# Council Services Committee - June 8, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · June 8, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1407 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1407?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-06-08 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: June 18, 2026 - **Length**: 13,600 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council convened on June 8, 2010, at 1:00 P.M. at the Lexington-Fayette Government Center. The meeting covered four agenda items spanning municipal operations and local ordinance matters. Three of the four items — Golf Management & Operations, Peddler Ordinance Blues, and Review Leaf Collection Program — were informational in nature, while the Solid Waste Ordinances item resulted in an approval. Over the course of the meeting, the Council heard 3 public comments, conducted 2 votes, and received multiple informational presentations. ## Attendance All members were present at the June 8, 2010 Council meeting. The following ten members were in attendance: - Ellinger - Myers - Lawless - Beard - Feigel - Crosbie - McChord - Martin - Henson - Lane No members were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions Two motions were brought to a vote during the June 8, 2010 Council meeting, both passing by voice vote. - **Enterprise Fund for Golf** [timestamp: 54:12]: McChord moved to create an enterprise fund for golf. The motion passed by voice vote. No individual roll call tallies were recorded. - **Solid Waste Ordinance Changes** [timestamp: 1:15:17]: Henson moved to approve solid waste ordinance changes with amendments. The motion passed by voice vote. No individual roll call tallies were recorded. Because both votes were conducted as voice votes, no breakdown of individual ayes, nays, or abstentions is available in the record. ## Public Comment Three members of the public addressed the Council during the public comment period, all speaking on the topic of golf course management and the relationship between municipal and private golf operations. - **Todd Christensen** opened the public comment period by raising concerns about the financial losses being incurred by city golf courses and the downstream impact those losses were having on private golf businesses in the area. [timestamp: 45:13] - **Steven Howard** followed with remarks focused on the financial challenges facing private golf courses more broadly. He suggested that rather than operating in competition, municipal and private courses should explore opportunities for collaboration as a way to address shared difficulties. [timestamp: 48:55] - **Rob Rumke** built on the theme of collaboration by proposing the creation of a regional golf trail that could be used to promote tourism in the area. Rumke also offered the assistance of Bluegrass Tomorrow in facilitating discussions between the relevant parties to help move such an initiative forward. [timestamp: 52:12] Taken together, the three speakers reflected a consistent concern about the financial sustainability of golf operations in the region and a shared interest in finding cooperative solutions that could benefit both public and private courses. ## Contested Items Two items generated significant debate during the June 8, 2010 Council meeting. **Golf Course Management** The Council engaged in heated discussion over whether to privatize the city's municipal golf courses. The debate centered on concerns about ongoing financial losses associated with municipal operation of the courses, as well as the potential impact that privatization could have on private golf businesses in the area. No specific outcome, vote tally, or named participants are available in the meeting record for this item. **Solid Waste Ordinance Changes** Proposed changes to the city's solid waste ordinance also prompted substantial debate. The discussion focused on the practicality of implementing the new ordinance requirements and how they would be enforced, with particular concern raised over provisions related to the screening of roll carts. As with the golf course item, no specific outcome, vote result, or named participants are recorded in the available meeting data. ## Golf Management & Operations [timestamp: 12:55] The Council took up a discussion on the management and potential privatization of the city's municipal golf courses, including consideration of their financial performance and impact on the community. Key speakers on this item were **Jay McChord** and **Jerry Hancock**, who addressed the Council on the topic. The discussion centered on how the municipal golf courses are currently managed and whether privatization of their operations might be a viable path forward. The conversation encompassed the financial performance of the golf courses as well as the broader community impact of any potential changes to how they are operated. The consideration of privatization suggests the Council was weighing whether outside management could improve operational outcomes compared to continued municipal oversight. This item was informational in nature, meaning no formal vote or binding decision was reached at this meeting. The discussion served to inform Council members on the current state of golf operations and the options available for their future management. ## Peddler Ordinance Blues The Council took up Agenda Item 2, an ordinance proposing amendments to existing code sections related to stopping on the street. The ordinance would expand the relevant provisions to explicitly cover food products and would increase fines for violations. No key speakers were recorded in the available data for this agenda item, and the item was treated as informational, meaning no final vote or binding decision was reached at this meeting. Specific details regarding the debate, concerns raised by individual council members, or presentations made during this discussion are not available in the provided record. The ordinance's core changes, as summarized, involve two components: broadening the scope of street-stopping regulations to include food products — likely targeting mobile food vendors or peddlers operating from vehicles on public streets — and stiffening the financial penalties associated with violations of those rules. No specific fine amounts or code section numbers are reflected in the available data. Because the outcome was informational, the item appears to have been introduced or reviewed rather than acted upon definitively at this session. ## Solid Waste Ordinances [timestamp: 1:01:43] The Council took up Agenda Item 3, addressing proposed changes to the city's solid waste ordinances. The discussion centered on updates to business waste collection options and enforcement procedures. Steve Feast was the key speaker on this item, presenting the ordinance changes to the Council. The proposed modifications addressed how business waste collection would be handled under the updated framework, as well as the procedures that would be used to enforce compliance with solid waste regulations. The Council considered the presented changes, and the ordinances were ultimately approved. ## Review Leaf Collection Program [timestamp: 1:20:33] The Council took up Agenda Item 4, a review of the vacuum leaf collection program, examining its costs, challenges, and potential improvements. Tim Clark served as the key speaker for this item, presenting information on the program for the Council's consideration. The discussion covered the operational aspects of the vacuum leaf collection program, including the costs associated with running it and the challenges the program faces. The item was informational in nature, meaning no formal vote or binding decision was taken as an outcome of the discussion. The review appears to have been intended to give Council members an opportunity to assess the program's current state and consider where improvements might be made. *Note: Detailed figures, specific challenges identified, and any particular recommendations discussed during this agenda item are not available in the extracted data for this meeting.* --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to create an enterprise fund for golf - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve solid waste ordinance changes with amendments --- ## Full transcript 對於此,我可以讓 vocal節奏和第六拍子지는 簡單的調整 ლ главное,可以讓ỏ調整 這個樂譜是非常簡單的編曲,這條 運動原則沒有試過在這裡確認 Mistakes include依據 emocional movements 放在step headsets上 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請 點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果你想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 如果您想要更快地調整這個樂譜,請點擊這個圖案 謝謝,陳先生,您有一個文件,如果您想要總結一下,您所說的一些東西, 我猜這個委員會將在進行幾個步驟,如果您願意,請說 當然,我被要求提供一些背景資訊給委員會, 這是其中一個可能的結果, 這是一個私人化的情況,或是讓另一個人員管理或運作的足球場 我提供了一些其他社區的例子,這不是一個幻想, 但這不是唯一的方法,我提供了一個非常詭異的描述, 如果政府想要通過這個方法,我可以回答任何問題, 您可能會更適合聽到從傑里或麥克, 但我可以回答任何問題, 我想我只想要的是,您有幾個步驟,您在第二頁的記錄中, 您有第一和第二步驟, 這是一個小地圖,我們可能會去, 當然,我認為您正在開始,我認為今天第一步驟, 但這只是一個評估和分析,分析目前運作的結構, 如何運作, 如果您想要進入私人化的下一個步驟, 我認為這是一個重要的第一步驟, 這是一個重要的第一步驟, 這是一個重要的第一步驟, 判斷目前的情況和短期將來, 這是一個很好的後續,我們將有 Mr. Hancock, 誰,我認為, 您將在 PowerPoint上 介紹, Mr. Hancock, 你好, 像我所說的, 有一個簽名表格在背後, 如果有人想 從公眾那裡 說完後 歡迎 三分鐘 Hancock, 如果我們可以 15分鐘 如果我們可以 保持 我會 我會完成 OK, 謝謝你, 為了這樣做, 我會迅速地說 就像他們 在 時間 時間 時間 時間 時間 時間 時間 時間 時間 時間 時間 時間 時間 時間 性 性 性 性 性 性 性 謙謙 謙謙 謙謙 謙謙 上 上 上 三 三 切 切 辛 辛 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 背 back back back back back back back back excuse me, trying to hurry for you. The Gabe Brewer course at Picadome was built in 1927. It was renamed after champion Gabe Brewer Jr. where he learned to play. It was bought in 19, excuse me, in 2000 by the city council in order to preserve green space, address storm water issues both there as well as to allow a UK sewer expansion for their health care campus. It's about 100 acres, 40 of which are in a flood plain. Picadome has a long history. We do a number of fundraisers as you see here illustrated. That's raised over $70,000 in the last five years for Susan Coleman. Let me apologize right here for some typos in your printed copy. What you're going to see here and what the folks at home are going to see has those corrected, but there are some typos in there that I overlooked. Kearney is a national attraction. We host the PGA Junior Series, a Horizon League Championship, senior PGA tour has been there. Arnold Palmer, Lee Trevino, Ray Floyd have all played there. Current players you may know, certain PGA stars, Tim Clark, Josh Teeter, who worked both at Kearney and Tate's Creek while he was in high school is currently on the tour. We also provide through our courses a home to area high schools. All these schools receive free access to practice matches during the six-week high school competition. Without the public courses, those opportunities would not exist. We also teach and provide outing space in the community, promotion of the game, fundraising. We do a great number of things other than simply provide daily tee times. Our facilities are also accessible. They're ADA compliant. The only other course in the community is the Marriott that has these accessible golf cars. We believe we're ahead of the curve in providing golf to all members of the community. We subscribe to this Grow the Game strategy. We work with the Police Athletic League. We provide juniors, women's and co-ed clinics. The First Tee of Lexington finds us their home. We host the Kentucky PGA Pepsi Junior Tour and Bluegrass State Games. One of the original 12 games of the Bluegrass State Games is golf, and it's been played on our courses since the inception of Bluegrass State Games. We're also, it's important for you to know, environmental stewards. Kearney's a certified Audubon facility, which is a big deal. We use less pesticide, and it provides a home for bird and animals. Our courses are becoming sanctuaries for animal life. Groundwater protection plans are in place, spill prevention plans, best practices. All of our courses will be Audubon certified. Lakeside will be the next to be certified. We believe that the review is complete in a favorable way, and we're simply waiting for formal approval. We are also in golf the stewards of four city championships. The men's goes back to 1927. There's a women's championship, a senior city's championship, a junior city championship. Thousands have participated in these events over the last several years. Here's a picture of Ashley Rose on your left. She's at UK now. Any number of people in the community have played successfully and have great memories of playing on our courses. We promote play golf Lexington, not play LFUCG or play Picadome or play Kearney. We say play Lexington. We promote it through our various marketing partners. We promote golf, not deals, not special rates. We have a Facebook presence on Picadome, Tate's Creek, and play golf Lexington as a site as well. This is a picture of a 13-year-old standing next to an 80-year-old at a championship moment a couple of years ago. I think that speaks to who we really serve. There is, by virtue of the folks in this room, they're going to tell you that there has been overbuilding in the golf business for about 15 years. There are pressures on all Kentucky courses. Many courses are no longer profitable. The Wall Street Journal last week said of the 4,400 private clubs in the United States, 39 closed and 389 opened to the public for the first time last year. Golf is overbuilt and there's not much more than time that will help solve that problem. We didn't add to overbuilding. Kearney was built in 89 before the overbuilding began. Picadome was bought by you all in 2000 for stormwater reasons. So city courses are not the cause of the oversupply of golf in the community. In fact, our courses enjoy above-average play. As you can see here, our courses all average last year higher than the average of the 20,600 rounds across all golf courses in Kentucky. It's important, I think, also for you to know that there are 10,000 to 12,000 citizens in the community that play golf on our courses. The vast majority of those people do not belong to private clubs. Of the 120,000, 25,000 rounds in 89, they're distributed this way. Many fewer at Avon and at Meadowbrook. But Tate Street, Lakeside, Gabe Brewer and Kearney all are in the 20,000 to 25,000 to 30,000 range. Here's a P&L for FY09. It's been widely reported that we lose a great deal of money in golf. I think it's important for you all to realize that those numbers that have been given in the past tend to look at expense budgets as actual expenditures, and they're not. We have had a great deal of difficulty hiring people. There's been a hiring freeze. We have not been able to spend the money that's been allocated as expenses in golf. In FY09, for instance, we think we lost $11,500. That's a pretty good attempt at breaking even, which is what we have self-imposed on ourselves as our goal over the last several years. It has not come from you. But it is not true that we're losing a million or any other number of dollars. We think we've lost $11,000 last year. Jerry, I hate to interrupt you there, but when we're talking about that, does that include our bonding in that? No, it doesn't. Good point, Councilman. This is on operations. This does not include. There's still some bonded debt for the Picadome, but I might remind you that that building also has a swimming pool, and it also has the park's offices. So all of that debt is not appropriately attributable to golf, as there are other features there as well. Okay. Thank you. Our efforts at being self-sustaining recognizes the special place that golf has in the perception of many. There's no mandate from you all directing that golf be managed any differently than any other park activity. Our council fees and charges policy, which you all have approved, says that youth fees should represent 50 to 70 percent of direct costs. Adult fees across parks activities should represent 100 percent of direct costs, not the indirect costs, not the capital costs. Given our mix of youth and adults, we think that we're more than exceeding your direction to us on what golf fees should be. And as I might point out, there are any number of activities in parks that lose money. The pools are a good example. Many of our camps are examples. And those programs are in place, and we charge what we do in order to provide a service to the community. So if we're going to segregate golf and suggest that it have different guidelines, then we need to have that conversation so we know what our challenges are. We have done what I showed you recently, becoming a break-even business, while being competitive in the market. We are not creating a price ceiling in the community. I apologize for your not being able to read this. The chart in your packet on page 26 shows this more clearly. If you have specific questions about the comparisons between Kearney and any other course, or pick at Omer Lakeside or any other course, Mike can answer that. We think this chart, if you look at it, demonstrates that our pricing is fully competitive with those that we feel we are fully competitive with with respect to amenities. Someone asked about the Cincinnati golf courses. They're here as well. The city courses are on top, Hamilton County's courses are in the middle, and Lexington is on the bottom. Question? Jerry, I thought when we looked through this a week or so ago that Kearney was at $30. It's listed at $40 here. Am I wrong? This is a rate with carts, I'm sorry, and it's the proposed rates July 1st with carts, I'm sorry. So maybe that was a $12 or $13 difference from the $30? Yes, sir. At the same time, I apologize if that's off the screen at the top, we don't compete aggressively in the discounting business. Some courses do, that's a part of their strategy. You've not given us permission to do that. This is a Facebook page of a course here in town that has tee times at various prices throughout the day. You can go to golf.now, find a discount. We're not competing in that business, and therefore I don't think it can be criticized for competing unfairly against local courses. We have a fixed price, and we stick to that price. Private membership clubs here in town, you're familiar with them, Greenbrier, Lexington Country Club, Mandover, Keen Run, Eilauer, and Spring Valley. Someone in the golf business said that private clubs exist for the members, resorts cater to travelers, and public courses provide experience to local golfers who are not club members. We engage in promoting our courses by working with local businesses who generate revenue from our courses. These are our stay and play partners, and those people see the economic advantage of our play. We think that we've booked over 2,000 known hotel packages in FY09, attracting players from around the state as well as Louisville and Cincinnati. We target as well travelers, snowbirds going north and south in the wintertime to stop and play Kearney and our other courses. It's also important, I think, for you to know that when there are big events in town, from Keeneland to U.K. football to Rolex to Bluegrass state games, not everybody goes to those events all day long and stays. They want to play a little bit of golf. They want to sneak out and have some fun. Our courses are there and available, and we make every effort to try and attract those players. Our Parks Master Plan says that the municipal courses are the primary golf provider for many county residents known for hosting high-quality events. We do a great deal to try and keep those people happy so they'll come back and play with us again. You've adopted the management audit, which offered specific recommendations to golf, established an enterprise fund wherein golf would survive strictly on the merits of its own revenue. We have certain civil service constraints that make that difficult. I'd like to work with you to make that a reality. We have an ESP program called the Extended School Program, a licensed after-school program that's quite successful. We'd like to see us craft a way for golf to find its own enterprise fund, and then there wouldn't be any question as to whether or not golf was surviving on the general fund or not. Increase fees to cover costs, reduce other costs are all recommendations that have been made before. Our strategy is to remain profitable in operations, to manage our expenses carefully, to try and get this enterprise structure up and operating, and to allow us to use the airline slogan of load management fees as other courses here in town are doing. Discount the day before, the day of, in order to get last-minute incremental play rather than sticking to just fixed prices on a daily basis. And we want to continue to improve the golf courses for both the residents and visitors. Now, what do we have to do? We've raised rates several times since the Parks First Master Plan in 1999. In fact, in 1992, a senior round of golf cost a dollar. We've dramatically improved our merchandising efforts. We're bringing the food and beverage inside at Kearney and Pickenham, where we think we can raise $150,000 in revenue inside golf this year. And the council-approved rates for FY11 will increase our revenue by $100,000. At the same time, we've done a number and continue to do a number of improvements in-house. The Tate's Creek building, the Kearney building, the Gabe Brewer Grill, we've expanded our T's and done a lot of bunker work with in-house help within our existing budgets over the last several years. In FY11, this will look curious, but we've got what looks like a huge disparity here in the FY11 budget. Again, this is based on expenses. A couple of problems with the expense calculations. There are estimates, as you all know. The utility bills at Pickenham, Tate's Creek, and Avon commingle the pools, our administrative offices, our rentals. This is not a clear picture of what's really attributable to golf. We have seven vacant positions, and we don't expect to fill several of them, in addition to which there's a water quality fee, which we didn't anticipate this year, which is $165,000 across golf courses. So while this top line says $315,000, we think that number will be a lot closer to what we saw in our experience in 2009 when none of these factors are pulled out. Some of our facilities simply have one meter for water or electric for the whole facility. Something like Tate's Creek, that simply doesn't take into it. It was never intended to be able to identify and discriminate golf electricity versus pool electricity. So there's some things you need to keep in mind when you look at these numbers. Typical industry reasons for considering privatizing. You can see them there. In effect, cities look to privatize golf when courses are losing money or when course conditions are poor. Cincinnati was mentioned last time. They reportedly lost $780,000 in 96 and $700,000 in 95, along with some theft and embezzlement issues, which led that community to outsource. When they did so, they found that they needed to get a waiver from the Living Wage Ordinance in that community in order to make it work for the contractor. There are also some disadvantages to privatizing. Service can deteriorate as folks focus on profit. Having to go through a third party slows things down. Higher prices and lower quality could result. I want you to keep in mind here that we have 32 civil service positions. Those individuals would be at risk if we privatized the golf courses. Those folks most certainly would lose pension contributions and many of their jobs. In order for them to reduce their expenses, they wouldn't be able to contribute to CERS. So their jobs would very clearly come under the microscope from the beginning. What we continue to do is focus on customer service. We want to improve play, make it faster, make it more pleasant. We continue to use customer surveys, mystery shoppers. We want to look at continued new sources, sponsorships, ad space, etc., in effect to improve the golf experience. What I'd like you to remember is that, in effect, we think we've done the hard work at making golf very nearly profitable over the last 10 years. We've lowered our expenses, we've raised our fees, we've improved the golf experience. The courses are dramatically better than they were 10 years ago. And to Mike Fields and his golf pros who are here, they deserve all of the credit. We promote junior, senior women's golf. We have leagues with a number of major employers here in town. What we do not want to do is cut our maintenance standards and engage in frequent discounting and confuse the customer. So in summary, we've played about 125,000 rounds at our golf courses every year. There's 10,000 to 12,000 citizens, we think, that consume those. 125,000 rounds. The courses look great. They represent a good value. We provide services to underprivileged groups and those who are disadvantaged, and we allow our courses to be used for fundraisers. We are more than just a daily fee golf course. We are a community asset. Our fees are fully competitive in the region. And we don't think the conditions warrant outsourcing right now. We don't have high operating costs. We break even on operations. The courses are in excellent shape, and our evaluations of what we're doing are positive from our golfers. So we think we're doing a good job, and we hope that you'll agree with us. Any questions? Thank you. You did very well. A lot of information very quick, and we asked you to put this together fast, and you did a good job to get this ready for this meeting. We appreciate that. I'll take questions now from Councilmembers. I see Councilmember Crosby. Thank you, Jerry. I have a question actually for Councilmember McCord. Have you thought about asking that this be put into a smaller committee, since it looks like it's going to take several months to go through all this, and obviously there's a lot of various interests involved. Have you considered possibly doing that? Absolutely. I think that one of the models that I was looking at was much like what we did with the private waste haulers and our we were talking about recycling and all the private waste stuff that we did. We put the work group together that was made up of folks inside government and outside government to try and bring back solutions and so forth. And, you know, that is likely where we're going. In this presentation, you know, it's a privatization versus we keep running it. What my intent has been all along is how do we create a working relationship that benefits everybody? And I think one thing that bears mentioning is the taxes that are paid by the private side folks basically underwrite all the good stuff that we can do publicly. I mean, if you chase all the private folks out, then you lose that tax base and it makes it harder to provide golf. And I think there are certain things that we do very well that the private side can't do, nor should they be in the business of, and I think that there's things that they can do better than we can. And my hope is, Councilmember Crosby, is to get to that point where we can have maybe that smaller work group working together to bring those things back, because I do think we've just opened up a great deal of discussion today. Thank you. And I would agree the waste management is a good example. I chair that committee, and we've been able to gain a lot of information from our private haulers versus our own waste management, and we're still in the process of discussing all that. But I think that based on the given amount of information, that might be an appropriate route. Thank you. And I look forward to a motion coming from that possibly later. Mr. Beard. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jerry, some of the downsides to privatization, if I can get that out, can be solved by good negotiations with whomever you might privatize with or outsource. I mean, it's not fixed, and it's not the same everywhere, obviously. And we could craft an agreement that would solve some of the problems that you mentioned, not all of them, but some of them. You know, I kind of was the one that had started this ball rolling, if you remember. And, you know, it is a knotty problem. I can talk, depending upon what mood I'm in, I can talk either side of that conversation. There's no question you all do a good job. I don't think there's any question as far as I'm concerned, anyway. I gave up golf a long time ago because I couldn't get one out of this room. But it does, you know, when you're up in the low 150s or whatever, you decide maybe that is just in your sport. What could be done to collaborate without collusion, collaborate with the private sector? Well, I think that's an infinite continuum. I'm happy to listen to what these folks have thought about and brought with them today. I have no notion what that might be. There are any number of things we could do other than set prices together, and I'd be very happy to listen to what they have to say. I welcome their input, quite honestly. And, in fact, at the golf pro level, these folks all know each other. They compete against each other. They have for years. They know each other, and they share things. But there may well be some things we can all learn to do better together, and I would welcome that opportunity. In answer to your previous question about outsourcing, in some places it's worked, and in some places it hasn't. Some places have given up on the idea. Some places are thrilled with it. So I don't think you're right. There is no one-size-fits-all. You did mention Cincinnati and what they did in 1996. What did they do in 2006 or 2008 and 2009? I'd heard a number of $900,000 profit to the city. I don't know that. That's not been available to me publicly on the Internet that I've found. Well, we do have friends up there. Yes, we do. At the same time, there is this question of 32 employees that they no longer have to deal with. No, I understand. It's a very real issue. Well, I understand. I'm not trying to run anybody out of a job either. We just spent some time just a little earlier on that whole subject. Anyway, Jerry, thank you. Mike, thank you for your work. I'm sure you did a lot of it. And that's all, Mr. Chair. At this point, I don't have anybody who signed up, so if you do want to sign up. No, I do. Council members, I'm talking about from the public. So if there is anybody who wants to sign up, there is a sheet in the back if you do want to make some comments after the council members are done. At this point, Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Jerry. Thank you, Jerry, so much for the overview. I do play golf on the city golf courses. I'm not great at it, but I do like to knock the ball around. And I'm not a member of a private club. One of the reasons that I go to the public course is because I'm not a great golfer, and I know that there's generally not a lot of patients for women on the private courses. Well, I won't say for women, for novices. But I have a question about how this whole thing came up, because I'm not quite sure why we're looking at this. I mean, I know what you're proposing, but I don't know why we're proposing this. So I'm trying to understand why is it that we're considering privatizing our golf courses. If it isn't because we're losing money, then is it that we think that privatizing the courses will generate more revenue? Is that the, yeah. Thank you, Council Member Feigl. This issue has come up a number of times because of just what you said. We don't know. We get conflicting numbers. We're not losing money, but yet we don't factor in the bonds. We have one meter at this course, so therefore that counts for the pool and so forth. So this council has very little information to work off of. And then from the private side, we see that or we hear that, hey, you're competing against us, and you're killing us and so forth like that, which may or may not be true. The bottom line is for over two years now, we've constantly heard different sides of this issue. And when I put this in the committee, I don't think you were in the room at the time. What I said was not to decide through this committee work to privatize or not privatize, but rather how do we make ourselves a golf destination where public and private work together and utilize their strengths and use our golf inventory to the highest and best use for Lexington. That's why it's in committee. Not to decide, oh, should the private side do it better than we do, because we do things very well that the private side can't do, nor should they be in the business of. And then they can do some things that maybe we can't do as well. And that's why this is in committee. It came out because of our budget link, because as we were going through things and we were looking at parks and their financial situation and how absolutely tight and critical it was that Councilmember Beard had brought in the issue of golf and said, you know, where are we on this and what are the real numbers? So one of the motions I'm going to make after everyone speaks is to move, Jerry, to forming this enterprise fund, because I think the one way that we can actually assess this is to have golf as an enterprise fund so we actually have numbers to look at versus this thing that's a little bit muddied right now. So after everyone speaks, that was my first motion to make. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other Councilmembers you'd like? Mr. Stent, you were on here. Are you satisfied now? Okay. With that, Mr. Schoniger is going back and getting the list, because I think there have been some people in the public who have signed up. So we'll wait until he gets back here for the list and allow you an opportunity to speak. If you would, keep your comments to three minutes. And if you would give your name and your address, we'd appreciate it. First person on the list is Todd Christensen. Hi. Thanks for taking time to address the golf courses. My name is Todd Christensen, and I represent three families that own the Bull Golf Course, which is actually in Richmond. They're right on the border of Fayette County. And a couple things that we wanted to bring to point and to, quite frankly, answer Ms. Feigl's question directly, the reason this is an issue is because the Lexington City Parks golf courses lose money. And it's straight right here in the documents that were given today. And just to point that out, as Mr. Hancock said, he's not even 100% sure. Twice he said, we think we lost, and I think we did this. They don't even know because of exactly how they operate and what they're all about. Privatizing it into a management company, that certainly isn't the answer, because you need the professional people that you have in place, who have the passion, to see the city golf courses be successful. The bottom line here is the first part of his presentation talked about play golf in Lexington. And his main point was it was for golf courses in Lexington. The only problem is there are no publicly golf courses other than University Club. If you look at the list, this list right here that you couldn't even see in the diagram, the only courses on here, excuse me, the Marriott, which it's just like we were going out to dinner, you don't compare Burger King and Malone's in the same category. I think we'd all agree on that. The Marriott, okay, you don't compare with the Ramada Inn or what have you. You certainly don't compare it. So that one's not even really a consideration. Then you've got the Big Blue and Wildcat. Those are the only courses, I think, anyways, that have Lexington addresses. So when they push the play golf Lexington, it's not an option, because they have the monopoly on the facilities available to the public. Within that, they've driven the price down so far to make it attainable for seniors and juniors and beginners. And there's a big portion of that is very positive and very worthwhile. But at the same time, there's a lot of seniors and a lot of people that just simply do it because it's cheap. And they don't run it at a break-even point. I think it's here on the page right before it. It says the goal is to break even. We're in a business, and breaking even does not do it. And I'm going to bring up one more point, and I think this sums it up the best. Right here in the mission statement, working in partnership with the community to provide a safe and secure environment, excellent customer service, which they do provide, a vibrant organization, which is, but the very last part of this, the mission statement that's on the website, economic opportunity, empowering all to thrive. Breaking even is not thriving. You can't repair carts. You can't repair equipment. You can't do new carts if you're a private golf course owner. It's all things that is subsidized by these taxpayers who may not even play golf. If it was bowling alleys or bars or something that wasn't as powerful and enjoyable as golf, it wouldn't even be an option. I mean, it's just it gets really old trying to run a business when the value of golf is depreciated so far down just because they have an option to be bailed out. Just all the stuff we've seen on the news, all these golf courses are just bailed out all the time by people that may not even play golf, and it's right here. We think. It's right here. We think. Thank you, Mr. Christensen. Your time is up. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Steven Howard. Yes, Steven Howard. I represent Old Silo Golf Course in Mount Sterling. Just looking at the presentation, I don't have a 50-page PowerPoint, but I could literally tear the cover off of this and put one that says privately owned golf courses except for about 10 pages. We do compete with each other. And there are certain things that municipal courses can do better, and right now it can do better because of what we're dealing with on the private side. Our golf courses, not only mine, but all of them are undergoing a financial epidemic. If you look at the numbers closely that were presented on the number of rounds played, you can see that from 1997 to today there were 217,000 rounds of golf played, and just last year there were 125,000. That's a 43 percent decline in the number of rounds golf played. So hands off, a clap of hands to the municipals for being able to create this break-even situation with that number of golfers every year declining. It's just not true. We're looking for an apples-to-apples comparison. What we want to bring from the private side is our experience. We would love to see the promotion of golf that we have here in central Kentucky. We always see the number of tourism dollars that we bring in in April and May, and thank goodness that's our lifeblood. We do not have a golf trail here. There's plenty of opportunities to establish some with some of the best courses in the state right here in central Kentucky. I can promise you that the only rounds of golf that bring tourism down that play at a municipal court are Kearney Hills. They do not play at any other course that is owned by the government. The numbers that were shown on the profit and loss do not include debt service, property taxes, important use of the land, and what the land can mean for the entire community other than for golfers. Neither did it include golf operation salaries or the director of golf salary. You add all these things up and put them to the bottom line, and exactly what we have to deal with on the private side, you'll see that this $11,000 loss is a substantially higher one. Raising fees will only continue to reduce the number of rounds played. It is a supply and demand issue, and there is an oversupply. The only thing that will happen if we compete with each other every year, year in and year out, we will see golf courses go away. I know of personally five golf courses around both on the country club side and the daily fee side that may not be in business next year or in the few following years. in the few following years. It's that serious of a situation. We want to work together with the municipal courses, look at each one of them on the merits of what they are to the community, and come up with a solution where we can promote the Bluegrass region as a tourism destination. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Howard. Is there anybody else who would like to speak? If you would, just go ahead and give your name and your address, please, and you have three minutes. I won't even take three minutes. Rob Rumke with Bluegrass Tomorrow. Jay invited me to come today to hear what was being presented, and I think there is a very real opportunity here. When I first came to Lexington, I worked on the first Bank One Senior Golf Classics at the Marriott, and then at Kearney Hills. In terms of other experience, I've been down in Richmond and in Madison County at their chamber, as well as over in Woodford County and in Franklin County. And I think the opportunity was perhaps to work together to create this Bluegrass region trail of great golf courses in Old Silo and the Bull and Gibson Bay and Richmond, and some of these, these are world-class golf courses, along with Kearney. We had some of those discussions when I was in Richmond. So if Bluegrass Tomorrow can in any way act as a conduit to help bring the regional community together to work on this, it falls right in line with some of the things that we're doing with trails, conservation corridors, scenic view sheds, you know, all of these things are regional issues rather than just local issues. So if I can be of any support or help in that regard, let us know. Thank you. And you kept it under your three minutes. Mr. McCord, I don't see anybody else from the public that would like to speak. With that, I'll entertain some motions. Mr. McCord? Well, given that, Rob, I appreciate that's why I actually brought you here today to hear this discussion. And what I would like to do is from a council standpoint, I think it's important that we go ahead and establish this enterprise fund for golf. And so I'm going to make a motion, Mr. Chair, that the council, the full council take up the enterprise fund for golf. So moved. We have a motion and a second. Do we have any discussion? Is that discussion? Kind of. Can you restate your motion and just for the council to take up? To create an enterprise fund for golf. To create. Okay. Thank you. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. That passes. With regard to this work group, as we've kind of been looking around or as I've been listening to this, I think that what I'd like to do, because we have such a discrepancy of numbers and certainly we have public and private and competing interests. And what ultimately I'd like to do is exactly, Rob, what you had said, is to bring this group together and start talking about what the common solutions can be and how we can work together in this. And so rather than make a motion, Mr. Chairman, for the council to create this subgroup, if it's amenable to Mr. Rumke, what I'd like to do is ask that Bluegrass Tomorrow create this work group and invite our folks and interested parties from the public side along with those here and let you facilitate those discussions. I think that may be more beneficial and profitable. Running concurrent with this enterprise fund, now we will actually have a means of tracking actual numbers and so we won't have maybe some of the vagueness that we've had in the past, if you would be amenable to that. If you would come to the microphone, please. And I guess I would like you to restate how you want that. So would we be creating this or I'm kind of confused. I'm not going to go that route, because what I'd like to do is make that, I guess, in the form of a request to Bluegrass Tomorrow to let them start. I think they can probably get information that you can bring back to this body. And if it's a need for us to formally create something, then we'll do so at that time. But I think that we can get at this discussion using Bluegrass Tomorrow, Rob, if that's amenable. Well, I think it's something that's run by our officers and makes sure that we feel like it falls within our mission and vision. Certainly it strikes me that it does. And again, our whole purpose is to bring organizations together, regions together, counties together, governments together, to work on common solutions. And that's what this is. Put together a meeting, facilitate the meeting and see where it goes from there. And I think, Mr. Chairman, if you would report that out at the next meeting, that that's going to be our first step. And then based upon that, then I'll be happy to make another motion if we need to go that route. But I think this is an appropriate first step. I'll report that out. But I guess we need to be in contact with you just to let us know where you're headed after you talk to your board and let them know what your future plans are going to be with this. And then that way we know where we're going to go. I'll communicate back through Council Member McCord if that's okay with her. And if you could just carbon copy me, please, too, as a chair of the committee. Sure. Absolutely. That would be great. Does everybody understand that? I see some Ms. Gorton. I just had a question. I'm not a member of this committee. But since this isn't a government committee or work group that you're doing, what exactly are you envisioning you would do? Well, you know, this is the first time I've even been exposed to it today. I'm basically making an offer to help and really haven't explored all of this, Council Member Gorton. You know, obviously what we're offering to do here is to organize the group, put the right people in the room, begin to facilitate that discussion and see where commonalities occur. And again, the vision of promoting the bluegrass as a golf destination and a golf trail, much like we have a bourbon trail, much like we're working on developing the equine as our own Napa Valley, we've got that opportunity with the golf facilities that we have here. And I am a golfer. I have golfed all of these facilities. And I think those opportunities are out there. So coming to this meeting for the first time, I'm seeing opportunity, and that's why I'm offering to do this. So you see it more as a group that would not necessarily look at outsourcing or privatizing, but you'd be looking at tourism opportunities and how to link those together. How we can all work together, both public and private. I see. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Lane, I think you had a question. One thing we could look at would be maybe the demographic trends in golf and how large is our market, including the outlying golf courses, and how many plays a year, how many rounds of golf to be played, and see if we could analyze what our supply and the demand for that is and what we could do maybe to increase demand. I mean, those are the kind of things I think would be very, very helpful. And maybe some way that we could have the number of rounds played on a weekly basis during the summer that could be reported in to your organization confidentially and then get an overview of what the activity is in our overall markets. Those kind of things I think would be very, very helpful. Absolutely. Thank you. I hope your board will say yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Rumkin? Any other questions on this topic? With that, I want to appreciate everybody coming here. And the next item on the agenda is the solid waste ordinances that Mr. Stinnett put in the committee. Mr. Stinnett. Thank you, Chair. Today we have Commissioner Susan Bush and Steve Feast, our Director of Solid Waste. As you all know, through our exploration of the issues in regards to our housing definitions, and other things in our community, we have been working on modifying our enforcement of our solid waste ordinances. And this or the ordinances that have been brought for you today are a first attempt at changing the enforcement, beefing it up, so to speak, and allowing our guys on the front line, guys and gals on the front line who collect the solid waste a more opportunity to enforce what is on the books, as well as our management opportunity to have a better service presented to the citizens and hold citizens accountable and provide a better service to them as well. So this is our first attempt at it. These are some modified changes recommended. And I present to you Steve Feast, the Director. Thank you. The proposed draft ordinance changes to Chapter 16-4 that is in your packets really look at some of the issues that we have had to look at over the last year or so. First, at the bottom of page 2 in Section 1 is an amendment that addresses business and nonresidential generators who do not generate enough waste to warrant a dumpster. Nonresidential generators have always been required to purchase or rent a dumpster. And they also have to pay a landfill fee, which is about for eight cubic yard dumpsters, about $48 per month. This amendment gives the Division of Waste some latitude to allow small businesses to opt for roll cart service if they can limit their landfill bound waste to no more than three herbies per actual set out. This does provide an incentive for them to reduce their waste. And as I mentioned earlier, if they can avoid those fees as far as landfills and actually the eight cubic yard dumpster rental, that will help them. It does keep in a provision that requires a business to switch back to a dumpster if their generation waste increases beyond the capacity of actual roll carts. For instance, the business location is operating a small branch bank. They can probably get by with herbies. If that location changes to a restaurant or something of that nature and their waste increases, they will have to go back to a dumpster. And any new business that's built will have to put the concrete pads in and the steel bollards in order to make sure that if that business at some point generated enough waste, they would have all the space they actually needed. Going on down to page 7. Excuse me, Director, and you're just pointing out the changes, right? These are just the changes. And there's a number of small changes, but there's really about five major changes here that I wanted to really just discuss at first. To address, on page 7 there, to address persistent problems with setting out roll carts and other waste at the wrong time as well as improperly prepared set out of bulky items. We've looked at reducing the seven-day compliance period to 48 hours. And secondly, we would eliminate the provision that requires issuance of two notices of violation in a 12-month period before a citation can be issued. Replaced with the authority to issue a citation after the property owner has been issued one notice of violation and fails to take corrective action. If the violation constitutes an immediate danger to health or the environment, authority is allowed to DMV, to Division of Waste Management, to abate the violation for the associated cost. And going on down to page 9, we've got issues with the requirement to keep roll carts in the backyard in residential and urban areas. The proposal is to add flexibility to Section 1610 that will allow roll cart storage in the side yard provided screening on three sides with the opening facing the back of the property and the screening requirements are stipulated in the ordinance. Now, we've had some neighborhoods where we have Herbie's and Rosie's and other carts set out on the side and we don't get a lot of complaints from that. We have some neighborhoods where that's just an unacceptable action and we get a lot of calls about that. Also on page 9, Section 1610 contains the provisions that roll carts may be set out the day before collection and these times change twice a year to coincide with the daylight savings time. The proposed provision sets the times at 4 p.m. year-round to eliminate the confusion and accommodate different work schedules. And on page 10, Section 1610 again, we've revised to reflect an efficient procedure for allowing a management company for them to submit a notarized letter for the property owner designated them as an agent or service of process. This ordinance currently requires the property owner to contact the LFQCG and to complete a form. So we think this will kind of streamline the operation. Thank you very much. Mr. Stennett? Yeah, I just want to, so the public understands what we're talking about changing. We're changing obviously a way a business can choose to have their garbage collected, either a dumpster or roll cart service. We're changing the time in which you can put your Herbie's out to the curb to 4 p.m. on second shift, et cetera. We're changing the placement where you can store your Herbie's and roll carts to allow them on the side of the house. And it's proposed with screening on three sides, and we can talk about that. We're also changing the enforcement from 7-day compliance down to 48 hours to get in compliant and also adding there a civil penalty that if they do not become compliant, you can actually issue a civil penalty for violations. So this really changes the enforcement and the progress that I hope we're able to make on enforcing our solid waste ordinances. The big question I had is I know I'm not in favor of making it mandatory to have screened on three sides of a Herbie that's stored on the side of the house, because I see that being very problematic, especially the distance between houses we allow in Fayette County of 6 feet. So if you store a Lenny, Rosie, Herbie, you're talking you have less than, you know, 3 feet to put up a fence, a shrubbery, bushes. I see a lot of costs associated with doing that. And I'm just curious as to why we chose to keep that in there, screen on three sides. I think it's going to be very difficult to enforce, and it's going to be very difficult for homeowners to make them screen it. Right, but it doesn't say anything about screening. You're adding that they can put them on the side, which most houses, we can all drive around now and 50 percent of your houses have them on the side of the house, period. But now we're going to say those people also have to screen it on three sides other than the house. That's going to be difficult to do for a lot of people in Fayette County. Our preference would be to keep it in the rear of the house if that works best. It's not easy to access rear properties with three heavy containers full of trash, yard waste, recyclables. So, you know, allowing it to be on the side of the house, one, is a good thing. And I assume we mean behind the edge of the front of the house. But the required screen, I'm not in favor of requiring it to be screened on three sides. I think that's a huge issue that will open up a lot of costs for people to be able to do that. I concur with Council Member Stennett. I think that's problematic for me, too. You know, we're building on smaller and smaller lots, and sometimes there's almost a zero lot line involved. And this is a little bit unclear, and maybe there's another part of the ordinance. But with regard to townhouses or condominiums or where you have other issues where you have multifamily, I know we have another code for part of that, but, you know, I don't know how that would impact, you know, screening in condominiums and all that. So I think I would have a reservation about this. You know, this is, you know, America. And when you own your property, you own your property. I think there's one more little instance where there's going to be a regulation, you've got to have a screened area and you can't put your garbage cart in this location, and that concerns me some. Thank you. Mr. Beard. I guess the screening situation, if people to access, you can't line them up like crows along the side of the wall. You have to have them shoulder to shoulder. So you're talking about eight or ten feet out for people to be able to access it and for you to be able to decide, well, I'm going to take Rosie down but not the yard waste and shuffle all those things around just as unworkable as I see it. And pretty expensive, pretty expensive to jockey those things in and out of an enclosure is a pretty hefty job, especially if you have an elderly person or someone who's impaired in any way that would have to deal with that. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I want to concur with what I've heard from all three council members, that the screening part, most people in my neighborhood have their screenings on the side of the house. I think they do need to be able to be placed on the side of the house but not involve the screening. So that's the part that I can't support. Thank you. Ms. Hanson. Okay. I'm going to be on at least three sides with the opening. Have we had a motion yet to accept this? I don't think we have had a motion yet. So we need a motion before we amend it, I would think. And then just not include that part in there is what I would say. Okay. So I'll move to approve the ordinance and remove the item, underlined item on page nine that reads, in the side yard with a screen or at least three sides with an opening toward the rear of the property. We have a motion to second. Any discussion? Mr. Martin. Thank you, Chair. I live in a neighborhood that actually requires this as a part of the covenants. And I can tell you that nobody does it. I think it's a great idea. I happened to do it because I was doing a project and we got it done at the same time. But I'm the only person that I know of that actually has three sides on my trash cans. It's a corner house and it's just out there by the garage in front of everybody. But I think it's a great idea. It would be great if we could do it. But I think there would be a very substantial likelihood that almost everybody would be in violation of it. And I'm not sure that we're quite there yet to pull it off. I'd hate to adopt an ordinance that would result in so many violations. And even after a period of education and transition into it, most people wouldn't do it. And my neighborhood has been around for 10 or 15 years and hardly anybody does it. And they're required to. So thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure that the motion starts with the word with and does not have the word side yard in there. That'll feed the whole purpose of the ordinance change. So it begins with the word with a screen. Correct, Council Member Henson. I want to make sure the intentions are clear. I don't want to remove the word side yard because then you can't put them on a side yard. Thank you. I was also going to say there's some underlining here that describes what the screen shall be. So shall consist of and that should also be removed. We'll accept that as a friendly amendment to your motion. Any other discussion? Yes, Mr. Gardner. Just in the interest of clarification, if I understand what the committee is wanting, they're basically wanting to add the ability to put the carts in the side yard, which currently doesn't. It's not allowed. But that's all. With that, if you could just make that the motion, I can take care of drafting it that way. Because some of what you're talking about removing is underlining and stuff is not necessarily going to have to be done exactly that way. But I certainly can make it effectively adding ability to keep it in the side yard to what we currently have, which is a rear yard. Thank you. And that's what we'd like. Mr. Lane. I'm sitting here thinking about this. Some of this is not practical. If we have a snowstorm, ice storm, rain, you've got mud in your yard. I mean, I can just think of all kinds of situations where trying to roll your cart around and all that is not going to be very practical in certain times of the year. And I think we have to be realistic. If we're going to pass an ordinance, we need something that can be enforced and reasonably enforced. I mean, I think I would be irritated if I got a summons because it was snow and my, you know, Kirby was sitting not in the side yard, but on my driveway because I couldn't get over in the side yard. So I think those are the issues that we have to be thinking about, those unintended consequences that may come from this ordinance. We don't typically go looking for those kind of things after a storm or anything. These are usually those. When we cite someone, it's an issue of, to be honest with you, we've got a call from one of the neighbors. And this is usually not after a storm or anything like that. You know, in my neighborhood, some people get confused what day the pickup is. So I'm sure they'd be confused about where they had to put their Herbie on certain weather conditions, et cetera. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other? Mr. Martin. I had a question for you real quick. Because this motion is to adopt the whole thing. Yes. So I think we need to sort of continue to make sure we're comfortable with it. On page 10, subsection E. Yes. My understanding that the perjury statute doesn't require a notary for a signature tendered to a governmental agency. I'm sorry. I missed the first part of what you said. What statute? That the perjury statute does not require a notary for a document that's submitted to a government agency. Is that correct? You mean in terms of if someone falsifies that document? Yes. I believe that's right. Well, my question is, do we really need this to be notarized? Because that's kind of an extra step for folks. It probably wouldn't. If I understand what the gist of your question is, probably not. If we make it an official requirement of the government, and if they would happen to falsify something, then there would be consequences in that context. Yes, I think you're right. We could take that out. Well, I guess my suggestion is that we could put a statement on the form saying that this is signed under, you know, penalty of perjury pursuant to a statute number and sort of put them on notice that this is an important thing that they're signing. But I haven't looked at that specifically for this, but I seem to recall that there is something. I can't remember in what context, but I looked at that in the last few weeks on the perjury statute. I think we looked at that. And I think what we could do is change this to require them to Let me ask a question. What I was going to say is we could require them to file a form with this information and then do exactly what you're saying. And I was just making sure it wasn't going to be a problem to come up with a form. Yes. I thought we looked at it in connection with the vinyl box issue. We did. That's it. That wasn't what I looked at most recently. That's the first time I looked at it. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Any other? Mr. Stennett. I just want to go back to Councilor Layne's comment about we're adding the ability to storm in the side yard. Currently, you can't storm even the side yard. They need to be in the rear of the property. And so we're making improvements. We're not limiting to where, but if you want to storm in the front yard, you'd have to make that change. I'm not sure that would be exciting to a lot of council members, but I'm just saying we're making improvements to the ordinance and allowing the side yard, something that's already probably done in most neighborhoods. No, I did realize that, but I was just saying, you know, there are other circumstances sometimes like weather that are beyond your control that maybe going into your side yard would not even be possible. I'm just mentioning. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. That passes. Thank you very much for your hard work on this. The final issue on the agenda today is Ms. Henson put in is the review of the leaf collection program. Ms. Henson. Thank you, Chair. I actually put this in committee in January, shortly after the leaf collection program ended for the 09. I had several concerns that were brought up, and I know it's not a good time to be talking about leaf collection, but I think Tim Clark with our park maintenance is here and has a, do you have a PowerPoint presentation? But some of the issues that the reason I put this into committee were we felt that maybe it's a stormwater issue. The leaves are blowing into our storm sewers, stormwater system, and they're raked into the public right away if we don't get there in time. The resident's grass dies, and some people, you know, get very upset about that. Cars parked on the streets, and they actually can't get to the leaves to vacuum them. But I think most importantly is that it is, is this a program we want to continue with possible stormwater issues? So I guess we could ask Tim to come up. And while he's walking up, if Mr. Shonager gave us a memo looking at these issues, if you could just kind of highlight what you said in your memo. I was asked by Council Member Henson to look at vacuum leaf collection to see how many other communities offer this same kind of service. And I don't, I think I'm going to say something I don't think Tim will disagree. By and large, most of the solid waste entities around the country do not offer vacuum leaf collection. That's what I was saying. There's, as you mentioned, there's an EPA study that determined that, or found that in vacuum leaf collection, as people bring the leaves to the front of the street, that causes a stormwater problem or a water quality problem as well. That was basically the findings that I provided to Council Member Henson. And I think the costs that are associated with this, and I think you addressed this in here, but you had that in your memo also on the second page. The annual, it's about a $500,000 annual cost. I think Tim can go over that as well. It's an extreme cost per mile of road, though, as opposed to putting it into the lenny or some other way of picking up leaves. But I think that's something Tim can probably address better than I can. Welcome. Thank you. Well, thanks for the opportunity to present an update on the vacuum leaf collection program. And, yes, Council Member Henson, we talked about this back in January at the conclusion of the leaf collection program, and obviously there are certain things that have pushed us back until now. Anyway, I have a brief presentation I'll run through. We'll talk about a few of these things. I know that you guys have a packet with this information, so I'll just kind of briefly run through this. Parks and Recreation has been doing vacuum leaf collection since 2004 when property management was disbanded. We took over that function and responsibility and have been doing it for six years. All citizens in the urban service area who receive urban county government waste collection services are entitled to vacuum leaf collection. And I think sometimes some citizens think that they should receive it, but that's the criteria and that's who we service. Some of the reasons that we do the vacuum leaf collection, as you mentioned, keeping the leaves out of storm sewer, keeping them off the roadways, all important reasons there. These are other methods available to the citizens if they choose not to participate in the vacuum leaf program. A number of other opportunities. Many of these are managed by our urban county government's waste management division. This is an overview of how the vacuum leaf collection works. We gear up in October. We hire 30, 35 seasonal employees. We go through a training process. This past season we started November the 9th. We've got the area divided into five collection zones. And we start in each one of those zones and we rotate. And I've got a map here in a minute that will show those dates. And we hit each zone a minimum of two times per season. We do emphasize that citizens should rake their leaves to the curb and not in the streets. And that is not always followed. And I know that it creates some issues. But, you know, we strive to communicate to the citizens that that's, in fact, what they need to do. We have 11 units that collect the leaves. We have nine dump trucks. And there's a picture of one of the dump trucks that's been retrofitted with a leaf collection box and then the vacuum leaf unit, which has a large hose attached, which is on the opposite side of the picture. It sucks those leaves up and then deposits those in the box. We also have two rear loader garbage trucks that we retrofit. And once we get the leaves collected, take those to the Haley Pike landfill. And that's the 2009 zones and as indicated with ABCD&E and the start dates that we utilized this past year. Here's a history of the tons of leaves we've collected each year. And here is the budget. Paul, as you indicated, it's about $500,000, and that's how it's broken down. We communicate to the public a variety of ways. Government communications assists us tremendously in getting the word out. We use GTV3, Urban County Government website, LexCall, Herald Leader. Some of the challenges that we face, we have equipment breakdowns. As I said, we've got 11 units, and if we have a vacuum leaf machine that goes down, it kind of causes a disruption in service. Fleet Services works well with us during this season and works to get us back on the road as quickly as possible. The distance to the Haley Pike landfill, if we're collecting leaves in the south of Lexington, out to the interstate, out to Haley Pike. Weather, I know this past year in January we had snow the first, second week of January, and it kept us when there's snow or heavy rain, we're actually not out there collecting leaves. We've also seen a number of trees in what we would consider newer residential areas. Those trees are starting to produce leaves, and in the past there weren't that many leaves. I think residents were taking care of their own leaves and putting them in the lineas, and now we're starting to have to pick those leaves up. One of the problems I think that's been mentioned, we list the streets on the website, but not all residences on the street receive vacuum leaf collection, and that creates some confusion. Then when we take our trucks, particularly the dump trucks, out of service, it impacts our other parks operations. So those are some of the things that we face as a result of doing leaf collection. Some of the things that we've talked about away, you know, we're aware of these issues. We get complaints. We try to make our operations better constantly. But a couple of items here that I think need to focus on, we need to improve our communication to the public. One of the things that we've talked about is a way to clearly define on the website those residences that do and do not receive this service. We need to provide a clear expectation of when leaves will be collected in each zone. So on the first point, we list a street. If we do any leaf collection on that street, we list that on the website so a citizen will type in and see their street and think they get leaf collection, even if they are not part of the urban service fund or don't pay into that. So we have worked with GIS to create a way to define a range of addresses on that particular street. And we think by doing that, someone can type in their particular street number and be able to determine exactly if they will or will not get vacuum leaf collection service. The other thing there, provide a clear expectation of when leaves will be collected. This is something we constantly struggle with. We will provide a start date in each of those zones. But what that doesn't indicate is when we will be finished in those zones. And so the majority of our complaints this year were the result of people thinking that their leaves, that we had forgotten them, that we had already come and gone and hadn't collected their leaves. So we've got to look at that and do a better job of defining when we will get the leaves collected in that zone. Improve operations to increase efficiencies. We need to find a closer dump site, if you will, instead of the Haley Pike being the only one and we work with waste management on that to take the leaves out there and dump them. We need a closer site. So that's something that we are constantly looking for. It's not going to be an easy solution, but that would help us. You know, an average round trip takes about an hour to go to Haley Pike and then back to the work site. And then we think by using more rear loader trucks, that would help because a rear loader can hold obviously more than a dump truck can. And so that would mean fewer trips to the landfill. So what questions do you have? Mr. Martin. Thank you. Help me understand the landfill part of this. So we're taking the leaves out and what happens to them out there? We take them, we dump them, and waste management runs a mulching operation. Actually, I believe they contract and the leaves are mulched and then they're available for use in nurseries and different things. So once we dump the leaves, it's turned over to Division of Waste Management for management of those leaves. Well, that was my understanding of it, but watching your presentation, I had sort of a quick panic that we were just dumping them out there. So we're not really dumping them. We're storing them out there until they're used in connection with the mulch operation, and that goes back in people's yards and things like that. Right. Fabulous. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Henson. Thank you, Chair. If, Tim, if we were to decide to do away with the leaf collection program, could the equipment that's currently used be used in other areas of government or would it have to be sold or? The dump trucks actually are currently used in parks operations on a daily basis. So when leaf collection rolls around, we have to take those dump trucks and get those retrofitted, and that's in October. So if they weren't being used in leaf collection, we would continue to use them to do other parks operations. Okay. Also with the rear loaders. We have two rear loaders that we use on a variety of special projects when we do honeysuckle cutbacks, for example. So we use those year-round as well. On the vacuum leaf units, those obviously, you know, we would have no use for those if we didn't do the leaf collection operations. Okay. I also had the question that Council Member Martin was talking about. Currently what's taken out in Leonese in the leaf collection is mulched, correct? Well, what is taken out by our operations to the landfill is mulched. Okay. And I'm not sure about the waste management. Have you all looked into finding a closer property? We have made some preliminary inquiries, but we really don't have anything definitive at this time. And this is paid for by the stormwater fee, correct? No. The leaf collection? No. Okay. It's my understanding that the stormwater fee paid for the leaf collection. Council Member, it's a solid waste fund. Okay. They reimburse parks, or I don't know if it's directly reimburses parks or parks charges. So it's a solid waste fund. Solid waste fund. Okay. We actually charge directly to that fund. We have a separate budget specifically for leaf collection, and we charge, for example, all employees we hire are charged directly to that budget. Okay. I guess what I would like to do is if this program is going to continue, I would like to work on, before the next leaf fall happens or occurs, work on some of the issues that we had this past fall to correct, or, you know, nothing is going to be flawless, we know that, but to work to correct it as much as possible. And I know it gets real confusing because some of the streets in my district, part of the street is not urban service, part, you know, it's like it's broken up. Right. It will be the same street and there's a section in the center or something like that. It's very confusing. Well, we'd be happy as we gear up in this coming fall to contact you and work with you and, you know, get specific with what your issues are and see what we can do to incorporate those ideas. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Stinnett. Thank you, Chair. And to Council Member Henson's point, we did talk about including this into the stormwater fee during the stormwater task force work. So it could be a real possibility, obviously, to take a motion out of this committee. But, you know, the concern I have is, you know, we're getting the whole city over what, I want to say 60 days, 60, 90 days it's taken us to get the whole city. And I think the only way we're ever going to be effective on doing this is to do it over a two-week, two to two weeks, maybe four-week period and blast the whole city. That would mean more trucks, more people contracted out to really do it justified in terms of the job we're trying to do because some of us who live out in the suburbs because by the time we're getting there, our leaves are gone. We've already done it ourselves. And to pay for a portion of the city, I'd say one-tenth to get leaves picked up, and the rest of us don't, it's a hard pill to swallow as a taxpayer and as a council member because we're spending half a million dollars a year for a service not everyone's going to get or even will have an opportunity to get, so to speak. So, you know, I would be a big proponent. You know, we're also looking at the street cleaning fee. This kind of goes in with, to me, with street cleaning in terms of leaves being in the street, clogging up our storm drain. There has to be some type of program we can incorporate the two into and place it under the stormwater management fee so that we are collecting and cleaning up our streets, cleaning up our stormwater, and everyone should get the service if we're going to provide it, not just a small piece of our city. So, you know, I know I'm not part of the committee. I can't make a motion, but this is one councilman I'd like to see his program go away or expand it and the whole city get it at once if we're going to continue to look at leaf pickup. But I think it also could be incorporated into street cleaning as well as to one major program. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Ms. Feigl. My recollection is when we discussed it in the stormwater management, as a part of the stormwater management model, that we actually didn't include it. Council members did it? Okay. We did not include that in the model. No, we did not. We established the fee. And so the next opportunity probably for us to take a look at that would be at that five-year review. Was it three years? I would say, though, looking at the first annual budget after the first year of collections under the stormwater fee, to see the amount we really collected to see if we're meeting the model we projected. Because we could have collections higher than what we anticipated. And vice versa, it could be lower. But I think working with the Department of Environmental Quality, you could change the scope of the program at any time. Again, you need to see at least a year or two years' worth of financial data. So it would be quite some time before we could add it. Right. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. But I do think it's a real important part of the stormwater management process. And certainly our storm sewers. So I'm not sure that we, in my opinion, I'm not sure we could ever really eliminate it. So thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Clark? Is there any motions at this time? I know Mr. Stennis is not part of the committee. Seeing no motions, we'll keep this in committee then. And the final item on the agenda is issues in the committee. Is there anybody who would like to have any of these removed? I believe the yard side regulations that Ms. Henson had, that has, we took that out. So we'll pull that one off. Is there anything else? Mr. Beard. Yes, sir. At the bottom, the multi-way stop at Glendover and Valley Road. Yes. The citizens who were going to handle the petition part of it, I guess either couldn't get enough signatures or they didn't actually ask. We've never seen anything more back from them at all concerning that. So would you like to have this removed? Go ahead and take that off. We have a motion to remove that one. Do we have a second? We have a motion to remove. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, we'll move that one. The issue with horse cruelty, I know that the governor proposed just recently, and I think it was passed into state statute there, dealing with this issue. Is this something that we want to continue to keep in here? Well, I'm not aware of that. If, in fact, we're preempted by the state anyway, then it should come out. I think let's have Mr. Schoeniger see what happened there and maybe that might help us in answering this question here. The only thing I thought they did was work on the budget. And work on the budget. And work on the budget. Well, I believe he just recently did something with horse cruelty. We're the first state that actually has new provisions that just were passed. As long as we get there, I don't care. I understand. Any other items in here? Ms. Henson. Chair, after today, well, mobile food vendors that I put in committee in March, I believe that with the health department and building inspection working together, they've made some really good policy changes that I would like to make a motion to remove that from the list. We have a motion. Second. And a second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? We'll remove that one. Any others? Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I placed into the committee the mayor's commission on the mortgage lending practices, but I think we can probably pull that out. I think that meeting was canceled when we were going to look at that issue. But I think that I'm comfortable taking it out. Okay. We have a motion. Second. And a second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? We'll take that one out. Thank you. Any others? Ms. Crosby. I was just going to say that the private solid waste providers, the task force is meeting and we decided that we would hold off until after the budget to have our next meeting. So we probably will be ready to report out this fall. So maybe that's something that we could get on for September or October service meeting to get that out of the way. Thank you. Thank you. Any others? I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.