? If you would, please just step forward and give us your name. You'll have three minutes. Thank you. My name is Amy Clark. I live at 628 Castle Road. I'd especially like to thank the members of the Student Housing Task Force and the Moratorium Committee for doing this very hard work in bringing these things forward. I urge you to send on through the process and vote into being all the recommendations of the Moratorium Committee with a single amendment that it be specified for no more than three unrelated adults in the family definition rather than four. Four is a crowd. Three is company, four is a crowd. I'd like to ask you to think for a minute about affordable housing. In the student areas, I see students every day and they tell me there are a lot of places they can't afford. I did some quick and dirty research. You'll notice that the three large commercial complexes lately built start with their four-bedroom apartments at, say, 500 a month. What happens then is that a burden is put on the single-family homes and neighborhoods and zones, even the duplex, to cram. Because if you can use a place zone single-family and priced sort of single-family to derive rental income at rates between 300 and 500 a month, that's a lot of money. So what happens if you can't afford a place at 300 per person per month? You can maybe pack quite a number of unrelated adults in there and they're getting a better deal than they would at a commercial place at 500 perhaps. The people who are suffering are the families. We've invested heavily in our house and our neighborhood. We know our neighbors. Please think about stability of neighborhoods. Think about the value of neighborhoods. Think about the safety of neighborhoods. And limit the single-family uses and the duplex uses to what behaves like a family. And for me, the one thing that really makes a difference in the daily behavior and use in a single family is family share. Someone was saying earlier, more people, more cars. What are we going to do? Fewer people, fewer cars. But also families share. There's less crowding when you have families by any of the uses or definitions proposed in the moratorium committee. But I think three needs to be the outer limit. You'll notice trends between 1990 and 2000. They're growing worse. Owner-occupied units in the area on the map I furnished you are down about 15%. That was 10 years ago. There's a 9.3% greater density. The density is altogether higher. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Does anyone else wish to address the council? All right. We're ready to move on to item two on the agenda, which is the docket approval. Is there a motion to approve the docket? I have a motion by Council Member Stennett, second by Council Member Gordon to approve the docket. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member McCord. I have a motion to walk onto the docket for Thursday night. I moved place on the docket for March 11, 2010. Council Member Mitchell. I move thateday council meeting resolutions authorizing the mayor to sign American Recovery and Reinvestment Act federal reimbursement agreements with the Commonwealth of Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, as well as with other documents necessary for the completion of projects, whereby the cabinet will undertake the completion of and expend up to $1,874,632.50 for the legacy trail Phase 2 project, $1,428,625.03 for the downtown streetscape project, and $5,796,393.26 for the legacy trail Phase 1 project. So moved. I have a motion to Council Member McCord and a second by Council Member Lane to add that item to the docket. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. If there's nothing further, we'll move along. We have a summary to approve from February 23rd. I have a motion to Council Member Beard and a second by Council Member Blues to approve the February 23rd summary. Any discussion? Council Member Gorton. Yes. On page 7 at the very top, Council Member Gorton thanked Mayor Newberry and Council Members Blues, Crosby, and Martin for attending the signing of the covenant. If there's no objection, we'll include that amendment. Seeing none, it will be amended. Any further discussion on the summary? Seeing none, we'll proceed to vote. All in favor of approving the summary, including Council Member Gorton's amendment, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. We have some budget amendments. Is there a motion to approve? Any discussion? Thank you, Mayor. I have a question on the Journal 40941. It's on page 9 of the packet. It's just a point of clarification. And Council Member Stennett may know, I think the request for the budget amendment came out of either the CAL or the Budget and Finance, and this had to do with the $75,000. Was the language supposed to be used as a match? Or was it just a transfer of the funds from one budget to the other? Can you clarify what your understanding of that is? Just a transfer of funds, not necessarily a match. So I think that, Mayor, I think that needs to be edited because it says to be used as, and all that needs to just be eliminated. So specifically, are you suggesting we amend this item to put a period after Council Office and delete the balance? That's correct. That was the purpose of the transfer was just to transfer it from Economic Development Office to the Council Office with no preset agenda as to how that would be spent. All right. Is there a motion to amend to that effect? I have a motion by Council Member James and a second by Council Member Gordon to amend Budget Amendment Item 40941 to transfer funds from the Mayor's Economic Development Office to the Council Office. Any discussion on that amendment? Seeing none, we'll proceed to vote. Those in favor of the amendment, please indicate by saying aye. Those opposed, no. Motion carries. We're now ready to vote on the Budget Amendments as amended. Is there any further discussion? All in favor of approving the Budget Amendments as amended, please indicate by saying aye. Those no. Motion carries. We have a few new business items for your consideration. Is there a motion? I have a motion by Council Member Beard, second by Council Member Myers to approve the new business items. Is there any discussion? Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question on two items. Items A and E. The first one would be, I think, Commissioner Webb, and the second, or maybe it's not Commissioner Webb, maybe it's Mr. Crow. And then Item E, whoever's going to talk about TIF. Mr. Crow, thank you. Can you just explain a little bit more in detail of how this came to be for the gravel resurfacing permit? Because I know during the discussion, we were talking about gravel not being an acceptable use for parking and such. So can you talk a little bit about it? That's correct. Under the current zoning ordinance, gravel is no longer an accepted material for paving driveways or parking areas in residential zones. However, there are numerous existing gravel driveways and gravel parking areas that are allowed to be refreshed. In other words, they were existing at the time, legally there when the ordinances were changed to allow, to prohibit the use of gravel for new parking or new driveways. Those driveways then can be refreshed with new gravel and maintained as they are, the size that they are. The problem comes in is there's no permit, was no permit requirement that you get a permit when you re-graveled or you refresh that gravel. We get lots of complaints regarding people refreshing gravel parking areas or gravel driveways and making them bigger than what they were, adding them or adding additional space with the gravel. That's created enforcement issues for us. It's very difficult sometimes to tell exactly what was there, what wasn't there. We rely on aerial photographs to do that. We also rely on field inspections when we have to go out and try to ascertain exactly how much area the gravel covered and if what you've put down exceeded what was originally there. We feel if we put a permit requirement in place where you're required to get a permit before you refresh your existing gravel driveway or gravel parking area, then that gives us, before we'll issue the permit, we will go out and make a determination as to exactly what the existing gravel area is, how big it is, and then issue a permit under those constraints. Then once the gravel is down, we will go back and recheck that and verify that you put down what we had permitted you put down. At that point, then, we've collected data on that location. We know what's from go forward as exactly what, how much is actually existing gravel. So in the future, several years later when they're redoing that again, we will have it already on file, how much space that you had as an existing gravel driveway. And again, that would be all you would be permitted to refresh in the future. Is gravel considered impervious pavement? I have heard it defined both ways, and I would have to defer to environmental or someone to answer that definitively. My information that I've always had is that it was considered pervious, that it was, you know, potentially it did allow water to go through it. I've also heard it depends on the type of gravel that it does become packed down in such a way that it does not allow that. So I would have to defer to someone else to answer that definitively. Okay. And what is the permit funds that are collected? Where does that go? What's that? And what coffers will that go? That goes to the general fund. It doesn't go to specific impact type fees or go to the general fund. Okay. And what's the violation if someone puts down or refreshes without a permit? They would then have to pay a double permit fee. If we get notified and you've done it and you haven't contacted our office and you've already put it down and we go out, then you will pay double this permit fee. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Crow. Mr. Kelly, hi. On item E, which is, it's for the Red Mile TIF, but this is just really a TIF question in general. We've seen where some legislation is being considered in the state regarding TIF. And I wondered what are the chances of success of this being approved? Where do you know an update on the legislation? The legislation that's already in the pipeline, if you will, would not be affected by the approval of any legislation that's being considered this session unless it had an emergency clause that would keep it from being, that would cause it to be affected. That's assuming that it gets approved before July 1. It's my impression that the legislation that's been offered has not moved yet. And there's not any indication that it's likely to move. Okay. So I don't think it will have an effect on this project. Is this the first slide down the pipeline for this or what we did before? Is it already moving along in the state? The approval by the council of this ordinance would allow us to move forward with filing with the state. Of our intention to submit this TIF. They are aware that the TIF is being proposed to the council. And if the council approves that, it will be forthcoming. Okay. Thank you. And I can answer the pervious, impervious question. Thank you, mayor. Thanks. My screen has been taking people on and putting people off kind of arbitrarily. It appears I think council member lawless is next. And then I've got council member Feigl and maybe council member Crosby wishes to speak as well. So council member lawless, I have questions on item a. And item a. First of all, I don't think I've ever done this, but I am begging you all to pass this ordinance on the gravel refreshing. I have a file probably three inches thick on complaints from people in the third district where people go in and they say the refreshing gravel, there wasn't gravel there before. It never gets moved. Or when they refresh, it goes from a spot about, you know, ten by ten to the entire backyard. I would what I wanted to know is from Mr. Crow, two things. What will be the fine? And did you say it would be double the permit fee? Well, first, yes, they would have to pay double the permit fee if they gravel without contacting our office first to come out and do a preassessment. Then if they go ahead and start to gravel and then we find out or get notified after the fact, they will be subject to double the permit fee. That's correct. Yes. And secondly, this taking effect, I think April 1st was what I read. I'm all about that. But I would also suggest that the gravel companies, people that provide gravel, and I don't know where they all are, they should be notified so that when people come to get gravel, they're aware that there has been a change. Yes, if this ordinance goes forward, we plan to do a public notification, certainly of those gravel companies, put it and do it through our obviously our Web site and Government Channel 3 and any other outlets we can get it on. Yes, gravel is an impervious surface. It turns into concrete. It compacts the earth underneath it, and it creates great stormwater drain problems in these areas. So hallelujah on A. So thank you very much. On I. The Division of Enterprise Solutions, I think Councilmember Crosby also has a question about this. So actually, I'll just withdraw and let Councilmember Crosby address item. All right. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I have two questions. Were you here to answer somebody's question? Yeah, but the creation of the position, I believe. All right. Okay. I have two questions. One is on A and another on F. Mr. Crow, if you could step to the podium again, please. I realize that this is being brought forward to address a particular problem that occurs primarily in the 3rd District, but there are gravel driveways all over town, are there not? Yes, we are familiar with gravel in various locations throughout the county. Right. In fact, I was driving around the other day and in a very, I won't name streets, but in a very modest neighborhood there were a couple of gravel driveways. To replenish the gravel costs, say, $150. And that $50 fee is a pretty high percentage of the cost to resurface that gravel. So my concern is, are people going to say, well, I'm just not going to replenish the gravel because I don't want to pay the $50? And then if they don't improve the gravel driveway, then we end up with muddy ruts. Is that right? That could be the outcome of not resurfacing gravel. So my question is, how was this $50 fee arrived at? Is there something that we could do that's a little more reasonable? We looked at what we consider to be the minimum cost for us to make two trips. A paving permit currently has a minimum charge of $25. It involves no more than one trip by us, because paving, if you're paving, you come in, you tell us what the paving is. It doesn't require us to go out and pre-look at the situation. We review what you're proposing there in the office, because paving is limited and parking is limited in other ways, and we can make that determination there. So we looked at this having to require at least two trips, and $25 probably barely covers us sending someone to a site. So we looked at $50, $25 per trip, because we're going to have to make two, go out and do the pre-assessment, and then go back and do the verification visit. Okay. Thank you. And I have a question for Commissioner Taylor, or if you want to come forward, Charlie. On item F, can you give me a little more information about what this all includes? Because that seems like a pretty high number to me. What this includes, this is a software solution for the Division of Water Quality, both in managing the sanitary sewer and the storm water assets. One of the outcomes from the consent decree negotiation is that we did not have a way to be able to manage pipe history, work orders, defects, all the business that we do as far as out in the field. And so what we looked for was a GIS-based solution, a mapping-based solution to where inspections, preventive maintenance, all the things that we're required to do are included into a software solution that's integrated with one another. I'll give you an example. You know, if we have a stoppage because of grease and it backs up in someone's home, right now we don't have an automated method at which that we follow the reactionary part of it that does a root cause analysis that eliminates the grease problem that caused the overflow in the first place. So this is what this is, is an integrated solution. Essentially we've got a 54-page scope of work, statement of work, with great detail as far as 28 specific deliverables associated with this. An interface with Lex call, interface with building inspection and with the tap on desk. Essentially this is allowing us to have the framework in place for us to have an integrated software solution to manage our business. I understand exactly what it's for. Was there an RFP done on this? It was done in June of 09. There were nine submittals on this. It was shortlisted. The typical work group that evaluates proposals, shortlisted firms were invited in to do a demonstration. Through the course of last summer, ultimately we made a recommendation to Mr. Kelly. It got put on the back burner because it became very clear to me that we needed to have a project manager to manage this project to have a successful development configuration and implementation. So we kind of set this aside while we went out and recruited someone from the private sector who has an IT background and also is a certified project manager to manage this project for us successfully. So were all the bids within this range? The average was $1.67 million. And what we're looking at here is 1.6. So it was about at the median. The low was 343,000, which I don't think was a very realistic one. The high one was actually 5.5 million. So there were four below, one that was equal and three above. It is an awful lot of money. We spent the last two months negotiating this thing down to a fine-tooth comb. So if we're going to invest this kind of money, I have high expectations that we're going to get a significant return on our investment as far as better utilizing our staff and our available resources. And how soon would this be operational? So it would take 12 months to get it up and running. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Crosby, you've been on and off the board. Are you ready now? Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Crow, could you come back up one more time? On A, is that fine? Is the fee $50? The fee is $50, yes. So I'm going to understand that if I grab it without checking with you and getting a permit, then it's going to be $100. That's correct, yes. That's correct. We have all our permits now for building and anything else associated with that that requires a permit are now either, there's either a minimum charge of $500 or double the permit fee for not obtaining a permit prior to starting work. The minimum $500 charge applies to permits for work that is done under the Kentucky Building Code or the one and two family dwelling code. Everything else is just strictly a double. Since this is a local permit and is not referenced by either one of the Kentucky Building Code, then it was only subject to a double fee. But all our permits are subject to either being doubled with a minimum $500 or just doubled. The differentiation is under the Kentucky Building Code and the one and two family dwelling code. They specifically authorize a minimum of $500 or double the permit fee for the types of work that you would do under either one of those codes. If there are things that the local governments have put into place that the Kentucky Building Code or the one and two family dwelling code do not address, such as paving, and other type things, and there are numerous things that we permit that way, that $500 minimum does not apply because we didn't authorize it locally and it was put in only for the classes of work done under the Kentucky Building Code or the one and two family dwelling code. Everything else is just subject to a doubling. I defer to the Department of Law for a definitive answer. Okay. I guess my question would be if this is meant to be a deterrent, and in some cases the fee may be $1,000, so doubling would be a pretty hefty fine, but in this case it's $50, a $50 fine is nothing. So if it's meant to be a deterrent and we have the ability to increase that, because I don't think that anybody would consider $50 much of a deterrent. Well, again, as I said, it was part of the original ordinance that set up those classes and it just simply, the $500 minimum just did not apply to work that wasn't authorized under the building code. As far as I'm aware, we can alter that as the council would see fit. I'm looking to see, is there anybody from law in here? And I don't know that it's a question to ask them to answer off the fly either, but I don't want to make a motion without it being appropriate, but I guess my question would be, here comes Logan. Here comes Logan. Mr. Crow, could you repeat what you said to fill him in to where we're at? Under the current ordinances relating to the building permit fees and all permits that we issue, there is a section that basically says all those permits are either doubled if you start work without the permit in place. The ones that are for work done under the Kentucky Building Code or the Kentucky One and Two Family Dwelling Code, any of those classes of work are subject to a minimum $500 fee or double the permit. If the doubling the permit is higher than the $500, then that's what applies. For classes of work that were not identified within the Kentucky Building Code or the One and Two Family Dwelling Code, such as paving and this ordinance proposed graveling ordinance for a permit, those are just subject to being doubled as the ordinance is currently written. And you had asked whether those permits that weren't included with the $500 minimum could be, the ordinance changed and those be raised to some other amount. So Logan, I don't know if you can answer that off the fly, and I'm not expecting you to if you can't. If you can amend that, I would move that we amend it to $500. And it may be just that we, if it's the will of the council to do that, we go ahead and make that motion today and then give you the chance between now and second reading to come back and see if we can actually do it. Let me suggest another option. What I can do is before the first reading Thursday night, we can have that nailed down for you, and if that's what you're suggesting, then we can make a motion to approve it at that time for first reading. Will that work? That works. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. All right. My sense of things is that the screen is just arbitrarily putting people on and taking people off the speaker list, and so I'll start keeping it manually here. Council Member Crosby, I think you're next. We'll go from there. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question on F first. I'll start with F first. Mr. Martin, I just want to clarify. This total is for just purchasing the software, correct? No, ma'am. If you'll see the memo on it. And maintenance agreement? Pardon? Yes. The license agreement and the annual maintenance agreement, first year annual maintenance agreement. On page 39 of your packet, it will show the breakdown. The actual services are $1,000,00052 and change. There's the license agreement, which is $451,000 and change, along with the annual maintenance agreement, which is $90,000 and change. I understood that. That was leading me to my next question. What about managing the software? Are we going to then have to do another contract for another company to come in? Because right now it's my understanding that we have somebody already analyzing and collecting this data. They must not have the software to be able to input the data so that we have it, like you said, nice on disk or whatever not. And so I assume they're just probably filling binders full of data that they've collected. And so is the company that's actually managing this data, are they going to be responsible then once we purchase this software, or are we going to see another bid come through for the management? No. The Division of Water Quality actually, through the Sewer and Water Quality Fund, actually funds positions that are computer analysts. They reside in our building. They report to the Division of Computer Services. So we have two computer analysts, a database administrator, and a GIS person. Three of the deliverables that are in this scope of work is to transfer data from access databases, SQL servers. Our people will be transferring that into this particular asset management system, where all that data that all these different people with the hired guns are collecting right now will all be transferred by our people into this software solution. So we're not going to see a bid, or will we see a bid? Or maybe that might lead me to aye with Rama as to what will we be having to hire more people, or are those people who are currently in funded positions that have been approved to manage? I mean, this is a huge project. It's my understanding with what you have told us is that there's just volumes and volumes and volumes of data. There absolutely is. One of the things that we have talked about ourselves as far as not the current data that we're collecting, but even some of the older data. You know, you have to make a decision about what you're going to use that data for moving forward. If it's not part of the decision-making tree of data that you collected on calls from 2002, why roll that data forward? And I've been really pressing my folks about it. But inside the contract, there are three separate deliverables that are regarding the roll forward of old data that we possess in different formats. Our people have to do that. There is not another contract that's going to allow that to happen. We are already loaded with our people. They are funded and they are in place as far as working to do that particular work. But I share that same concern as far as our ability to do that, and so I've instructed our folks to make sure that they're conscious that we roll forward data that's meaningful for us in the future. As far as our consultants are concerned, in the work plan that we submitted to EPA, it was very detailed about how they collect that data and how they store that. So the scrubbing of the data I don't anticipate being a problem because everybody's doing it the same. And they were instructed to do that contractually. Okay. I think that answers my question. And then I have a question on I. Can you just expand on page 44 what this position will exactly be doing as far as it's kind of vague as far as technical and functional support, database administrator, systems administrator, workflow administrator, and security administrator. Can you just expand a little bit? Sure. If you recall in the last budget year, we decided we were going to have a division of enterprise solutions. There were positions that were in there, and we were going to be eliminating or moving seven positions, and this position will basically be a database administrator slash security person for enterprise solutions, which will manage the Oracle PeopleSoft solution. Okay. I'll save my questions then for your presentation, I think. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions by Councilmembers? Councilmember Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Number B, I saw Chris King in the back or Commissioner Webb. Hey, Chris. Good afternoon. Could you tell me what we're doing here? It looks like we haven't done anything since 2005. Is that why we made the changes? That's correct. Could you explain to me what changed and how? Sure. The exaction program is subject to periodic update based upon the actual cost experience on the projects that are funded through that exaction program. It had not been updated since 2005 because there were a number of projects that needed to be concluded so that we would have those amounts. So after the Division of Engineering vetted those amounts and, you know, we made adjustments accordingly. And the primary reason some of those went up is that the cost of paving has increased dramatically since 2005 in that interim. The other thing that we were waiting for was the latest and greatest and most up-to-date figures for the major sewer projects that were being done, particularly in association with expansionary 2A. And those costs are now a lot closer to better estimates and have been rolled into this as well. I'm sure you met with or I hope you did with the home builders and people who are going to be affected by this. And what was their concerns? Well, actually we meet with the home builders constantly because most of this infrastructure was actually built by the development community and they receive exaction credits for that work. So as each project comes in, we review those costs. So the costs are driven by those experienced primarily by the development community and then are merely reflected back in through the program. I shared this information with Todd when we brought it to you. So they've had it for a week and at this point we haven't had any questions. Mr. Johnson, would you like to comment on this? I know this is an issue that affects your industry. It does. And Mr. King did send this to me and I sent it out to our developers in our association and we received no questions of substance on it. I think he's right. Some of the costs have gone up and on our review we're relatively comfortable with everything. So they're minimal increases. They're not going to be a big impact. Okay. Good. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Any other discussion on the new business items? All right. I believe we're ready to vote. Those in favor of approving the new business items, please indicate by saying aye. Those opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. Madam Clerk, if you will note Council Member Crosby's dissent on items A and I. Council Member Lawless. All right. Thank you. Let me raise a couple of procedural issues. It's almost 5 o'clock and due to some presentations being rolled over from last week and some fairly lengthy issues on the agenda today and some travel issues, I'm advised that a couple of folks who were going to be with us for the League of Cities presentation need to be away at 6 o'clock tonight. Unless there's some objection from the Council, I would propose we just defer that presentation until a later time if there's no objection. All right. And then we'll just pick up on the list and try to work through them as promptly as we can. And I would ask all of the presenters to try to give us the faster version as opposed to the slower version today. Council Member Stennett. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion similar to that to yield to the Planning Commission. I know there's a lot of people here in the audience very interested in this topic, so we can go ahead and get that out of the way. All right. If there's no objection, we'll go ahead and deal with the Special Planning Committee meeting. All right. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Stennett. I have distributed to Council Members, and I hope it has come this far, just for your reminder, the two pages from the March 2nd Special Planning Committee packet, these were the ordinance amendments which were considered, and I thought it might be helpful to have those in front of you as we're going through these motions. So the Special Planning Committee meeting took place on March 2nd, 2010, and the entire purpose of the meeting was to discuss issues which were related to residential zones and the final remaining recommendations from the Student Housing Task Force. And just to be sure everyone understands what this process is, any motion that might be passed today for any of these ordinance changes would be a motion to initiate a text amendment, and it would go to the Planning Commission. It would not be to approve these. It would be to approve sending them to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission would receive any of those that are passed today for discussion, for approval, for disapproval, for changes. They would have public hearing, and they would all come back to us, the Council, for any final approval. And I believe in the audience, if there are questions, we have folks from Planning and folks from Law. So with that, the first issue which was discussed was combining and modifying the definition of boarding or lodging house. And just briefly, our current ordinance has boarding house, lodging house, congregate living. They're all separate, and boarding and lodging houses are permitted in the R3 zone. So the motion to come forward to send to the Planning Commission is to accept the combined and modified definition of boarding or lodging house, which is articulated in the summary which I sent around to you. And that motion was made by Council Member Blues, and comes forward to the full Council. Would you like me to read it out, Mayor? Please. Boarding or lodging house, a residential building or part thereof for adults living together, not as a family, but in a congregate living arrangement. In identifying this use, the following factors shall be considered. Living rooms are for hire for five or more persons. Meals and or food costs are typically not shared. Five or more rooms excluding bathrooms, which are lockable from the exterior. Rent is established by leases to individuals or rents are based on charges assessed to each individual. Individual mailboxes are provided and multiple utility meters or connections are present. Those are the factors which shall be considered in determining whether something is a boarding or lodging house. So moved. Second. To understand the motion correctly, it is to forward the proposed definition of boarding or lodging a house, to forward the proposed definition of boarding or lodging a house to the Planning Commission. Yes. And I guess more specifically, that would ultimately need to be a resolution that would be on the docket for Thursday evening's meeting authorizing us to do that. So technically the motion now is to place on the docket a resolution that would forward this proposed definition to the Planning Commission. Yes. All right. Now we've got the procedural issues resolved. I've heard a second from someone to my left. Was it Councilmember McCord? Second, Councilmember Gordon's motion. All right. The floor is open for discussion. Councilmember James. I have a procedural question related to this. Will each of these be considered as separate text amendments? I think that would be a question for Chris King, who's here, or Rochelle Boland, excuse me. Rochelle has worked with Chris. I tell you, it might be worthwhile if the rest of the planning folks could come on up. Chris, if you're back there, anybody else from planning? I ask if they would each be considered as separate text amendments. Thinking about the way we're voting on these individually, I just want to know how it's going to play out. I think in essence it can be handled however the council decides they want to handle it. I know at the Planning Committee each of these was subject to separate motions, and I think that's why it's being proposed here. We can certainly, whatever is passed by the council in terms of agreeing to forward it to the Planning Commission, they can either be each one a separate resolution, or we can combine them all into one resolution requesting the Planning Commission to consider the following text amendments. And the Planning Commission, of course, is free to make any recommendations, whether they come to them as a whole or whether they come to them individually. I think procedurally it would probably be easier to have one resolution that would include what this council decides to advance based on its motions. Thanks, Rochelle. Thanks, Mayor. Well, in light of that, Council Member Gordon, do you want to modify your motion so as to include this entire list of proposed text amendments? Well, that's an interesting question. It's entirely up to you. I would be happy to modify my motion. I'm not sure whether council members want to do that. What if, Mayor, what if we go through them one by one and those that pass get put into one resolution? That will work. That will work. All right. The motion on the floor then deals with Item 1 on the list, which Council Member Gordon has circulated. And the floor is open for discussion of that issue. I am, again, unclear as to whether or not the list on the screen is accurate, but we'll start and see how that works. If you would like to speak on this issue, please indicate by signing up electronically. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. King, I'm not sure who to ask this question to, but on this we've got six. We've got A through F on here for this first one. My question is, is there a threshold that we're looking to have met that they have to have, you know, three or more of these occur or just one of them? How's that going to work? If I can address that, we changed in the course of discussions on this amendment, we changed the previous language because the previous language made it appear that if you had one of these factors, that automatically made you a lodging or boarding house. And part of the discussion was even when you have a traditional family, you may have one of these factors present. So, no, the intent was not to restrict this by saying there has to be a certain number available. It's just to look at each circumstance and consider these factors and see how they work together to determine what the nature of the use is. I don't think we wanted to restrict it to that kind of rigidity. We just wanted to show what are the factors that may lend to that conclusion. Will that create problems for someone to say, well, it's objective now? Well, as with many of the zoning ordinances, I think there's a reasonable interpretation. This would have to be based on the facts of each situation. And, of course, once building inspection makes a decision deciding this is or is not a boarding or lodging house applying these factors, anyone who is aggrieved by the decision of building inspection would then appeal that to the Board of Adjustment. And they are the agency which would be authorized to hear arguments on both sides and be able to decide on a fact-by-fact situation what the nature of the use is. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Lang. Thank you, Mayor. I think I'll address this first question to Council Member Gordon. What zone would the boarding and lodging house be permitted in? They're already permitted in the R3 zone, looking at our planning gurus. And so this definition, if you're already in an R3, you wouldn't have to. You're already permitted in an R3 zone. A boarding house or a lodging house. Okay. So it would only be permitted in the R3 zone or R4 zone, I take it. Is that right? Yes. It would be R3 or more intense. In fact, in an R3, they are permitted as a principal permitted use up to eight occupants. And when you exceed eight, it actually becomes a conditional use. But that is the least intensive zone where it would be allowed at all. Okay. I think that answers my question. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. My comment was going to be directed to the motion in just the fact that there are several of us who are not on planning committee, although we've kept up with this and received the agenda. Based on the summary that we got for the planning report, I just now got these recommendations like two minutes ago to review. So, I mean, I had the planning committee agenda and then I had the summary. But based on the summary, if you're looking through the summary, there was no way for us to tell what recommendations from the planning committee would be coming forward to us. So I just wanted to comment and say, I mean, I don't believe necessarily that it should be held up and not move forward to the planning commission. But apparently these recommendations were made and we're just now getting the final copy two minutes. I got it into the presentation. If I could respond, these were in the speech. respond, these were in the special planning committee packet, which was distributed at the end of February to all council members, and then they were in the packet when it was attended to on March 2nd. So they're exactly like they were. But I guess my point is that there may be members of the council who would not have realized that because they're not on planning, and if the summary would have reflected that this is what was coming forward, especially if it's exactly the same, it just would have been nice to know what the recommendations and what actually came out of the meeting would have been instead of while sitting here. Because while, I mean, I have a copy of my planning committee packet, and that's what I've been referring to just because I didn't know what you're bringing forward based on the summary. That's all. Thank you. I don't have anyone else listed on my screen right at the moment, but I suspect others wish to speak. If you could try signing up electronically. I'm concluding it's not working, so I'll just take a show of hands and keep a list. Council Member Martin, others? Thank you, Mr. Bowen. Does a form of this exist that shows underlining and striking to show the amendments to the existing language? Yes, typically when I see a statute, a proposed amendment to a statute, it shows the statute and it shows in brackets a strikeout showing what was removed, and then it shows bold and underline what's been added, and it's just not possible to see what is really being proposed here. If you'll give me just a second, I think at an early stage of the development of this, I think we had that, and I'm going to see if I can find that that we could maybe post. I think the changes on this particular definition were relatively minimal. Yeah, and Ms. Bowen, if you could have maybe someone make copies of that for the council so that we could look at it as well, because that's really a significant piece of information that we would need to understand exactly what we're amending. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Any further discussion on this item? Are we ready to vote? Mayor, I'm not sure if we can vote without answering Mr. Martin's question here and having that in front of us to show the differences. I think that's important. That's up to the council. If you wish to table a motion to do so, it would be in order. I don't see any more discussion. I was going to make a motion to table this until we can get a copy of the We have a motion by Council Member Crosby and a second by Council Member Beard to table the motion dealing with item number one. All in favor of tabling the item, please indicate by voting aye electronically. All opposed vote nay electronically. All right, the motion to table until we get the redacted copy is approved by vote of ten to five. Council Member Wallace. I'm sorry, Mayor. I was just wondering if it would be okay with Council Member Crosby if we just went to the next item since we have so much and come back to this, but she would have to be the one putting it back on the table. Thank you. All that's tabled is item number one. Everything else we've not brought up. So Council Member Gordon, do you want to make another motion on item number two? Maybe I should make a motion that we get the entire document, the redacted copy, so that it's going to happen on each thing that we are voting on because we don't have the changes in front of us. So I'll make that motion to table this just until we get the copies and move on to maybe the services committee report or budget. I'm sorry, that was before it. All right. I gather the motion is to table the discussion of the planning committee report until redacted copies are available. All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. If you voted no, if you would, just raise your hand so we could reflect that. I heard a couple. All right. Let's vote electronically, please. Those in favor of tabling the item of the planning committee report indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay. Motion until we get the redacted copies. Motion passes by a vote of 12 to 3. Council Member Stennett, let's go back to the Budget and Finance Committee. Back to the money talk. Let me also tell you that due to the lateness of the hour, Pat Duggar has agreed to postpone item C, the severe storms preparedness presentation as well. Go right ahead. Thank you, Mayor. Our budget and finance meeting was held February 23, 2010. As always, we start off with our economic trends. Let me go ahead and go through those. It was flat through December, still the lowest in the state. We're still waiting on January's numbers to come out, which I believe they already have today. Foreclosures are down from $39 to $25 through the month of January. Building permits were up slightly by six permits to $874 through the month of January. Home sales were down slightly from $599 to $384 for one month in January. Big four revenue streams for the month of January. Total revenue withholding was actually up 2%. Net profits, though, were down 33.9%. Insurance tax was up 8.5%, but the franchise fee was down a negative 4.6% or 43.6%. Altogether, total generated top four revenues were down 6%, and that's through the first or just for January. Total revenue for the first seven months of the calendar year were down $5.88 million as compared to budget. Those are all of our financial numbers. Any questions on those before we move on? I know I'm going kind of fast due to the hour, so if there are, just stop me. Second item on the agenda was our debt management policy discussion. This came out of the Fiscal Policy Task Force that reported out last year. We reviewed the recommendations from the task force, had discussion around matrix and what measurements we would use to manage a debt management policy. There was a motion to form a subcommittee to bring back a final document to the Budget and Finance Committee for review and debate, and we will have our first meeting this Thursday at 1 p.m. Again, for any members of the Budget and Finance Committee that want to participate, we'll be meeting to review a sample debt management policy document. Again, I hope everyone is paying attention to that, because that's one of the most important things we do as a council is manage the debt, and this will be a first for Lexington to have a written managed policy. A lot of our bondholders, as well as rating agencies, are looking for this document as we move forward. So I hope everyone will be able to attend Thursday at 1 o'clock. Item three on the agenda was the Lexington Public Library budget discussion. We had discussion as to how we will tackle this issue in the March meeting. We'll look at the history of the 5 percent property tax. We'll get an opinion from law as to how we must pay that, as well as we have requested the attendance of the library board to appear at the March Budget and Finance meeting for questions and discussion. So that will be another item on the March meeting. And the last item we looked at were council links. Again, council members, the mayor will present his budget the second week of April, so I ask that any council members who are interested in serving on the links and a particular link, please notify me in the next week or so if there's a link you'd like to serve on. We'll try to keep one person from last year on that link so that we can keep some continuity from discussions of last year's links. So if you would like to or have a favorite link, please email me and let me know which link you'd like to be on. As well as we'd also like to have a council budget retreat was discussed during the Budget and Finance Committee meeting, and I'll be working with the vice mayor to schedule a budget retreat so that we can have our own deliberations and discussions prior to the mayor delivering the budget to council. Last but not least, next month on the agenda will be, obviously, our revenue discussions once again. We'll also revisit the $100 business occupational license fee. We'll have some options on that. We'll be addressing the library budget issue as well and reviewing the debt management policy so we can move that forward to council. Thank you, mayor. Any questions for Council Member Stennett? Council Member Myers. Thank you, mayor. Council Member Stennett, is there any way we can move that Thursday meeting 1 o'clock to Tuesday? Well, seeing that we have budget and finance two weeks from today, we really need to get a meeting started as soon as possible. But this is a preliminary meeting to see what we really need to focus on and we'll have another one hopefully first of next week as well. How long do you think it'll take? It's not going to take more than an hour. Can we move it a little later in the day? We've already sent the email out to 1. I can't do it at 2, so that's why we sent the email out to 1. If we don't have a good attendance, then we'll regroup first of the week and I'll send the email out Thursday. Thank you. Thank you. If there's nothing further for Council Member Stennett, then we'll turn it over to Council Member Ellinger to talk on behalf of the Services Committee. Thank you, Mayor. The Services Committee met on March 2nd. We had a quorum. We started at 1.02. There were three items on the agenda. Actually there were four and the fourth one was moved because the Mayor's Commission on Mortgage Lending Practice was not able to attend, so we're going to have that in a future meeting. The first item on the agenda was the sidewalk cafe ordinance. I thought it would be best instead of me trying to explain it to have David Barber with the law department who actually helped rewrite the ordinance. There was a copy in your box that had all the redacted and underlined copies of the changes. David, if you would kind of go through and talk about the changes. Sure. Good afternoon. I'll be as brief as possible and just hit the highlights on the changes. You all already have an existing sidewalk cafe ordinance and this essentially is some changes to that particular ordinance. The changes provide for a clear zone, which would be a minimum of four feet. That's primarily for pedestrian use and for ADA compliance. This is going to expand the definition of or include a definition of furnishings, which will be more expansive than the tables, chairs, and umbrellas that are currently allowed under your outdoor cafe permit. This will allow where space permits in the public area for the encroachment permitted area to go out 25 feet from the facade of the front of the building or 25 feet in either direction. This would not restrict the use of supplemental bars or equivalent types of bars within the permitted area. It's going to require the permittees to clearly identify either through using barriers or other means that are acceptable to building inspection where exactly the permitted area is going to be located. It's going to establish a maximum number of persons that are allowed to be within the permitted area pursuant to the Kentucky Building Code. It originally was going to raise the annual fee to $200, but based on you all's recommendations and services, that's going to remain at $50 as the fee amount. It does restrict the operations to that being an outdoor cafe, and it prohibits the moving around of the furnishing for another type of use other than that, and it establishes a $250 minimum fine for a violation, which is I think the current fine is $20. And then we went back and made some additional changes based on the recommendations of the to try to clarify Section 1729.4, subparagraph 3, which is on page 7 of the Memorandum of that I tried to send out to you all prior to this meeting. That's to try to clarify the circumstances at which the permit could be potentially suspended either partially in whole to accommodate urban county government type. And this was an issue that we addressed in the service, and we asked you all to bring that back. Could you kind of explain what the changes are and how they were before? It's more or less just a clarification of what was already on the books. There would be two different circumstances at which this could be suspended or just partially suspended in its operation. One of them would be if you had a public safety type situation. The other one would be if you've got a special event, and the special event one would actually that determination would be made through the special events commission whether they wanted to have that done for that particular event. With that, I will go ahead and make the motion that we move forward the sidewalk cafe ordinance with the underlying changes to the full council. So moved. I have a motion that Council Member Ellinger and a second that Council Member McCord to move the proposed sidewalk cafe ordinance to the docket for council consideration. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Any discussion? Council Member Stinnon, then Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. Just curious, Council Member, do we have the ordinance so we can see what it looks like in the strikethrough version? It was put in everybody's box, so yes. In the minutes? I tried to send you all a separate one out on Friday. I can give you mine if you'd like to see it. Yeah, I would. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. I have a couple of questions. First of all, Mr. Barbary, with reference to the clear zone, I'm not, the clear zone is, of course, for pedestrian passersby. And in the ordinance, in the proposed ordinance, it says, in most instances, it shall be required to be located immediately adjacent to the facade of the permitted establishment. So I know that most, in fact, all of the sidewalk cafes I've seen downtown, the tables are immediately adjacent to the buildings. This would suggest that the pedestrian walkway would be adjacent to the buildings and that the tables and chairs would be out on the curb and, in fact, in some cases, would be right on the curb where the sidewalks are relatively narrow. And then further down in Section 2, it says a permit is intended to allow an establishment to encroach into the sidewalk area located immediately in front of that establishment. And up to 25 feet in either direction. And I'm wondering whether immediately in front of means right up next to the building. So I'm just a little confused about where the pedestrian walkway, the clear zone, that four-foot-wide path would generally be. I think generally speaking, you're correct. The intent was to change it so that it would be adjacent to the facade in most instances. And that may be contrary to what the current practice is. You all could certainly choose to do it otherwise. But my understanding in the meetings we had was that from the perspective of the people that had input into that process, they thought it would be preferable to actually set up the pedestrian access next to the building as opposed to out next to the street. So I think normally, in a lot of instances, that would be the first thing that would be looked at as being the option. It would not be mandatory. The other issue that was there with that was trying to make it consistent down the streetscape as opposed to having one building along the block have it next to the facade and then the next one have it out, you know, next to the street. From a legal standpoint, I don't think it really matters. That was just some guidance that we got in redrafting it on where the preference would be to have this particular area located. Okay. I mean, I'm not arguing for one location or another. It's just that the ones that I'm familiar with, I've never seen any out on the curb. No, I'm not sure what the rest of the language about that is not necessary. It would be handled through the permitting process otherwise. So if it troubles you all to have the requirement in there, it'd be next to the normally be next to there. That's we can take that out. But you're right. It sets it up to be the normal practice. If that's what the administrator thinks is the appropriate place to have it, normally it would be next to the facade of the building as opposed to out next to the street. I think Commissioner Webb has a comment on this. Just wanted to comment on the location of the outdoor dining. That piece has been incorporated into the design, the streetscape design. That's the recommendation where we're able to redo the sidewalks to keep that clear zone along the face of the building. That will be a line of sight from intersection to intersection so that if you're sight impaired, you can walk along the face of the buildings and that everyone, whenever possible, would have their outdoor dining along the curb. So a lot of that was incorporated to make the sidewalks more pedestrian friendly. Today where you see outdoor dining encumbered by old tree pits and stuff, hopefully we'll see that go away here shortly and this will work well. The reason that I do bring this up, just to clear up this question also, is I think it has some bearing on smoking regulations. And that's my second point here. In the smoking ordinance states that smoking is prohibited within a reasonable distance from the outside entrance to any building so as to ensure that tobacco smoke does not enter the building through entrances, windows, ventilation systems, or other means. And it does seem to me that if the dining area is closest to the curb, that's a help with regard to, you know, to keeping smoke clear of the buildings. If the dining area is right up against the walls of the venues, then I think we need to be able to stipulate in some way that smoking is not going to be permitted right near entrances or windows or, you know, or other openings where smoke could enter. So that's a question I think, too, that we need to consider, especially if, as Mr. Barbary says, it would be a choice block by block, either you're up against the curb or you're up against the wall, I guess. We're permitting what whenever we did a permit through building inspection, we would define where the tables could sit and the intent was to keep a line of sight clear zone. So where the sidewalks would permit, we would have everyone out at the curb with their tables so that you could, if you were sight impaired, walk straight down the sidewalk and not walk into a sidewalk cafe. Now, where that's not possible and where you would have tables right adjacent to the restaurant facades, how would you permit in relation to the smoking ordinance? That question I can't answer. Well, that's a question, though, that we need to answer. The smoking ordinance is going to apply effectually anyway. And I think that building inspection will be up on the reasonable the requirement that exists in the current smoking ordinance with respect to the location of smoking vis-a-vis the entrances to the building. If you all feel like you want to, you know, to articulate that in this ordinance as well, that would be fine. Well, as I understand it, the Department of Health would enforce the ordinance and we do have Luke Mathis from the Department of Health is here this afternoon. Thank you for being so patient. And from the Enforcement Division and Melinda Rowe, the Commissioner of Health is here. And my question for either Luke or the Commissioner would be, what's your recommendation for what we might put forward in this, in the cafe ordinance to assure that on the one hand, the restaurants, you know, have a good feel for where they can reasonably locate their tables in the event that they permit smoking, and so that building inspection also would have some reasonable guidelines? As was stated, our ordinance doesn't give a specific distance. When we've been asked in the past what we recommend by establishments that are setting up outdoor smoking or whatever they're doing, we generally say 20 to 25 feet is our recommendation. However, we stipulate, once again, there is no minimum distance listed in the ordinance. Twenty feet may be at times too close. The limiting factors being wind, volume of smokers, at times five feet may be adequate. Once again, depending on volume of smokers, number of smokers, weather conditions. So, you know, we can't reasonably ask, you know, ask the business owners to sort of arrange their tables according to the wind. Right. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. You have to have some kind of... I would go back to the ordinance the way it's, the way that the text is, a reasonable distance and part of the owner's responsibility would be if smoke becomes a problem, smoke starts entering the facility that they have the wherewithal to either move the tables or maybe make certain tables smoke-free and, of course, the health department would be involved. In this case, probably mostly on a complaint basis. If we receive a complaint, we would send an enforcement officer to the establishment to verify whether or not smoke is a problem coming from the outdoors. So you would not recommend stipulating a certain distance? At this time, no, no. In fact, in 2004, the Kentucky Supreme Court even considered that, whether the, our text or the way that our ordinance is written, reasonable distance was unconstitutionally vague and they felt that it wasn't. They stated as long as an ordinance or statute can be reasonably understood by those affected by the ordinance and they can reasonably understand what the ordinance requires of them, it is not unconstitutionally vague. Thank you very much. Thank you. Let me say before I yield that I did not see Professor Hahn in the audience. Thank you so much for being here and if you have a comment to make on this issue, this is a good time. Good evening. Linda and Tom kind of asked if I could kind of weigh in here and I did some quick calling around the country to see what other communities do with this issue and it is best practice to kind of think about reasonable distance as defined to 15 to 20 feet, is generally what reasonable distance is kind of defined as. And so one thing you could do, if you wanted to, and what other communities have done, for just this purpose, because you're talking about permitting, right, doing permits for outdoor cafes, you could, if you wanted to, specify just for this ordinance that reasonable distance is defined as 15 or 20, whatever your pleasure is, to be consistent with best practice. And that, by the way, I checked with attorneys at the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium in Minnesota and our center consults with them on many regulatory and legal issues and what they said to me is that if you wanted to, to do that in this permit, in this ordinance, it doesn't seem that it would affect the smoke-free ordinance at all. It would just say that in this case, for the purposes of this ordinance, you could define reasonable distance as 15 or 20, whatever your pleasure is, feet from windows, doors, you know, the language that you already have in here, entrances, windows, ventilation systems, et cetera. So that's what they said. The other thing they said, which might be helpful, is that you could add a sentence that would say individual business owners can adopt more restrictive policies if they so choose, because then, you know, if, for example, if a business would want to totally prohibit smoking outside, they could, if they wanted to. And just one other piece of information for you, there is an increasing trend around the country to totally prohibit smoking in outdoor dining areas. Just for your information, and I know that's not the purpose of what you're considering today, but 158 municipalities around the country do prohibit outdoor smoking in dining areas totally. And Ashland, Kentucky, for example, is the only city in the state of Kentucky that chooses to do that. So just so you know, policy is now just catching up with science, and we have a lot of science now about outdoor exposure to tobacco smoke, and that it is dangerous to workers, you know, have to endure it every day. So I probably gave you more than you need to know, but I'm happy to answer questions. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you very much. Would you think it best to add that kind of language, that, let's say, you know, in this case, a reasonable distance would be defined as, let's say, 20 feet from any entrance or ventilation system? Yeah. I would. I mean, you're asking my opinion, and yes. And the reason I think it's a good idea is two. One is that it would lower confusion, you know, for the business owners and for Mr. Mathis and the others that are trying to do their best, you know, to enforce the smoke-free ordinance. So it would reduce confusion, and secondly, it would help, I think, with enforcement, although I don't enforce this every day. But I would think it would be easier, and I don't think it would interfere at all with what we already have in place. Because, in other words, if you would just say, for the purpose of this ordinance, reasonable distance is defined as 15 or 20 feet. Yes, I would recommend that you do that. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Next. Mayor, can I make a motion then? Depends on what the motion is. Depends on the motion. Mayor, I would move that we amend the draft ordinance as followed, that to say, and I'm hoping that the law department can help with exact wording, that with reference to section 14-103 of the draft ordinance, that we amend the draft of the smoking ordinance, a reasonable distance from doors, windows and ventilation systems is 20 feet. And that this in no way prevents individual business owners from imposing more prohibitive regulations on smoking. So moved. Second. I have a motion to amend the ordinance to define a reasonable distance as being 20 feet. Correct? That's correct. James, I'm sorry. Now, the debate is open on the amendment alone. So if you wish to speak on the amendment, please indicate by raising your hand. Council Member Beard, then Council Member Lane, Council Member Wallace. Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to go through it with me, but if we, if you have a smoking area that's 20 feet from the entrance to the establishment, then that's 40 feet of his frontage. And then if you have tables that are going to be 20 feet away from the smokers, there's another 40 feet. And we've probably eaten up every restaurant that we've got by implementing that. You're much better at visualizing. Whenever you take a look at the width of our sidewalks, we don't have sidewalks on Main Street that extend out. When you take a minimum four-foot clear zone, then you add what's left in the sidewalk. You don't, on Main Street now, you don't have that much sidewalk where you're going to have that. You're talking about a couple of tables. There may be instances in Cheapside Park where that would apply or provide enough space. There also could be some places on Vine Street, if eating establishments moved in there, where you could apply those distances. But for Main Street and most of the other areas of town, you're not going to have sidewalks that are that wide. You're mainly talking about a couple of small tables. I would agree with you. And then we're taking it away from them. There's got to be another solution somewhere along the line. I'm the last person on Earth that should be concerned about secondhand smoke. But I am concerned about doing this. It's like giving with the left hand and taking it away with the right. I really don't have an opinion on it either way. I'm just merely talking about what I think you'd see. It is what it is, though. You don't have to have an opinion. That was the same point I was going to make. I have supported the smoking in restaurants and bars and all that. The current smoking ordinance I believe provides that if you have a roof area that's open on three sides, you can smoke in that area. In this case, you would have an open area with three sides and no roof whatsoever. Maybe just some canopies over the table. It might be too close to the entrance, but I think perhaps 20 feet would be a little bit excessive. So I would recommend that we look at that carefully. Because the benefit of not smoking in bars and restaurants is to get people to smoke outside. And I think that's why many people like to sit outside in the cafe mode, because they are smokers. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. So is the motion to amend the cafe ordinance only with this restriction? That's correct, yes. While I absolutely respect the health hazards, et cetera, this includes a very large area, not just the immediate downtown. And it would pretty much kill the, I don't see how we, to me it's discriminatory that if people have a private patio, outdoor smoking area or tables and chairs, they don't have to abide by this. But if you have a restaurant cafe permit, you do. And that to me is, you know, if we want to address our, you know, our smoking ordinance, then that's the place to do it. You said that it was unconstitutionally vague, the reasonable area. No, it was ruled as not being unconstitutionally vague, the reasonable distance. Okay. Very narrow, they're not going to have. So what I think is going to end up happening is people are going to go to the clear zone, which is public sidewalk. There's no ordinance against smoking on a public sidewalk. So now they're going to stand in the clear zone and smoke, which is going to create a whole other problem. So I think if we think about the unintended impact on both the businesses and the clear zone, because we can't make it illegal to, we haven't and can't make it illegal to walk down a public sidewalk and smoke, although my mother would say no southern lady would be caught doing so, this is, I think it's going to have an unintended impact of people getting up from their table and going and standing in the clear zone and smoking, which completely causes a problem for the clear zone. So that's my, those are some of my concerns, the unintended impact of, okay, I want a cigarette. I'm going to stand on the sidewalk, which in some cases will be closer to the door. So for that reason, those reasons, but thank you. And I do appreciate your concern. And I do appreciate all the work you've done looking at this and the health department and Dr. Han. So. Any further discussion on the motion to amend and let's vote on the motion to amend those in favor of amending the proposed ordinance by defining a reasonable distance as being 20 feet. Those in favor indicate by voting aye. Those opposed nay. Appears as though the motion to amend fails by vote of four. By vote of three to 12. All right. That returns us now to discussion of the ordinances proposed. I'm a show on my list. Let me see if it's working. Council member James and Gordon and Wallace and council member Crosby. Is that right? All right. Let's try the electronic list. So council member James, thank you, mayor. First of all, just to comment it, you know, they keep, we keep referring to clear zones of four feet in compliance with the city. And I would say that we should, as a city, maybe start thinking beyond minimums for folks with disabilities and start thinking of what maybe be an example of what we can do above and beyond. So that actually I know in this case it's going to be tight, but I think we should look at not just doing minimums, but doing what's comfortable. So if me and me and my buddy were both riding down the sidewalk and our motorized wheelchairs be nice to be beside each other, the same as two people walking would be able to be beside each other. So let's start thinking about that maybe as an ideal of an exemplary place to be. Another, I guess this question, I'm not sure. I guess it's for the I guess David Barbary. One question I had, I think I saw it referred to in the minutes, had to do with the number of supplemental beer bars. It was mentioned in the minutes of the services committee, and it talks about as we were, yeah, no limitation on the number of supplemental beer bars that someone could have in an area. And I guess there's another statute that deals with this. This would not. The distinction is made in this draft over your current ordinances. Under the current ordinance, alcohol is only permitted at table seats. Okay. This one really just opens it up to have the alcohol law dictate what's allowed within the permitted area. Okay. So tell me what it's going to look like. What's going to change? Let's take Cheapside, for example. What will change about the way that if this were to pass, what is it going to look like? I would assume that if an establishment had enough space and they were already in the business of vending alcohol, there may be some likelihood they would actually choose to put a supplemental bar within the permitted area. Okay. They have to provide a layout of their proposed permitted area where the tables and chairs would generally be that kind of stuff to the administrator for building inspection. And I think that contemplates having some portion of the area be standing room only. So I think you would, in concept, in a larger area, you would have potentially one part of it where there's kind of a standing room only crowd, and then another part that's totally devoted to having the tables and chairs in it. That would be up to the establishment and the administrator to work out the details of exactly where all those things would be located. I think the concern that was expressed previously is, and this is just a distinction in the alcohol law, is if you have a malt beverage license, you are allowed to have malt beverages anywhere within your licensed premises. Okay. This would be considered part of your licensed premise. So I guess you could have a scenario where you might have multiple, I'd call them beer tubs, you might have multiple beer tubs within the permitted area as opposed to having a supplemental bar. Supplemental bar is pretty expensive to obtain. I don't think anyone's going to probably try to get more than one of those. A supplemental bar would allow you to serve liquor, drinks, that kind of stuff. And I think it's $1,500 to the state or us, and then another additional fee on top of that to the other entity. So do you license a beer tub? No, that's the distinction in the alcohol law, is if you can sell beer, you can sell it in any form throughout your licensed premises. So there is no supplemental bar requirement at all for malt beverages. And give me an example of where a licensed premise would be. Does that go out to a curb or does that go out to the middle of the street? What this contemplates is you're going to submit what your idea as a permittee of your permitted area would be. The administrator has to approve that. That's going to be considered part of your licensed area for vending alcohol beverages. And it could be on public property. Well, it would normally be public property. We're allowing it to be used for a sidewalk cafe instead of being used for public property. If you're worried about the clear zone, the alcohol would not be, you're not supposed to have an alcoholic beverage within the part that's being used for the pedestrian activity, but the rest of the permitted area, you would be able to have alcoholic beverages if you already had the alcohol licenses in place. So a person could walk from, they can have outdoor, like an outdoor potential bar tub sitting somewhere, but a person couldn't cross over a clear zone with the alcohol. One of the reasons it's required to be marked is for enforcement purposes, just generally as far as encroaching of the furnishings and it's also for the alcohol enforcement. You're not going to, under this model, you're not going to be able to have people legally that are not within the permitted area obtain an alcoholic beverage and go somewhere else. Okay. And what's the marking look like? I think the idea hopefully in most instances would be, it would actually be some sort of tasteful physical barrier, but I think that remains to be worked out as we go through the permitting process. Or before. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Council Member Gordon. My questions were answered with the alcohol questions. Thank you. Council Member Wallace. Thank you. On the issue, Council Member Blues, you raised about, in here it says in most cases it will be, the clear zone will be in the, by the facade. I think that needs to be struck because what, originally this was kind of drafted without, you know, almost as if it was only about cheap side area. This is a huge area. So what we're, some of the cheap side folks are, what we're wanting is consistency block to block, but putting in it, I don't see any point in putting in the law. In most cases this will be, I don't, it's not legally binding and it's, just kind of mucks it up in my opinion. If David. I didn't hear your question. Okay. I'm sorry. The part about, in most instances, this will be, the clear zone will be in front of the facade. I was wondering if we could just strike that because it's such a huge area and it really isn't. From a legal standpoint, that can simply be addressed through the permitting process. Right. But what this does is, and this is what I tried to tell Council Member Blues earlier, if you have it in there, the inference is, in most instances, that's where it's going to go. So if you all have a concern that that's not a practical reality, it probably should be stricken because otherwise we're setting ourselves up to not really follow our own ordinance. I think striking it because, again, that was addressing one street, not the huge area that it includes. And also, 17-29.3, number 14, no, number, I'm sorry, .4. Where? Number three. Is this where? I'm looking for the, I'm sorry. I've got several drafts that I've underlined and I can't find the one where it says that the special events committee. Okay. Oh, yeah. Okay. Number three. The special events committee. The only place this would apply is the Cheapside area. And what has been discussed and what Ms. Eble said in a Cheapside Entertainment District Association meeting was that, that it would be the kind of the compromise was that instead of the portion on that one street that's closed to pedestrian use, that it would just take it back to where the normal curb line would be rather than completely taking it away. So, so I'd like to make a motion that the special events commission may, I'm making a motion to amend. Sorry, I'm tired. It's been a long day. That the special events commission has the right to move the permitted area to what would be the normal curb line if it has, if it is extended beyond that in a closed street. Somebody say that illegally. I'm sorry. I'm just beat to death. David. I'm not real familiar about the special events stuff. And when it's used, my concern would be if you take that language out that's in there now, you could have a special event take place where the city wants to use the entire area conceivably. I don't know if that happens today or not in any of the places that there's a sidewalk cafes, but if you limit it to only being able to take back a portion of the area, the city may well have a legitimate need down the road to use the area. And you wouldn't be able to use it because you've told them they can't do it. So that would be the concern. But I actually, I don't know how often we have the special events where it would take the area up or anything like that. But that would be the legal concern we would have. Okay. Here comes Miss evil. The city was at that meeting on Wednesday. Well, and I think that was particularly in the case of cheap side. Yes. But if we had an event on Main Street and we have some sidewalk cafes out along Main Street, and, you know, the one instance that comes to mind very quickly is our thriller parade when we have thousands and thousands of people on the sidewalk. In that instance, we may want to say to the restaurants and the bars, you know, for that night during that time frame, we are saying, move your tables and chairs off the sidewalks because we're going to have tens of thousands of people on the sidewalks. I mean, it becomes a safety issue. Have you done that for thriller? No, we haven't. Have you done it anywhere else? The reason we haven't done it is I don't think that where it has been at this point in time has actually affected where a sidewalk cafe was. But it could. You know, if they extended the parade down Main Street a little bit farther, it could then impact, you know, maybe Bellini sidewalk cafe or Harvey's cafe. Do you see what I'm saying? But if we didn't have the ability to say, you know, for safety purposes on that night, at that time, we are requiring you to move your tables and chairs off the sidewalk. Then I think we'd have a safety problem. But in the meeting, when we were talking specifically about Chief side, I didn't foresee a time that we would need those folks to get off the sidewalk. That's what I was saying. Okay. Council Member Wallace, your time has expired. I think I've expired too. Thank you. Okay. I know the feeling. All right. Council Member Crosby. I'll follow up, I guess, because I'm on the same thing, but my concerns are a little different. But I'll just ask quickly. Do we have vendors who sell during the Thriller Parade? Do you allow outside vendors to come in and sell popcorn or other items? Well, that's an event that's sponsored by Parks and Recreation. And I don't know that they've had outside vendors at that event, but, you know, it's their prerogative to do so. Okay. Thank you. The thing that's given me some heartburn over this, with this specific item is the fact that we're leaving it up to a third party based on what I have via the Special Events Commission, what we approved back in 1988, versus what we're trying to do here and the fees. And for us to charge a $50 fee for the business to have the ability to do business on the sidewalk with this ordinance, and then we're going to turn it over to the Special Events Commission to clear us a festival area, and then the vendors have to describe what they're selling and their assigned space so the organizer booths are not set up on private property. And then the vendor goes through the application process, and then they are in charge of, I guess, determining who are the vendors for that event. And when I ask for a price list of what it costs to vent for various events that we have in the area, it ranges from, you know, $25 up to $1,250 for these people to be able to do business, you know, for something that they've already paid for. Now, the hard part is, I do agree, when there is something that's a public safety issue, then, you know, obviously you have to take that into consideration. But my problem is who's going to determine if you have, if you decide you're going to close down for the Thriller Parade, and Parks and Rec is in charge, and they can say, I'm just randomly picking a big drink vendor come in and set up, and they know they can charge them $5,000 because it's going to be worth their money to be a sponsor that night. Based on the fees I'm seeing, that would be the vendor fee for that event. for that event? It could be. You know, basically when event organizers are looking at what they charge for vendors, everybody looks at what everybody else is doing and they all try to be you know, approximately in the same ballgame. In other words, you know, I compare our vendor fees to what other cities are charging for an event like the Fourth of July Festival that brings 100,000 people downtown and you know, the vendors stand the chance or have the opportunity to really make a lot of money. You know, the same with the Woodland Art Fair or the same with Mayfest. You kind of look at the number of people that are coming to the event, you know, over what day of the period and that's where you come up with those vendor fees. The commission at this time does not regulate fees, but we do, you know, require event organizers to put that down on their application so that we do know what they are charging and you know, what those fees are going for. In most cases, the vendor fees are what pay for the event. You know, hence why they're charging vendor fees. But the other thing too that I think is so important in terms of the application process is that when we require vendors to fill out applications, we also require a lot of other information from them, such as insurance. You know, we have to, we require that they have liquor liability insurance. We require that they list LFUCG as an added insured when they're going to vend for a festival. I guess we would require that of the people who are going to be doing street vending. We require them to pay their licensing fee. They have to be insured. I mean, that's consistent. I don't see where that's necessarily an advantage that you have that information on a vendor. They should have to provide that by law, but so do our other vendors. They have to have all that to be able to do business in town. But if we wouldn't necessarily require them to have LFUCG as an added insured on their policy, vendors during a festival. It is required of the sidewalk cafes. To list LFUCG as an added insured? Okay. I didn't know that. But that's just one instance of what we thought is important to have these folks go through that application process. And I think most of the businesses downtown understand that, and they're actually willing to do that. They want to be a part of that process. They want to support the festival with those fees. And they, you know, in our meeting the other day with all of the folks from Chiefside, you know, they all said they understood and they were happy. I'm sorry you're taking all my time, but I'm sorry, I have another question and I wanted to ask it before. Motion for two minutes. I guess my next question was going to be, or two questions was, you all, I'm sorry, I didn't mean that sounded worse than what I meant. I was just trying to get a question and I apologize. The people, they're agreeing to that under the impression that the fees may be low. But again, it goes back to my question. Are you saying that a third party determines what fees when we close down for a public event, LPCG event, whatever, that there is a third party person that can determine the fees? In other words, when an application? Yes, after you approve. I'm sorry. And once they determine that, there's no, there's nothing in the process that comes before you all to approve that or us, correct? Not at this time. Okay, thank you. Council Member, we acknowledge this is not in any kind of order at this stage of the game, but Council Member McCord raised a question a few minutes ago that I think had a deference to some of our guests. We probably ought to go ahead and address. You want to just put forward? Well, I know we have to go back to planning. We have to pull off the table, Council Member Martin's motion, for quite a while and because the planning piece has eight items, I'm going to make a motion that we pull off the table. Council Member Martin's motion to table, and then I'm going to make a motion to move this presentation to the planning piece to next Tuesday so that we can give it the due time it's needed. And so these folks don't have to sit here for another two hours to get to that. Oh, sorry. Sorry. So I move to take off the table the motion for what was needed for the planning committee information. I have a motion and second to bring those items from the table. There's no discussion on that. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member McCord. I would move that we would take the issue of the special planning committee's report out and move that to the first presentation next Tuesday. So moved. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. I will admit there's no justification for doing that right now other than the convenience of the folks who are here. And so I appreciate your indulgence on that front. I'll withdraw my motion on 17-29.4 and just move that, I think, is there a motion on the floor to put it forward as is and we can address any of those changes as it goes through the process? Well, there was no motion on the floor that I had heard. The only motion was Council Member Ellinger's. I was making a motion. I withdraw it. Okay. All right. Before we go any further, let me talk about a couple of other agenda items. I am advised that there are no presentations other than the special planning committee now on next week's agenda. Would you rather hear the World Equestrian Game presentation and the Enterprise Resources today or postpone those until next week? If I don't hear a motion to postpone them, we'll just leave them on and roll on. Okay. Then if you all will bear with us, we'll try to get with you here in just a bit. Now let's go back. We have a motion on the floor by Council Member Ellinger to move the sidewalk cafe ordinance to Thursday night's docket. And it's already been seconded. All we're needing to do now is see if there's any further debate on that issue. Okay. My list has evaporated on me again here. So give me just a minute. All right. Now it's back. Council Member Feigl. I'm going to go back to the discussion about the clear zone. And I think that's at section 1729-2. No, I'm sorry. Three. No, no, no, no, no. Hang on. 1729-2. And my concern is that if we are going to have the clear zone immediately adjacent to the building and we're expecting that to be a clear zone for people to walk on, I'm concerned that it's going to be a real hazard because there will be servers walking back and forth that clear zone with trays of food or trays of drinks or, you know, any number of people are going to be passing through that clear zone to serve the customers that are out at the tables. And I just have a concern about that separation. I think that needs to be up closer to the building. Council Member Gordon. Thank you for that question. And I just wanted to be sure I understand this in relation to our smoking ordinance. And I'm looking at Commissioner Rowe and the sidewalk is public easement, correct? So we own the sidewalk. We own the sidewalk. We own the sidewalk and we own the restaurant or bar. I'm interested in how you are thinking in terms of citing for smoking that is outside a reasonable distance because the clear zone, I guess the restaurant will put out that you can't smoke there. Is that what you're thinking or do you know? And then will we cite the restaurant owner or will we cite LFUCG who owns the sidewalk? Right now under the current ordinance, I think whether that's the clear zone or elsewhere, we're going to go visit and we're going to talk to the owner. Legally is it going to be we're going to cite urban county government for the clear zone if somebody is smoking in it or the restaurant? As a practical matter, you're only going to have an issue if someone is loitering in that area. And then they would, they would cite the establishment. So if there's, we don't have any mechanism, it's supposed to be used as a public sidewalk. We don't have any mechanism on the books right now that prohibits someone from smoking on a public sidewalk. So if they're, if they're walking down the sidewalk with a cigarette in their hand, that's going to be treated differently than an exodus of people from the establishment loitering in the clear zone smoking. If that's what they ended up doing, I think that they would be appropriate if it was close to the entrance for the where it is, where would the reasonable distance under the smoking ordinance, they would cite the establishment for violation. Just as you would now. Yeah. And then it is possible. Some tables would be within the quote, reasonable distance and some will be outside that. So some could be smoking and some non-smoking. Okay. Thank you. Council member Wallace, this is your second opportunity. You're off. Okay. All right. Anyone else? The question on the floor is to amend the docket to add the sidewalk cafe ordinance to Thursday evening's meeting. And let's vote electronically. Madam clerk, if you could set the machine, those in favor of adding that item to the docket, please indicate by voting. Yes. Those opposed vote. No. Voting. We're voting. Motion is passed by a vote of 12 to one. Thank you. It's as it was presented mayor. If there's any additional changes, those would have to be done by motion at the, that is correct. That's my understanding. Thank you, mayor. That was the first item on the agenda. We had two other items that we dealt with in the service committee. The next one was the snow plan. Kevin went, he did a PowerPoint presentation. Sam Williams, the director of streets, rows, and forestry went over the estimated equipment manpower and cost it would take to add 295 cul-de-sacs to the plan. Council member Meyer stated that he asked the council members to submit a list of cul-de-sacs and districts and they have received numerous complaints from. He stated right now he has eight. Commissioner Webb spoke about the pretreatment of roads. He said he can work up a cost and plan for a pilot program. Council member asked for them to look at what it would take to only salt the cul-de-sacs before and after the events. He asked that we would put 25 possible numbers of cul-de-sacs. And then one other issue that came out was the colony subdivision. And Mr. Williams stated that they were looking at ways that accommodate the intent of the original agreement with the colony because they have speed humps. The third item was the yard sign regulations. And we asked for this to be placed in the April agenda. On the April agenda. We adjourned at 3.05. Thank you, mayor. Any questions for council member Ellinger? All right. Looks like we're now ready for the World Equestrian Games presentation. Ms. Greathouse, if you'll step forward. Thank you, mayor, vice mayor, and council members. Obviously in the interest of time I will hit some highlights and we will get through this. Just kind of wanted to provide you obviously an overview as it relates to a new schematic of the horse park. Hopefully this kind of fills in some additional information about where things will be. As I said, I'll hit the highlights. General admission tickets will go on sale this spring. The price for those will be at $25, except for those days where everything is a general admission ticket and those prices are estimated to be $45. Very self-explanatory. Top five states in ticket sales and also that approximately 4,000, actually this is over a little 4,000, now tickets have been purchased by Lexington residents. As far as accommodations, I think the most important thing is that about 60% of the Lexington Housing Bureau inventory has been consumed at this point, noting that peak nights are September the 29th, 30th, and October 1 and 2. As far as visitors, which are very important to our planning efforts, top five states that are represented as well as the top five countries that are represented in hotel reservations. As far as putting it into perspective, this is always one of the things that we like to hit on, is so that people understand, it's not 300,000 people every day or 600,000 people every day. It's very manageable and it's some things that we do on a constant basis here at LFUCG. It's, you know, an average day of the NCA regional tournament or suite 16 basketball tournament. So these are, again, are all things that are very manageable. Just know that it's very manageable. And we do have peak day attendance there. As far as parking and transportation, there are approximately 35 parking spots that will be available for sale at the Click and Park website. They will have to have a permit for those. We are working with LexTran to do an express shuttle service, much like they did for Commonwealth Stadium for the football games. And the important thing there is that it's the location for that, which will be on High Street, is it is very close to two major parking lots will obviously help expedite that service. As far as public safety, we have been designated a SEER Level 2. That is obviously we can get into a whole lot of detail on that, but basically it is something that the federal government basically asks questions, has criteria that they rate, and that is how we are designated that Level 2. Basically a Level 1 and 2 are designated federal resources. And those federal resources are obviously things of the nature of personnel and intelligence, data, computers, radios, and other things that are required to operate our Joint Operations Center. Just to understand this, Site Operations Center command is basically there will be a command center inside the horse park, which is basically the boots on the ground. If they have people inside the horse park, so it could be the health department and Kentucky State Police, this is where their site operations will be. That will lead into the Joint Operations Center command post that will basically be a multi-jurisdictional command center and obviously then leading into the State Emergency Operations Center. As it relates to city services, things that we are looking at as far as a direct effect, public safety, as well as waste management. Indirect that could be affected are code enforcement, building inspection, obviously things that we'll need to do internally. Spotlight Lexington, my favorite subject. As we've mentioned before, it's a 17-day free festival. It's a great time for Lexington to celebrate the World Equestrian Games. 100% of the sponsor investment goes into the festival operations. And please note, there's no general fund dollars set aside for this event. By the time everybody comes and goes, visitors, day visitors, local residents, regional residents, everybody comes and goes, we're expecting about a 200,000 to 300,000 attendance. Again, expectations, we really want to make sure we increase diversity and culture and making sure that there's not only something for everybody to do, but possibly have an education platform where people realize all of the things that are Kentucky, all of the things that we have from the perspective of, you know, artists that are world-renowned that people just aren't aware that are here. As far as the festival area, we did have a resolution established in 2009 with the Special Events Commission that does create a clean zone in downtown Lexington. Obviously, we do want businesses to have out welcome signs. Please welcome WEG visitors, all things of that nature. If you're going to have a logo on it, then obviously they're going to have to get the foundation's approval to have that logo on there. What we obviously want to discourage, just like the clean zone out around the horse park, is competing sponsor logos on those signs. Our signature venues, we've gone through those before. As far as programming, there are obviously other things going on, but I wanted to hit the highlights for those particular days. The things that are in bold have been confirmed. I always like to touch on the Lula Washington thing with the River City Drum Corps. As we know, the River City Drum Corps is out of Louisville, and obviously they have a focus on inner city kids and making sure they have some outreach and opportunities there. Lula Washington is a national dance company out of L.A. They express themselves through other means than things they would do on the streets. She actually did the choreography for Avatar. So when we talk to other dance communities and other performing arts professionals, they get very excited when they hear of some of the types of caliber of entertainment we're bringing. As we mentioned back in December, or announced in December, Kateki Utilities has stepped up and will be sponsoring our patrons club. It's been several days in a row. Triangle Park, our Kentucky Crafted vendors, as well as our Kentucky Proud products will be in the Kentucky market. And then we've also just announced the collaboration with the Lexington Learning Co-op, where we will be working with them to provide free children's activities every Saturday and Sunday, and that is a 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. every Saturday and Sunday. There will be take-home projects as well as community projects that will be left behind as part of the legacy. We want to make sure that the placement of those are complimentary as well. We don't want to obviously be serving sushi and things like that. That's one not probably a good thing to do, to serve in those areas, but we want to make sure that we're complimenting. So it's the kettle corn, it's the roasted nuts, it's the fudge guy, maybe snow cones, things that people look for in that area. Obviously we will have to credential some people. Not everyone will be credentialed, but we will have to credential them based upon their job responsibilities. We will have a job sheet on the third floor conference room of the Phoenix building. Obviously the goal here is to create an opportunity for the human interest story and make sure we have it staffed by people that can answer questions about Lexington, provide information, but again, hopefully those media people will go away with some great human interest stories. And if you didn't know, there's 8,700 parking spaces in downtown Lexington. 5,700 of those are free on evenings and weekends. So if you've been to a basketball game, we know that we somehow squeezed 24,000 plus people in downtown Lexington during that time. The PIN program, very similar to what the Derby does with the Pegasus PIN program. Obviously we want it to invoke community pride, but there's obviously some other really cool things that go along with that. I can't get into a whole lot as far as some of the partners that have come on board with really cool things. We're going to be able to provide, when you wear your PIN in a restaurant and you get maybe $2 off your meal or buy one, get one free something, but there's also a set of coupons that goes with that. And maybe in that set of coupons it's $5 off your Valvoline instant oil change. It's buy one, get one free here. It's a registration form for a free car. Maybe it's a trip to the Daytona 500. All those kinds of things will be a part of that, so there's a lot of value provided. We are working with the local artist. This piece was selected, and we've had great response with it in that we've actually had people from other states buy this. Volunteers, we are recruiting volunteers. We've had about 350 sign up so far, so we're halfway to our maximum need, and that is available online. Our official event guide, we're looking at about $100,000 in distribution, and we will provide free listings for events. We'll be able to tell people how to sign up and get their free listing in that event guide. Obviously our host committee is continuing their efforts in communications, also with beautification. The Master Gardeners are going to take over the Topiary this year, which I think will be very, very neat. And then, of course, our sponsors, which we could not do this without. We just announced Coca-Cola, which was a whole lot of fun. We have a lot of different types of sponsors, but I know those efforts are continuing very positively. Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Greathouse? Council Member Crosby, are you on the list? All right. I don't know what the issues are today. Are you going to be distributing printed materials, or will you? As far as events and what's available. The event guide will actually be distributed in September, because a lot of the events aren't planned this far out. Okay, very good. Thank you. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. An app. You know, there's iPhones out there. There's an app for that. Are we working on an app to get information about the World Equestrian Games, or are we partnering with someone to do that? Without disclosing too much information, if I can, there is a sponsor that has come to the table that has made that a part of their sponsorship package, that they will be providing us with an iPhone app. And that will be able to keep people up to date during the games and before the games about events, what's happening? It will be free. We don't have all of those details yet. We're still working on that. But, of course, directly, there will be links. There will be a lot of community information, schedules, things of all that nature. And can anyone create an app? There's not a cop around the app. I mean, on using the information, is there? For WEG? Not that I'm aware of. I mean, they distribute that information pretty freely themselves, as do we, as far as information about the schedule. How do we control? Well, there's different things that they obviously have advantages for. Naming rights to certain things, so that, like, if someone sponsors the stage. Okay. But the app, I mean, anyone can create their own and go off on their own tangent. That's true, but we'll have an official app. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Yes. So, for example, if someone is associated with Thursday Night Live for the vendors at that point, because they have to pay a fee to be down there, and then they also have to be a member of DLC, will that be suspended? Well, Spotlight, Lexington, Trump, I guess, that. And so, for example, because you might have vendors who will not be members of DLC. Right. Correct. Their event application actually did not include those dates. Thank you. So we will manage those. Thank you very much. Well done. Appreciate your moving it along. Mr. Dwaraha. Good evening. I know most of you have been here all day, so I'll try to make this quick as possible. Back in June of last year, presented, I believe, in July, went through the brief presentation on where we were. I'll try and highlight some of those things since then, what we've achieved. And I've also given an update back in October about our status. So going back, we looked at, in 2004, some of you were here, 2005. Members of Urban County went to a Government Finance Officers Association Summit and decided that our systems were outdated and needed to be upgraded. And as a result of that, there was a needs assessment done in 05, brought to Council. An RFP was issued, and Cherry Roads was the vendor of choice or personal company that won the bid. The project then was named STARS. The finance piece of that went live in 06, July. The implementation failed. And from that point, they were trying to recover from it. You're looking at December of 06 at this point where you were still on manual checks. Vendors were having a difficult time getting paid out of our financial systems here. And in 07, if you recall, we still couldn't get our financial positions out of the new system. And we were trying to get out of the failed implementation. There was a termination by Cherry Roads. We had a contract terminated for convenience at that point. Metaformers was brought in, and we started the reimplementation around December of 06, I believe, to correct finance. And as you can see, the other modules, such as HCM, which is Human Capital Management, HR, and Budgeting, which is the EPM piece, were all taken live since then in the last three years. These are the modules that you will see that are live currently in finance. I won't go through each one of them. In Budgeting, we have currently, we have enhanced automation with our EPM solution in Budgeting. And in HR, we have enhanced automation with our EPM solution in Budgeting. And in HR, we have enhanced automation with our EPM solution in Budgeting. And in HR, we have enhanced automation with our EPM solution in Budgeting. Core HR, last July, we went live, I'm sorry, June, we went live with our Core HR. And then in phases, we've gone live all the way up to November, which is the time payroll went live. And currently, we're fully live in PeopleSoft. We've done approximately 35,000 paychecks out of the system. We did our benefits enrollment in December in PeopleSoft, and it was a significant difference from what you experienced the previous year. The methodology we took in approaching how we implement Project Synergy, which was the PeopleSoft HR portion and the Project Grants and Pensions portion, was as follows. Project Synergy team, we had a pretty effective executive steering committee, a project manager in-house, and we split. As you can see, that was the structure that was in place at that time. Here are some ROI measures. These are industry standards that I'm presenting. We don't have figures from LFUCG, but if you plug some of those in there, just in open enrollment in the benefits portion, you can see it costs us $30 to do something manually. And now in the self-service, it costs you about $4.59, roughly gives you about 85% savings. And that goes down the list on all the other tangible savings that you're seeing going forward. This was the structure that existed before Enterprise Solutions was created. As you can see, any ERP system has a life cycle. In four to five years, you have to do an upgrade. Every year, every quarter, you get patch updates. It has to be maintained. Each one of them has to be tested. As a result of that, it was very difficult to coordinate it within all these divisions. And last year, we needed a transition plan in place, and that is what the Division of Enterprise Solutions was. So from that mangled mess, we went to this, nine folks in Enterprise Solutions, to create a division that can keep PeopleSoft sustainable and productive throughout the years to come. And going forward, there are some challenges we're going to face in terms of maintaining and implementing new modules. And we need to have a seasoned team inside that's prepared to take that challenge on to decrease the ongoing cost of maintaining the ERP system. A future investment, a strategic plan for about three years, that's what you're looking at. Some of the concerns you raised this morning related to purchasing will be solved when we use strategic sourcing. We already use e-procurement, I believe. And the real estate management piece, which was much discussed last year, it's probably going to be in one of the three years. We need to do a needs assessment, which was already done, and a requirements gathering portion has to be completed. Inventory alone, there are a tremendous amount of studies done. You'll save about 20 percent in inventory management in what's lost today. These are national standards. I'm quoting here in terms of 20 percent. And IT asset management and the others are some that are scheduled to come on probably towards the end of the third year. So I'll be glad to take any questions at this point. Council Member Ellinger. And just a minute, I do have Aldona Villacente from Oracle. She was the former CIO for the state of Kentucky. Division of Enterprise Solutions Director is here. And Candy from Purchasing is also here to answer any questions. So we'll be glad to address anything today. Thank you, Rama. And I think I was one of some council members asked you to present this. And I appreciate the information, although it's not quite complete because what I had asked for was also the budgets and what we spent and what are additional costs. Can you tell us about what our original budget was in 2004? Because I was on the council, what we were supposed to spend, what we have spent so far, and what is the future cost that we're going to be spending? And those are the kind of questions I think I asked and would like to get the answers to. Sure. I mean, up to today you've spent about $16.2 million approximately. I'll get the cost figures to you in the total project. And the two bonds that were sold were probably in the 6.7 and $6.3 million range. I'll get those figures to you. Andy, do you have those figures? We can send it over. So if you could get what we originally planned on spending, what we have spent, and what we are looking at spending in the future, I would appreciate that. Sure. Thank you. I think to give it to all the council. You might come back here and present that to us. Thanks. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Rama, something I saw there on the screen concerning benefit enrollment, which I didn't think about at the time. I had a personal situation. In December I received two cards enrolling me in medical insurance and two cards enrolling me in dental insurance. The seven years I've been here, I've never had either. I've got mine on Medicare and I got a Medicare supplement through Chase Bank. I can't imagine nothing was ever signed by me, obviously. I can't imagine anyone in HR taking it upon themselves to enter that data. Did the system itself decide to do that, and have you had other complaints along that line? The data was converted, so somebody probably had to enter it at some point. And the system is working well. We have received very few complaints. If there is an error, I mean, I'll be glad to have HR look at it. I hope they have corrected it. No, I called and they said cut the cards up. It sounds like a stock answer and not the first time they said it. I can look into it for you. Well, I just was curious whether there was some kind of a bug in there where it went on cruise control and did it for me as a favor. I'll look into that. I'm not sure what went on in terms of the detailed conversion process. I'm curious as to how that might have happened. And my guess is now that there may be or was at some point a bug. Thank you. Any further questions? Council Member Crosby. Yes. I just wanted to clarify, you're going to come back next week and present to us the numbers that both Council Member Ellinger and I requested for this presentation. Have we considered any type of litigation against these vendors where it's just taken so long and it seems like, as I recall, we had a mess up. I don't know if it was with e-mail, although that may have been our fault, as I recall, when we were out a week with e-mail because of the PeopleSoft implementation. I mean, this has gone on for years and years and years. Have we considered any type of? The litigation was considered for Cherry Roads back in 2007. I kind of remember. And I believe Logan, I'm not sure if he's here, but I was in here. I guess LFUCG and Cherry Roads Technologies agreed to have the contract terminated for convenience. And then were there additional costs after? You all actually reached a settlement agreement on the Cherry Road issue. The Cherry Road thing has been resolved for, I'm going to say it's close to three years now. It ended up being a termination for convenience under the circumstances, and we actually terminated the contract, and there was actually a settlement agreement that went along with that. I'll just save my questions for next week when we get the dollar figures. And if you have other specific ones on performance, I guess, I don't know that my shop's aware of there being some performance issues with the current vendors. No, there has been no issues currently. And the other e-mail issue you're talking about was related to storage upgrade, and we went back and had a discussion with the vendor who did the upgrade, and they credited LFUCG some money on that. We decided not to pursue anything there since, you know, they did give us some money back on that. Some money or all money? Because didn't they sell us software that wasn't compatible to our system and it crashed? I mean, I'm going off memory. It's been a while, so. Sure. There were some disks that were loaded that didn't have the right information and that corrupted some of the things we had, and we had to go back, and they didn't charge us for that. At the end of it, basically, we didn't end up paying that cost to them when they came in to do the work. Okay. Anything further? All right. Thank you very much. We'll see you next week. That takes us down to council reports. Does any member wish to report? Vice Mayor Gray. Thank you, Mayor. A little over a week ago on Saturday, I guess it was, when we picked up our newspapers and read about the Kentucky American request for a rate increase of 38 percent, I know that I suspect that all council members, that I've talked to at least, shared the shock and the surprise at that level of an increase request. And I think it really illustrated that, regrettably, that Kentucky American is just really out of touch with the struggle that citizens and that businesses are experiencing today. And I appreciate the message that we got today, Mayor, that the law department has decided to intervene on this. And I've prepared a draft of a resolution that I'd like for you all to take a look at. We can take it up on Thursday night. But essentially what this does is say that what it does is encourage us to endorse the Attorney General's intervention on behalf of the citizens of Lexington and to request that representatives of Kentucky American visit with us here in the council and with the public and share and explain this rate increase request and also share with us what's occurred in the last couple of years in terms of advancing their business plan, which when we were presented with it a couple of years ago, the new plant and the pipeline was heavily dependent on recruiting neighboring counties and cities and municipalities to participate in the sale of water. So that's what this draft resolution is. I'm happy to pass this around. I would take it up Thursday night. But I do think that as quickly as we can to get Kentucky American representatives before the council and the public to explain this would be beneficial. Lisa, it would be nice to get them here to explain it before they start getting their water bills. So I'll just pass this around. Mayor, thank you very much. We'll go ahead and extend an invitation for them to attend the council meeting and make a presentation. That's not a problem. Council Member Lang. Thank you, Mayor. At our meeting this morning to discuss council rules relating to meetings and operating procedures, as one of the presenters I had planned to acknowledge the council's Intergovernmental Committee and its Chair, Council Member Andrea James. Because our council meeting ran long, I was unable to speak to this issue. So I'd like to take this opportunity to thank each committee member and Chair Andrea James for their meaningful work, which I believe will be a catalyst to start moving the procedural rules for our council from the 20th century to the 21st century. Thank you all. Council Member Hinson. Thank you, Mayor. I have a motion to move the item of mobile food vendors from Planning Committee into Services Committee. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Hinson, second by Council Member Gordon, I believe. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. And just one quick, there's a Neighborhood Association meeting in Golf View neighborhood next Monday, the 15th at 7 o'clock. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. Colleagues, I've got a situation in a couple of my neighborhoods. When the Cold Stream Station neighborhood was first formed and the subdivision built, the council approved a vehicle barrier across Cedarwood Drive dividing the Cold Stream Station on the right, that's a very poor rendering there, and the Oakwood neighborhood on the left, so that vehicle traffic would be impeded. That's good. I think we can see that pretty well now. But the problem is that the sidewalk connection between the two neighborhoods was never completed, and over the years trees have grown up. There is pedestrian traffic, but it's very dangerous, and, of course, it's not ADA compliant. Working with our Division of Engineering, we've worked out a plan so that Streets and Roads and Forestry Division has agreed to do the work of connecting the sidewalk, removing the trees as necessary. The cost would be borne by the municipal aid program. Those are gas tax dollars we've gotten back from the state. And the total cost would be, it's estimated, about $500. So accordingly, my motion would be to place on the docket for Thursday, March 11, 2010, a resolution authorizing and directing the Department of Public Works and Development to construct a sidewalk on the east side of Cedarwood Drive between 832 Cedarwood Drive and 836 Cedarwood Drive. So moved. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Blues, second by Council Member Myers. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you very much. And I have a couple of announcements tonight. At 7 p.m., the Meadowthorpe Neighborhood Association will hold its monthly meeting at the community center in the park. And on Monday, March 15, the Winburn Neighborhood Association will meet at 6.30 p.m. in the shelter in Martin Luther King Park Community Center. The Department of Emergency Management will make a presentation on preparing for the severe weather season, so I encourage the neighbors to come out for that. And one final note. The Census Bureau has begun to send out letters notifying addressees that about a week hence, the census, the 2010 census forms will be coming in the mail and encouraging folks to fill out the forms and send them back. It's very important that all citizens do this. So you'll get this letter notifying you that in a week or so, you'll get your census form, and everybody in Lexington is encouraged to fill out the form. If we turn it back, it's an extraordinarily important thing that we do in order to be accurately and completely counted. Thank you, Mayor. Thanks. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple of quick announcements. Next Tuesday at 7 o'clock is the Stonewall Neighborhood Association annual meeting at 7 p.m. at Stonewall Elementary. And also next week, starting Wednesday, the Boys Sweet 16 tournament is in town, and it's something that is very unique to Kentucky that Lexington gets to host, and we just encourage everyone to come down and to at least take in one session and see this amazing event that truly is something unique to us in Kentucky. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Green, could you come up for just a second to the microphone? And while he's coming up, looking at the communications from the mayor today, there's 14 resignations. Five of them are police trainees. Six of them are community corrections. And it was brought to our attention today and earlier in one of our committee meetings that apparently we do not have a written, formal, standardized exit interview for our government. And so I move to put into probably intergovernmental committee the issue of creating a standardized, written exit interview for LPTG. So moved. Second. I have a motion with Council Member Myers and a second with Council Member Henson to put the issue of an exit interview into the intergovernmental committee. Any discussion? All in favor then say aye. Opposed, no. The motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. And, Mr. Green, I had you come up because Councilwoman James gave me a motion to read, and I'm not sure if there's any questions, so I was going to have you come up. And it is to, I move to place on the docket for the March 11, 2010, council meeting, a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute an engineering service agreement with M2D Design Group for design of the Isaac Murphy Memorial Art Garden Trailhead at the cost not to exceed $20,250. So moved. And I just had Mr. Green come up in case there's any questions because I don't know any more than that. I have a motion with Council Member Myers, second with Council Member Martin. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Green. Council Member Crosby. Yes, Mayor. I just have one announcement. On Tuesday, March 16th from 630 to 730 at Lakeside Golf Course Clubhouse, there will be the division of Parks and Rec will be in the process of designing multi-use trails around Jacobson Park, and there's going to be a public meeting to view the preliminary design for the trails. And so this is a good opportunity for the neighborhoods around this area to attend this meeting. I believe all of them were sent, all the Neighborhood Association presidents were sent e-mails regarding this meeting, so I would encourage people to come out and give their input. Thank you. Council Member Wallace. The Historic South Hill Neighborhood Association is meeting now. They started at 6 at the First United Methodist Church Harness Building in the basement, and anybody is welcome to attend, but it may be getting close to being over. Also tomorrow night, Transylvania's Kenan Lecture Series featuring actress Mary McDonald will be tomorrow, March 10th at 730 p.m. at Hagen Auditorium. Tickets are free but need to be picked up by 4 p.m. on Wednesday from the William T. Young Campus Center, corner of 4th and North Broadway. The topic of her talk is an actress's journey through roles of demanding leadership from stands with a fist to Laura Roslin. And Senator, I mean, so the lecture is open to the public at Transylvania tomorrow. And then this Saturday there will be events downtown, including a parade for St. Patrick's Day from 11 to 7 p.m. Thank you. Thanks. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I have one announcement, and that is that this year the Boy Scouts of America are celebrating their 100th anniversary. And if, just for the public, if you are interested in attending the Governor's Luncheon, which will celebrate this milestone, you could, the date of that is Wednesday, March 17th, 1145 at the Keeneland Entertainment Center. And for more information about the luncheon, you could call the Blue Grass Council of Boy Scouts, which is 231-7811. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I was remiss in not scheduling a meeting or asking the Vice Mayor actually to schedule another Committee of the Whole to finish the work that we started this morning, number two on the agenda we didn't get to at all. So I think looking at the calendar, April 6th is open from 9 to 1 a.m. So if the Vice Mayor would be so kind to schedule a Committee of the Whole for that time. And my thinking was we do issue two on the docket or on today's agenda first, and then if the first issue that we dealt with partially comes out of committee and is ready, then we can do that the second part of the meeting. April 6th, 9 o'clock. I think right now on the calendar there's nothing from 9 to 1 on the calendar upstairs, the electronic calendar. If that appears satisfactory, I think a motion to hold a meeting at that time would be in order. So moved. 9 a.m. on April 11th. I'd really like to go ahead and schedule it from 9 to 1. What? At 10 o'clock? I've got a meeting. Let's do some work around here. I'm hearing 10 o'clock. Okay, 10 to 1. All right. I have a motion to set the meeting for April 6th from 10 until 1 o'clock. Is there a second? Thank you very much. All in favor of scheduling a Committee of the Whole meeting at that time, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Any further discussion? Thank you, Mayor. Any further reports from Council members? Just a couple of things in the Mayor's Report category since it came up just a few moments ago. First, Mr. Barber has been visiting with members of the Attorney General's staff on some possible collaboration with them for purposes of our intervening in the Public Service Commission proceeding. And I think we'll be sharing some expenses and working together on some expert testimony there. So we'll give you more details as that firms up. Second, you have a number of appointments for your consideration. I would request a motion that they all be approved with the exception of the one appointment to the Ethics Committee Commission and that a confirmation hearing be scheduled for March 25th at 6.30 p.m. I have a motion by Council Member Blues and a second by Council Member Henson. All those in favor of approving those recommendations other than the Ethics Commission recommendation and scheduling that individual for a confirmation hearing on March 25th at 6.30, let it be known by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Is there any public comment on issues not on the agenda? Seeing none, do I hear a motion we adjourn? So moved. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Beard, seconded by Council Member Myers that we adjourn. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries.