# Urban County Council Meeting - August 26, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · August 26, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1485 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1485?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-08-26 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: June 18, 2026 - **Length**: 22,362 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 Government Council convened on August 26, 2010, at 7:00 P.M. in Lexington, Kentucky, with Vice-Mayor Gray presiding over the session. The meeting addressed a total of five agenda items, all of which were approved, covering a range of municipal matters including zoning changes, a contract addendum, a code amendment, and a budget amendment. Over the course of the meeting, five votes were taken and one public comment was heard. No presentations were recorded as part of the session's structured data. ## Attendance All 15 council members were present at the August 26, 2010 meeting. No members were absent or late. **Present:** Gray, Henson, James, Lane, Lawless, Martin, McChord, Myers, Stinnett, Beard, Blues, Crosbie, Ellinger, Feigel, and Gorton. ## Votes and Decisions Five votes were taken during the August 26, 2010 Council meeting. - **Remove ad valorem tax ordinances from docket** [timestamp: 0:06]: Moved by Lane, seconded by Gorton, the Council voted unanimously (15–0) to remove items 3, 4, 5, and 6 under second reading ordinances — all relating to ad valorem property taxes — and place them on the docket for second reading at a special meeting on August 31, 2010. All 15 members voted in favor: Gray, Henson, James, Lane, Lawless, Martin, McChord, Myers, Stinnett, Beard, Blues, Crosbie, Ellinger, Feigel, and Gorton. - **Schedule special meeting on August 31, 2010** [timestamp: 0:06]: Also moved by Lane and seconded by Gorton, the Council voted unanimously (15–0) to schedule a special meeting of the Urban County Council at 3:00 p.m. on August 31, 2010, for the purpose of giving second reading to the four ad valorem property tax ordinances. The same 15 members voted in favor. - **Approve second reading ordinances** [timestamp: 0:15]: Moved by Blues, seconded by Myers, the Council approved by roll call vote (15–0) the ordinances given second reading. All 15 members — Gray, Henson, James, Lane, Lawless, Martin, McChord, Myers, Stinnett, Beard, Blues, Crosbie, Ellinger, Feigel, and Gorton — voted in favor. - **Remove item 13 from docket and rebid the project** [timestamp: 1:31]: Moved by Beard, seconded by Ellinger, the Council voted 11–3 by roll call to remove item 13 from the docket and rebid the project. Voting in favor were Gray, Henson, Lane, Lawless, Martin, Myers, Stinnett, Beard, Blues, Ellinger, and Gorton. Voting against were James, Lawless, and Blues. One member abstained. - **Table resolution regarding Mr. Sellers** [timestamp: 2:43]: Moved by Ellinger, seconded by Feigel, the Council voted 14–0 by roll call to table the resolution regarding Mr. Sellers until Tuesday's work session. Voting in favor were Gray, Henson, James, Lane, Lawless, Martin, McChord, Myers, Stinnett, Beard, Blues, Crosbie, Ellinger, Feigel, and Gorton. One member abstained and no members voted against. ## Budget and Financial Actions The Council approved several financial actions at the August 26, 2010 meeting, covering a range of municipal services and infrastructure projects. - **Resolution 005** authorized the purchase of a replacement siren for the Division of Emergency Management/911 from Federal Signal Corporation at a cost of **$22,467**. - **Resolution 010** approved a contract with Schroeder Construction, Inc. for the **Beverly Ave. Sanitary Sewer Project** in the amount of **$672,135**, representing the largest single expenditure on the agenda. - **Resolution 019** approved an amendment to an existing agreement with Architectural Graphics, Inc. for the **LFUCG Wayfinding Program**, valued at **$5,227.79**. - **Resolution 023** authorized a consulting services contract with Metaformers, Inc. in the amount of **$105,709.60** to support open enrollment administration for employee benefits. - **Resolution 033** approved an amendment to a contract with Bluegrass Contracting Corp. for the **Vaughn's Branch Flood Hazard Mitigation Project** in the amount of **$26,657.50**. In total, the financial actions approved at this meeting amounted to approximately **$832,197.89** across purchases, new contracts, and contract amendments. ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the Council during the public comment period of the August 26, 2010 meeting. - **Keith Horn** spoke in support of Bruce Solly, offering remarks about Solly's integrity and character. Horn indicated that Solly had been subjected to criticism he considered unfair, and used his public comment time to defend Solly's reputation. [timestamp: 2:44:30] No other public comments were recorded for this meeting. ## Appointments The Council approved the following appointments at the August 26, 2010 meeting: - **Thomas H. Glover** was appointed to the **Board of Adjustment**. - **Chanté A. Perryman** was appointed to the **Explorium Board**. - **Daryl W. Smith** was appointed to the **Housing Authority Board**. - **Natalie Barrett** was appointed to the **Human Rights Commission**. - **Carla Blanton** was appointed to the **Planning Commission**. A total of five individuals were appointed across five separate boards and commissions. The appointments span a range of municipal bodies, including land use oversight (Board of Adjustment and Planning Commission), housing policy (Housing Authority Board), civil rights enforcement (Human Rights Commission), and community programming (Explorium Board). ## Contested Items Two items generated significant debate during the August 26, 2010 Council meeting. **Rebidding of the Distillery District Project** [timestamp: not available] The Council was divided over whether to rebid the Distillery District Project. Discussion centered on concerns about the procurement process and the associated costs of rebidding. The motion to rebid ultimately passed, though the vote was split among Council members, reflecting the lack of consensus on how to proceed with the project. **Contract with Terry Sellers** [timestamp: not available] A heated discussion arose over a contract involving Terry Sellers. Council members raised questions about Sellers' authority and the scope of his representation under the contract. The debate was substantive enough that the Council did not reach a resolution during the meeting, and the matter was tabled for further discussion at a later date. ## Ordinance changing the zone from B-5P to B-1 [timestamp: 15:12] The Council took up an ordinance to rezone a property located at **1875 Pleasant Ridge Dr.** from an **Interchange Service Business (B-5P)** zone to a **Neighborhood Business (B-1)** zone. Key speakers on this item were **Blues** and **Myers**. The ordinance was ultimately **approved** by the Council. *Note: The available record does not include detailed discussion, debate, or specific concerns raised during this agenda item beyond the rezoning action itself.* ## Ordinance Changing the Zone from I-1 to B-3 [timestamp: 15:12] The Council took up an ordinance to rezone a property located at **635 E. New Circle Rd.** from a **Light Industrial (I-1)** zone to a **Highway Service Business (B-3)** zone. Key speakers on this item were **Blues** and **Myers**. The structured record does not detail the specific arguments or concerns raised during deliberation, but the item was brought forward as a formal ordinance for Council consideration. - **Property address:** 635 E. New Circle Rd. - **Rezoning request:** I-1 (Light Industrial) → B-3 (Highway Service Business) - **Outcome:** The ordinance was **approved**. ## Contract Addendum with Lexington-Fayette County Health Dept. [timestamp: 15:12] The Council considered an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute a Contract Addendum with the Lexington-Fayette County Health Department to accept additional funding for the Home Network Project. Key speakers on this item were Blues and Myers. The ordinance was presented as a straightforward measure to formalize the acceptance of additional funding through an addendum to an existing contract with the Lexington-Fayette County Health Department, directing those funds toward the Home Network Project. The Council approved the ordinance. ## Amendment to the Code of Ordinances [timestamp: 15:12] The Council took up Agenda Item 13, an ordinance to amend Section 23-5(b) of the Code of Ordinances. The proposed change would abolish one position of Police Captain and create in its place one position of Police Lieutenant. Key speakers on this item were Blues and Myers. The ordinance was approved by the Council. - **Ordinance purpose:** Amend Section 23-5(b) of the Code of Ordinances - **Specific change:** Abolish one Police Captain position; create one Police Lieutenant position - **Key speakers:** Blues, Myers - **Outcome:** Approved ## Amendment to Budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government [timestamp: 15:12] The Council took up Agenda Item 14, an ordinance amending certain budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures. - **Key speakers:** Blues and Myers participated in the discussion of this item. - **Outcome:** The ordinance was approved by the Council. No additional details regarding specific budget figures, departmental allocations, or points of debate were recorded in the available meeting data for this item. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (15-0): Remove items 3, 4, 5, 6 under second reading ordinances relating to ad valorem property taxes and place them on the docket for second reading at a special meeting on August 31, 2010. - **Motion** — passed (15-0): Schedule a special meeting of the Urban County Council at 3:00 p.m. on August 31, 2010, to give second reading to the four ordinances pertaining to the assessment of ad valorem property taxes. - **Motion** — passed (15-0): Approve ordinances given second reading. - **Motion** — passed (11-3): Remove item 13 from the docket and rebid the project. - **Motion** — passed (14-0): Table the resolution regarding Mr. Sellers until Tuesday's work session. --- ## Full transcript Mr. Green, Mr. Green informed me that the mayor is running late and maybe 15 minutes or so. So we'll go ahead with the meeting to order. And we are, just a minute, okay, all right, okay. Madam Clerk, would you call the roll, please, and then we'll ask Rabbi Klein to come forward for the invocation. Mr. Gray. Here. Ms. Henson. Here. Ms. James. Mr. Lane. Here. Ms. Lawless. Here. Mr. Martin. Here. Mr. McCord. Here. Mr. Myers. Here. Mr. Stennett. I am. Mr. Beard. Present. Mr. Blues. Here. Ms. Crosby. Mr. Ellinger. Here. Ms. Feigl. Here. And Ms. Gorton. Here. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. We are fortunate to have Rabbi Mark Klein again with us tonight with a message and invocation. Thank you, Rabbi Klein. Thank you. As we prepare to give thanks and to ask for guidance, I want to share a story, my tradition's concept of Messiah. There's a story of a man who asked the rabbi when the Messiah would come, and the rabbi responded that the Messiah was already here and could be found amongst the poor. The man left and went amongst the poor, asking if any had seen the Messiah, and the people scoffed at him. And he returned to the rabbi and said, there was no Messiah there. The rabbi told him to go back and look harder, and the people's scorn was greater as he grew more indignant at his failure to see the Messiah. He returned to the rabbi, who was deeply saddened at the man's news. The rabbi said, the Messiah was there. You were it. But you were so focused on your own journey that you failed to see what was happening and you chose not to help. The Messiah will come some other day, the rabbi said. My tradition teaches that where we show up, where we pay attention, and where we make a difference, that this is going to be the healing of the world. And I don't mean to be blasphemous to anybody else or any other tradition, but there's a book that's really kind of quirky that's called There is No Messiah and You're It. And in truth, whatever faith tradition one subscribes, even those who subscribe to no defined faith tradition, there's a truth that cannot go unheeded. Where we focus more on ourselves than on the needs of the world around us, we destine our community for failure. When we stand up to be counted, to be heard, and to defend the rights of those in need, we save it. My tradition teaches that if you ignore one life, it's as if you've destroyed the world. But where you save one life, you've saved it. I invoke all that is divine and holy and ask for strength, each member of this council, the citizens who come before it, all who seek to make this city a place in which to be proud to live, to work, and to serve. We are thankful and should be thankful for the blessings that you, our leaders, offer and for the love and the time that you share. And I hope that we here and we who are watching in the TV screens and who will see this later can affirm our commitment to each other and our many respective faith journeys and say amen and hope that your love and your strength continue strong as we say amen. Thank you so much, Rabbi Klein. Before we begin the second reading of ordinances, I'm told that Councilmember Lane has a motion. Councilmember Lane. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I move to remove from the docket items number three, four, five, six under second reading ordinance relating to the assessment of ad valorem property taxes and to place them on the docket for second reading at the special meeting of the Urban County Council at 3 p.m. on August 31st, 2010. Second. There's a motion and a second. Is there discussion related to the motion? Councilmember Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Could you just read your motion again, please? Okay. I move to remove from the docket items number three, four, five, and six under second reading ordinances relating to the assessment of ad valorem property taxes and to place them on the docket for second reading at the special meeting of the Urban County Council at 3 p.m. on August 31st, 2010. Is this at the request of the administration and the finance department? Okay. The reason for this is prior to voting on these ordinances, we're supposed to have a special meeting of the Urban County Council. And after you've approved taking them off of this docket, I'm going to make a motion that we have a special meeting at 3 p.m. next Tuesday. Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Councilmember James. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Is the special meeting, does it have to do with the public hearing? Is that what the dynamics of that is? Yes, ma'am, that's correct. And it's required under the state ordinance. Okay. Past this resolution. Thanks. Anyone else? All right. Ready for a vote, then? All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Okay. I move to schedule a special meeting of the Urban County Council at 3 p.m. on August 31st, 2010 to give a second reading of the four ordinances pertaining to the assessment of ad valorem taxes. Motion and a second. Floor is available for discussion. Councilmember James. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Should that not be titled public hearing versus special meeting? That was prepared by our legal department, and they assure me that is correct. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions or any other discussion? All right. If not, all in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Madam Clerk? Could I ask for just like two seconds to reset the computer? The overhead system is not working, and I just now noticed that. Could I just have like two minutes to fix that real quick, please? Oh, I don't think you're asking for too much. We can go along with that. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Unfortunately, the computer is dead, I think, so I apologize that the public is not going to be able to see that, and so I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Susan. What you're saying is that we're The computer that runs this system on the overhead, it won't turn on, and so we can proceed and everything will be fine. Okay. So just for the public's awareness, those viewing on GTV3, the ordinances that are typically able to be viewed as text are not available because of a temporary technical issue. So, Madam Clerk, you will please proceed with the reading of the ordinances for a second reading. Ordinance number one, an ordinance changing the zone from an business B5P zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for 1.50 net, 1.85 gross acres for a property located at 1875 Pleasant Ridge Drive, Brighton Animal Clinic, LLC. Number two, an ordinance changing the zone from a light industrial I1 zone to a highway service business B3 zone for 0.3565 net, 0.4943 gross acre for a property located at 635 East New Circle Road, subject to certain use restrictions as conditions of granting the zone change, Virginia Bates. Number three, four, five, and six were removed. Number seven, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a contract addendum for FY2010 with the Lexington-Fayette County Health Department, accepting additional funding in the amount of $50,000 for the Home Network at the Family Care Center and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number eight. An ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, which grant funds are in the amount of $100,000 federal funds for the continuation of the Street Sales Drug Enforcement Project, the acceptance of which obligates the Urban County Government for the expenditure of $33,333 as a local match, appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 29, authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget and authorizing the mayor to execute an agreement with the Fayette County Commonwealth Attorney's Office for a fast-track prosecutor at a cost not to exceed $52,703. Number nine, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, which grant funds are in the amount of $25,000 federal funds for the Ticketing, Aggressive Cars and Trucks Program, the acceptance of which obligates the Urban County Government for the expenditure of $6,250 as a local match, appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 30 and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 10, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the Kentucky Heritage Council to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application and to accept this grant if the application is approved, which grant funds are in the amount of $12,000 federal funds are for the Division of Historic Preservation's Survey and Planning Project, the acceptance of which obligates the Urban County Government for the expenditure of $8,000 as a local match, appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 31 and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 11, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the Kentucky State Police to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application and to accept this grant if the application is approved, which grant funds are in the amount of $75,000 federal funds are for continuation of the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program in the Division of Police, the acceptance of which obligates the Urban County Government for the expenditure of $18,750 as a local match, appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 32 and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 12, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a home agreement with Fayette County Local Development Corporation for use of home funds for development of the rental housing project at the Russell School property at a cost not to exceed $300,000 and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 33. Number 13, an ordinance amending Section 23-5B of the Code of Ordinances abolishing one position of police captain and creating one position of police lieutenant in the Division of Police and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 34. Number 14, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures and appropriating and reappropriating funds schedule number 35. Number 15, an ordinance closing a right-of-way reserve for extension of Spring Grove Avenue determining that all property owners abutting the portion of the right-of-way to be closed have been identified, provided with written notice of the proposed closing and consented thereto in writing and authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a quick claim deed transferring the former right-of-way to the abutting owner subject to the reservation of easements for access and maintenance of existing utilities in the former right-of-way. Number 16, an ordinance closing a portion of a service road located between Richmond Road and the property located at 3292 Richmond Road determining all the property owners abutting the portion of the service road to be closed have been identified, provided with written notice of the proposed closing and consented thereto in writing and authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a quick claim deed transferring the former right-of-way to the abutting owner subject to the reservation of easements for access and maintenance of existing utilities in the former right-of-way. And number 17, an ordinance relating to stormwater discharges for construction sites creating subsection 16-1F48 through 16-1F66 of the Code of Ordinances defining terms creating subarticle E of article 10 of chapter 16 of the Code of Ordinances sections 16-99 through 16-105 and sections 16-107 and 16-108. To ensure adequate control of stormwater where construction sites are located, amending section 16-207 of the Code of Ordinances relating to inspections, amending section 14-60 of the Code of Ordinances related to transportation and relocation of dirt and debris by renumbering it as section 16-106 and providing the ordinance will not become effective until after article 20 of the zoning ordinance is repealed or amended. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Is there a motion to approve those ordinances that have received their second reading? Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll proceed to vote. Madam Clerk, if you will call the roll, please. I'm sorry. Who made the motions, please, and seconded it? Council Member Blues made the motion and we'll let Council Member Myers second it. We'll catch you later, Mr. Council Member Stennett. Mr. Gray? Yes. Ms. Henson? Yes. Ms. James? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Mr. Martin? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Yes. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Blues? Yes. Ms. Crosby? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Ms. Feigl? Yes. The ordinance is entitled to first reading. Madam Clerk. Ordinance number 18, an ordinance closing the service road, Hiltonia Park frontage road at Nicholasville Road and Hiltonia Park, determining that all property owners abutting the service road to be closed have been identified, provided with written notice of the proposed closing and consented thereto in writing, and authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a quit claim deed transferring the former right-of-way to the abutting owners subject to the reservation of easements for access and maintenance of the existing utilities in the former right-of-way. And number 19, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures and appropriating and pre-appropriating funds, schedule number 37. Thank you. Council Member Cord. Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on tonight's docket an ordinance authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a memorandum of agreement with Blue Grass Community Foundation for construction of the Flight 5191 Memorial at the Arboretum at a cost not to exceed $25,000 and appropriating and re-appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 0040. Second. Thank you. I have a motion by Council Member Gorton and a second by Council Member Feigl. Is there any discussion? Council Member Wallace. Okay, it's Council Member Wallace instead of Council Member Feigl seconded the motion. Any discussion? Council Member James. I just, I'm sorry, I probably should be aware of this, but from where is the $25,000 coming? It's an assortment of funding sources. I'll ask Mr. Barrow if he would come forward. If we have it by email, I'll be, I just haven't read my emails today. So if we have it by email, I won't take up the Council's time. It won't take long, and I don't recall whether or not there was an email. Basically, it's coming out of $3,000 out of a food service account, four different professional service accounts, and $15,000 is coming out of fund balance. Do you know the professional services, what divisions those are? It may be best if I just hand you the sheet here. Do you know which divisions of government, 13, 30, 04, or 22, 01, 01? Do you know what those are? Member James, $5,000 is coming out of the mayor's office, $2,500 is coming out of the senior advisor to the mayor, and $2,500 is coming out of the economic development division, and then the balance is fund balance. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Any discussion on the motion to put that item on the docket? Seeing none, let's proceed to vote. All in favor of adding that item to the docket, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Madam Clerk, would you give the first reading? Ordinance number 20, an ordinance authorizing the mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute a memorandum of agreement with Blue Grass Community Foundation for construction of the Flight 5191 Memorial at the Arboretum at a cost not to exceed $25,000 in appropriating and reappropriating funds pursuant to Schedule number 40. Are there any motions? All right. Let's move forward. Madam Clerk, if you'll give second reading to the resolutions entitled to second reading. Resolution number one, a resolution accepting the bid of Blackhawk Enterprises, Incorporated, establishing a price contract for video equipment for the Division of Traffic Engineering. Number two, a resolution accepting the bid of Nugent Sand Company, establishing a price contract for sand for golf courses for the Division of Parks and Recreation. Number three, a resolution accepting the bid of Southern Rebinding, Incorporated, establishing a price contract for record-keeping supplies for the county clerk's office. Number four, a resolution accepting the bid of Aramco, Incorporated, establishing a price contract for decontamination adult and pediatric patient kits for the Division of Emergency Management 9-1-1. Number five, a resolution accepting the bid of Federal Signal Corporation in the amount of $22,467 for replacement siren for the Division of Emergency Management 9-1-1. Number six, a resolution accepting the bids of Traffic Control Products, Incorporated, Pathmaster, Incorporated, Southeastern Safety Systems, Incorporated, Quality Traffic Systems, Traffic Parts, Incorporated, and Baldwin & Sowers, Incorporated, establishing price contracts for traffic signal and control equipment for the Division of Traffic Engineering. Number seven, a resolution accepting the bids of Central Equipment Company, Montgomery Tractor Sales, and Bobcat Enterprises, Incorporated, establishing price contracts for tractor and mower parts for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number eight, a resolution accepting the bids of Graybar Electric, Wesco Distribution, Incorporated, Consolidated Electrical Distribution, Kentucky Lighting and Supply, Incorporated, Malone Industrial Products, and Rexall, Incorporated, establishing price contracts for electrical items for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number nine, a resolution accepting the bid of Grogan's Healthcare, establishing a price contract for alternate care equipment and supplies for the Division of Emergency Management 9-1-1. Number ten, a resolution accepting the bid of Schroeder Construction, Incorporated, on the amount of $672,135 for the Beverly Avenue Sanitary Sewer Project for the Division of Engineering, Department of Public Works and Development, and authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Schroeder Construction, Incorporated, relating to the bid. Number eleven, a resolution accepting the bid of Gateway Press, Incorporated, establishing a price contract for Waste Management Guide for the Division of Waste Management. Number twelve, a resolution ratifying the Probationary Civil Service Appointments of Rosemary Wilkins, Budget Analyst Senior, Grade 118E, 2002-40, 48 biweekly in the Division of Budgeting, effective August 2, 2010. Ethan Simpson, Electronic Computers Control Specialist, Grade 113N, 16.189 hourly in the Division of Water Quality, effective August 16, 2010. John Carey, Telecommunicator Supervisor, Grade 116E, 1,681, 44 biweekly in the Division of Emergency Management, 911, effective August 30, 2010. John McElroy, Treatment Plant Operator Apprentice, Grade 107N, 13.898 hourly in the Division of Water Quality, effective August 23, 2010. Brian Hayes, Municipal Engineer Senior, Grade 119E, 2005-42, 56 biweekly in the Division of Water Quality, effective August 23, 2010. Kendra Wash, Family Support Worker Senior, Grade 112N, 16.884 hourly in the Division of Family Services, effective August 23, 2010. Joseph Bell, Systems Administrator, Enterprise Solutions, Grade 118E, 2004-49, 15 biweekly in the Division of Enterprise Solutions, effective August 16, 2010. Jason Eason, Telecommunicator, Grade 111N, 14.579 hourly in the Division of Emergency Management, 911, effective August 30, 2010. Kevin Owens, Telecommunicator, Grade 111N, 16.977 hourly in the Division of Emergency Management, 911, effective August 30, 2010. Ratifying the Permanent Civil Service Appointments of Charles Cottle, Director of Enterprise Solutions, Grade 123 in the Division of Enterprise Solutions, effective June 7, 2010. Christopher Shelby, Traffic Signal Technician Senior, Grade 112N, in the Division of Traffic Engineering, effective May 9, 2010. Chris Quan, Traffic Signal Technician Senior, Grade 112N in the Division of Traffic Engineering, effective May 9, 2010. Casey Kausher, Associate Traffic Engineer, Grade 115E, in the Division of Traffic Engineering, effective June 28, 2010. Richard Fowler, Traffic Signal Technician Senior, Grade 112N in the Division of Traffic Engineering, effective May 9, 2010. Casey Lambert, Keith Thomas, Fred Couch, Jack James Stengel, and Ron Rekus, Henry Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N in the Division of Waste Management, effective August 1, 2010. Anthony Morton, Christopher Fulls, Timothy Burnett, and Jonathan Covey, Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N in the Division of Waste Management, effective August 15, 2010. Ratifying the Probationary Sworn Appointments of Mark Hart, Fire Lieutenant, Grade 315N, 17.786 hourly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective July 26, 2010. William M. McCord, Fire Captain, Grade 316N, 23.039 hourly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective July 26, 2010. Approving the Council Leave of Michael Allen, Director of Human Resources, Grade 123E, in the Division of Human Resources, request 90 days Council-approved leave without pay from July 28, 2010 through October 28, 2010. Michael Rowland, Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N in the Division of Waste Management, request 90 days Council-approved leave without pay from June 12, 2010 through September 12, 2010. Approving the Unclassified Civil Service Appointment to the Office of the Urban County Council of Allison Hallett, Aid to Council, Grade 000E-1009-4232 biweekly in the Urban County Council Office, effective June 28, 2010. Excuse me, Madam Clerk. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. I would move that we remove Item 13 from the docket and further move that we ask Purchasing to re-bid both the feasibility study phase and the design phase of this. And I think initially it was bundled together and, you know, it's at your pleasure whether we want to unbundle it and make it two different issues or not. But anyway, I would like to, at the will of the Council, see how everybody feels about doing this. We have a motion by Council Member Beard and a second by Council Member Ellinger to remove Item 13 from the docket and re-bid the contract. Any discussion? Council Member Wallace. I'd like to allow Council Member Blues to go first since it's his district and then I'll speak after him. Thank you. I think I'd like to hear a, you know, a rationale for, you know, for starting the process all over. I think I don't need to rehearse. I think you're all familiar with my position on this, that the process was sound and followed the rules, that the, you know, that the best proposal came out on top and was selected by a very deliberate, painstaking and careful process, that the contract as written up did the right thing and that is to call for a complete and thorough feasibility study. That will sort of set the road map for this entire public infrastructure project, which is, I think we have to remember, a public infrastructure project paid for with public money and which requires that taxpayer money be well spent and that the study be complete, be detailed, be reliable. Finally, it's extremely important that we have a feasibility study on the basis of which we can work for and apply for for grant support, because the distillery district project is going to cost a good deal of money. It's going to involve a substantial investment and we want to be on solid ground going forward. Now, there's been a lot of objection to the price of the feasibility study, which is a top dollar. I'm not arguing that it will be less than $500,000 and $8,000, but it will not be higher. The contract does require that the consultant review all of the pertinent documents and all of the reports that have been made already and if those do not have to be repeated, would not be repeated, and it might bring the final price down. Finally, I think, although I don't, I'm not predicting that or suggesting that it will, just that it could. Finally, it's important, I think, that we stand behind the integrity of our process and that we begin to move the distillery district project forward in a timely and steadfast manner. It doesn't seem to me that starting all over again bodes well for the distillery district project and for the credibility of our processes. Thank you, Council Member Lawless, for letting me have my say on this first. Council Member Lawless. Thank you. As I said before, the distillery district is a project I very enthusiastically support the adaptive reuse and have supported and known about for a long time before I was even on the council, and I don't want to do anything to delay it. My concern is what I expressed, and if Mr. Markham is here, because the federal guidelines, some of which have changed to mandates and we are in a real bind on Maxwell Street due to that, not due to the city's fault or state's fault, but they started the project, started tearing up the sidewalks, thought they had a solid bid process and were following the guidelines, which are now mandates. And so hopefully that will be resolved for those watching by the end of the week or early next week. So I don't want us to get into that position. And I also have concerns about unbundling, if you will, the service without. So I just want to make sure that it isn't slowing down the project. We can get federal highway grant funds and that all those mandates are. Is Mr. Markham here? Yes. So I asked that last week if we or whenever that was, if you could speak to that and if you've researched it. Well, just so you know, I think that Maxwell Street issues have been resolved and that should be moved forward. Yeah, I got an email late today saying it was on its way. I'm going to make contact with the Office of Local Projects here in Lexington. Mr. Wilson left a message and called me back. But if you go to the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet website, there's a list of frequently asked questions there, and it talks about process. And I've shared this with some other council members, but must the procurement of services and construction advertisement comply with KYTC or states, or would locals be allowed to develop their own process? If so, how would local procurement rules apply? And here's the response in the frequently asked questions and answers. The local government may develop or use its own process as long as the process meets all of the procurement requirements of the KYTC, which would be the guidance manual, as spelled out in the Interim LPA Guide and KYTC manuals. In other words, it must comply with the KYTC or the Model Procurement Code at a minimum. And we feel strongly that we've complied with the Model Procurement Code and the statutes. Some of the concerns have been brought forth in previous communications referencing this. These things are referenced in the guidance manual. David Barbary spoke to that already. But as far as complying with the requirements of the Model Procurement Code and also the Brooks Act, we feel like we are in compliance with that. But it's whatever the Council's leisure would be at this point, how they want us to do it going forward. I've worked with Mr. Wilson, who is commissioner of local and government, something, something, in the state, and he's very helpful and the staff there has been very helpful. But I also am very aware that the federal guidelines, the stuff on that Web site, may have recently changed after they did an audit of the state. And so I would be more comfortable supporting this if we can get a confirmation from Mr. Wilson that we're not going to get in the middle of this and have a cease work order. And I know that Mr. Wilson and the staff there have worked very, very hard. They're understaffed and overwhelmed, and now there's this whole layer and a million projects going on. But there's a large project in Louisville that's been held up for the same reasons. So for that reason, I would like to see us get that confirmation on that. I don't want to do anything to slow down the distillery district. I think it's a fabulous project and a great thing for our community. So my fear is by passing this, we will slow it down even more if we don't know which are guidelines and which are. Well, just a point of reference, the initial study and the initial funding is local dollars. So it's not going to impact that portion. But down the road, yes, if it comes into question, then it would impact potential future dollars. So would we re-bid the other portion other than the study? If we re-bid it, we can do it. Anybody wants to, I think it would be RFPing is what we would be doing. So, you know, we can do a feasibility study independently. Obviously, then you do the feasibility study, and then you have to do an RFP for the actual design services. Then your timing is lengthened out from that process. So, yeah, we can do it whichever way you want. We feel like, you know, what we've done here is compliant. But if it's another way that you want us to do it, then we just need to really sort of be directed on how you'd like for us to do it. Do you understand my concerns? I understand. Okay, thank you. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Mayor. First, I'd like to say that I have the very highest regard for the committee that got together and looked at the bids. And I certainly would not question the integrity at all of that process. I do have some concerns about going forward with this for a couple of different reasons. One is because it was bid as a bundle, and now we're breaking it down into parts. And I think just because we've changed the scope of the project, I think it would be more appropriate to rebid. I don't have a problem with the qualification-based selection. I think that in order to get the kind of grant funding that we're going to need to help us with this huge project, that we have to do everything that we can to make that grant funding available. And certainly I go along with the qualification-based selection. But this is a new selection process, if I'm not mistaken, and we may not have it absolutely correct the first time. And so before we stub our toes, I would like for us to take a little more time, rebid this as a feasibility study. I don't think that we necessarily need to move forward with a design RFP. I feel like the feasibility study has to come in first so we know what we're dealing with. But this is a big, big step for LFUCG, and it couldn't set some real precedents. So I just want to be sure that we do it correctly. So for that reason, I will support Councilmember Beard's motion, although I would prefer not to include the design as a part of the rebidding at this point in time. Councilmember Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Brian. My question is basically a concern which Councilmember Feigl just voiced, which is we had one project on which was for a certain amount of money, and then we pulled it off and put a different piece on the docket. And to your knowledge, have we done that with a project in the past without rebidding it? Let me clarify that, okay? I may not have stated it correctly. Well, the contract is still intact as it always has been, okay? The feasibility study was always a component of that contract, and the design was always a component. The difference is we were focusing on, we, all of us were focusing on the design phase numbers that were merely put there as placeholders to inform the Council of things that were yet to come. So what we decided to do is back all those numbers out and just leave it as we can break at the feasibility study if we see that the construction costs may be too high for us to incur, or we can look at negotiating at that point with the same consultant team, which is what we said in the proposal our intent was to have. So we really, the contract is still intact and still contains the design component. It just has not been negotiated out yet. So process-wise, we haven't, by doing this one piece, we haven't broken the process? No, the contract is still intact. Okay. I saw Commissioner Webb come forward. Do you have something to add? I would just add to that the reasoning behind giving the Council the option to move forward with the design, that the feasibility study phase will be very extensive. There are issues along that corridor or conditions along that corridor that who does the feasibility study and recommends the routing or the design of the road around those issues, they're going to recommend a couple options for us on both the trail and the road. There will be a great deal of learning through that study. And that contract that we have today allows Council to make a decision to move forward with the same consultant. If you move forward with the same consultant, you will take advantage of all the learning that took place during that study and how they dealt with the issues. Once you have that recommended route, if you feel good about the product, we think there was a good job, you have the option, the way the contract's written, to go ahead and negotiate for design, based on proposed estimated cost at that point for the construction. So it gives you that option, and the benefit of that is the learning that takes place during the study. If you start over with a new consulting team, and if you bid it out, you may end up with the same consulting team. But if you don't, you may have differences of opinion, you'll have transfer of survey data, very expensive survey data, some of that may have to be verified in the field again. You may lose some of what you already learned as a different team designs something that somebody else recommended. But it's an option. It's like the best of both worlds. If we think we get a good product, if we can then negotiate good design prices, or we can break it up in pieces at that point, and with our existing consultant, we would recommend that to counsel. It would be your decision to move forward. If we don't feel like that, we would come to you and recommend that we now, at this point, after the feasibility study, go back and re-bid. So I just wanted to make that point. There is that transfer of knowledge. If you do this in two separate pieces, it may occur that it may not be as cost effective as we'd like it to be. If I could ask, Mr. Markham, just a curiosity question. What is our history on awarding a bid or proposing a bid and then removing it and re-bidding it? I can't really give you any history on that. I mean, it's a proposal, and I think that the contract always said this phase would be negotiated after the feasibility study was done. What I was asking was, in your history with Urban County Government, how often do we go through the process and put the bid on for approval and then pull it off and re-bid it? Not very often. I'm just curious. Not very often have we done that. I don't know how many times. I can't really tell you. But it has happened in the past. I would be afraid to say. I mean, I can't recall anything off the top of my head. That's okay. I was curious. Thank you. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. Speaking of history, I think it's important to remember how we got here tonight. Ten months ago, at the 12th hour, we had a developer come in the room and ask the council to bond a project that was supposedly shovel-ready for $2.2 million. We bonded that project for $2.2 million, which was three different things in that project. Now today, we come back and we were never told about a feasibility study that had to be done. And I want to know, I guess from Commissioner Webb, when was the last time this government did the feasibility study for a private development? Because if I'm not mistaken, we require that on every single project that already had been done before we front the money or do anything on a private development. Council Member Stennett, I have not been involved in one during my term here, so I can't do that. I can tell you that we did use the feasibility study for Clay's Mill Road as a model for taking a look at the different pieces of this project and determining where the hours looked like they were reasonable or whatever. But to answer your question, I am not aware of one. Right. And we bonded $2.2 million, so if we approve this for $1.6 or even the $500,000, which piece of that $2.2 do we not get funded? Because we've already floated the bonds, we're already paying bond interest on this money. So if we just choose to do a study, we're already pushing off, you know, $1.7 million worth of bonds that are just sitting there not being spent. Again, we're paying interest on them already for another year that we could have waited to bond and included something else we probably needed in our city and our budget. So what are we going to cut out? Because we don't have the extra $500,000 none of us anticipated 10 months ago. Have we looked at that? Part of that, number one, Council Member Stanton, let me say that we have all been operating off estimates that were done by this developer, estimates that we have not set down and reconciled with this developer. We did contact the firm that did those estimates. There are things in that estimate that I would question and have questioned. And one of the questions that we did ask of the firm who did it was did you include floodplain work? Did you include anything for traffic work? Did you include anything for work with the historic preservation for the State Highway Department? And the responses were no, no, no, no. Not to cut you off, but $2.2 million doesn't sound like we're going to get this project underway, even with a feasibility phase. It sounds like there's a lot more to it cost-wise. You're talking about a mile of formerly industrial, light industrial area, converting that into a different type of area, mixed use, probably have to do some types of traffic studies. I suspect the road's going to have to widen. We also said, oh, one of the issues that we asked about, did you consider right-of-way and right-of-way acquisition in order to get sidewalks in? And we got the same response, no, that we didn't. But that is not going to be an inexpensive job to put all the utilities that are above ground underground. No one knows today who is on those poles other than KU. To my knowledge, there's been no study of how many different communications. There's a line of poles on both sides of the road. Both sides of the road have communication lines on them. So there's a great deal of unknown. So saying that it's going to cost X amount for construction at this point, I would not feel comfortable, and I particularly don't feel comfortable with the developer's estimate that he produced. And I'm not being critical of it. I think it was developed for other reasons, to be used for TIF purposes. But I'm not comfortable with it. I suspect that it is well underestimated. Well, let me say, everyone on this council wants this project. We think it's going to be a great asset for Lexington in the future. The problem is we've already committed ourselves, based on good faith estimates, $2.2 million for a project that probably won't get done for that in an economy and a situation where our employees aren't getting raises. There's a lot of things that we could spend this money on. We've already bonded. And we're being asked tonight to spend a $500,000 feasibility study on a $1.1 million project. It just doesn't add up. We should have done the study long before we even bonded the 2.2. And, you know, this is not the way to go about TIF projects. The TIF project is a private investment with public gain, not a public investment with private gain. That's not the way you do a TIF project. Everything we've been told here on this council, so I will not support it tonight. And I support going back to the drawing board and refunding the $2.2 million bond because we're paying interest on money we're never going to spend in the next 10 months. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. The resolution that's in front of us states this is a design-related service. So is that a feasibility study? That feasibility study will produce a number of options for us to look at. It will involve preliminary design. It will involve study in all the areas that will be necessary in order to reconstruct this road. Excuse me, Council Member Henson. It also includes in that contract the ability to negotiate the actual construction documents or the final design and construction documents should the council choose to move forward with that. And that would be an additional cost? Yes, ma'am, over the $508,000. So the $508,000 only includes the studies? The feasibility study. Okay. So do we do many feasibility studies? No, ma'am. If you recall, the Department of Public Works did not bring this project forward. This project was brought forward by the developer, to my knowledge, at a bonding meeting that occurred last December. I had no contact with the project before that happened. Because I was just wondering how often do we do a feasibility study and it comes back saying it's not feasible. So is it necessary? I don't believe that it would come back and say that it was not feasible. I believe it will include information on the design issues to get it done right, and it will predict with alternate routes or alternate ways to build this project, plus a price estimate for each of the routes. So to me it's really not a feasibility study. It's more a design study of exactly how the construction would occur, correct? Not if, but how. If and how much. It will give options how it could be done with price estimates that are associated with them and identify additional work that would have to be done for construction in the floodplain or working with the state on traffic and the final design. Identify areas that we would have to acquire right away. A number of things would be identified. It would also produce a survey of the entire project. So the $500,000 is not coming out of our capital? It was bonded. So it does come out of the bond money? Okay. And that was the council members, I guess, that attended that meeting were the ones that voted to fund this. This was not brought forward by Public Works. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. And the last thing that you said is really what I wanted to just sort of emphasize. This was approved by the council at a bond meeting, and so that was the first time it came. It was up there on the fifth floor, and I think that's the first time it came up. So I think we are the ones who approved this bond at first. Am I mistaken? Council Member Wallace, do you want to speak to that? Because I remember very specifically. We have to approve bonds, but the TIF district and the TIF project. And the TIF project for the distillery district had come before us, there had been public meetings, there had been a great deal of discussion for a very long time. This is not a new project and it is not a new issue. So we approved the TIF and they have already redeveloped several of those properties and now have income where there was none. So no, the first, we heard about this, it was in the TIF package and it was in the TIF project. My only concern with it is the changing the, just making sure that we're going to be eligible for federal funds and we're not going to get messed over with the mandates, guidelines are now mandates. But no, we as a council approved that, we approved that we had public hearings on the TIF project, we approved the TIF project and I see no reason to go, not go forward with it. This is my two cents. Well the point simply was that I think that this is not something that, you're doing this because we've asked you to do it, the council has asked you to do it. That's correct. And I mean it came to us with an estimate that didn't include a scoping study, but because of the issues in this particular corridor, we could spend a lot of money on design and then get caught up in problems later. Thank you Mayor. Council Member Wallace. Again, I applaud the idea of doing a feasibility study, as I've said, it's in my mind a travesty that we didn't do one on South Lyme. I suspect that the Centerpoint TIF and the other TIFs, by the time they get going, things will change and as you know, Commissioner Webb, I've watched you run ragged over unexpected things coming up in these kinds of projects. So that being said, I absolutely support the feasibility study concept and I support this project. I just want to make sure we don't run afoul with the federal government. I would like to make a response to that. There are components of this feasibility study that were done for South Lyme and the rest of the projects. There was a laser scan survey that was done. There was work done with the historic preservation. It was not done in a package like this and it's a part of our learning that we lost some of that learning in the transfer from one contractor to the next. I understand and I appreciate the steep learning curve you and I have both been through and I applaud you for hanging in there. That was in no way an insult to you or disrespectful to you at all. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Yes, I just wanted to follow up on something you mentioned earlier so I can understand the process. The developer does a feasibility study and they take that to the state as part of the presentation to get TIF. Do we have anybody from the city who participates in these meetings at that time? As you mentioned, you feel like it was grossly underestimated what it would take to do this project with roads having to be moved and right away and sidewalks. At what point would somebody from the city have heard that or realized that this was grossly underestimated like you might have suggested? Well, basically what you have to do is sit down and look and understand that there are some unknowns. We don't know where the right-of-way lines are today. It does appear that the road would have to move in some areas. So in order to move the road as you move down it from left to right to make room for sidewalks and other infrastructure, there is the strong possibility that there's not enough right-of-way on the other side. So there was no assumption within the information that I have been able to review that there would be any right-of-way work here. I guess my question is, the developer had this done for the state already. Is that correct? I'm not sure what the original intent of this was. I always assumed it was to be used for some TIF information. When we checked on it, I can only say that it did not include these issues that will have to be looked at and resolved. So if it were just for the presentation for council, I could be wrong there. And I should probably correct myself, I may have assumed it was for a TIF. But it did not look to me to have a basis of rebuilding and undergrounding utilities on a state road. It does not seem to be complete to me with all the work that will have to be done. So you're not sure if this is what was presented to the state for approval? No ma'am, I'm not. I apologize. Actually, I see Mr. Kelly coming forward. This is a good question. This information I don't believe was put together as a part of the TIF application. I think this was a preliminary estimate that they had put together. They went to a firm and asked for some preliminary estimates about what they thought it might cost. And what they did was couched around this initial phase of getting the trail and feasibility study and actually trail design to get the project built. So this was not a part of the TIF application. Okay. Commissioner Webb, you mentioned to, I think it was you, I'm not sure, it may be Mr. Markham, I can't remember because I just wrote it down, I'm not sure. You mentioned negotiating after the feasibility study that that's where you would go in with design and be able to negotiate based on the contract we have. This is the first I've heard you say that. I know we met yesterday and that wasn't brought up during our meeting yesterday, that there would be able to be negotiation of price, but that's not really my question. My question is if there is a breakdown, say we stay with the same bidder for the feasibility study and then you go into the second phase and there is a breakdown because you can't negotiate price to where you want to get it, because I know that's been some of the other questions you've had, what do you do at that point? At that point you would go back and you would re-bid the whole thing, you'd have to do another RFP if you can't negotiate that final contract at that point. So it would have to go out for re-bid if you weren't satisfied with the price you were able to get after this? Yeah, I think that, yeah, that's the case. So if there's a breakdown it goes back out to re-bid and say for example, it goes, somebody else comes in, you see a different deal that you go with a different firm, you would still be having to do the same things as if you went back and re-bid the feasibility study? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gray. Thank you, Mayor. When we, first let me say to Council Member Blues, that I respect all the effort that has been put into this project, you especially. Many of us on the Council have truly, truly supported this project for its economic potential for the city, for its cultural potential. And so I know that we don't, certainly don't want to be held hostage to, the project to be held hostage because we are trying to do the right thing for the taxpayers. Every job is a hard job. I've heard this one is described as a hard project, a tough project. Anyone in the engineering profession knows that all jobs are tough. My objection to this project, to this contract, has to do with the process that we engage, the qualifications-based system. Council Member Feigl actually addressed my objections most effectively when she said that this was the first time that we engaged this project and maybe we missed some things. I'm being generous when I say that because I have said already that my objections to this have to do with the fact that there were no price negotiations, that there was no benchmark. The benchmark that we had was a $1.1 million estimate, which was included in the information the Council had when we passed, when we voted for the bond. Now we're looking at a, not to exceed, almost $1.7 million, between $1.6 and $1.7. Now we have adjusted back to the feasibility scope only. Earlier there was a conversation about the developer's estimate. Now my understanding is that the developers asked to be included in the RFP selection process and they were refused to be included. The questions that we have today are about the scope and alignment of the original scope that was estimated by CDP for the developer and the scope that was bid in the feasibility study. The reason that I support a re-bid is real simple. We don't have any idea whether or not we are getting a competitive price. I do not want to delay the project. If we were having a conversation, Council Member Blues, about the canons of American literature or English literature, I promise you I would not be having these objections. But this goes against my grain just as much as one of your very tough issues may have in your professional career. I do not want to abandon the project, Council Member Stennett, at all. And I hope that none of us really want to abandon the project. But we deserve, and all of the firms in this community who have a real need for business, whose employees they're trying to keep employed, really deserve a fair playing field. And that's why I support Council Member Beard's motion. Thank you, sir. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I guess the first thing I would say is, Commissioner Webb, the questions that you raised earlier about, you know, you said you asked the developer if they had this done and this done and this done and the answers were no, no, no. I'm disappointed that we didn't know that as a Council when we were on the fifth floor voting to bond that money. And I'm not blaming you for that. I'm not blaming anybody. I'm simply saying that we voted to bond money on a project that we thought, as Council Member Stennett said, was shovel-ready. Now we're finding out there's all these things that we don't have the answers to, and it's a little late in the game for that. When you talked about the transfer of knowledge, one of my questions would be, is the conversation around whether or not we had the original contract and it was for a set amount of money, we backed those numbers out, called out the feasibility study dollar amount, and now we're going to give that to one engineering firm to do that. And if we rebid that and someone else does it, there's this transfer of knowledge that we may end up with voids in. One of my questions when we talk about, and my biggest concern with this, I like the QBS process, I believe in it, I don't think we got the best price in this process. One of the things that I would say is that if we rebid, if we split it up and rebid it, it seems to me that we may have a whole lot more competition for the feasibility study than we had when it was linked together, because there may be someone out there that doesn't have the qualifications to do the project, but they do have the qualifications to do an awesome feasibility study. So I'm going to support rebidding the entire project. If it's divided out and it's rebid separately, that's okay too, but I'd rather rebid the entire project. And my bottom line is because I don't think we got the best price for this project. And I respect that, and we're willing to do whatever council would like. We said that during the blue sheet presentation, that is not a problem for us. I merely made the point where I think you may lose the value of some of your money with the transfer of information. Having it negotiable in the contract you bid for the feasibility study for the remaining services you need gives you the option. You don't have, and that's what was done in this contract. You have the option to say, oh, we're cutting it off at the feasibility study. We're going to rebid from there. Would you then support rebidding the entire project rather than dividing it up? Is that what you're saying? If council chooses, feels like we can do better and they want us to rebid this, my recommendation, that's the point I was trying to get across up here, is I think you're better off if you include the other service, make them negotiable as they are today, and if you cannot negotiate what you feel is a fair price at that point, then you leave the option in there for council to say, no, we want to rebid the rest of it. That way you have the best of both worlds. You can choose to go forward with the same consultant. If you can negotiate good prices, you're satisfied with, but you can also choose to rebid it if you can't negotiate. Well, I'm going to support the motion to rebid. Thank you, sir. Question on the floor. Is Council Member Beard's motion to remove item 13 and to rebid the project? Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. This may just be covering old territory again, but I just want to make sure that folks at home understand, at least what I think has been our process here, is that the City doesn't donate engineering services for private developments. We do things in a regulatory manner, but we're not out there helping the folks on Anglianna Avenue or Turfer Mall do their design work. We do it to the extent it crosses our threshold and that it comes to our door and it becomes our ticket and our responsibility. And so I think it's important to understand that at the time that these TIF applications come to the Council, these things are a wish and a prayer. They are done as cheaply as possible because if they're turned down, they don't want to lose a couple hundred thousand dollars. And so they put these together and they get their best guess as they can, but they are just that, their best guesses. And when Mr. McNeese came to the fifth floor at the bond meeting and asked us to bond $2.2 million, I recall objecting to that and being very uncomfortable with it. And I think I voted against it when it came down here to the full Council. But it is always a projection, it's always sort of a guess at that point. And at that point, you try to put numbers on it, you try to actually get down and sharpen your pencil and look at the specifics of it, but I think folks would be mistaken if they thought that what was presented to us as a $2.2 million project at that point was anything but a guess. It was a best guess of what they think they could get done and you don't really find out until you actually get down to the project. And so I think that I'm not an engineer and so I will rely on the folks who have more expertise than I do. But I think it's important to understand that this was not some highly refined projection based on a lot of engineering studies and things. This was a best guess and that's what it was. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. I would agree with the Vice Mayor that my background is not in engineering, in the world in which I used to live. I live in a different world now, Vice Mayor, as we all do when we come to Council as ordinary citizens, not experts in every field. And that's why I found it so compelling when real experts like our Director of Purchasing and like our Commissioner of Public Works saw that what we needed was a real roadmap done by experts like our consultants. And that's why I feel that the investment of these public dollars, again, in a public infrastructure project, working in partnership with a private developer, that is so absolutely important to the future of the Distillery District and why I hold to my confidence in the process so far. Now, a lot of love has been expressed for the project tonight, sort of reminding me of the General in Vietnam who said we had to destroy the village in order to save it. And I hope that if this project is brought to a halt at this point, the process that we put in motion, and it's started over again, that it really is a start over again and not an attempt to love it to death. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Blues, I, too, appreciate your work on this project, understand your passion for it. And, you know, to reiterate, you know, the Vice Mayor, I don't think I used the word abandon the project. What I meant was this is no way to go about this project. We have no idea, ultimately, what this is going to cost us. Right now, as it stands, we're going to have to come back to Council once we get the study back and bond more money for this project, more than the 2.2 that we've already done. That's no way we've operated in the past. It's no way to operate on this project because it doesn't do it justice. It is a good project. Long term, it will be successful in Lexington, I have no doubt. But to get to that point, we've got a lot more work to do, a lot more homework, as Commissioner Webb pointed out. And that's what we need to be doing at this point. We need to go back to the drawing board and really see what this project is going to cost Lexington. We bonded, in January, 2.2 million is going to sit on the shelf, probably until the next budget cycle. That's the interest we paid on that bond. It could have went to every single employee in the raises. It could have went to the Public Safety Department. It could have went to a lot of places. We chose not to fund in the budget. And that's wrong. And we can all sit up here and say, oh, it's a great project, but we've got to do our homework. We didn't do it on this one. I'm guilty of it as anybody. I voted for the project when it came to bond for the whole council. But that's not the way to do this project. We need to go back to the drawing board. I didn't say abandon it. I said go back to the drawing board and do it right. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. Let me walk you through my perspective of it, since everybody has already. I think Council Member Stennett said it best that, you know, everybody wants to see this. Everybody loves this project. And I think that's probably part of the problem, is I think that there's so many people that want this so badly that they just haven't quite done their homework. I think people in the public, I think people inside here, I think at different times there has been so much sentiment for this that you're almost wishing it to happen. My personal experience, I walked this project two years ago with a developer when it wasn't on anybody's radar. I sat on the original TIF committee, learned what TIFs were with CenterPoint, with this. I held the first QBS meeting, the workshop, to bring folks from the industry and our folks together to figure out how could we even do QBS in this government. And so from my experience, I've been involved from pretty much day one when this thing was just a watercolor. And I understand why everybody wants this thing so badly. But at the end of the day, there's some things that I see that have happened that I just want to point out and put on the record, is we didn't ask the questions we did of CenterPoint. A whole lot of people up here did not ask those compelling questions of who your backer is and let me see the name of your financer and those types of things that we did for CenterPoint. We didn't ask those questions up here. The public didn't ask those questions either. January, we have a bond meeting. We had $50 million on an approved list, $50 million that this government has approved of projects that were on a list. And if you remember the criteria of that January bond meeting, it was we had to shoehorn as few projects as we could because of our thresholds and so forth. And what we ended up doing was we set a criteria that if you couldn't spend this money before April, then it wouldn't get voted for. That $50 million worth of lists or those capital projects, some of which have been on for years and so forth, this project was voted on to jump onto that list, jump over projects that have been on that list for three years to be considered. And again, the criteria for us sitting around that room that night, those nights, was can this be spent by April? That was our criteria. And we took trails off of it because we couldn't spend the money by April, okay? So that developer, if you remember that night, I took a lot of heat because I asked a lot of questions about guarantees and would you give us a guarantee because what we were hearing was that there were tens of millions of dollars of private money ready to go if we could just do this first two, three million dollars. That's what we were told that night. And I asked the developer, would you sign a guarantee that that's going to happen? And of course, that was a ridiculous request on my part and that was part of the reason why I did it. But at the end of the day, we voted for it. And I want to point out to this council and to this audience as well that we as a government also spent $50,000 of our money paying for this developer's TIF application. We didn't do that in the other situation. We paid for the TIF application for this, so this government is invested already. We've paid that. Now, if you get selected as a TIF, guess what? We get the money back. But if you don't, we don't. So we took our economic development money that this council voted for itself to try and work on economic development issues and we gave it to that project. So we believe in it. We've actually invested in it already pretty heavily. And I keep coming back to it's because people want it so badly that we just want to kind of shoehorn this thing in and just wish it to happen. And, you know, the point the vice mayor made about, well, they weren't allowed to sit in on the RFP or this, that, and the other, I'm not exactly sure I'm comfortable with the notion of a private developer sitting in and selecting, you know, who's going to get this project and so forth. So at the end of the day, what my mind is, I will vote, I'm going to vote in favor of this, Councilmember Beard, but I would be of the mind, because I'm just like Councilmember Blues, I think you ought to study it. I think we ought to, somebody needs to spend the money to figure out what it really, really costs, and I would be of the mind to spend the $500,000 on that and refund the 1.5 or $1.7 million worth of bonds we know we're not going to spend. And let's go that route. And I think that may be a wiser choice. But I will support the motion tonight, and I also support what Councilmember Blues says, and I think that there's a way that we can get there. But this is what this looks like through my eyes. Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Brian, let me ask you a question. I think we talked about it a little bit yesterday, and we were kind of all over the ballpark about it. What exactly will this do time-wise as far as rebidding is concerned? Because we heard six months maybe, and then maybe if everybody put their shoulder to the wheel, maybe three months. And I obviously don't want to impair the project in any way, shape, or form by maybe being casual with this, but let's put it on the front burner and say three months as our target. Obviously things can happen, but that would be my best guess if you were willing to sign off on that. Yeah, I think three months. We can do three months. Obviously what we have to do now is we have to go back to the proposal and start tearing it apart and dividing it up and focusing on the feasibility study and getting that right. Yeah, three months, as long as we can get people who are committed to coming and evaluating and things like that and understand our timelines, yeah, we can do that. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor. Does any other Councilmember wish to address the motion on the floor? Seeing none, let's vote. Could we have the motion read back, please? I'll be glad to restate it. The motion is to remove item 13 from the docket and to re-bid it. I'd like to vote electronically. Councilmember Gord. Thank you, Mayor. I move to amend the motion to state that we will pull it off the docket and re-bid it no later than three months from now. Second. Any discussion on the amendment? Seeing no discussion, those in favor of the amendment, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The motion carries. The motion on the floor. Mayor, I just want to go on the record, I'm recusing myself from any vote on this issue. All right. The clerk will note Councilmember Lane's recusal. I would like to make another motion, please. I would like to move that what we re-bid is the feasibility study only. The motion is to amend the amended motion so that we would now remove item number 13 and re-bid the feasibility study only within three months if your motion is approved. Vote the motion to amend. I have a second from Councilmember McCord. Any discussion on Councilmember Feigl's motion to amend? Councilmember James. I have a question I want to ask Brian. What is that, pulling that apart, what does that do to the integrity of the entire process as it relates to QBS? Since we're starting over, the issue becomes still, if you want us to ask for a prize, we have to state that up front and then QBS is out the window. What we need to find out is, is it out the window only for feasibility study reimbursement or everything else? So we'll have to do, I'll have to ask some questions and I'll try to get the Office of Local Planning to help me with that. So at this point you can't really give a professional expert opinion on that? Well, I think one of the big issues here is trying to get a competitive price. That seems to be one of the things that we're concerned ourselves with. And so clearly defining scope, which means looking at the scope that we have and making sure that we've covered all our bases, coming back with a fee for that is the majority of what I'm hearing around here tonight. So we have to find out if the feasibility study by itself jeopardizes any future funding for the future phases. Okay. Thank you. I won't be able to support the motion as it's proposed to be amended. I just, you know, just watching TV about bundling services, anything a la carte seems to be more expensive than bundled. So I just won't be able to support that motion. Thanks, Mayor. Council Member Feigl. Brian, you may have addressed this, but if we don't use the qualification-based selection for the feasibility study, that certainly would get us to a cost estimate. I'm not sure that we're talking about that much difference in the amount, but what you're going to find out is whether or not that jeopardizes any future grant funding. Yes. Yes, that's correct. Okay. Thanks, Mayor. I'm fine. Council Member Beard. I just want to remind everyone that the rebidding process 99 times out of 100 will create some savings for us. And if the million one is not included, we don't have an opportunity to save any money there. All right. All right. Question on the floor is Council Member Feigl's motion to amend the amended motion. Essentially, it would limit the rebidding to the feasibility study. If you are in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye. If you're opposed, say nay. Nay. Motion fails. For the clerk's benefit, we probably ought to get a show of hands at least. If not, can we vote electronically? Let's vote electronically and record the vote. Question on the floor is Council Member Feigl's motion to amend. All right. The motion to amend fails by a vote of four to ten, with Council Member Lane recusing. That takes us back to discussion of the motion as amended. The motion currently on the floor is to remove item 13 from the docket and to rebid it within three months. Any? So within three months. Council Member Beard. I just want to make it clear that the intention was that we're rebidding the whole project, not just the $508,000. All right. Any further discussion? All in favor of that motion to remove and rebid the entire project within three months, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay electronically. There's one Council Member who has yet to vote. As soon as that's done, we'll proceed. Thank you. The motion carries by a vote of 11 to three, with Council Member Lane recusing. Madam Clerk, if you'll continue reading the resolution, starting with item 14. Resolution number 14, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with CARFAX for information sharing. Number 15, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a memorandum of agreement with the Kentucky Fire Commission for use of an elliptical Pro 3700 piece of fitness equipment at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 16, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with the Louisville Police Department for the transfer of equipment used for IED training purchased with funds awarded by the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security to the Louisville Police Department. Number 17, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a professional services agreement with Bridgette Ganahl as a sexual assault nurse examiner to provide on-call forensic examinations under the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Program at a cost not to exceed $40 for each scheduled on-call period, $230 for each completed forensic examination, $50 per case for professional testimony in court, and the reasonable cost of medical liability insurance. Number 18, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a quitclaim deed and all other documents necessary transferring right-of-way from the Urban County Government to the Fayette County Board of Education for construction of a turn lane into the entrance of Keith Shire Elementary. Number 19, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute change order number one to the contract with Architectural Graphics Incorporated for the LFU CGY finding program, increasing the contract price by the sum of $5,227.79 from $383,918 to $389,145.79. Number 20, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute certificates of consideration and any other necessary documents and to accept deeds for easements needed for the Grimes Mill Bridge Rehabilitation Project at a cost not to exceed $3,000. 21, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Kathy H. Witt, Sheriff of Fayette County, for the collection of the Urban Service District taxes for the 2010 property tax year at a cost not to exceed $350,000 with payment net from collections. 22, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a memorandum of understanding with Awesome Labs, LLC for the Downtown Touchscreen Network at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 23, a resolution accepting the response of Metaformers Incorporated to RFP number 37-2010 and authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a consulting services agreement with Metaformers Incorporated to provide assistance to the Divisions of Enterprise Solutions and Human Resources with open enrollment for benefits at a cost not to exceed $105,709.60. Number 24, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a system improvement design and construction memorandum with Virgie Hager and Ball Homes, LLC, providing for donation of property at 375 Charlesburg Road for a public park and for transfer of $430,000 in ex-action credits to Ball Homes, LLC. 25, a resolution amending Section 1 of Resolution number 371-2010 correcting the salary of Esther Moberly, Program Specialist, Grade 112-E, from $1,634.64 bi-weekly to $1,775.76 bi-weekly in the Division of Waste Management, effective June 28, 2010. 26, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an administrative services agreement with the University of Kentucky, Jesse G. Harris, Jr., Psychological Services Center for Firefighter Recruitment, Psychological Screening Testing at a cost not to exceed $300 for each screening. Number 27, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Part D Advisors, Incorporated for assistance with the Medicare Early Retirement Subsidy Program retroactive to May 21, 2010 at no cost to the Urban County Government. 28, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an amendment to the agreement with REACH, Incorporated for the Douglas Heights Redevelopment Project to clarify eligible uses of Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds for the project. 29, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute Modification No. 2 to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program funding agreement with the Kentucky Department for Local Government for addition of funding out 30-day cancellation and access to records provisions, revision of amounts to be expended within the eligible uses of funds in addition of a loan servicing agreement. 30, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute certificates of consideration and other necessary documents and to accept deeds for easement needed for the Dela Drive Storm Sewer Rehabilitation Project at a cost not to exceed $10,000. 31, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute agreements awarding Class A Neighborhood Grants for stormwater quality projects to Autumn Ridge Homeowners Association, Incorporated, $11,183.75 and Gainesway Neighborhood Association, Incorporated, $10,255.00 at a cost not to exceed the sums stated. 32, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Third Rock Consultancy, Incorporated, for consulting services for the development of a watershed-based plan for the Wolf Run Watershed at a cost not to exceed $177,200. 33, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute change order number one of the contract with Blue Grass Contracting Corporation for the Vons Branch Flood Hazard Mitigation Project, increasing the contract price by the sum of $26,657.50 from $1,225,006.25 to $1,251,663.75. 34, a resolution declaring a surplus and authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Lexington State Urban County Government to execute deeds and any other necessary documents for sale and transfer of property located at 296 East 6th Street, 762 Florence Avenue, 464 Kenton Street, 124 Eddy Street, 951 Valley Avenue, 1140 Windburn Drive, 510-512 East 3rd Street, 221-223 West 7th Street, 824 East 7th Street, 313 Newtown Pike, 315 Newtown Pike, 317-319 Newtown Pike, 4951 Tates Creek Road, 1974 Alice Drive, 1970 Alice Drive, and 520 East 3rd Street, and declaring as surplus and authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government and the Lexington State Urban County Government Public Facilities Corporation to execute a deed and any other necessary documents for the sale and transfer of property located at 262 East 5th Street. And number 35, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute agreement with three funds, $550, Russell Cade Church of Christ Incorporated, $500, Lexington Fast Pitch Softball Incorporated, $500, and Cottages of Liberty Woods Neighborhood Association, $500, for the office of the Urban County Council at a cost not to exceed the sums stated. Thank you. The floor is open for a motion to approve resolutions 1 through 12 and 14 through 35. Sorry. Usually people don't want my mic on. But anyway, I would like to place back on the table for a second reading resolution number, I don't have the number here, 35A. I tabled it to get more information because there were several of the properties who would have a house number change and I hadn't been notified about it. And so I'd like to place that back on the table. Thank you. The motion is to take resolution 35A from the table. I have a second by Council Member Gordon. That motion is non-debatable. All in favor of taking it from the table and placing it on the docket for second reading, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Madam Clerk. Resolution 35A for second reading, a resolution change in the street name and property address number of 560 Wilson Downing Road to 3824 Camelot Drive of 2580 Spur Road to 2440 Innovation Drive of 337 through 339 Richmond Avenue to 948 National Avenue and of 269 Ellerslie Park Boulevard to 460 Weston Park. Change in the property address numbers of 118 through 136 and 165 through 173 North Ashland Avenue to 124 and 163 North Ashland Avenue of 112 Ashton Avenue, I'm sorry, 112 Ashton Drive to 114 Ashton Drive of 4948 Thinspoonsboro Road to 4980 Thinspoonsboro Road of 112 through 114 Brown Avenue to 112 Brown Avenue of 2218 through 222 Coburn Boulevard to 2222 Coburn Boulevard of 942 through 944 Dayton Avenue to 944 Dayton Avenue of 1415 through 1421 and 960 through 974 Delaware Avenue to 1421 and 968 Delaware Avenue of 110 North Eagle Creek Drive to 120 North Eagle Creek Drive of 449 through 453 Glen Arvin Avenue to 453 Glen Arvin Avenue of 160 through 162 North Hanover Avenue to 162 North Hanover Avenue of 1795 and 929 through 935 Liberty Road to 1793 and 933 Liberty Road of 393 through 395 South Limestone to 395 South Limestone of 340 through 345 Longview Plaza to 352 Longview Plaza of 229 Miller Street to 227 Miller Street of 909 National Avenue to 905 National Avenue of 1460 East New Circle Road to 1450 East New Circle Road of 809 and 807 Oak Hill Drive to 807 and 809 Oak Hill Drive of 138 through 140 Owsley Avenue to 138 Owsley Avenue of 681 and 691 Reno Drive to 68 and 69 Reno Drive of 189 through 191 Richmond Avenue to 191 Richmond Avenue of 236 through 238 Sherman Avenue to 238 Sherman Avenue of 2013 St. Michael Drive to 2015 St. Michael Drive of 105 through 111, 199 through 201 and 228 Walton Avenue to 107, 201 and 226 Walton Avenue and of 610 through 622 Winchester Road to 610 Winchester Road and all effective 30 days from passage. Thank you. Now is there a motion to approve resolutions number 1 through 12 and 14 through 35A? I have a motion to approve those resolutions by Councilmember Gorton and a second by Councilmember Ellinger. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's vote. Those in favor, please vote aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay electronically. And Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Mr. Gray? Yes. Ms. Henson? Yes. Ms. James? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Oh, I'm sorry. She's absent. There she is. Ms. Lawless, would you like to? Yes. Okay. Mr. Martin? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Yes. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Blues? Yes. Ms. Crosby? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Ms. Feigl? Yes. And Ms. Gorton? Aye. Thank you. Those resolutions are approved. That now takes us down to resolutions entitled to first reading. Madam Clerk. Resolution number 36, a resolution accepting the bid of Gooch Construction Company, incorporated in the amount of $94,422 for a 1036 Dela Drive pipe rerouting project for the Divisions of Water Quality and Engineering, and authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute an agreement with Gooch Construction Incorporated related to the bid. 37, a resolution ratifying the probationary civil service appointment of Tyson Cummings Life Skills Program Instructor, Grade 110E-10354, bi-weekly in the Division of Community Corrections, effective August 30, 2010, ratifying the unclassified civil service appointment to the office of the Urban County Council of Amanda Dunn, aide to council, Grade 000E-196154, bi-weekly in the council office, effective August 23, 2010. Number 38, a resolution authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute change order number 1 to the contract with BCD Incorporated, final for the LFUCGMRF renovation project, increasing the contract price by the sum of $30,746.15 from $419,500.01 to $450,246.16. Number 39, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute modifications to agreements with the Kentucky Department of Military Affairs, Division of Emergency Management, for extension of the agreements for funds for the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program for FY2007-2008, 2009, and 2010, through December 31, 2010, for FY2007 and 2008, September 30, 2010, for FY2009, and September 30, 2011, for FY2010, at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 40, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute a rental agreement with Lexington Center Corporation, for the celebration of Disability Expo, at a cost not to exceed $1,600.00. Number 41, a resolution authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute an agreement with Blue Grass Fraternal Order of Police Lodge, for $625.00, by the Office of the Urban County Council, at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. Thank you. I understand there are several motions. We'll start with Council Member James. Well, mine was for a suspension of the rule, so I can wait. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on tonight's docket a resolution, authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute a facility usage contract with the Fayette County Board of Education, for use of Clays Mill Elementary Cafeteria, for a public meeting. So moved. Second. Motion second. Any discussion? All in favor of adding that item to the docket, please indicate by saying aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. We'll go ahead and take up a couple more, and then read them all at once. If that's satisfactory. Council Member Stanton. Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on tonight's docket a resolution, approving the Fayette County Sheriff's settlement of the 2009 taxes, for the taxes collected as of April 30, 2010, and granting the Sheriff a quietus. Second. A quietus. Say it ten times. I have a motion by Council Member Stinton and a second by Council Member Lane. Second. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on tonight's docket a resolution, authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute a memorandum of agreement with the Blue Grass Community Foundation, for construction of the Flight 5191 Memorial at the Arboretum, at a cost not to exceed $100,000. I have a motion by Council Member Gordon and a second by Council Member Henson. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Madam Clerk, if you would give first reading to those three items, please. Number 42 is a resolution authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute a facility usage contract with the Fayette County Board of Education, for use of Clay's Mill Elementary Cafeteria for a public meeting. Number 43, a resolution approving the Fayette County Sheriff's Settlement 2009 taxes for taxes collected as of April 30, 2010, and granting the Sheriff a quietus. And number 43, a resolution authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute a memorandum of agreement with the Blue Grass Community Foundation, for construction of the Flight 15191 Memorial at the Arboretum, at a cost not to exceed $100,000. Thank you. Now, Council Member James, I think you had a motion a moment ago. I do, Mayor. Thank you. I'd like to suspend the rules and give a second reading to resolution number 40. There's a need to go ahead and get that rental agreement executed for the Commission for Citizens with Disabilities. Do we hear a second? I have a motion by Council Member James and a second by Council Member Gordon to suspend the rules for purposes of granting second reading. granting second reading to item number 40. Are there others? Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I move to suspend the rules for item 42. This meeting is going to be next Wednesday night, so moved. We'll accept that as a friendly amendment. Council Member Gordon. Thank you. The groundbreaking is tomorrow morning on the 5191 memorial, so I would like to suspend the rules and give second reading to 44. Let me just offer a word of explanation. Those on the council may know this, but for those who may be listening, this $100,000 that we're talking about is a flow-through from the state. The state gave us the $100,000 for purposes of passing it along to Blue Grass Community Foundation for construction of the monument, so it's not $100,000 of LFUCG money that's going into that. It is state funds. All right, we have a vote. Council Member Myers. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to add number 37 so I can get my aid on board. Thank you. All right. I currently have a motion to suspend the rules for purposes of giving second reading to items 37, 40, 42, and 44. Any others? Those in favor of suspending the rules to give second reading to those items, please indicate the saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Madam Clerk. Number 37. A resolution ratifying the probationary civil service appointment of Tyson Cummings, life skills program instructor, grade 110E, 1,354 bi-weekly in the Division of Community Corrections, effective August 30th, 2010, ratifying the unclassified civil service appointment to the Office of the Urban County Council of Amanda Dunn, aid to council, grade 000E, 1,961, 54 bi-weekly in the Council Office, effective August 23rd, 2010. Number 40. A resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a rental agreement with Lexington Center Corporation for Space for the celebration of Disability Expo at a cost not to exceed $1,600. Number 42. A resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a facility usage contract with Fayette County Board of Education for use of Clay's Mill Elementary Cafeteria for public meeting. And number 44. A resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a memorandum of agreement with the Bluegrass Community Foundation for construction of the Flight 5191 Memorial at the Arboretum at a cost not to exceed $100,000. Do I hear a motion to approve resolutions 37, 40, 42, and 44? I have a motion by Councilmember Myers and second by Councilmember James. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's vote. All in favor of approving those resolutions, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed vote nay electronically. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Mr. Gray? Yes. Ms. Henson? Yes. Ms. James? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Mr. Martin? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Yes. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Blues? Yes. Ms. Crosby? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Ms. Feigl? Yes. Ms. Gorton? Aye. Thank you. Thank you. Those resolutions are approved. That takes us to item 7 on the agenda. A couple of informational items before we entertain a motion. First, I understand from Councilmember Gorton that both Mr. Glover and Ms. Blanton's confirmation hearings went satisfactorily and they're both on the docket this evening. I would mention one thing to the council and that is there is a Board of Adjustment hearing tomorrow for which Mr. Brown is already prepared to preside. Therefore, I would ask that we approve the communications from the mayor with the modification that Mr. Glover's term began on Monday, August 30th. Yes, please. I move to that effect. I have a motion by Councilmember Gorton and a second by Councilmember Beard to approve those recommendations as outlined. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Are there any announcements? Very well. Councilmember Lawless? I'm excited about the ground cut, the groundbreaking, the ground cutting, got it mixed up with ribbon cutting at the Arboretum, which is in my district, and I hope people, 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, and also ABAL is having their annual AIDS walk at 225 Walton Avenue. It starts at 2 o'clock. Registration, I think, starts at 2 o'clock on Sunday. You do not, there's no cost to participate, but you can also sponsor somebody or be sponsored, bring your family and friends. And then, this isn't an announcement, but it is an issue I brought up on Tuesday evening, asking that we discuss the, with Mr. Horn and Mr. Askew about our contract with Mr. Sellers, and so I think that if we could have a discussion about that. Is Mr. Askew still here, or did he leave? Okay, maybe he could come down, and Mr. Horn, do you want to do that discussion now, or would the council like to do announcements and then discuss it? Mr. Green, could you check and make sure Mr. Askew is aware? I'll tell you what, while we're waiting for him, why don't we go ahead and address the disciplinary matter and get that out of the way? That's fine, thank you. Assistant Chief Ades. We're asking concurrence with the discipline matter, and that firefighter James K. Branham has committed offensive insubordination in violation of KRS 95450 in the Uniform Disciplinary Code, and that on the third day of June 2010, he was discourteous towards his officer when he was directed to comply with established uniform regulations. For this offense, the chief has recommended and employees concurred that he receive eight hours suspension without pay for scheduled work hours. I have a motion by Council Member Myers to approve the recommended discipline, and a second by Council Member Gordon. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, let's vote. Those in favor of approving the discipline indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member Mark. I'm sorry. Okay, all right. I'm sorry. Thank you. All right. The question is on Mr. Sellers' employment, and if you have questions, Council Member Wallace. Thank you, Mayor. I asked last week, I believe I asked Mr. Horn this question, and he said that, and the question was, who gave Mr. Sellers the authority to represent the Mr. Bruce Salley and the Internal Audit Board and the suit against the city or, you know, against Council Member Myers. So, in my recall, as I've gone through my notes, as a council member, it was my understanding that the contract with Mr. Sellers was to give an opinion about the Herald Leader's right to the documents of Mount Joy, and so when I, so I asked Mr. Horn at the meeting, then I asked you at the investigative committee, and you said Mr. Horn did it, and last week Mr. Horn said it must have been improved. So anyway, I would like some clarification about that was my understanding of our contract with him because you rightfully felt like you needed to recuse yourself or, you know, because of conflict of interest. So that was before the Attorney General's opinion was issued. So what my next question is, is how did he go from that and representing the entire government, as we were told several times, to representing Mr. Bruce Salley and the Internal Audit Board? By what authority did he do that, and is there documentation of him changing from being the attorney for all of LFUCG to being the attorney for Mr. Salley, a classified civil service employee, and the Internal Audit Board ensuing LFUCG? First, let me, my recollection is, and even when we had a discussion last Tuesday, I think it was, Mr. Sellers came on board not when the Herald Leader made a request, but when there was a request, I think, from a council member for the questionnaire that were at issue. I had responded to the Herald Leader's open record request. When it became apparent there was a conflict in there, we were out of it. Mr. Sellers, the only person in the government at the time that apparently had one of those questionnaires was Bruce Salley. So he was providing advice to the Internal Auditor who answers to the Internal Audit Board as to whether or not that document should be provided to a council member slash the council. At that time, there was no apparent conflict between any of those people. My understanding, and again, I was not involved in when any of this transition happened, his representation as to that document as it relates to Internal Audit, Internal Audit Board, became conflicting with this council about the time, I think, when it decided to have the committee, Special Investigation Committee. Now, it may be that you want to have Mr. Sellers come down to answer some of those questions about that representation and when those distinctions were made. Well, he can answer the questions, but it seems to me if he was hired by the administration and the law department, which works for the administration, that you all had to, somebody had to give him the authority to change the scope of what he was doing. And I'd like to know when exactly, I mean, and that would be documented. Hey, I'm conflicted out now. So, and to me, and I'm not an attorney, but that seems like a conflict of interest if he went from being LFUCG's employee, as it was explained to us on more than one occasion, to suing LFUCG. And again, I'm going to suggest that you talk to Mr. Sellers about it. Well, Mr. Sellers is the contractor, not. Correct, but the nature of hiring an independent counsel is that being conflicted out, at least from my perspective, is you cannot direct that counsel in what they're doing in that representation. So, and I just learned late this afternoon that he wants to, he's amended, I think, I understand this correctly, that he has amended the lawsuit from being Councilmember Myers as chair of the subcommittee, or committee, the investigative committee, to Mr. Councilmember Myers as a councilmember. I don't know. So I guess to me, it's kind of like Mr. Sellers, he was quoted as saying he was going to take it all the way to the Supreme Court, and basically he's written himself a blank check. And he went from, but somebody had to give him that authority. Somebody had to hire him to do this. It's my understanding that the Internal Audit Board has made the direction to Mr. Sellers. And do they have the authority to hire an attorney? Because I know that when the suit came about, Judge Crittenden came to this council and asked for permission to represent Councilmember Myers as chair of the subcommittee, and we gave him that permission. So there's a disconnect for me. It's my understanding, and again, I'm not an attorney, that if he decides to take it to the Supreme Court, that he basically has unlimited amount of, and I'm not suggesting he's doing anything wrong or unethical, but that he is writing himself a blank check to try this forever. And that if the subcommittee, if he sues Councilmember Myers as a member of this council, it's like, well, we gave somebody a contract to build a road, and they've decided to build it all the way to New Jersey, and we can't stop them. So I guess my question is, at some point, somebody had to give him the authority or give the Internal Audit Board the authority to hire him as their attorney. And it would be the administration and the law department's responsibility to give that a yes or a no, or the council. But what I'm hearing is, nobody kind of knows. And I certainly have no authority to retain anybody. Again, any attorney is taking direction from a client. So when you say Mr. Sellers is going to take this to the Supreme Court, it won't necessarily be his decision on that. He's working with and for the Internal Audit Board. And that's the only way I know how to answer your question. And I'm just curious, by what authority did the Internal Audit Board hire him to be their attorney? Mayor, do you have any insight? In 2002, this council created an independent Internal Audit Board. It said, among other things, that urban county government was to provide it with staff and support services, including, I don't know if it was explicit, but at least implicit, legal counsel. The law department had a conflict. When that arose, that conflict precluded them from further representation of the Internal Audit Board. Mr. Sellers was hired to advise the Internal Audit Board as to that issue. I don't sit in on the Internal Audit Board meetings. I think it's a reasonably fair assumption that he was into it. They asked him to represent them further. And that's how it progressed. We're making the Internal Audit Board's representation by Mr. Sellers appear to be fundamentally different than the Special Investigative Committee's representation by Mr. Crittenden, and it is not. Well, are you finished? I'm sorry. No, it is not, because both of those entities have distinct interests which preclude the Department of Law from representing them. Now, that's why the Internal Audit Board has counsel. That's why the Special Investigative Committee has counsel. And that's why the Department of Law is not involved. There is an internal conflict there that precludes their involvement. Well, if I might add one thing, Councilmember Lawless and Mayor, just one second. I want to reiterate something that Mr. Horn said, and this came up at the committee the other day as we discussed this, and I don't know whether it came up last week. I understand you all discussed it for a rather lengthy period of time last week as well. But once we're conflicted out of a case, and it doesn't matter whether it's a situation, whether it's this situation or any other situation where we have conflicts, which sometimes happens, we're not in a position then to turn around and say to the person that's been hired, because we have a conflict, well, this is what you're going to do and not do. I mean, there's no point in, you know, if you've got a conflict, you've got a conflict, and you're not sitting there trying to direct the work of the person that's been hired as a result of the conflict. That would not be proper. So I don't know whether you've had any conversation with Mr. Sellers. I suggest you do so, or anybody at the Internal Audit Board. I know that Mr. Sellers has had some communication. I know one Councilmember has attempted to contact him. But I think your questions may be more appropriately addressed to him than to us, because we're not involved in that litigation. Okay. I would be glad to address those. But the fundamental difference, with all due respect, Mayor, is when Judge Crittenden, when the lawsuit came about, the committee, the investigative committee's attorney came to this Council and asked for permission to represent in the suit. That didn't happen with Mr. Sellers. He's representing the Internal Audit Board. They are the entity that rightfully instructed him as their attorney what to do. However, we were told over and over again he represented all of LFUCG, the Council, this government, the administration, on several occasions that has come up. And so there was clearly a shift of not the Internal Audit Board, but LFUCG, Council, and the administration. Just like I know Councilmember Crosby asked that question at the mic. I asked that question. There have been more than one instances where that has come up. And then all of a sudden, no, he's not working for the Council and all of LFUC, he's working for the LFUC. And so there was clearly a shift of not the Internal Audit Board, but LFUCG, Council, and the administration. Just like I know Councilmember Crosby asked that question at the mic. I asked that question. There have been more than one instances where that has come up. And then all of a sudden, no, he's not working for the Council and all of LFUC, he's working for the LFUC. And so there was clearly a shift of not the Internal Audit Board, but LFUCG, Council, and the administration. Just like I know Councilmember Crosby asked that question at the mic. I asked that question. And then all of a sudden, no, he's not working for the Council and all of LFUC, Council, and the administration. Just like I know Councilmember Crosby asked that question at the mic. And then all of a sudden, no, he's not working for the Internal Audit Board. And that seems to have been a shift. I believe that you, I have not discussed this with Mr. Horn when I was out of town last week, but I believe this has been explained at least two or three times. And I'm aware of, it certainly was at the committee the other day. So I believe it was. So I don't know that we can keep going over it and over it and over it and change, I know you don't like it, but I don't know that it's going to change anything. As Mr. Horn has said, when Mr. Sellers was first hired, when we believed there was a conflict with the law department, we were unaware that there was any sort of a conflict between anybody on this council and anybody on the internal audit board, Mr. Slee or anybody else. But it was apparent that there was a conflict. But at the focal point, as Mr. Horn just reiterated, seemed to be a council member's right to get work papers from the internal audit board and the internal auditor. And so at that point, Mr. Sellers was attempting to address that issue and has continued in that representation as the mayor just suggested. So, I mean, I don't know how we can. May I speak? The only thing I can add to that is any confusion may have been caused by me. And I'm sorry about that. Because I think I'm the one who has tried to answer those questions to the best of my ability. And do you recall how you answered it when asked last week? I think it was similar to what we just said. The explanation was, I don't know, I've had to step away from it, you need to ask Keith Horn. So, no, it wasn't explained in either of those instances. I think you're blending. Whether I like it or not. I think you're blending a little bit on me. Because my recollection is, and I may be wrong, that you asked about who authorized retaining Terry Sellers. I think you're blending him to represent the internal audit board in a suit against LFUCG. And when he changed from being the attorney for all of LFUCG, council and administration, to being the attorney for the internal audit board. And I'm not trying to be difficult, but I think this is really an important issue that we need to address. And I don't want to argue with you. But I do have a couple of questions and an answer I gave in response to a particular question to a bunch of questions. And again, if it's my fault, but there's any confusion there, I am sorry. But my recollection is, the question was who retained him. I do not have authority to retain anybody. And so my response was, either the commissioner or the administration did that. To the extent that that indicated anything else, I'm sorry. I appreciate it, and I don't think it's your fault. And it is certainly a confusing matter, I think, for most everybody on many layers. However, I will look at the tape again. And my question was, and still remains, by what authority did he go from being representing all of LFUCG to representing the internal audit board? And I appreciate yours. Mary, I'd like to call a point of order. And the reason I'm doing this is not because it isn't a valid discussion. I don't think this is the time or place to do it. But in addition to that, there is no motion, I mean, there is no way to end this debate. And so I feel like if this is something we want to debate in this body, we really need to put something on the agenda so that we all can participate and we can have a motion to actually debate. So that's my opinion. And may I respond? At the meeting of Mr. Askew, because my takeaway, right or wrong, from Mr. Horne was that I needed a his attorney said that's not appropriate for this committee to discuss. I said, fine, I'll discuss it at a council meeting. So that's why I'm doing it in this arena. If you can tell me the proper time to have a public discussion about this or a discussion in a committee meeting, I'd be more than happy to do that. I'm not trying to make trouble. I just would like answers. Thank you. I think Council Member Feigl's point is well taken. I think your time would be appropriate. I actually do have a motion, but I need to ask a couple of questions before I make my motion. I don't know if that's appropriate or not. I just need clarification on a couple of things. Mr. Horne, I know that we have several boards, commissions and groups that we are guided by statute ordinances, by which we need to provide certain things. County attorneys, one. Human rights commissions, one. We provide certain things. So I understand when you talk about procedurally we're obliged to do that. But in this case of the internal audit board asking for legal representation, and I'm taking that that in most cases is our own law department. Has it happened before to where we've had to, through the internal audit board, hire outside legal or lawyers? And what's the process of is that something where you would come to council? I know that we've been involved in discussions before where we've been introduced to people that are outside council who will be taking on a case. I don't remember that happening in this situation. Can you talk a little bit about that? I think I can, but recognize that I do not have authority in those areas, and my experience is all I can share with you. In the scope of regular advice to boards and commissions, there are many, many that we advise. And generally that's related to general issues, much as we discussed, Mr. Myers, about internal audit board asking me to come and talk generally about open records and open meetings. Boards and commissions ask me to do that, ask others to do that, and we do that. So off the top of my head, am I aware of another board or commission that has retained council? Is that what you're asking me? Yes, outside of our services. No, I cannot recall one. And Logan's nodding. You do know one? I know, for instance, in the Human Rights Commission, they've hired council. In this particular case, as I understand, the internal audit board ordinance that this council adopted in 2002 does specifically provide that staff support will be provided to that board. Because the board does not, it's not appropriated funds, as I understand. Yes, and that's what I want a little bit of clarification on. Staff support, that doesn't necessarily to me translate to an hired attorney. Council Member James, if you have a motion you'd like to make for purposes of your time. I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to make a motion that the Urban County government not fund Mr. Seller's services in support of the lawsuit against one of our council members. Well, that motion, the proper motion would be. Excuse me, Mayor, that was a motion. And I'm ruling it out of order. Is there a second? Please do. The motion to be proper would be to place an item on the docket to adopt a resolution of the council doing whatever you want to do. We are past the docket consideration tonight. If the council wants to put an item on the docket, give it first reading. Give it second reading if you wish. You're entitled to. Now, do you want to put an item on the docket? We just had that discussion earlier several times over the last several weeks about putting motions on the docket. It typically comes up in the work session. I'd like to make a motion to amend our meeting agenda that would allow for me to be able to make a motion regarding what I just discussed. Because we as a council, do we not or is that an administrative responsibility to amend an agenda? The council can amend its agenda if it wishes to do so. I make a motion to amend the agenda that would allow for the motion for which I just previously called for. Do I hear any debate on that motion? And I'm coming, believe me, I'm coming at this from clearly my experience with parliamentary procedure. And I realize things are a little bit different from city to city. But when an agenda is posted to the public, it is the official agenda. And I don't think on the same night of a meeting that you can actually amend that agenda. Now, you know, I probably would need a state statute to quote to you to say that we can't do that, but I don't have that. But I mean, this is not because I'm trying to stifle this discussion at all. It's just clearly, in my opinion, out of order according to Robert's rules. So my recollection, subject to somebody clarifying it, is that agendas can be modified at regular intervals. At regular meetings, but they cannot be modified at special meetings. Is that correct? And that being the case, the motion would be in order. Any discussion? Council Member Crosby. Council Member James, is there any way that you would just be willing so that it can be debated in a fashion that seems to be more agreeable to everybody to do it maybe Tuesday at work session? Well, this is our official meeting. Our council meetings are official meetings. You all know half about Tuesday meetings. They were created. They are not part of our charter. This is the time. I'm still going to leave it on the table. I mean, it still needs to be voted on. I'm not going to withdraw it. I think most of us have already had discussion about this. A lot of people have had discussion about this previously. And anyone that's been following the investigative committee meetings or happenings would be aware that this would be inappropriate, I believe. So I'm going to leave it on the table. If it doesn't work, I'm going to bring it up again. I mean, I think it's ridiculous, I think, that we're paying for this. The only reason why I asked is because I know a lot of people do have questions. I have things, but I don't have them with me. And also part of what I would like to understand further is the relationship that Mr. Salih has within our urban county government, who he reports to, which I think comes into this, who he reports to, and potentially with why George is being sued and whether or not under our employee handbook if there are other ways that this could have been handled. Are you fearful that if he is no longer under our purview of the urban county government money paying for that, that we won't get the answers to those questions? No, I think what I'm suggesting is that if we can find out, because what we have heard through a lot of these meetings is nobody can really give us a clear cut indication. I mean, he's a civil service employee, but we don't know exactly the direct line of who he reports to, because we have kind of a dotted line that somebody approves his time, but somebody has to evaluate him and he has to have somebody that he reports to and who is responsible for him within urban county government. And then on the flip side, if that is the case and we can find out, I could not find today briefly when I was looking through who is responsible for him. So then my second question would be under the employee handbook, there are, you have a supervisor who can ask you to do things, and if you don't, it's insubordination. And there are things within our handbook that can be enforced. So that's kind of what I'm trying to find out, and I think a lot of that might help with this discussion on Tuesday, but I can't even discuss it because I just started looking into it today. Okay. I'm struggling to see the connection between the Mr. Sellers nonpayment and ending of that contract with Bruce Sailly. I see them as two separate issues, but I mean, I'm hearing what you're saying, but I'm struggling to see the connection. He reports to a commissioner. We'll just say any commissioner. And the reason why Councilmember Myers is being sued now, I guess, as a councilmember instead of as chair of the Special Investigative Committee, if he reports to a commissioner, they can require that he testify, or not testify, but come and talk to certain individuals regarding things he has done. And if he doesn't, then there are clear-cut things in our handbook of how that can be handled, if I'm not mistaken. The way to go about it is if we can draw that line and find that out, then it could be handled in a completely different way, and perhaps his supervisor, because the administration has been very willing to come forward to the committee, and perhaps whoever that direct line of supervisory role to him is, can ask him to do that. And if he does not, then there are clear-cut things in the employee handbook, that could be enforced. That's what I'm suggesting. What's the connection to Mr. Sellers? Mr. Sellers is suing because he said that there were going to be actions taken against Mr. Salih if he didn't respond to the subpoena, and we have said that that's not the case. If you appear before this committee, or you should appear before this committee, and he does not, and this is what I'm trying to find out then, wouldn't there be disciplinary action within our employee handbook for insubordination versus, they would be able to enforce it versus an attorney saying that he doesn't have to do something. Because if you draw that connection with who he reports to, then there's clearly the opportunity for them to advise him to talk to the committee, and therefore there wouldn't be the need for the attorney. The motion on the floor is to amend the agenda. Thank you. I see what you're saying, but the issue, Council Member Crosby, is I think separate also because he's representing the Internal Audit Board also. I am fine discussing this at the work session. I have asked the questions when I felt they were appropriate, and my frustration is starting to show because I was told I was answered. And so I just want us to discuss it, and I'd like to be informed about when we can do that. If it's at the work session, I'm fine with that, and whatever, I'll support. Thank you. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Another issue is if we wait to discuss this, we'll be delaying for quite a bit. We'll have a work session on Tuesday, and I don't know when our next council meeting is, even for a first or second reading of any action that we would take, any resolution. Any further discussion on the motion to amend the agenda? Council Member Stennett. Can we have it repeated? The motion to amend the agenda to do what? Oh, yikes. The motion would be to amend the agenda to be able to discuss the issue of Mr. Sellers, to be able to have that full discussion of whether we should be paying for his services or not. Thank you. My recollection of your motion was that you said you wanted to amend the agenda for purposes of allowing you to introduce a resolution to talk about the funding for Mr. Sellers. Okay, yeah, that's what I said. Okay. Any further discussion on the motion to amend the agenda? Seeing none, let's vote, and let's do so electronically. Adam Clerk, please set the machine so we can vote electronically. Those in favor of the resolution, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those against, please vote no. It appears as though the resolution carries by a vote of eight to six, with one abstention by Council Member Myers. The floor is now open to entertain a resolution. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to offer a resolution stating that Urban County Government sees the contract that exists currently with Terry Sellers due to the lawsuit recently filed against one of its members. Motion is to place on the docket a resolution terminating the contract with Mr. Sellers. Do I hear a second? Motion dies for lack of a second. Council Member Wallace. If the motion were restated to something in the way that I wasn't prepared to have motions and stuff tonight, and I did on Tuesday say I want to discuss this tonight and ask that Mr. Horne and Mr. Askew be here, if you'll recall, but if the motion was amended because we do not have clear authority to do so, if there was authorization for him to shift from representing all of LFUCG to the internal audit board rather than because he's suing us, I would be more comfortable with it and would gladly second it. I'll accept that amendment. What's the resolution now that you're proposing? Urban County Government Council will cease the contract with Terry Sellers due to the fact that we don't have clarification of, help me out with the rest of it here. His authorization to represent the internal audit board, go from representing all of LFUCG to representing the internal audit board. We don't have clarification of what his representation is. Second. You've heard the motion and a second. Is there any discussion? I'd just like to ask a question of the law department, if anybody can answer. What legal obligation do we have with one of our employees if they are hired? I mean, if they are sued within the scope of their job? I think it depends on the claims that are asserted. There are two aspects to any sort of coverage that would be provided. One is the duty to defend, that is to provide a defense if someone is sued. The other is the duty to indemnify, that is to pay a judgment should one be entered against them. The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. So if someone is sued within the scope of their employment, there may be an obligation to defend. But depending upon how that lawsuit is resolved, there may not be a duty to indemnify. In other words, if there is a judgment and it's determined that it was outside the scope of their employment, then while we might have provided a defense until that determination was made, we may not indemnify. Does that make sense? Okay. Mr. Salley has not been sued, correct? He is merely defending what he believes to be charter provisions? I am not that familiar with the suit. It's my understanding it has to do with the right of the subpoena that was issued to him. In other words, did the committee have the authority to subpoena him? So he really hasn't been sued? No, he was subpoenaed, as I understand. Now, some of the members of the committee could probably tell you, but there was a subpoena issued on him to appear. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the spirit of the resolution tonight. But I can't support it because, one, Mr. Sellers needs to be here, and, two, the Internal Audit Board needs to be here. And that's why we need to have a full discussion as to the questions that Counselor Laws rightfully asked, who gave him the authority, who hired him, and who's paying and how much we're paying him. I think those are all valid questions. We're going to have that conversation open and honestly. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. I just have one question to add to the list. Since it was stated that the Internal Audit Board authorized hiring Mr. Sellers, can you state or if you recall when the board voted to hire Mr. Sellers? Or do you know, Commissioner? Or did the board vote, did the Internal Audit Board vote to hire Mr. Sellers? That's my only question in this tonight. I don't know the answer to that question definitely, but I'm not sure that they voted to hire Mr. Sellers. He was retained initially. I think they did have a vote to authorize or ratify the lawsuit that was filed. But that's not, I haven't been involved in those meetings and I don't know much about, I haven't seen the lawsuit, et cetera, et cetera. Just gathering the answers to the questions that Mr. Stennett listed, can someone please get the date on which the Internal Audit Board voted to hire Mr. Sellers? I would presume authorization is by vote of the board. Council Member Gordon, I'm not the chair of the board and I don't want to speak for the board. And also this is a matter that is in litigation, so to speak. And I think it's sort of inappropriate to be discussing a matter that's before the court in an open forum like this. So I will not make any statement on the record at this time. What date they voted to authorize Mr. Sellers' employment. Council Member Crosby. My request is very similar to Council Member Gordon's. Can you provide for us, if we do discuss this at work session, the date that Mr. Sellers was first hired by LPCG or retained and then the date that he transitioned over? And then my next question is, is anybody from the law department also looking into the, I know it's been said that there's a question about the vote that was taken to actually bring forth this lawsuit, a phone vote, and then to go into a meeting a week later and take a vote then? Is anybody looking into, from our law department, the open meeting laws and what took place with that? That's just a question for discussion later. I'm not asking that right now. Thank you, Mayor. I would like to make a motion that we table this item until Tuesday's work session to invite the Internal Audit Board and also Mr. Sellers to come here and we can discuss these issues. I have a motion by Council Member Ellinger and a second by Council Member Feigl to table the matter until the work session on Tuesday for purposes of inviting Mr. Sellers and the Internal Audit Board to attend. That motion is debatable only to the extent we wish to debate the time at which the matter is to be tabled. Council Member Gordon. Mayor, is it within the rules to amend the motion? No. Except as to the date or time of which it will be tabled. Thank you. Any further discussion on that specific issue? Seeing none, let's proceed to vote all in favor. Mayor, there was only a clarification. Somebody asked about the Internal Board, but I think that would also include the Chair of the Internal Board, too, just to make sure. Just to make sure. Let's vote electronically. Those in favor of tabling the motion until Tuesday's work session for purposes of allowing the Internal Audit Board and Chair and Mr. Sellers to attend, please indicate by voting aye. Electronically, those opposed vote nay. And can I ask who seconded that, please? I'm sorry. Council Member Feigl did. Thank you. We need one more vote to be cast. The motion carries by a vote of 14 to zero with one abstention. If there's no further business to be taken up at this time, we're ready for public comment. Does any member of the public wish to address the Council? Mr. Horne? I do want to say something that has been on my mind related to this communication stuff. And it's more personal than it is anything else, and it's about Bruce Solly. I've worked with him for five and a half years, and I hope that all of you would agree that within this government, the people I've worked with, he is one of the people with the most integrity that I have worked with in the government. And I'm afraid that at least what's being reported in the press, he's taking a beating over some of this stuff. And I just felt like I needed to get up and say what I know about him and how much integrity I think he has and just put that out there for the record. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to address the Council? I have a motion by Council Member Ellinger to adjourn, a second by Council Member Crosby. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries.