# Committee of the Whole (COW) Work Session - January 24, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 24, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1853 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1853?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-01-24 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 16,338 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Council met on January 25, 2011, at 4:00 p.m., with the Vice Mayor presiding. The council addressed five agenda items during the session, including referrals to committee, a neighborhood development fund list, and committee reports. The body took one vote and heard one public comment. Two items were approved by the council: the referral of audit recommendations to the General Government Committee and the referral of facility use policy to the General Government Committee. One item—referred by Council Members—was deferred to a future meeting. Two additional items, the NDF Neighborhood Development Fund list and Council Committee Reports, were presented for informational purposes only. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on January 24, 2011: - Council Member Beard - Council Member Ellinger - Council Member Ford - Council Member Crosby - Council Member Blues - Council Member Kaye - Council Member Myers - Council Member Stennett - Council Member Lane - Council Member Henson - Council Member McCord - Council Member Lawless - Council Member Martin - Council Member Farmer - Glenda George No council members were absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions **Charles Young Center Redevelopment Resolution** Council Member Ford moved to recommend that the Charles Young Center redevelopment resolution be placed on the docket for Thursday night's meeting. Council Member Farmer seconded the motion. [timestamp: 01:20:01] The motion passed by voice vote. Fourteen council members voted in favor: - Council Member Beard - Council Member Ellinger - Council Member Ford - Council Member Crosby - Council Member Blues - Council Member Kaye - Council Member Myers - Council Member Stennett - Council Member Lane - Council Member Henson - Council Member McCord - Council Member Lawless - Council Member Martin - Council Member Farmer One council member abstained. No votes were cast against the motion. ## Public Comment Council Member Lawless addressed the public regarding snow removal and sidewalk clearing responsibilities [timestamp: 01:46:14]. Council Member Lawless reminded residents of their obligation to clear sidewalks following snowfall. The speaker encouraged community members to assist neighbors who may have physical limitations that prevent them from clearing snow themselves. Council Member Lawless also noted that sand can be used as an abrasive material to improve pedestrian safety on cleared sidewalks. ## Appointments The following council members were appointed to committees during this meeting: **Economic and Community Development Committee** - Council Member Beard was appointed - Council Member Stennett was appointed **Social Services Committee** - Council Member Myers was appointed - Council Member Henson was appointed **General Government Committee** - Council Member Lane was appointed - Council Member McCord was appointed **Public Safety and Public Works Development Committee** - Council Member Lawless was appointed - Council Member Martin was appointed **Environmental Quality Committee** - Council Member Blues was appointed - Council Member Stennett was appointed ## Contested Items **Charles Young Center Redevelopment Proposal** A heated discussion emerged regarding a proposal to pursue a $2.5 million HUD grant for the Charles Young Center redevelopment. Council Members McCord and Lawless raised concerns about the approach, specifically objecting to what they characterized as bypassing the public process. Their concerns extended to the potential impact on broader investment opportunities in the East End. The debate centered on the adequacy of community input and whether alternative development plans had been sufficiently considered. Council Members also questioned the compressed timeline for moving forward with the proposal. **Procedural Clarity on Public Comment Timing** A procedural dispute arose regarding when interested parties could present their views on the Charles Young Center proposal. Council Member Lawless and Council Member Crosby advocated for allowing public input prior to the Thursday vote, arguing that community members should have the opportunity to comment before the council cast their votes. Council Member Ford took a different position, contending that the item under consideration was only a resolution of intent and therefore did not constitute a binding commitment by the council. This disagreement reflected differing interpretations of what procedural safeguards and public participation requirements applied to the matter at hand. ## Items referred by Council Members Council Member Ford requested permission to discuss the Charles Young Center redevelopment, citing urgency due to a February 3rd HUD grant deadline. [timestamp: 00:06:32] **Key Discussion Points** The discussion included several concerns raised by council members: - **Community input**: Questions were raised about the adequacy of community engagement in the redevelopment process - **Alternative proposals**: Council members discussed alternative development proposals for the site - **Long-term lease implications**: Concerns were expressed about the long-term lease arrangements associated with the project **Council Member Positions** Council Member Lawless requested that interested parties be invited to present on Thursday to allow for broader input on the matter. Council Member Ford emphasized that the resolution under consideration is only a resolution of intent and does not bind the council to any particular course of action. **Speakers** The following council members participated in the discussion: - Council Member Ford - Council Member Lawless - Council Member McCord - Council Member Crosby - Council Member Henson **Outcome** The item was deferred. ## Referral of audit recommendations to General Government Committee Council Member Crosby raised a concern that recommendations from the State Auditor report—excluding procurement-related items—were not appearing on the General Government Committee's list. Crosby requested that these recommendations be referred back to the General Government Committee for proper review and consideration. Council Member Ellinger responded by confirming that the recommendations had been formally transferred to the committee. With this clarification provided, the motion to refer the audit recommendations to the General Government Committee was accepted. **Outcome:** Approved ## Referral of facility use policy to General Government Committee [timestamp: 01:39:27] Council Member Myers moved to refer the ongoing facility use policy to the General Government Committee for continued review. The facility use policy had been developed in collaboration with the Partner Agency Oversight Committee. The motion was accepted without objection, resulting in approval of the referral. ## NDF Neighborhood Development Fund list [timestamp: 01:40:29] The NDF Neighborhood Development Fund list was presented as an informational item. The list was confirmed to have been automatically absorbed into Thursday's docket, indicating that the item had been successfully incorporated into the scheduled proceedings without requiring manual transfer. A new procedure was discussed that will ensure future NDFs are automatically included in the docket without the need for manual intervention. This procedural change is intended to streamline the process for handling Neighborhood Development Fund items in future meetings. The item was informational in nature, with no formal action required. ## Council Committee Reports Five standing committees presented reports during this agenda item. [timestamp: 01:41:36] The committees that reported were: - Economic and Community Development - Social Services - General Government - Public Safety and Public Works - Environmental Quality Council Member Blues presented information from these committees. The Environmental Quality Committee emphasized the urgency of the sewer capacity assessment project and called for increased public involvement in the initiative. This agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal action taken. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Motion to recommend that the Charles Young Center redevelopment resolution be placed on the docket for Thursday night's meeting --- ## Full transcript I heard a motion over here, Council Member Beard, second by Council Member Ellinger. Are there any questions about the summary or discussion? If not, all those in favor, please say aye. Anyone opposed? All right. We'll move on to our review of the docket. And the docket starts on page four of the packet. Thank you, Council Members. Any recommendations for second reading of ordinances? And if you'll log in, please, when you would like to speak. No? Okay. We'll move on to first reading of ordinances, which includes what used to be our new business items. Is there anyone who wishes to make a recommendation about an item on first reading of ordinances? Mr. Farmer. What if we just have a question about a new business item? You'd like to ask for additional information. Thank you. You're welcome to ask your question, because there might be someone in the audience who can answer it. Just in the process of reacquainting myself with what's going on in government item number six, deleting Article 20 in the zoning ordinance, I'm just wondering, since I don't find anything in support of this in here, just what the changes are to the landscaping and street tree regulations. Mr. Bill Siley is here. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Good afternoon. The Planning Commission sent to the Council a couple of weeks ago a final report with a recommendation that Article 20 of the zoning ordinance be deleted. This follows an ordinance that was passed earlier in the year to the Code of Ordinances that basically replaces Article 20 of the zoning ordinance with other Code of Ordinance sections. And so the Planning Commission held a public hearing in December to formally repeal Article 20 of the ordinance so we only have one set of regulations remaining. So these were redefinitions in some capacity then? There were amendments made to the Code of Ordinances in terms of that section of the zoning ordinance. That was part of the change, but it really was a two-step process. All right. I'll go back and review it, but thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Is there any other question or action on first reading of ordinances? If not, we'll move to second reading of resolutions. Council members, do you have anything you'd like to take up there, Resolutions 1 through 17? It's a quiet day. We'll move on then. First reading of resolutions starts on page 7 of the packet. Is there any action that you would like to take Thursday night on any item? All right. If not, we'll move right along. Our budget amendments start on page 11, and we're here to review them if you have questions. I think questions are in order. And so, Council Members, page 11 and page 12 have budget requests, budget amendments. Are there any questions or comments? No? This is an unusually quiet Council today. We'll move right along. And Council Member Lawless. I'm sorry, could we backtrack to resolutions with first reading? Yes. Number 28, it is George Milligan, Construction Supervisor, Grade 118E, in the Department of Public Works and Development. And I understand, is there someone here from HR that can or that that will be a non-civil service? Kevin Wente, welcome. Thank you. Not of HR, but with Public Works. I did get an email from Dan Fisher with HR who helped me tremendously in getting this position together, that this is a non-civil service position. That is correct. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions about resolutions or about the budget amendments on 11 and 12? If not, we will move on to item five on our agenda, which is items which Council Members refer to committees. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Vice Mayor. At this time, I would ask for council's consideration to discuss a matter in my district for which I would like to bring forth today, the Charles Young Center redevelopment. And so, pursuant to Section 4.104 of our council rules, and due to the urgency of this matter, Vice Mayor, I would ask if council can send if we can bring this forward for discussion at this time. Council members, would you? Okay, there's a motion and a second to hear from Mr. Ford about an item. And really, I think the question here is, do you want to hear about it, which this would be an appropriate place? Council Member Blues? Yes, I would like to hear about it. I have a couple of questions. I think that's the gist of the motion, is it not, to allow this. Okay. Is there any other question? Council Member Crosby. So you're not referring this on to committee, which is where we are. You just want to discuss this? I think that. Or do you have a motion to move this on, Council Member Ford? Well, my intent initially, as per the council rules, is to ask for consideration to discuss it. And after that discussion, I do intend to ask for Council's permission to recommend that it be placed on the docket for Thursday's night council meeting. So first things first is just to allow the permission to discuss it. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Any other questions about the motion? Council Member Ellinger. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Do you have any information that you're going to be passing out? Yes, sir. So what I do have is I have the copy of the resolution, which provides a lot of background. I have discussion and members to speak in support of this project. But again, first thing first, I just want to, per the council rules, have the opportunity to discuss it. Thank you. Okay. Any other question? Some council members have the information. Others don't. And so they're apparently – so anyway, is there any more discussion about the motion to hear something about this? Council Member Blues? Is it appropriate to ask questions at this time about the resolution or the draft resolution? We're just simply determining if we want to give Mr. Ford the floor to present this and have questions. We've had it. Yeah, that's, I believe that's what the motion is on the floor. Okay, if there are no others, all those in favor of hearing from Mr. Ford, please say aye. Anyone opposed? All right, Mr. Ford. Thank you, Vice Mayor and members of the Council. I've had the opportunity to speak with many of you in the last day or so in regards to a facility in my district in District 1. Just a little background. The facility in question is the Charles Young Community Center, which is located at 540 East 3rd Street. As many of you are aware, our government has been fortunate to support many community revitalization efforts in the East End. And many good things have happened with the new housing, the new community school, the restoration of the Lyric Theater. So a lot of positive things are going on in the East End. However, in the interim of all the good things that are going on, the Charles Young Community Center has gone through some changes. In summary, it's been vacant for the last two, approximately two years, as all of the services recreationally have been transferred on site to the William Wells Brown Community Center on Fifth Street. So recognizing that our government has limited funding opportunities, not only to just invest in Charles Young, but throughout all the needs that we have as a government, that has provided challenges for us. We have an opportunity today to pursue two things in regards to Charles Young. Funding to renovate this facility is probably more important to enter into partnerships with community agencies who have proven records of providing social services and housing services to our community. So in just what I am proposing is that the urban county government enter into a partnership agreement with the Lexington Housing Authority, who has been the lead agency to bring about many new housing changes in that area, as well as the Community Action Council here in Lexington. The proposal would be to a resolution of intent to lease the Charles Young Community Center to the Lexington Housing Authority. The Housing Authority has an opportunity to pursue another, yet another grant from HUD, Housing and Urban Development for Community Facilities. They would then in turn partner with the Community Action Council, as is required by the grant, to partner with a social service provider in that area. The estimated grant is $2.5 million towards the renovation of Charles Young. The urgency in this matter, and I do appreciate you allowing us to talk about it today, is that the grant has a deadline of next Thursday, February 3rd, due to Washington. There's a national pool of $35 million, and HUD anticipates awarding 12 grants throughout the country. Our housing authority has been successful to our benefit to bring back two HOPE 6 grants, so we do feel optimistic about our chances here this afternoon. So that's the resolution that I've provided. Hopefully everybody has a copy of that resolution, which in my efforts are very descriptive. It is, again, just a resolution of intent. It is contingent upon our housing authority being successful in bringing back these funds from Washington, D.C. and it does just personally several things. It keeps the redevelopment in the East End going, particularly for Charles Young. Many of you were on council at the time throughout this renovation, and you heard the concerns and the desires of East End residents, which was to preserve Charles Young, to renovate it. This provides an opportunity for us to do so, and also it does not provide a cost burden to the government. So if there are any questions, I would look forward to entertaining those now. And thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. There do seem to be some questions. Mr. Lane. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I talked to Council Member Ford, and he indicated to me that the plan here would be for, I guess the entity that will be managing the center would pay all operating expenses like utilities, janitorial, maintenance, and there would be no operating costs to the government if they're asking for us to let them use the billing and no rent. And I guess that would come before the general government committee because we oversee that type of thing. But it appears that we need to give some consent now so they could go ahead and apply for the grant, and then if they get it, then we would work out the final terms on that, on the real estate. And, of course, they would spend about $2.5 million, as well as represented, to renovate the facility, bring it back up to standards. So, I mean, it sounds like we're getting close to a reasonable transaction there. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I, too, had the opportunity to talk to Council Member Ford, and I did not have the actual resolution in front of me, but my question is one, two, three, fourth paragraph, where it states that through the adoption of the East End Small Area Plan and the Charles Young Community Center Feasibility Study, with that feasibility study, or with their, I'm assuming they have a board, that runs that, is there, do they have a plan and does the plan have information about who should be in that facility? Great question, Council Member Crosby. A lot of planning efforts has gone on in that area, as the resolution indicates, the Eastern Small Area Plan, as well as the Charles Young Feasibility Plan, which was performed by EHI consultants here in Lexington in January 2009. They basically studied the current condition of the facility, which did indicate that it is in need of repair. It also took advantage of the opportunity through community meetings to identify preferred sources, preferred activities, community-related activities in the facility, of which youth activities was one of those activities, job training and others do result. So in regards to the proposed project at this time, because it has already expressed interest a few months ago in being one of the agencies to pursue occupancy of the Charles Young Center, the Community Action Council and its director, Jack Bertis, here today, has already started some of the planning activities for it. So the actual, to my understanding, is that we will continue between now and grant submission on February 3rd to finalize the scope of the project and to fine tune those things. My role as the council representative for this district is, as the resolution also reads, is to ensure that our government has both hands on the wheel and are definitely at the table throughout the project design, throughout the project integration, cost projections and things of the such. Fortunately for us, we have partners that are willing to go on our behalf to pursue those grant funds and support the project. So the community planning is there. That supports one thing, Council Member Crosby, that the community plan did indicate that I disagree with, and I'll be quite honest, is that the feasibility study called for the government to dispose of the Charles Young Center through an RFP process. I disagree with that. I think it conflicts with the desires of the East End residents. And so my position is that the government maintain and retain ownership of the facility, lead the renovation of the facility, and also enhance the green space of which it is limited in the East End. So this opportunity for the grant kind of gets us in that direction. Well, I appreciate that information. Unless there's something compelling today, I mean, I will support moving it on for Thursday night. But I would like to possibly see, I don't know if we have it on file, the feasibility study or if you could get that prior to Thursday. I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Vice Mayor. My question is for Council Member Ford, sort of along the line of Council Member Crosby's. And that is, I think the concern here is that whatever uses the center might be put to are consistent with the East End Small Area Plan, with community input. I would guess that Head Start would not be the sole tenant or servicer in the facility. And I'm wondering who would control the uses that the facility would be assigned to. Would the urban county government have the final right of approval of that once this lease is finalized? Council Member Blues, I would believe that if we're fortunate to get the grant, that the intent is for the site control to be granted over to the Lexington Housing Authority, which would then be in control of the site. They would have earned and been rewarded with the grant funds for the specific purpose to provide these social services to the residents of the East End via its operation and management partnership with the Community Action Council. So as we pursue this grant, we will retain ownership. But in the grant lease terms, pursuant to the requirements of the grant, are for a minimum of 20 years. So we would be entrusting and working with partnership with the housing authority who has ultimate site control. But the requirement of them through its third party service provider is to provide these services, child care and head start to the residents of the East End. So the investment of the two point five million dollars, usually as with most grants, the investment in large part dictates. the usage. But I think it would also, those usages very consistent with planning and will definitely serve a benefit to the district. Just to follow up, Vice Mayor, I certainly support putting this on the docket, but I think here is an area of concern because I think it's very important that that whatever use this facility might be put to is consistent with what the community wants, with the East End Small Area Plan. Housing Authority has not always been sympathetic to the idea of even preserving the Charles Young Center, And I think we must be very careful here to make sure that it will serve the community for the best possible benefit. So I'm hoping that these questions will be addressed before we give final approval. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Kaye. Yes, thank you. Council Member Ford, you and I kind of crossed paths and you were going to talk to me about this and that never happened. So this is a little bit new to me, but I do have a concern and I think a question. The concern is that this is an extremely short timeframe and we're given as a Council one option and thinking about the potential use of that building. And there's a lot to be gained. I understand that, but I'm not sure, given the history of the conversations about the use of that building, whether it's appropriate to try and make a decision so quickly. My question has to do with whether some of the people who are involved in the conversations about the East End plan and some of the people who are involved in other conversations about the use of that building are aware of this proposal, have they been consulted about it, and have other people come forward with different notions about the way that building might be used? If I can defer this time to present, and I will follow up with that answer to that question, Mr. Jack Bursler of the Community Action Council, may we talk about his role in the project, And then I would definitely follow up in concern to Mr. Kaye's question. Welcome, Mr. Birch. Thank you. We participated in all the community activity and all of the forums that were held in the neighborhood to discuss the future uses of the center. And we took those into consideration when Council Member Ford asked us to join a conversation. You see references to Head Start because, quite frankly, HUD says we are more likely to fund you if you have Head Start in the facility than if you don't. And so we do have a Head Start center on Race Street. It's not a very suitable building, and we'd love to get out of it. So we plan to relocate children from there to Charles Young. But the other activities that were identified, and I believe all of the activities that were identified in the neighborhood meetings with the exception of one, will be incorporated there. We plan to provide a full comprehensive service site. We have a verbal agreement, not in writing yet, with the Urban League where they will do some youth development activities and youth employment activities within the facility. The one activity we do not know how to do is there are people from that neighborhood who were used to having weekly dances in the gymnasium. And we cannot figure out on a cost-feasibility basis to basically reserve the gymnasium for that sole purpose, and so the building would be reconfigured, and that would not be possible under the current proposal. Well, I understand that there were extensive conversations in the development of the Central Sector Plan. My question really is, since then, there have been additional conversations about the use of the building. Have local residents, have other interested entities been a part of the conversation about the development of this grant, and can you help me understand why it's due in two weeks and it's coming to us for the first time? I can't answer that part, other than we're doing our best to talk to people. But, Council Member Kay, I can. I think there's been a lot of discussion, and I think my plan, if you read the resolution, is that, and as I have expressed to many of the Council Members, this generally is not my style. I'm a government guy, and when best and when I have the opportunity, I like to give as much advance notice as possible. This is my third week on the job, and I feel that not an excuse to not at least to explore the opportunity to pursue a $2.5 million grant, something that the community has addressed the need for. A lot of my deliberation on this matter and even my decision to bring it before council today has been on my observation of community conversation around this issue. I know the charrettes back in 05-06 that called for the new road design to avoid Charles Young. My work as a city staffer in community development to acquire and demolish those homes along Ann Street to preserve Charles Young. The feasibility study that called for the intended uses. Everything that we're proposing today is consistent with what the community has expressed time and time again. What I'm hoping to do is this is just a resolution of intent. The opportunity that we have, if we consider adopting this resolution of intent, it gives our partners, great community partners, the opportunity to pursue funds. It also gives the government the opportunity and responsibility to dig further, to study further, to integrate this project design and integration with the continued wishes of the community. So I think it's consistent with what the community has said. I think, unfortunately, Mr. K., Council Member K., is that I'm just getting here, and this is one of the first projects that I'm tackling. Not much has been done in the interim, unfortunately, and I don't think we can delay any further when we have an opportunity such as this right here present. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Ford and I had a rather long conversation about this yesterday, and I appreciate that he isn't going to use the excuse that he's three weeks on the job to pass up this opportunity. And so he's bringing it forward. I appreciate that. I think that's a great thing to do. Although I have several questions about the plan, and we had a lengthy conversation about some of them, I'm not sure who to present these questions to, whether it be the Housing Authority or to Council Member Ford or to Mr. Birch. But I guess I'll say two things starting out. One, this program will touch two different areas of government. One is that under the previous administration, the Partner Agency's Oversight Committee was working with them to create a facilities use policy. And we've made great strides to get there. We weren't quite ready to bring it to the full council yet when the transition took place. So that's an issue. We're looking at giving this facility to somebody for 20 years for $1 a year. And that policy was going to advise the council on how to do that and when to do that for the best interest of the taxpayer. The second piece is the needs assessment that was done in social services. And that was also going to play into that policy on how we utilize our facilities going forward. So those are two things that we have to take into consideration, I think, here. And that being the case, some of the questions that I have are the $2.5 million that the Housing Authority is going to apply for the grant. Can someone speak to what those monies will do if you're successful in getting the grant? And what I'm really trying to get at is I don't know if our facilities management folks have done an assessment of that building. I'm not sure if that's the case. So I don't know if we know what the life of the building is, what the condition of the roof is, the HVAC system, those kinds of things. So what I'm wondering is, does this $2.5 million go towards those things? If the building needs a new roof, if the building needs a HVAC, are those things going to be paid for with this grant? Or is it just going to be to fit up the building for this program? I'm sorry, I'm Barry Holmes with the Lexington Housing Authority. Thank you, sir. And all of the $2.5 million would go back into the site itself. And like Chris said, we have kind of fast-tracked this. When we saw the NOFA originally, we were going, we have a small daycare that Community Action is currently in now. And it's, no matter how pretty we made the building, they were still going to be landlocked. I think they can only service about 30 kids now. whereas with a larger facility, obviously we can get 80 or so children in there. But every one of the 2.5 mil was to go into the deferred maintenance needs, the accessibility issues. I don't believe the building has an elevator right now. We would have to put that in. So, and I'm kind of at a disadvantage, Community Action has done more research regarding the site itself than we have. We just really heard about the NOFA right before Christmas. And our first plan was to do our own building. It's like, eh, it's really not going to help us much to put any dollars into that building. We need to look elsewhere. Do we build a new building on some of the site, some of the property we control? That was a thought. And then, you know, everyone started talking. Charles Young was like, this could be a win-win. and we could use that money to renovate and fix that building, deal with all the deferred maintenance needs there, bring it up to the standards that it should be in, and serve the community with the daycare and the continuing education. Okay, so the short answer is that that $2.5 million is taking into account the current condition of the building, and it's not just for the programmatic change inside the building, but it's to actually renovate the building and break back those kinds of things. No, it takes that into account. And it's really formula-driven based on the square footage. Okay. I only have five minutes, and my time's almost up. Okay. So I don't want to cut you off, but I have a few more questions. Okay. You've answered a couple of them. So this would facilitate about 80 kids. 60 kids. Okay. And so are you saying that 30 kids that are already being served someplace else are going to go over here, so it's not going to be 60 new kids. It's going to be 30 new kids and the 30 kids that are already being served. Is that the case? Yeah, there will be 30 new served. I mean, the ones that are currently being served are, I mean, I think Mr. Birch addressed that. That facility really isn't appropriate. one way or another, they're going to have to move. Okay. My time's up, so I'm not sure. It's not the same children. It's 30 funded slots that would transfer from the other facility, plus 30 additional slots that are receiving what are called home-based services. But it's slots. You know, the child goes on to kindergarten and another child. Sure, sure. So my question was really that half the slots are taken then. Sorry? And half the slots are already taken then. But they graduate out. If you've got $30 million, you're going to move. They graduate out. We've been looking for a replacement facility for the Ray Street building for some time. It's a big O.C. It's not a good place to have children. Okay. I have a couple more questions. I don't know if anybody's going to yield me time or you'll be, as a council would. Well, there is a council rule that you can speak twice for five minutes each. Okay. Once everybody's spoken once. Sure. Would that work? That'll work. All right. Thank you. Okay. So we'll go on to Council Member Beard. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Ford, what happens if we don't get the grant or they don't get the grant? Great question, Council Member Beard. There is no obligation of this government to continue with the resolution of intent. And that's what I'm presenting today is just a resolution of intent to provide the housing authority the site control needed to submit the grant. If they don't secure the grant, we would know. Hopefully we would have started the negotiations for the terms and conditions of the final lease. If they are not successful, go back to the drawing board, basically. We're under no obligation to continue the lease. The resolution does state that what I'm terming as an intent period, which is approximately no more than 12 months, that's the time from grant submittal to hopefully grant notification back from HUD. But if they don't get the grant, we're under no obligation. This resolution just gives them a chance to take the shot. And how is this going to be administered? Who does the administration of running the place and the staff, where the staff comes from and that type of thing? And I guess that's more, Jack, for you than it is for Chris. Our commitment is to ensure the administration of the building with both a center manager who would be on site, But our support service, we have our own facilities department, for example, and we've committed to all of the maintenance costs of the building and the operating costs of the building. That is relatively easy for us to do. The hard part for us is to get a facility. Most of our grants don't allow us to buy properties. You did answer another question I had, and that was about the light maintenance that goes on with a building. Not an HVAC system, but mopping the floors and trimming the bushes and cutting the grass and that type of thing. We will be responsible for all of that. We like the arrangement as proposed because it's unlike certain situations we have where the owner of the buildings assumes certain responsibilities but doesn't always deliver. and under this agreement we are responsible for operating that building, maintaining that building, plopping the floors to servicing the HVAC systems. And all that would be ironed out in the lease when the lease is actually. That's correct. But we've already gone on record, at least in the meetings that we've had as we were rushed, to say that we would be responsible for 100 percent of the operating costs of the building. Okay. Thank you, Jack. Thank you, Chris. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yeah, there's been a lot of good questions asked, but I guess I want to follow up on a couple things. One, what is the total cost of the project? How do we get the $2.5 million number? What is the total cost of renovation? And do we have a blueprint? Do we already have plans, or is this still conceptual at this point? It is still somewhat conceptual due to the short time span. The reason we arrived at this figure was based on HUD's formula. That's the maximum, I assume. That is the max, and obviously we're going to ask for as much as we can possibly get based on the square footage of the facility. And without our absences resolution for intent, would you still apply for the money? We would possibly, but again, I don't know that we really serve our needs or the community's needs by making our current facility. it has some deferred maintenance needs, but it's landlocked and it can still only serve 30 or so children. So no matter how pretty I make it, no matter how much we bring it up, I'm still only going to serve 30 people. I'm just trying to think outside the box because, you know, there's a lot of property available out there anyway, not just this one property. I understand it's ideal, but I wouldn't want to see the blueprint of the property expanded so that the green space is taken up with making the building bigger. That would be one concern we'd have to look at. But the other concern is this is just a resolution for intent. If we don't approve the lease agreement, then you don't have a building anyway. So this doesn't bind the council if we move this forward. It doesn't bind us whatsoever. It just gives you some more surety to move forward. I would think, though, if this was as important as we're making it to believe today and the necessity for rushing, that you would still apply anyway. Because using that money in our community somewhere, not just only Charles Young Center, would be a benefit to anywhere we would choose to use it. So that's just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth. But I would still apply regardless of what happens here at the council. I would think you'd have an opportunity in a lot of other places in the community. Well, that's true. And, again, we control a certain amount of land in that neighborhood. Right. But it doesn't address – if we do that, if we build new, it doesn't address the city's deferred maintenance needs or what to do with Charles Young. So we can always apply and build a new building on another plot of land. But we kind of thought this was a win-win. Thank you. And then I want to follow up, though. You gave me a good bridge to the administration about the deferred maintenance of this facility. What is the administration's opinion on this use of this building? Because I know, as Councilman Crosby alluded to, Councilman McKay, there's a small area plan out there. There's a lot of other things going on. Again, this building was under another study, said we don't need it anymore. We need to sell it. There's a lot of private interest in buying this area. Where do we stand on all those factors? Well, I think we support the intent, and I think Chris has brought it up here, the opportunity to get this grant money. I mean, to get it is going to be tough, but I think once we get it, we still can review all kinds of process. But I think to go ahead and allow these folks to go ahead and get the grant, I would be in favor of that, and I think the administration would too. We've still got a while to go. If somebody has a better plan, I know the first district, Chris, would be glad to listen to it. But this would always be there in case something doesn't work out. But as you know, it's been vacant for a while. And first of all, the other, Chris went through the other day. The building's not really in that bad of a shape. I mean, it's in pretty good shape. And I think we've done some improvements in the last 10 years. But I think to go ahead with the intent, let me tell you, if you've got a chance to get grant money, It's a good chance to go get it. And that doesn't mean we have to use it. It's just if something comes up better, I think Chris is willing to listen in the first district. So I think the administration is in favor to go ahead and what this does. As opposed to any other options on utilizing the property or to do with the building, this is the best option you've seen that we should move forward with? Right. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember McCord. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Birch, you had mentioned that you've been planning some programming for this. How long have you been working on that? When the charrettes were going on, it was our understanding at some point that the Irvin County government was going to issue an invitation or an RFP. So we had already gone ahead and developed a plan that would fit into a proposal that we would submit, and then when the government did not issue the RFP, it went into a file from the Cabinet. Okay, thank you. And we're basically modifying it and reviving it. Okay, thank you. You know, I have great interest in this area, even though my district is on another part of the city, and that interest is evidenced by a meeting that I attended with Mr. Ford last week with a group of community leaders. Those community leaders were folks from the University of Kentucky, including the provost of the University of Kentucky, Ed Holmes from EHI, who is the author and the facilitator of the small area plan for the East End, and the Charles Young feasibility study, along with a number of other community leaders. And at that table, you know, there was another plan that was presented. There is an additional interest in the larger scope than just Charles Young, but it certainly incorporated Charles Young and the improving of that facility. I think that what's common is that everyone wants to see that facility improved and be what it can be for that neighborhood. That proposal that was on the table at that meeting with those community leaders included, it was about a $20 million investment. both private and public, and it included jobs, it included new buildings, revitalizing buildings, community gardens, a number of the things that are in the small area plan and are what are called for in the small area plan for the East End. And as we're talking here, we're not voting on anything because of our new structure. This will show up again on Thursday. But I am very reluctant to move forward with sending a resolution saying this is what we ought to do, and especially as quickly as we're moving, because, again, this council doesn't necessarily move this fast with things. This is the first I'd heard of it. I didn't hear a thing, Council Member Ford, at that meeting. You brought none of this up at that meeting. If this was very important, I would have thought that you might have said something to us while we met for two hours. I was still working, Council Member McCord. Thank you. But you made no indication that this was even in the pipeline, and that's very disturbing to me. So one of the things that this council needs to understand is that there are other proposals out there, and come Thursday when we vote for first reading, what you need to understand is that we need to ask ourselves What is, if applying for $2.5 million helps the Charles Young Center in this capacity, that's great, but does it hurt an investment of potentially $20 million that is much broader and for the East End? And so that's my concern today. And so I have a real problem with going along with someone who we're going to lease a building to for $1 a year for 20 years when there is a tremendous amount of public and private interest in investing in this neighborhood, in this area. So those are my concerns. And I'll give you a very specific concern as it relates to Charles Young is on the site plan, I see that there's a surface parking lot. And, again, that surface parking lot does nothing for economic growth, does nothing for a tax base, and does nothing for job creation. And so those are the types of things that I have concern over this plan. And, again, we're not doing anything here but talking about it. Come Thursday we'll talk some more about it. In the interim, I'm sure you'll probably hear from other parties that have interest in it. So I do appreciate the opportunity to have this conversation today. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Councilmember Lane. My first thought is I just wanted to say that Councilmember Ford is one of our newest members of the council. and the fact that he's been able to bring a resolution before us this quickly I think should be complemented. I remember when my first couple of meetings on council, it was sort of tricky, and of course he's sort of learning the parliamentary procedure, et cetera, in the council. I would like to just suggest that maybe we add another clause in here, and we could bring that up maybe at the council meeting, that this resolution would be subject to and conditioned upon the Aram County Government's final approval of the proposed use of the property, the HUD grant, a business plan for the property, and a lease agreement between the city and the lessor. Thereby, we could go ahead and try to get the grant, but it would still be conditioned upon these additional approvals. I think that would be maybe a good way to approach that. Just my thought. Thank you. I'm not making a motion because this is not a council meeting. There is no motion on the table right now. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Ford, I appreciate the amount of work in your district bringing this forward so quickly. I think it's a great idea. Do you know of other, like Council Member McCord said, do you know of other interest in this property? I do. I think generally there's been great community interest, both private sector and public sector. My understanding is that I think as was mentioned, Mr. Birch mentioned, dating back to the Charette's back in 05 and 06, the sentiment in the community was at some said point in time in the future, the building was going to be vacant. This was going to be the opportunity for an organization to take site control of the property. So there's been many, many things mentioned. The proposal of which Council Member McCord is speaking is a private development project that I'm aware of that is vastly different than the proposal that I'm presenting. The proposal that I'm presenting only addresses Charles Young Center, of which we have site control. So for me to present it, and I'm hopefully council consideration here today, but I'm definitely within, as a government official within bounds, to present this because we have site control. The proposal that I'm aware of that incorporates plans for Charles Young without site control being designated, granted, or offered to it. So there has been, I think, longstanding interest throughout the property, Councilmember Henson. Included in a larger, correct. I guess I was just thinking, you know, it's been vacant for two years, and we have an opportunity to increase the value of this property, which Richard has said is not in real bad shape, but I would think $2.5 million would make it a whole lot better. And I do think that Community Action Council and the Housing Authority have done great things in our community, and I would think that area that there would be a need for extra child care and other activities. So I think we should move forward with this resolution and help this area as much as we can. There's been tremendous improvement over there, and I would welcome this in certain areas of my district. As for maintenance costs and all that, I think that should be hashed out before, you know, once the lease agreement's signed. And so I would not want the urban county government to take on long-term care of this property if it's being leased for such a small amount. And I believe child care is profitable. Last I checked, if you want to... Well, in this case, it's not run like a business. We receive grant funds on an amount per child. Right. And the award includes these kinds of costs as well as the cost of a teacher and supplies. It's all factored in there. So we will be able to have an extraordinarily good program on a site where we're not paying rent, for example, because all the money can remain for the activities on the site itself. But if the maintenance costs would be included in your operating budget. That's part of the cost per child. Okay. And the other activities that will be there, too, bring with them resources. And one other question for Council Member Ford. There are activities occurring there now. Is that correct? No, ma'am, Council Member Henson. There has been no activities in the last two years. All activities that were performed there in recreation are now just up the street at the William Wills Brown Community Center. Okay, so they are occurring elsewhere. Recreational, yes, Mayor. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess my next question was going to be, it's my understanding that there was an RFP process that was set up for determining the use of this building. And I'm wondering, is that how you arrived at this partnership for this programming out of the building? Was an RFP done? And you shook your head yes on the RFP process. Is this how you entered into this opportunity? The RFP, I have seen a draft of the RFP, but for reasons I don't understand or know, the government chose not to issue the RFP. We had seen a draft. We had even participated in conversations about how to design it in such a way that you'd get multiple proposals by making sure everybody's concerns were addressed. We assumed it was going to come out, so we began already writing the first draft of our proposal, but then the government didn't issue it. Okay. Thank you. I guess I would like to see, I guess my other question for you is, it was kind of touched on earlier, is this going to be the sole use of this facility once this is done, or will you occupy half the building and the other half is available for other uses, or how's this, in your vision, how's it working? We're talking a lot about Head Start today, but Head Start will be a part of it. The model is going to be like our center in Winburn, which is a comprehensive center that provides multiple services. The center that will be opening in April in the old Russell School building, the same thing. There will be space there to do other activities. The first party that we've spoken with because Council Member Ford brought them in was the Urban League. They're looking to get physically president more in that area to do youth programming. So we're allocating space in the plan and the design for that to happen because they're a partner we use a lot anyway. The intent is to be responsive to the needs of the community as we can. The limitation I will tell you that I have in terms of the resources the Community Action Council can use, this has to be for low-income folks. We're not allowed to use our dollars for the more affluent members of the community. But it doesn't mean someone else serving a different population can't come in the building and use it. That's certainly a desirable activity. So my final question is, do you envision community action, paying for landscaping, grass cutting, snow shoveling, maintenance on the building for the next 20 years? We have agreed to that. And do you have that in your budget? Do I have it in our budget? Yes. Where will you get the money for that? It's already in the budget in other places where we're going to consolidate services. For example, a lot of the services that would be there are targeted to that neighborhood, but we've never found a facility, so they're still operating out of the building on Georgetown Street. So the resources to do that are there. I'm very comfortable in making that commitment. Okay, thank you. I guess my final thoughts are I would like to see still how this fits into this final area plan, other opportunities that are out there, and whether or not this is the best use for this facility for the next 20 years. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Yes, during the discussion, a few more things came up that I have some questions on. First, Mr. Maloney stood up and said that, you know, if there were other plans that, you know, certainly it would be something that should be considered. And then I wasn't aware until after he stated that fact that there were some private investors or developers who are interested in this area and that there had been meetings held. So clearly I think, and it concerns me too that our CAO doesn't know that either before bringing forth something that we're going to get into a 20-year contract with. I agree with some of my colleagues that this probably needs to be, that we need a copy of the Easton Small Area Plan and also the feasibility study prior to Thursday because a lot of things have come up here that we just were not aware of. And I would just comment also that site control, I'm not sure that that's something that I'm as much concerned about as I would be making sure that whatever we develop here and whoever does it, that it fits in with the plan of the neighborhood. We've already made a huge investment there and that it meets all the requirements of what the center requires, as well as with the feasibility study and then also the small area plan. Thank you. Council Member Kaye. Thank you. I'm going to kind of reiterate some of what's already been said, but I think I'd like to be as clear as possible about this because like Council Member Ford, I'm also new. And this happens to be in the district that I live in. So I'm more familiar probably with the issue than I would otherwise be. and I've not had an opportunity to talk with anybody that I know who's been active on this issue. And so it makes me a little bit uneasy. And my concerns, starting with the fact that this resolution of intent would commit our government to a 20-year lease and would preclude any other development of that building for any other purpose. If we were to go forward with this, it cuts off all conversation that's been ongoing about other uses of that facility. We're presented with an extremely short timeline. There's been little to no opportunity for community discussion about all of this. And so for all of those reasons, at the very least, I have serious concerns about moving this thing forward. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. Thank you. And it's not my district, but I consider it my neighborhood, and I drive down Third Street about 80 times a day for the last 16 years. As far as hearing that there are other interests in this building and developing this land, I'm concerned that, you know, have you met with any of those people and how does that fit with a small area plan? I have, Council Member Lawless, and if I could, I've met with those developers. The developer in question is Mr. Phil Hollenbeck, and all of us know Phil. He's done some work here in town before. And this is my position, and I clearly want to state it. I appreciate the developer's talent. I appreciate his vision. And this proposal in no way diminishes that. What I have suggested to the developers, the private sector developers, rather, I consider us public sector developers on behalf of the government, is the opportunity for us to integrate our plans and our vision for our property into what they want to do for the greater benefit of the district. Personally, in regards to some of the things they want to do along Midland, I personally have no problem with. Then again, it's private property, so all they must do is hopefully satisfy zoning and other development requirements of them. But it gives us the opportunity to integrate. This project does not preclude the opportunity for this government to work with said developer to integrate to make something special in that area. All this project does is it allows us the opportunity to be leaders on the public sector side to provide a service that's desperately needed in that area. Well, it was my understanding that there have been a couple of different groups looking at that property and that for the purpose of providing benefit to the community, not as a money-making project. And it seems that those things need to be looked at very carefully as far as us, because we have so much property right now that needs so much work and is in such horrible repair. keeping the title to it or keeping it as our property isn't as attractive to me as if there's somebody willing to do something really great for the community that fits in with the East End small area plan and is good for the community and takes a piece of property basically off our hands because we're struggling with just horrible problems with so many of our properties. Did the developer that you spoke with, is he part of a group or is it he himself? Because I think there may be more than one person looking at this. My understanding is that the developer is part of a group. As he described it to me, he would propose a $25 million project divided upon monks and investors. at two to three million dollars apiece. I want not this conversation, and I respectfully, Ms. Councilmember Lawless, this is about our opportunity to redevelop and not in regards to who has interest in the property. If I recall the citizens of District 1 in the East End said the Charles Young Center is not for sale. We don't want it to be for sale. We want it to be preserved and redeveloped. And this government has spent quite a bit of money with the construction of Shropshire Extension and that community school thus far to comply with the wishes of the East End residents. So it's about redevelopment of Charles Young and not an overall master plan. I believe this redevelopment can integrate with private sector wishes, Council Member Lawless. So this wouldn't preclude you all working with that? No, ma'am. And as I expressed to the developer that day, I said our office, my office, on behalf of the government, was going to keep an open ear. I'm not proposing we go out and put up a 10-foot fence around the border lines of the Charles Young Center. That wouldn't be the best thing for the district. I do believe we can work together and integrate. But this project, this redevelopment project, I think stands alone on its own merits. Well, when I hear $20 million versus $2.5 million, that's a lot of different millions. So anyway, it seems to me that my concern, I was supportive until I started hearing these things, that there needs to be more conversation about what is the best use of the land, how can it best serve the community and how the community can capitalize on financially as well as it being an economic development issue. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You know, I've got a bunch of questions. I've had a bunch of questions. I've written them down, but I don't want to go through all that because the question that we put before us today is let's get the grant on the way. And we're going to be on February 3rd. Is that the target date? Yes, sir. Next Thursday, February 3rd. We can take three months after that to negotiate what the situation is to our advantage, and no harm, no foul as far as the grant is concerned. If we don't get it, then the ball game is over. If they do get it, then we are still in the driver's seat because there's a lease to be executed, executed and there's lots of things we can do with that kind of leverage as far as the lease is concerned. All we're doing right now is just the first step in getting a grant. Thank you. Council Member McCord. Thank you. I just want to make a couple of clarifications. as we've kind of talked around a couple of things are I don't want to be have as inaccurate. And a couple of things, what Council Member Beer just said, if we pass this, we are sending our intentions that we want this grant and that we are, this is what we're going to do. We're going to give a 20-year lease at a dollar to these partners to do this activity. So I disagree respectfully that it does send a message, and that's the intent of the resolution is to send a message that we have a plan and we're moving forward. Another thing that I want to clarify is that this issue with Mr. Hollenbeck, Mr. Hollenbeck is not a developer in this project. Mr. Hollenbeck presented a plan to this group of community leaders, as we talked about, that Mr. Ford and I attended at UK. Mr. Hollenbeck has done all this on a donation basis. He has no intention of owning anything in this project. He has basically had a heart for this area for a long time and put a lot of his own resources into it and basically just cobbled together a number of interested parties from community ventures to Urban League to private folks to people who have interest in the community gardens, seed leaf, those types of things. And the bottom line to it is that this isn't a development and a developer coming in and saying, you know, we're going to go and develop a private project here for $20 million. And as he would say, if he was standing here on the mic, he said it numerous times as he's showed this to various people, is you're not going to get somebody to put $20 million, a one-person group to put $20 million into something, but you can get $2 million from this one and a million from this one and $500,000 from this one. And what the plan that was laid out just creates another discussion that is much broader than a watercolor or a picture or one person's vision. But I do think that this body needs to understand that there are multiple people who have interests in that area. There are multiple people who want to see Charles Young become what it's supposed to become and can become and want to make investment into that that don't necessarily have a problem with LFUCG owning it or controlling it. But we do send a message with everything that we do, and if we send a message that you can kind of rush something through this when there is a process, when there are other things in place, when we send a message that says, hey, that the administration believes this is the best thing that we can do for this area, a $2.5 million grant opportunity that may jeopardize future investment from other parties or at least interest in this area. I think those things are all things that we need to consider in this situation. And I am gratefully appreciative that we get a chance to discuss it like this. And so, Council Member Myers, thank you for changing government so that we can have the opportunity to discuss this. and not have to vote on it today, by the way. But it is important to realize that what is happening in the East End, there is tremendous momentum, and we don't want to stop that momentum. No one in this body wants to stop it. And what we need to realize is that there are a lot of folks in this community, inside and outside of government, that want to invest in it. And we need to embrace that. And as a decision-making body, we need to hear what those options are and make those decisions in a way that aligns with what that neighborhood has said they want, with what these studies have done, and the processes that have been put in place. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And, Council Members, thank you guys again for allowing me to bring this. I just kind of, having heard the comments and discussion, all of which has helped me and hopefully helped this government deliberate this matter, but I recognize that I'm one of 15 council members, and we serve on a team, and we've got a lot of heavy lifting to do. We make collective decisions. Nobody up here makes uniform, just one unilateral decisions, but it requires leadership. So I'm a city councilman for Lexington. Mr. Farmer is a city council for Lexington, and we can go around the table. Twelve of us, however, have the pleasure of being district representatives. And I sit here today honored to be the district representative of District 1. And the said property that we're discussing is in the heart of District 1. There's been a lot of activity, a lot of good things going. But, again, the council and the government collectively have supported many of the things that have gone on over there. So the argument can be made who best amongst those around this table knows what the community in our district states. The project, the Charles Young Redevelopment Project, is a social services project. I think Council Member Beard answered who's going to be in charge of guiding this. I consider it to be a social services project. We're going to be fortunate to bring grant dollars to renovate the building, but the government function that we're performing is providing an enhanced social service delivery to the residents of East Seen. So I want us to keep that in mind. It's a capital project because of grants and the redevelopment, but it's social service in nature. And I recognize, as does probably Mr. Birch, Mr. Holmes, Diane and her work in social services, there's not a lot of glory in that. Not a lot of glory in that, but the importance of this social service project is going to be paramount to my district. We've been fortunate at the Lyric to bring the cultural, to William Wells Brown, to bring the recreational, to bring the educational. There's still some unmet needs in my district, and I contend that social services is one of them. We're just fortunate that we have two service providers, the Authority and Community Action Council, providing service in this community already, just asking for the opportunity to provide an enhanced and service of greater capacity. Council Member Lane, I do appreciate your suggestion in regards to the business plan, and I think if you guys read the resolution, it states some of that. Section 6 and Section 7 basically ingest says that in the interim, in the intent period, we have the responsibility to continue to study this further. All I'm asking for today is the opportunity to proceed on with bringing the grant dollars back to Lexington. I contend the Charles Young Center is not for sale. I mentioned that earlier because the community has said that earlier. So this discussion about the RFP process, the disposition of interested parties, is not for sale. Turning our attention back to the building, this proposal does three things that I think are very important. It maintains the building. itself, the bricks and mortar of the Charles Young Community Center and what it has meant. It maintains and enhances the building. It preserves the green space. It preserves the green space that is very visible from Midland and Third Street. And it is probably the one track of green space in the east end of still sizable proportion. And it increases accessibility. That parking lot that Councilmember McCord mentioned, those were houses that I had the charge of acquiring and demolishing and relocating the residents on behalf of this government. Do we put housing there that's not affordable? I disagree. I don't think so. That parking, if we plan it and do it right, it does two things. It allows greater access to the persons that are going to be served at the Head Start Center, And it also allows the opportunity for more folks to come downtown and take the benefit of the green space. I think as a rookie councilman, Mr. K., I think I got a lot of learning to do, but I've done well. I didn't come to council asking for $2.5 million of general fund dollars, of which I know we don't have. I've come asking for the opportunity to pursue a federal funding opportunity that I think will help. To that end, Vice Mayor, I would make the motion to recommend that this resolution be placed on the docket of the Urban County Council on Thursday, January 27th. Council Member Farmer seconded the motion to recommend that this proposal go to Thursday night to be put on the docket. Any comments? Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I had a question for Jack. Mr. Birch, has your organization, have you all voted on this, the directors? Have you all voted about this issue? We talked about it last night, but obviously we want to see a lease before we would actually vote on it. The board is already supportive of the need to relocate all these services, and many of them that get them physically inside the East End so you don't have staff on Georgetown Street trying to serve people over in that area. And the board has already approved plan to find a location in that area. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. This would just be speaking to the motion about putting it on the docket, so I just had a question and a comment. Thank you. Council Member Martin Thank you, Vice Mayor Council Member Ford, welcome to Council As much as I'd like to vote on this, I have to recuse myself My wife has some sort of consulting thing with Community Action Council So I have been laying and staying out of it So thank you, Vice Mayor Thank you, Council Member Lane Right, well, since we're going to try to get this on the docket I'd like to add maybe Section 8, saying that this resolution is subject to and conditioned upon Durham County Government's final approval of proposed use of the property, the HUD grant, a business plan for the property, and a lease agreement between the city and the lessor. Council Member Lane, we actually cannot vote to add that today. We could vote to add it Thursday night. if you could get the language to law. This motion is to recommend that the resolution go forward to be voted Thursday night to put on the docket. Okay, so we can't do a resolution to recommend an amendment to the resolution to go forward? We did it to ourselves, didn't we? Well, then maybe we should go back to work sessions. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. I will have that amendment prepared. Thank you. I'll confer with you, Council Member Ford. Maybe we can agree on it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Stennett. Oops. You just went off. I was just wanting to clear up that this is not a motion to put it on the docket. Right. And we don't really need a motion today at all because you can do your motion Thursday night. So we can't vote on anything in this meeting. I, per Council Member Stennett, per my, and I would ask law departments that advise men on this, per my investigation, is that due to the urgency of the matter and on page 17 of the Council Rules, Section B, we can vote to recommend that it be placed on the docket. And that's my point. All you're doing is recommending it. The actual motion will come again Thursday night to put it on the docket, and that's where the rubber meets the road. This is just a third step we've added in the process that's either needed or not needed. That's a debate, but the real action takes place Thursday nights. Yes. If, Glenda, would you like to speak on the law perspective? You're both right. Glenda George. We can do it one or two ways. What Council Member Ford is proposing that we, that you all vote to recommend that it be placed on the docket and then what would happen is that Vice Mayor Gordon, you would report out on Thursday to put it on the docket and then it would happen that way or you could You could not make the motion today, and Council Member Ford could make a motion to walk it on on Thursday under first reading resolution. So you can do it either way. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would just say that when we talk about whether or not the third step's needed or not, I think this is a great step, because what this does is push the final decision out to Thursday night so the citizens that are at home or that at work right now will have an opportunity to come out and get involved in the meeting. So if it weren't that way, we could vote the table, or if the motion came up to put it on the docket, it could be voted down, and then that's the end of it. And so I think this is a great third step because it brings community involvement into our process. Thank you. Councilmember Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Having seconded the motion and being every bit of a neophyte at our new system as the rest are here, I think it's just important for us to take some sort of vote today. And since a motion has been made, which a vote can be taken on, I would call the question on that motion. The question has been called. That is not debatable. So, the motion is to recommend that this – thank you. Yes, we do have to vote to call the question. Excuse me. All right, all those in favor of calling the question, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Second. Council Member, the vote to call the question. There was no second, so we just had an illegal vote. I'll second. I'll second. I'll second. We have an, now I'm relying on our parliamentarian over here. Yes, you came to the rescue. We have a motion by Council Member Farmer and a second by Council Member Crosby to call the question. All those in favor say aye. Anyone opposed? Now, the question on the floor is to move to recommend that this resolution go forward to Thursday night. Thursday night the motion would be made to put it on the docket. Any questions? Any questions? Paul? May I ask a question clarifying? We're just, this again is just to move it to your report out so that you then can make a motion to add it to the docket. That's exactly right. Okay. I just wanted to clarify. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Okay. Where does that leave my suggested modification to the supporting? I would ask law to weigh in on that. After the motion is made to put it on the docket, and if that passes, then you could do a motion to amend the resolution. Thank you. On Thursday. Are there any other questions? Council Member Stennett. Not to make it any muddier than it already is, but couldn't Council Member Lane and Council Member Ford draft a different resolution on Thursday night to present that resolution? They'd have to walk it on. If this vote doesn't bind us, they can walk on a different resolution Thursday night, and he can go ahead and do that and not wait for it to be docketed. So that may be the cleaner way. Yes, you could do that. Any other questions, comments? All right. All those in favor of the motion on the floor, please say aye. Aye. And anyone opposed? And Council Member Martin wanted to recuse. Thank you. All right. Was anyone opposed? All right. Councilmember, I believe that vote passed with one recusal. And now we have questions. If you have questions, please log in. Councilmember Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess I want to ask, Law, I didn't really understand or agree with the way that you said about the amendment, because I know in the prior, if you make the motion, then if you want to amend that motion, you make the amendment. amendment at that time, you vote on that amendment, then you go back to the original motion as amended. Now we're voting on something that's a motion and then you want to amend it. You might not agree with the motion, but you might agree with the motion as amended. Do you understand that? Okay. If there's a motion to walk the resolution on, if Council Member, Vice Mayor Gordon reports out on Thursday to put that resolution on the docket, It goes on the docket for first reading. Prior to first reading, Council Member Lane could make a motion to amend the resolution, and that would be the proper procedure for doing that. So it's not dealing with amending the motions. It's the actual legislation that we would be amending. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Lawless has a question. I had a request. Are we through with this yet? We are. Have we voted to vote or not to vote to vote? We've already finished this issue, and we're still on agenda item five, more items from council members, if there are any. Okay. We've moved on from the Charles Young Center issue. Okay. And so now we need to know if other council members have items to refer. To refer to? To committee, to the docket, to get more information. I have. I think that's what I have. Okay. You're on. I would like to request that if there is a group or groups interested in doing something with this property and have a plan that they be invited to make a presentation on Thursday evening, if possible. I'll look at law. We already have two presentations on the docket. Are you wanting an actual full-blown presentation from several groups, or are you wanting them to comment? As far as I know, what I'm hearing, there's at least one group that there hasn't been an RFP, and that if we vote on this on Thursday evening, because the timeline, it's likely going to be requested that there be a second reading without any information on any other studies or recommendations or plans. And that concerns me. Well, Council Member Ford, can you – I thought I understood during the discussion that although the Council might vote to move this forward, it would allow, there would still be time allowed during the interim before the grant is granted or not to hear other plans. Is that? I guess what I'm saying is it sounds to me like what we will be doing is voting to go forward with submitting this grant. And if we go forward with submitting this grant, then that's pretty much going to stop any other plans or any other ideas or RFPs about best use. And certainly we don't want to be in a position of putting forth a grant and then telling them, never mind, we don't want it because that doesn't go over so well when you do another one. Council Member Ford? Council Member Lawless, again, the resolution of intent, one of the sections calls for an intent period, which I project not to extend beyond 12 months between grant submittal and notification from HUD. If we get the grant, I would definitely strongly encourage us to enter into a lease agreement. If we do not get the grant, we have to go back to the development stage. We have to go back to other alternatives. I strongly believe that Thursday is not the time to do it. I would strongly say that this council, and I don't mean this the wrong way, has had ample opportunity to do just as you have recommended prior to this council being seated in January. We own the facility. We can lease it to whomever we desire. However, we own a facility that we don't have any money to put into it. Luckily, we have two organizations that have resources, operational and development, to put into it. I strongly believe and I doubt that there will be organizations, even if we granted your request to bring it forth on Thursday, that can make that argument. Even if they can, I think Thursday night would be the wrong opportunity to do it. It's just a resolution of intent. It's a resolution of intent to apply for the grant, which is due February 3rd. Is that correct? It's a resolution of intent to apply for the grant that's on February 3rd. Now, here's something else to my understanding. I think that can clarify my position on this. Other groups have expressed an interest to buy Charles Young, not to lease it. to buy Charles Young, to acquire real property from this government in the East End. I'm against that. I'm against the disposition, and particularly, of the Charles Young Center. So I don't, again, I would discourage the request to bring interested parties to lease it, because I know of any. I know of one entity that is interested in acquiring. Thus, if they acquire Charles Young, they're not going to provide this social service to the community and the East End residents as I'm proposing. The only way we can control redevelopment on this property is to continue to own it, not to sell it. I guess my point in this is we don't know what their intent is because we haven't heard it. But that's why I requested that there be some opportunity to hear from the group that apparently Mr. McCord was speaking of, that we have an opportunity to hear from them. They may not want to buy it. They may. We don't know. I don't know. I mean, I don't know. Council Member Lawless, their record, I'm not going to speak about third unbeknownst parties. What I will speak to is what's on the floor is a proposal for a social service project with two of the strongest public agencies we have in Lexington who have records of bringing back Hope 6 grants to this community and providing social services. I think that's what it boils down to. I'm proposing a social service project, not a comparison of who can do what better, but a social service project, and in my short tenure, I've identified parties that I believe can help us. Thank you. Is there any other comment? And I will say that Thursday night's meeting is open to anyone who wants to speak. So we don't have to invite them for a formal presentation. They could come and speak, actually, and it will be an item on the agenda. So they could speak at the beginning of the meeting. No, it's not on the agenda. It won't be on the agenda until after the fact. Okay. And they would have, unless the council changes the agenda, everybody has three minutes on Thursday night. There are two scheduled presentations that will be 15-minute presentations, just like always. So, Council Member Crosby? That was my concern, in a sense. So I was asking more of a process question. And even though we are moving this forward, it's not on the agenda. So anybody who might want to speak for or against it would not have the opportunity to do so until after the vote. Even though we're moving it forward, I mean, it would be, I guess, considered part of the agenda is the vice mayor's report out. Ms. George, you're thinking? So they would have the opportunity to speak before we vote. I just wanted to be able to clarify that because I think it's senseless to get community input. If we're going to be putting things on for consideration as a council Tuesdays for Thursday nights and then the opportunity for community input, I mean, they can e-mail us and call us, But I think a lot of people like to come publicly speak. So, okay, I just wanted to clarify that process. But you could allow for comment on the resolution at the meeting prior to public comment if that's what you all wanted to do. So it could be done either way? But as the agenda reads now, the comment wouldn't occur until the end. But if you wanted to deviate from that and allow the public to speak to the resolution before the vote, you could. Okay, yeah, that was my concern, is that they wouldn't get to speak until after we voted, which would be… So we'll have to do that every time we have something that comes up that we need, that the community might want to have input on beforehand with the way this works prior to a vote. If it's being walked on and it's not on the agenda for your Tuesday meeting, then yes. Because the issue here is that it wasn't on the agenda beforehand, and it's just coming to you now, so no one had noticed that they could come and speak to it today. So that would move it to Thursday, but if it were an item that was on the agenda, they could have come today if they had had notice. Well, my question was more because we have committee reports, and this is part of our report out, that this would be, I mean, it's public record that this action occurred on Tuesday, so couldn't that be under committee reports without having to go through each time? I mean, this is going to happen all the time if we have somebody to walk something on on a Tuesday. So you would want to have the, do I understand what you're saying, is you're asking if the public could comment when the vice mayor reports out on Thursday? Yeah, because it's part of a committee report, so it's part of it would be. If that's your wish, yes, you could do that. Well, I just think it's going to come up all the time. It's a kink that we. If you wanted to deviate from it. I'm sorry. Do it. I'm sorry. Council Member Stennett, did you want to speak? Well, we've talked about this. I know Council Member Kay brought this up. You would have to amend the agenda, and we probably need to do so in the future. And add public comment at the beginning on all issues. Because right now we just didn't think of it when we changed the rules. Right. But we can, I guess. Otherwise, like you said, you've got to do it every single time, and it just doesn't make sense to have to do it that way. And I had one more quick question. On the Community Action Council, Chris, I'm not sure, or Council Member Ford, I'm not sure if you know, is there a council member on this board? Yes. We are presently operating with Mayor Newberry's appointees, and that includes Andrea James at this point, not only council member. So there is, there were representatives of council. Mayor Gray has not made his appointment yet. So we don't have anybody. Okay. Thank you. So, and Mr. Birch, sorry, and that was the mayor's appointment. The council member was the mayor's appointment. The mayor appoints one-third of the board. It's called the public sector, and that usually includes two or three council members. Okay. Very good. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak about item five on our agenda? Council Member Crosby, did you have an item to bring up? I do, actually. I would like to refer to the general government committee. I actually went through, we had several recommendations that were provided to us regarding our procurement, which I know a task force has been created, and Council Member Ellinger will be heading that up. But we also had several recommendations that were brought forward to us that we had moved into committee from the state auditor report regarding employee protection for whistleblowing, as well as the internal audit issues. and most of that related to maybe adding additional members. I mean, I'm just strictly going off what was in that report. We had put that into, I believe, intergovernmental, but I can't find anywhere where it's been transferred to a committee. So I would like to move that back into Council Member Lane's committee. Everything except procurement. I was, I don't have the list with me, but I thought that those items were in a committee. They had been in a committee, but when I was going back through what we have been provided through this process, I could not find where they were listed. And Council Member Lane might be able to specifically speak because, I mean, he chairs the committee, and I've just been put on that committee, so I'm not sure. But what I have seen, I didn't see it on his committee list. Okay. Can I answer this? Okay. Okay. Council Member Ellinger has an answer. Well, I don't have an answer. I have a question that might help this. When we were on the budget and finance, and one of the issues, Council Member Crosby, was in the committee. It said purchasing, procurement, and professional service selection process. Is that that issue that you're talking about? No. I understand that that's, yeah, no, that's why I said everything except, because I understand that that's in committee. And then also there's been a task force created to look at those issues specifically. and I would imagine the task force will take up all issues, including recommendations that we've gotten through several different sources. This is separate from the procurement issues. This is strictly other recommendations. Okay, all those other recommendations from the audit. Yeah, that was unanimously passed to go into a committee, but that's the only thing that I saw listed formally was on budget and finance and nothing else. So I would like to refer that Thursday, ask that that be referred to general government. Committee. Back into general government. I think it was intergovernmental in the prior. Okay. So that's all the issues of Auditor Critt Llewellyn except the procurement issues. That would probably be a fair way. Yes. Yes. And then when we get to general government, if there's some that we feel like we have addressed in other aspects, we can certainly take that. That will be on our list Thursday night. Can I ask Ms. Crosby a question then? Yes. The one that you're referring to is what the vice mayor, now mayor, has created the task force that I'm going to be chairing, and that deals with those internal audit issues. And that's what. I don't know that that necessarily. I mean, I'm not sure he could have. I don't know why he. I mean, I'm assuming he appointed the task force because there have been procurement issues raised. and trying to also because we spend so much money on our procurement processes. But I think that probably your charge will be not only that, but maybe a lot of other things. And I'm not sure. I can't speak for the mayor, and I don't know why at the time when he was vice mayor, what he charged you all to do. But I can't imagine you would have a procurement task force and probably not look at some of the issues raised during that. And we are, and that's what I want to say. I want to make sure that what we're doing is going to overlap, but it's going to be what you want us to do, and that's in the committee. And I've asked Brian Markham. I met with him for the task force, and he's put a packet together, and I'm in the process of setting up the task force committee meetings now. So he actually delivered that to my office today with a packet of all the different issues. My request today to move this into committee has nothing to do with procurement procurement or the procurement task force or anything. It's simply just everything else. And procurement was just one thing that was mentioned. This is just everything else, referring it back. It should have been in committee. It was, I don't know if it was just an oversight. Maybe our council administrator can look into that, but it could have just been an oversight on transfer. But we voted unanimously to look at this through intergovernmental. And the reason why I asked that it be put back in general government is because, one, I didn't see it on the list, but also I know that there was some sense that maybe we would be providing some of the items were outdated and could be removed. And since this wasn't on there, I wanted to make sure that it got added. Okay. It is on the list. It's on the list. It says State Auditor Procurement Fraud Recommendations to General Government Committee. No. No, that's. But this was, okay, I see. Then there's also the item of purchasing, procurement, and professional service selection process as a whole that is in budget and finance. The first item that you have isn't even listed correctly for what the motion was. So, I mean, we can. Okay, we'll change it. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Are there others who wish to refer items? Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'd like to refer into general government the facility use policy that we are working on with outside or partner agency oversight committee. Okay. So Mr. Myers is referring to general government, the facilities policy, which has been worked on for a while now. Yes. Okay. Yes, ma'am. I'll tell you, I sent a memorandum to each council member requesting that if there are any items that are in other committees that are transferring over, if they would be kind enough to send a short memorandum that would say what is the issue we want to check out and if there's any supporting information that they submitted previously to the other committee. Because as chair, I may not be knowledgeable about an issue that's already been reviewed by another committee, nor will some of the new committee members know anything about it. So we're basically going to try to start from ground zero. But I'm open to taking any of those referrals. There's no problem. Thank you. Are there other items on number five? Okay. The NDF Neighborhood Development Fund list is on pages 26 and 27 for your information. and that will go forward on the list Thursday night. Excuse me. It has already been absorbed into Thursday night's docket. Okay, thank you. So that's going to be a new procedure from here on out. We just didn't have time. We're still kind of in flux on some of these things. So in the future, they will just automatically, the NDFs will automatically go to the appropriate item on Thursday night's docket. Okay. Is this then simply for information? Just for information. Which is, I think, a good thing to have it in here for information. Okay. That'll work. All right. Now, on page 28, the council committee reports start, and the first committee on this report was Economic and Community Development, and the Councilmember Beard was selected as chair and Councilmember Stinnett as vice chair. The second report was Social Services Committee, and Councilmember Myers was selected as chair and Councilmember Henson as vice chair. The General Government Committee met on January 18th, and Councilmember Ed Lane was selected as chair and Councilmember Jay McCord as vice chair. The Public Safety and Public Works Development met on January 18th, and Council Member Lawless was selected as chair and Council Member Martin as vice chair. And then the Environmental Quality Committee met on January 18th and selected Council Member Blues as chair and Council Member Stinnett as vice chair. And then I will, this committee had a fuller meeting, and I'll turn it over to Council Member Blues to report the rest of the meeting. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I will be brief. The major agenda item was Water Quality Director Martin's report on the capacity assessment project. Now that the consent decree has been signed into law and the clock is ticking, the assessment and remediation process needs to go forward, with particular reference, of course, to Wolfron, West Hickman, and East Hickman sewer shed areas. The urgency is to assess and to develop a plan and then to put the plan into operation to reduce sanitary sewer overflows. overflows. Director Martin stated that the cost to resolve the ills of our sewer problems will depend greatly on the scope and the level of service that's going to be acceptable to the community and he called for significant public involvement as being critical to the success of the program. He wants to meet with stakeholders, including Commerce Lexington, the Home Builders Association, neighborhood groups, and major employees, such as the University of Kentucky. There will be a website that will be developed and set up soon to publicize meetings. He called upon council members to help out in this effort, particularly with setting up, publicizing meetings with neighborhood groups, and I'll be working on that with Mr. Martin to see if we can get the maximum possible public input in this important aspect of the project. Following the presentation, there were several questions from Council members. No motions came out of the discussion, and the meeting was adjourned at 4.15 p.m. the longest meeting, I should say, of a standing committee so far in 2011. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Now we're down to Council reports. Are there any Council members who have a report to make? If you do, please log in. Council Member Lawless. I just want to remind everybody that at 5 o'clock, which is 15 minutes, I guess, We will be having a zoning public hearing on the ND1 Montclair, which was passed by the Planning Commission, and then there were some changes in the wording, and so the Law Department determined it didn't need to go back to the Planning Commission, but the Council did have to have a public hearing. So that will be in 15 minutes. and also I want to remind people I think we're supposed to have another snow event this evening and I think unless I was watching TiVo and it was another day. But anyway, I think it's supposed to snow again and I want to remind people that you do have an obligation to clear your sidewalks. That is not the city's responsibility. because there have been so many snowstorms and then we had ice that would freeze. And I know my sidewalk would be cleared and I'd get up the next morning and it was a solid sheet of ice again. You can use sand or shovel it, but there are many people that needs to be passable by pedestrians. and you have, I think, four hours after daylight or after the last snowfall. If you want to report it, it is a police matter. You can report it through 311. If they're not open, you can call 258-3600. But also, please keep in mind that a lot of our residents don't have the physical capability of shoveling snow or the means to get it done. And so if you want to do a good deed while you're out shoveling, shovel somebody else's and check in on your neighbors. And, again, apparently sand acts as an abrasive surface, making it pedestrian friendly. So thank you very much. Thank you. Do other council members have council report? If not, we'll move on. and we're down to public comment about issues that are not on our Committee of the Whole Work Session agenda. And there's no one signed up, correct? Did anyone want to speak? All right. If not, we do have our public hearing in 10, 11 minutes at 5 o'clock, so do I hear a motion to adjourn? Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? I'm going to go ahead and put it in the middle.