# Council Work Session - November 15, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 15, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2254 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2254?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-11-15 - **Last revised**: November 15, 2011 - **Length**: 19,017 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 November 15, 2011, at 3:00 p.m., with Mayor Gray presiding. The council addressed three agenda items during the session, including informational presentations on Sanitary Sewer Capacity Management and 800 MHz Radio System Implementations, as well as consideration of New Business, which was approved. The council took nine motions to a vote and heard one public comment during the meeting. ## Attendance **Present:** - Mayor Gray - CM Ellinger - CM Myers - CM Stinnett - VM Gorton - CM McChord - CM Lane - CM Blues - CM Farmer - CM Lawless - CM Martin - CM Beard - CM Kay **Absent:** - CM Crosbie - CM Henson **Late:** None reported ## Votes and Decisions All motions brought before the meeting passed unanimously. **Approve the docket** [timestamp: 0:06:22] Motion by CM Ellinger, seconded by CM Myers. Passed unanimously. **Place ordinance on docket for November 17th meeting regarding sidewalks dedication** [timestamp: 0:07:25] Motion by CM Stinnett, seconded by CM McChord. Passed unanimously. **Place resolution on docket for November 17th meeting endorsing BEAM** [timestamp: 0:08:34] Motion by VM Gorton, seconded by CM Lane. Passed unanimously. **Approve budget amendments** [timestamp: 0:10:15] Motion by VM Gorton, seconded by CM Ellinger. Passed unanimously. **Approve new business items** [timestamp: 0:12:21] Motion by CM Beard, seconded by VM Gorton. Passed unanimously. **Go into closed session for litigation and property acquisition discussion** [timestamp: 2:04:30] Motion by VM Gorton, seconded by CM Ellinger. Passed unanimously. **Approve NDF funds** [timestamp: 2:05:02] Motion by CM Kay, seconded by CM Martin. Passed unanimously. **Place resolution on docket for November 17th meeting regarding Kentucky Utility Company's environmental surcharge recovery** [timestamp: 2:05:37] Motion by VM Gorton, seconded by CM Lawless. Passed unanimously. **Adjourn the meeting** [timestamp: 2:06:07] Motion by CM Blues, seconded by CM Ellinger. Passed unanimously. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed six financial actions involving construction contracts and a lease agreement: **Construction Change Orders** Five change orders were approved for ongoing construction projects: - **Change Order No. 2** (Identifier 404-11) with Woodall Construction for Lexington Streetscape Phase 1 improvements - **Change Order No. 3** (Identifier 405-11) with Woodall Construction for Lexington Streetscape Phase I Improvements - **Change Order No. 2 (final)** (Identifier 396-11) with Charles Deweese Construction for the Lexington Streetscape Phase 1 West Main Street Project - **Change Order No. 2** (Identifier 406-11) with Woodall Construction Company for Clays Mill Road Improvements Project - **Change Order No. 2 (final)** (Identifier 407-11) with Marrillia Design and Construction for the Maxwell Street Sidewalk and Bike Lane Project **Lease Agreement** The meeting also approved a lease agreement (Identifier 417-11) with Denham-Blythe for space designated for a Wellness Center at an annual cost of $100,000 per year. ## Public Comment Council Member Farmer addressed the meeting to express remarks regarding Judge Kevin Horn [timestamp: 0:05:15]. Council Member Farmer expressed shock and sadness over Judge Horn's passing, highlighting his service as a Navy veteran and his work as a judge. ## Appointments Stacey Maynard was appointed to the position of Council Administrator. ## Contested Items The November 15, 2011 meeting included two significant areas of contention: **800 MHz Radio System** Council members engaged in a heated discussion regarding the proposed 800 MHz radio system. The primary concerns centered on three aspects: the implementation timeline, the technology being proposed, and potential waiver possibilities. Council members raised questions about whether the timeline for deployment was realistic and whether alternative technologies should be considered. The discussion also included exploration of whether waivers might be available to modify or delay certain requirements of the system implementation. **Commissioner Taylor's Resignation** The resignation of Commissioner Taylor generated community opposition and concern among council members. The primary issues raised related to transparency surrounding the resignation and its potential impact on the management of the sanitary sewer project. Council members expressed worry about how the departure would affect ongoing project oversight and continuity, particularly given the sanitary sewer project's apparent importance to the municipality. ## Sanitary Sewer Capacity Management [timestamp: 0:27:28] Charlie Martin presented an informational discussion on the implementation of sanitary sewer Capacity, Management, Operations, and Maintenance (CMOM) program deliverables associated with LFUCG's Consent Decree. The discussion focused on the progress and status of CMOM program implementation requirements mandated under the Consent Decree. This program encompasses the capacity, management, operations, and maintenance components necessary for the sanitary sewer system to meet regulatory standards and consent decree obligations. The presentation was informational in nature, providing an update on the various deliverables and implementation efforts related to the CMOM program. No specific outcomes requiring action or decision were recorded from this agenda item. ## New Business [timestamp: 12:21] During the New Business section, the meeting addressed various authorizations requiring approval. CM Beard and VM Gorton led the discussion on multiple items including change orders, easement agreements, and lease agreements. The specific details of individual items debated or concerns raised during this portion of the meeting were not documented in the available records. However, all matters presented under New Business were approved by the body. ## 800 MHz Radio System Implementations Clay Mason and David Lucas presented on the implementation process of the federally mandated 800 MHz radio system for Fayette County [timestamp: 0:59:57]. The presentation covered the implementation process for the federally required radio system upgrade. Key topics included vendor negotiations and discussions regarding potential waiver possibilities for the system implementation. This agenda item was informational in nature, providing the board with an update on the status and progress of the 800 MHz radio system project for the county. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the docket - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Place ordinance on docket for November 17th meeting regarding sidewalks dedication - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Place resolution on docket for November 17th meeting endorsing BEAM - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve budget amendments - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve new business items - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Go into closed session for litigation and property acquisition discussion - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve NDF funds - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Place resolution on docket for November 17th meeting regarding Kentucky Utility Company's environmental surcharge recovery - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Adjourn the meeting --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Greetings, and I'll call the meeting to order. We're a little bit, about five minutes late getting started because the council has had a very busy day already. Only you can say that, Mr. Stennett. You want to say that? Yeah, okay, there we go. Offer it, rather. Before we ask for a public comment on issues that are on the agenda, I would like to invite the Council to stand for a moment of silence for Judge Kevin Horn, who many of you know passed away unexpectedly yesterday. He was a Navy veteran, submarine, assistant Commonwealth attorney, assistant county attorney, District Judge from 1990 to 2004, Chief Judge of the Fayette District Court, and Senior Judge since 2004, where he recently has concluded his service. So, actually, before we have the moment of silence, if any members of the Council wish to offer any thoughts or comments, that would be fine. Council Member Farmer. I did not know this, and I am shocked and saddened for an honorable veteran who served with distinction and valor for our country and for our county. And I appreciate that you're taking the time for this today. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, sir. Councilman Faulkner. Thank you. All right. So we'll stand for a moment. Thank you. So first on our agenda is public comment for issues on the agenda. If anyone wishes to speak from the public to issues on the agenda, now is the time for that. I do not have anybody signed up, so it doesn't appear that we have anyone to speak. All right. Thank you. Second on our agenda is requested rezonings and approval of the docket. Move to approve. Second. There's a motion to approve by Council Member Ellinger and a second by Council Member Myers. Is there any discussion? Yes, sir. We can't log in today. Oh, we can't log in today. Three of us. Our screen is dead. No screen is dead. Oh. So I do have a motion, Mayor, when you get a chance. All right, Mr. Stenet. Thank you, Mayor. I have a walk-on for the docket for Thursday night. I move the place on the docket for Thursday, November 17th, an ordinance declaring portions of sidewalks in Hamburg Place Community, Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Shetland's subdivision to have been dedicated to the Lexington-Fed Urban County Government as public right-of-ways and accepting the dedication. So moved. Second. Motion by Mr. Stennett. Second by Council Member McCord. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I also have a motion. Council members, on November 10th, you received from me a memorandum and a copy of the resolution, which is the joint resolution that the Louisville City Council, Metro Council, and the Lexington Council want to do together. and Louisville is, I believe they have theirs today, is that correct? Right now at the same time. So I move to place on the docket for the November 17th council meeting a resolution endorsing and supporting the Bluegrass Economic Advancement Movement, BEAM, and urging members of the Lexington, Fayette County, and Jefferson County communities to fully participate in the project and to use this as an opportunity to further the collective goals of both cities as economic engines for all of Kentucky and to provide economic and educational opportunities to its citizens. Second. That's a motion by Vice Mayor Gordon. It's a competition for second. Go with Council Member Lane. Close second there. Council Member Beard. Thank you. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay, all right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Vice Mayor. All right. Do we have a motion to approve the document? What was your motion? Motion to approve. We got it. Docket. So we got that. All right, okay. All right. We can move on to item. We need to vote on it. Wait, wait, wait. Did we not vote on the document? We didn't vote on it. All right. We can now vote. Is there any further discussion? All right. We can vote then to approve the docket. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you. Next on our agenda is approval of a summary. It's not required today. Next on our agenda is budget amendments. Move approval. Second. Motion by Vice Mayor Gorton, second by Council Member Ellinger. Is there discussion? Council Member Farmer. Yes, sir. A question on Journal 56038-39 to establish the grant budget for the cops hiring 2012. I really don't have a problem with the journal entry here. There's just been a slow trickle of e-mail over the last week and a half or so about when this class will be seated and when they will be online. I was going to use this as an opportunity to ask that question publicly. All right. I don't think Mr. Reed is in. Clay, could you take – did you get the question? Did you – We're still working through the process. there was an administrative issue from the COPS office in D.C. that they had cut and pasted the wrong mayor's name on the form. And there could be no alterations on the form, so it had to be retransmitted back from them. And then we're looking at the budget ramifications, and we're having to modify the grant. so it's still an administrative process. Well. It looks like we're getting some assistance here, Mr. Mason. So good to see you all. It's a pleasure. It's a pleasure, sir. How are you doing? And happy holidays. Good. I was making reference to a slow group of emails over the past couple of weeks about when this class would come into being and when they would be on the street, I was asking for any exaction you might have on that. April 1st, January 1st, is our target date to start the class. All right. Six months after that, 25 will be on the streets from the grant. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Mayor, thank you. Thank you, sir. Is there any further discussion? All right. Okay, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. New business, item 5. Second. Motion by Council Member Beard. Second by Vice Mayor Gordon. Is there any discussion? Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. Just want to speak on item E, the Clay's Mill Road. Kind of change order here. I guess, Keith, if you don't mind, I just want to talk about, I guess, a little bit of this publicly so that we can make sure folks understand what we're doing and what's going on. Back in the spring, we got waylaid with all the rain and so forth, which pushed some of the project back. And it's my understanding that we're pushing the project back a couple of months for this first phase. but we also have two other phases that are in play over the next two years. It's my understanding we've been chatting about trying to compress those two phases into one year's time versus two years' time. So while we're taking a step back in some ways over the wintertime, we're looking to ultimately try and shorten the length of the entire project. Is that a fair statement of what we're trying to do here as a first step? Yeah, that's our goal. So we're doing the middle section of this whole corridor from Twain Ridge up to New Circle Road. And then we're trying to combine what we're calling Section 2B with 2C, and we're going to start construction in the mid-2012. And for the folks who might be watching, and certainly from the administration standpoint, I want to make sure that we are fully committed to this project. over the winter time we're going to be asking Woodall Construction to put down asphalt so that it can be scraped and we're not dealing with just ducking cones and things like that. Is that correct? Correct, yes. Our goal is to get the pavement done up to we're either looking at Merrimack or Cindy Blair. It depends upon how late the asphalt plants stay open. But we will have a final surface. It will be a temporary final surface to get us through the winter months. They will continue working when they can. Weather dependent, they're going to do a lot of storm sewer work still to be done, but it will be open to traffic up to Merrimack at least. Okay. I guess I know, Mayor, you said that this is obviously the most important road issue we had in our city all through the campaign, and, of course, I've held you to that very purposefully, and I appreciate you saying that. Richard, you've been certainly awesome to work with and helpful in pushing this, But what I want to make sure that we're doing, and the reason I've called this out is that it's very easy to kind of let other things creep in. And if we're going to let this go a couple of months through the wintertime, I want to make sure from the administration side that we have a game plan ready so that we ultimately are going to give a much bigger win for the citizens in that corridor. And it's my hope that we can get this thing done within about an 18-month period of time from that Twain Ridge to New Circle and be done. So whatever it takes from the standpoint of easement acquisitions and things, I think Acting Commissioner Bush, I will work with you in any way I can to get those things done so that we can get that done efficiently and get it checked off the list. But I appreciate your coming up and just kind of giving some explanation. Thanks, Keith. Thanks. Thank you, Mayor. Thanks, Council Member McCord. And just as a footnote to that, having sat on both sides of the legislative side and the executive side, And, Keith, we've discussed this, that one of the welcome attributes and responsibilities of the Council is that you do hold us accountable, and sometimes it can be a little bit challenging. But Keith always has worked with you on so many projects, and we do appreciate it. Mr. Levin, thank you very much. Mayor, just real quickly on that. There are some other challenges that are going to be coming up with this that I'd really like to talk to you personally about and, Richard, and so forth, some things that maybe we didn't plan for in advance. But just know that I appreciate your all's commitment to this piece because it is very, very important. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Rehlinger. Thank you, Mayor. Number W, the wellness center. Let's see. Either Mr. Maloney or Mr. Barbary. What's the? Number W on the wellness center. Yeah, let's give us a question. I just wanted to find out where we stand on this. I see we've got a three-year lease agreement. And when will our fit-up be set up and we're up and running here with this lease? We pass this. Okay. We do have the lease is set for three years. That's our lease term with Marathon Health. The fit-up is going to be minor. It's less than $10,000 is what I've been told. It should all be done before opening date, which is going to be in early January. So timeline shouldn't be a problem to get it open. Early January is January 1st? January 11th is the date that's been thrown out for the grand opening. January 11th. Okay, thank you. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. I, too, had a question on W, and maybe someone can kind of give us a time on how we got here, because during the vendor selection process, I know those of us that served on the vendor selection for Marathon, we talked about primarily using locations that we own. And this is dramatically different. This is leasing a property for three years, about $100,000 a year for three years. Can you give me some background information on how we arrived at this point today versus why aren't we looking at properties, particularly Cisco Road or other properties we already own that put the wellness center? And then also, what considerations were given to location? Because quite honestly, Councilman Blues can speak to this. It's probably one of the worst locations for traffic in town and will be for the next two to three years because of all the construction going on and widening that road. So I'm trying to get us comfortable with that particular location in general. When we started looking at where we were going to house the wellness center, we also had a timeline to be able to open it and costs associated with that. When we started looking at some of the spaces that we own, like the Cisco Road property, That property has been mentioned for some other types of divisions moving in there and different things and possibility of state grants for things with that. We looked at another property that we own, but the problem is with medical facilities, you have to have a sink in all the exam rooms. So most of the properties we own have concrete floors, and the concrete would have to be broken up. The sinks would have to be put in, plumbing. It would be a lot of work on our part. and in order to get it open in time for our employees to be able to utilize it, it was going to be a lot of time and a lot of money, and that was going to push us back on our opening date. So that was why we decided to go the lease route. And in choosing it, we looked at where our employees are located. We have numerous employees that are out of Frankfort Pike. So this location, we took where our employees were and we set the parameters for where we wanted the location, where we would like for it to be. The location is a familiar location to employees. It's not in the old UTC part of the building, but the old UTC where employees used to have to go for physicals and drug tests is in that same building. So employees are already comfortable, familiar. There's plenty of parking there. So those are some of the reasons why we chose that location. And is it modern facilities? I haven't been in there in years. Yes. But the previous tenant, they did a fit-up, I think he said about four years ago, for medical office space. It's ready to go. We went to a site visit, and Dave with Marathon came, and he said, you all would be crazy not to take this space because it's ready for them. They've ordered their furniture. They're getting ready to place orders, so they'll just move it right in, and it's basically move-in ready for us. That was my next question. Marathon has looked at it. Yes. Dave was very excited, and he sent a floor plan. how we're going to set it up, and there's only going to be a couple minor changes. I guess my last question is what happens if we don't approve this lease? What's plan B? I'm not aware of what was the question right now. I'm sorry. Should I have caught that question? Plan B. What's plan B if we don't approve this? I mean, do we have an alternative? I mean, my discomfort, besides the location traffic, obviously is the three-year lease. Did we try one year and maybe come up with a better location that we own or something? We worked real hard. A lot of effort went into this to examine it carefully and to do the cost-benefit analysis in order to make the recommendation for this space. From my own point of view, I think that we have relied on Marathon. as the manager, and their recommendation, in my view, as specialists in this field, should guide us. So I was pleased that they made this recommendation. So no plan B. Okay, I understand. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, sir. Councilman Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I'm sorry, do you mind coming back? I do have a question. So how many square feet is this? I believe it's 6,900 square feet. Let me look exactly. 6,910. So about $14 a square foot. I think what it was averaging out to was 1368. And how do lease rates compare out? That's kind of a rate where you find for a more mid-level space downtown. How does that lease rate compare out Leastown Road? What are the rates out there? I'm not for sure on the lease rates. I know. Can anybody do a comparison of lease rates out? How do we know if it's a good deal? Well, this is medical office space, so it's a little different, I think, than just regular office space because it has to have certain, you know, the sinks in every room and things like that. So I was told that this was... Melissa, you're getting some help from John Sheen. Sorry, because I can't answer that. We did a market cost analysis trying to locate the same type of buildings. also keeping in mind the level of fit-ups that might have been required because of the need that we have, and be comfortable with the rate that's been proposed. Was this higher or lower than your market analysis? It was right about in the middle. In this market right now, it's been pretty tough trying to identify exactly other facilities that are currently available and suited for the medical or clinic-type facilities. So we had to do some interpolation. We had to take into consideration the location of the facility and so forth. How many different facilities did you all look at? We looked at about two or three, but as I said, none of them. You had some that's primarily doctors and physician offices. There are some that just basically commercial spaces and so forth. Trying to find exactly another facility with the same qualifications and so forth was kind of tough. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. of Castle River Deard. Thank you, Mayor. Excuse me, my microphone fell apart. There we go. Is that gross or net square footage? That's gross. Gross? Yeah. Usable space is approximately 420 square feet less. And is this geared toward growth over the three-year period of time? In other words, Marathon is only going to need 3,000 now and 4,000 in 18 months. I mean, everything we've heard is that as this catches on, it will get bigger and bigger. I've not been in discussions directly with Marathon, but my understanding is that when they looked at the facility and tried to evaluate it, I believe they had those issues in mind just to make sure that if this thing picks up and a lot of people start showing off that they have the capacity to meet the demand. You may have said this before. Is this first floor space, second floor space? It's first floor space. First floor space. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. And, Councilman Beard? Yep. Councilman Lane? I was going to ask if you would comment on this. I thought that it was pretty good when I was told the numbers. I thought it was pretty good for that space. You leading the witness? Yes. Yes. Full admission. Well, I wasn't going to say too much about it, but a new office space would probably be about $25 to $30 a foot based rent on that because the cost of the fit-up is very high. You do have smaller office spaces. There's more utilities, more plumbing required for health care operations. So the fact that it's about $14 a foot, I think, is a competitive price, and that is a net rent. We do pay utilities, maintenance, janitorial on top of that, but it still seems to be reasonable to me. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? All right. Thank you, Ms. Luker. Do we have, Council Member Farmer? Mine is on item I on page 32, which is the annual sanitary sewer capacity management operations and maintenance agreement implementation services. What, yeah. And this is a question. Mr. Martin, I'm glad to see you. This covers four things, the sewer overflow response plan, pump station backup power plan, gravity line maintenance, preventive maintenance plan, fats, oils, and grease plan. And I just want to make sure that despite any personnel or staff changes, this is on track and everything is moving ahead fine. I think this will be fine. And there's roughly 140 deliverables associated with those four plans, and that these consultants will be helping us manage those things as far as implementing them efficiently and on time. I just want to always hear you say that. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thanks, Charlie. All right. Does anyone else wish to speak? We have a motion and a second, and we can ask for a vote. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Oh, sorry. Mr. Lane, I didn't see that. Yes, sir. Yes, I just had a quick question. I don't know exactly. I guess Irene Gooding would be the person who directed us to. I don't believe she's here today. Oh, all right. She was. It's the item number, I guess page 23, regarding the change order. Okay, why don't you go ahead and ask you. Excuse me. I think I'm giving you the wrong page number here. I don't see page 23. Oh, this is it, I believe. Yeah, it was an increase of 17% on this. I just was wondering why the increase is so great. Which item? Where are you? That's the item. It's page 23 at the top. 23? 407-11. Well, I can't find it in my packet. F? Okay. Item F. All right. Are you talking about the contract with Marilla? Yes, sir. All right. So, oh, Keith is here. Can you help us? Sure. Oh, great. This is for the. Flexibility. Thank you, sir. I hope I can answer your question. This is for the Maxwell Street, Mike Lane, and Sidewalk Project. When we got into the project, there was a couple of things that happened. The contractor had to shut down for winter, so we had to add a concrete cap in the ditch line. We went ahead and milled the intersection of Maxwell and Woodland because it was in really bad shape, so we had extra asphalt. I've got a list of items. because we had to shut the contractor down at the beginning of the project because of an issue with the funding agency. He had his traffic control out there, so we had to pay him for that. And there's a number of other items that are in your packet of what we were covering. So you're saying the funding agency delayed the authorizing the funds to be expended, and we delayed because the weather conditions changed and there were additional construction costs related to that. Am I following what you're saying there? Yes, yes. It's two different issues. One, the delay was the result of a technicality within the grant itself, and so we had to shut the contractor down until we got that straightened out. And by doing that, that pushed him into the winter construction season, so then he had to shut down because of the winter. Was this funding through grants, or was it out of their contract? Half of it was through grants. 10,000 was from UK, 10,000 was from the neighborhood, and then we made up the difference with MAP funds. Okay. Well, thank you. The reason I asked is just it was a fairly large change order, and I think that's good to explain those. I think you make good sense. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lane. Okay. If there's no further discussion, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Okay. My monitor has gone on the blink, so I'll have to ask you for the old-fashioned way. Please, thank you. All right. Next on our agenda is presentations. Council Member Farmer, you're going to give us a report on planning and public works? Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. What included in today's packet are the notes from the 10-1 meeting, which actually had appeared in the packet previously and we had taken action on. Supplementary to that, we have emailed to each one of you and passed out today what are the notes from the 11-1 meeting. And I was just going to go through those unless there were a question or comment before I do so. I think it's just a simple error in which one got placed into the packet. But item one, we were continuing our conversation about the repaving program update. There's still work to be done on our allocation of funds. And I guess the term I'm looking for here are the warranties involved. So that's going to remain in committee and will come back to us. Second is the 2012 Comprehensive Plan and Goals and Objectives, which the Vice Mayor will shortly appoint a small working group, kind of thread through those and bring them back to the committee and to the full council. No action was taken there. We had a nice discussion about the Street Tree Protection Ordinance, as facilitated by Council Member Martin, which resulted in excellent conversation. No motions at this time, but something will remain in committee for further consideration. and item four were the items referred to committee and there were no actions taken on any of those. The only motion was to adjourn. So those are the notes of the meeting, and I would ask for their approval. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member. No action required then, right? Okay. All right, next on our agenda is a presentation by Charlie Martin on the land use and watershed management impacts on stormwater runoff. Charlie, thank you, sir. Thank you, Mayor. I'll get the lights. As they're dimming the lights, the reason I'm here, I appreciate you taking the time to hear this presentation. We're required by our stormwater permit to provide training to the elected officials, primarily the council, but also to the planning commission about watershed management issues. And so if you might remember, I was here about this time last year, and so I'm back again this year to give you your annual training. I'll try to keep it brief and to the point. the planning commission had a much more detailed presentation last month because obviously given their role that they have a lot more questions a lot more involvement in how we're going about from a planning aspect to minimize the impact of storm water runoff not only from a flooding standpoint but also from a water quality standpoint. So we've really got three things that, let's see if I'm going to get myself to advance here, there we go three key points that I want to hit on here today is the the obligatory causes and impacts of stormwater pollution. Also, what we're doing really to address those things, some of the things that we've got going on in the upcoming changes, and in particularly the future regulation changes that we see kind of on the horizon. Point number one being is causes of stormwater pollution, and all of you are fairly aware of this. Again, I just bring it up because it's somewhat obligatory, is that there's all kinds of different sources of pollution that end up polluting waterways. and undermining water quality. Sediment off of construction sites or stripped-off areas, bacteria from pet waste, nutrients, oil and grease coming off of parking lots. There's all types of different things that we're focused on to try to reduce the impact of our urban presence. The impacts of that polluted stormwater, obviously, is poor water quality. It's algae growing in creeks, health threats from bacteria, the lower quality of life issues as far as not being able to use a stream from waiting or fishing or any type of contact with it whatsoever the blockages that come from flooding and then obviously the regulatory violations that we're all well familiar with as far as the consent decree and the permit itself the the next slide here essentially shows you this is one you've seen before we have our fair share of water quality issues in Fayette County we're not any different than Jefferson County or our three counties to the north that make up northern Kentucky, any urban area in Kentucky or in the country has this ongoing issue. So I wanted to talk a little bit about the kind of things that we've been working on to try to address this. And the EPA is really pushing more towards the use of green infrastructure and particularly low-impact development in order ways to be able to minimize the impact of stormwater runoff coming from that urban presence. So one of the things that we've done early on, if it was a requirement of the consent decree, is to add definitions for green infrastructure and low-impact development in the subdivision regulations. During the course of the consent decree negotiation, it was considered to be pretty vague. What is green infrastructure? Is it simply planting things on top of a roof, or is that an engineered system that's going to absorb rainwater rather than running off the roof? and also to add provisions that allow alternative designs to use low-impact development or LID. A classic example that I'll use is that over the years, engineers have pushed everyone to curbs and gutters and sidewalks, and we got away from the grassy swale type of thing that you used to see in some of post-war 50s and 60s residential construction. And was that really the right thing to do in all different circumstances? And so what we wanted to do is make sure the subdivision regulations allowed for creativity on the part of a potential developer to be able to have those opportunities rather than creating artificial barriers that created an impediment to improve water quality. Subsequent to that, I've got the obligatory slide here that shows some of those low-impact or green infrastructure type of things. You see the pervious pavement, you see the rain garden, and you see the water reuse. Really the direction here is headed towards trying to retain water on a site and not necessarily allow it to run off. So in that first picture, those pervious pavers allow it to infiltrate into the ground. Likewise on the rain garden is that the plants uptake the water, and through natural transpiration that water is dealt with that way. and then the overall reuse, the rain barrels that we have used in many places. Upcoming changes that we have is that we have to develop low-impact development guidelines by September 1st of 2012. This is a permit obligation that we have. And so Susan Pluger is the lead person with that. There's a work group that involves both the development community, engineering professionals, landscape architects, a whole bunch of different folks, the private sector and the public sector, in trying to develop guidelines that are workable for Fayette County. Likewise, to reevaluate design standards and regulations and procedures by January 31st of 2013, as I said earlier, is that EPA is pushing us more towards a green infrastructure and low-impact development mechanism to be able to manage water quality. And so a lot of the stuff that we're working on that are kind of behind the scenes is trying to set up a mechanism which allows that to be implemented here in Fayette County in as seamless way as possible, but allow buy-in on the part of the impacted community. One of the reasons why we do this is because the permit cycles that go for stormwater or any type of discharge permit go on a four-year cycle. And our last permit was issued in 2009, so we've got a new permit pending in 2014. And so other things that are going on in other parts of the country, including this push towards green infrastructure and low-impact development, will very likely impact how EPA and the state view that new permit when it comes up in 2014. For example, right now that there is a draft stormwater rule that has been floating around that is supposed to be published in December, well, next month. That rule is scheduled to be final in November of 2012. You see the timing of our permit would be September of 2014, so whatever plays out in the next year to 18 months, assuming that EPA stays on that schedule, is likely to be used as a benchmark for our future permit. Some of the things that are going on in that stormwater permit have to do with redevelopment that's treated like new development. So if we're talking about downtown or we're talking about UK or we're talking about infill, treating it like a new development as opposed to redevelopment is somewhat of a different animal than what we have been doing in the past. Utilizing low-impact development to regulate stormwater runoff volume. As I mentioned in that previous slide, their aim is more towards retaining the water on the site as opposed to building a detention basin in an outlet and just letting it go out of there once the basin is full. Wider vegetated buffers between construction sites and creek banks to try to allow for vegetation to minimize the impact of erosion from that water shooting off of developed sites. This one really frightens me. Setting effluent limits for stormwater discharge is essentially putting a number on a pipe that says that you can only have so much of X in that water. That's a standard criteria for wastewater is that before you can discharge into a stream, The bacteria count has to be so low. This has to be that low. This is a fairly new development that is coming on in stormwater discharges. And then the retrofitting of existing sites to pre-development conditions. Essentially, it's going back and retrofitting, say, this building or some other type of government facility facility to have a green roof or some other type of stormwater control device that retains more water on the site. I'm not advocating these things. I'm pointing these things out only because these are the trends that we are beginning to see on a national level, in particularly Washington, D.C. They have a new stormwater permit that was issued October last month, and what they have to do is for any development that is greater than 5,000 square feet, new or redevelopment, is they have to retain 1.2 inches of storm water from a 24-hour inch storm. And that's either through infiltration or evapotranspire or reuse. Keep it on the site. Currently what we do is we exempt people that are less than one acre. And we also have requirements that to treat runoff at a certain level and treat it for either redevelopment or for new development. You notice the emphasis that Susan put on treat. We treat. What they're talking about now is retain, which is a whole different animal, and that's something that we've got to keep mindful of, that that may be something that comes up in 2014, and we want to make sure that we're prepared for that. Likewise, TMDL, some of you have heard me use this phrase before. This has to do with a total maximum daily load of a contaminant on a stream. It's a number. Washington, D.C., in their permit last month, were basically told that they've got to remove over 100,000 pounds of trash annually, either through prevention or removal in one of their particular watersheds. That picture is kind of hard to see, but those essentially are trash bags or nets that are built into the stormwater thing that are catching everything that comes down this thing. And I looked at that, and I'm thinking, how am I going to maintain something like that if I've got something like that to maintain? Because you can imagine how quickly something that very well may fill up. Not to say that we don't need to control litter and trash, but that looks challenging. And so the purpose of this presentation is to make you aware of the kind of things that are going on in other parts of the country so we can be prepared for it as well. Where we are with TMDLs, we're somewhat behind where they are in the Potomac or in the Chesapeake Bay area because it's such a highly hot-button sensitive area. Chesapeake Bay has been on the radar screen for environmental groups for a long time. But we're still in the process of developing TMDLs at the local and state level. Number two, I'll point out there, the town branch for total phosphorus is under development. It's been under development since 2003. So it's something that the state is obviously going to be pushing forward, but it's not something they're doing as quickly as I might like them to. Finishing up with Washington, D.C. is that they have to do retrofits for existing development. Over 18 million square feet of existing impervious has to be retrofitted during the course of their permit cycle to retain this 1.2 inches of stormwater from a 24-hour storm. 50% or more for properties that are doing a retrofit, if you're taking a warehouse and gutting it and retrofitting. similar standard 1.2 inches we don't have requirements for retrofits right now but I will say a good thing that we have working for us is the stormwater quality projects incentive grant program the wisdom that the council had at the time to include that in the water quality management fee is paying tremendous dividends for us we have had no problem getting applicants to apply for this and we've had no problem giving out awards the number of applicants well exceeds them. We have been complimented by both EPA and many of our stakeholders as being a benchmark community in what we've done in that. I think that's going to pay off for us in this retrofit area. In summary, is that stormwater regulations are changing and we're doing everything that we can to stay ahead of the curve on those, but part of staying ahead of the curve is to make sure that the elected body knows the kind of things that we're looking at out into the future when other communities are facing this type of thing. The practices are changing. The move towards green infrastructure and low-impact development, that's the wave of things. They're putting those things into stormwater permits now. We're going to be required to do the low-impact development guidelines and update the stormwater manual, and Susan Pluger and the team are working on that right now, and that our permit renewal is scheduled for September of 2014, and keeping a very close eye for the outcome of this pending stormwater rule is really important for what it's going to impact urban county government for future stormwater regulations and costs. With that, I can have questions. Thanks. Thanks, Charlie. We've got signed on to the monitor. Council Member Lawless? Okay. Council Member Lawless? Thank you. I have a couple of questions. Many of the areas in my district, including Mone Street, we don't have a stormwater drain. We only have sanitary sewer. So people's drainage goes into the sanitary sewer, the gray water. Is there anything in that that's going to mandate some kind of change for the homeowner or the city to put in stormwater drain? What I think you're seeing is that they're not saying whether it has to be residential or commercial in the D.C. area, although we all know that D.C. is largely government facilities to begin with, and so it's more commercial or institutionally geared. But their saying is that you need to go back and retrofit those facilities and retain more of the water on the facility itself, which would lessen the need for the off-site collection and conveyance systems to move stormwater from point A to point B. Historically, the way that we as a society have treated stormwater is build a pipe and get it off my property and everything's fine. And everybody kind of continues. It's kind of every man for himself. And that has created a lot of problems. And so EPA's approach towards that is retaining more of the water on your property. So there's a large potential that that could lead to retrofitting type of situations, retrofitting requirements that you're suggesting. But if we do commit to doing that, we have to be prepared for the cost that's associated with the commitment. That's why I'm bringing it up. So would the retrofitting mean putting in a stormwater line or whatever you call it system in the street? Or would it mean the homeowner doing something so that their drain doesn't drain into the sanitary sewer? I don't see that it would be, my personal opinion here is that I don't see that it being a homeowner type of thing because the cost of benefit would be fairly low. I would see it be more on streets and sidewalks and other impervious areas, making it impervious, you know, like Woodland Park, creating parking lots that are able to absorb the water rather than run off of that. And you see a lot more, that's what the whole incentive grant program is about right now. We're doing that at Ronald McDonald House. We're doing that at Ross-Torant. We're doing it in numerous places to where that water is being retained on that site rather than running off into an area that doesn't have any storm sewers to speak of. I think that's more what you would look at into the future. And the other thing is you mentioned U.K. And, you know, U.K. doesn't have to abide by any of the city's ordinances or mandates. So are they covered in this by the EPA? Because we can't enforce what UK does. EPA is by law definition a Phase II stormwater system. They have their own permit. Now, their permit is not as stringent as a Phase I community, such as a city like us or Louisville or Knoxville, Tennessee. But they have the same permit obligations or constraints that we do. And I can see this same thing coming to UK, maybe not as quickly as it would be to a city. But for UK, they've been very active in pursuing the grants as well because not only does it help them from a water quality standpoint, but when you put impervious pavement in, now you can decrease your water quality management fee because that's not impervious area. So there's a financial motivation there as well. I just wondered because, okay, thank you very much. Vice Mayor Gordon and then Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much, Charlie. On your slide on page 3, I guess it's maybe the 8th, 12th slide in, the one about development, redevelopment, comparing what we currently do for runoff and what this new mandate will do, leads me to think a lot about infill and redevelopment. And I wonder, have you gone far enough down this path to have any discussions? I'm sure you have, but I'm interested in your discussions about what to do about redevelopment, particularly downtown where, well, I'll just end my question there. You know, honestly, the Washington, D.C. permit came out last month. I have not had the opportunity to dissect it at the level that I would like to. I would hope that there was still language in there that allowed for things like fee in lieu of. Because, you know, to try to make a situation where one size fits all is never really a good plan in my mind. and that site circumstances may just dictate that it's not economically feasible to do that. And so a fee in lieu, which then you can apply that investment in a place where it does work, you still get kind of where you want to get to. And that would be my advocate or what I would advocate in a permit renewal. You know, the whole presentation is to represent what one community has received as far as a permit. And in the press release, it even says the most stringent stormwater permit ever released in the United States. And so those kind of things get my attention. And so I want to make sure that the elected officials are aware that these type of things are out there so you can act accordingly. And did Washington, D.C., have you had a chance yet to look at whether they developed any new policies or if they are just using the fee in lieu of? No, they had, if you recall correctly from our stormwater, from when we developed the water quality management fee, is that they had a lot of pushback in getting their fee in place because the government was claiming they were exempt, that it was a tax, not a fee. And since 89% of the property in the D.C. area is the federal government, it was kind of ironic is that the one branch of the federal government was pushing them into a fee situation when the other branch was saying, well, no, you don't have to pay that. Well, they finally have resolved that now. And I think what the intention is is to utilize those fees to accomplish these tasks that are in the permit. What concerns me is that, and I don't know the answer to this, whether they were aware of these things as they set up their fee structure to account for the costs associated with doing this. I can tell you that if we got something similar to that that said we had to do 18 million square feet of retrofit in a five-year period, that is not in our fee. That is not in our fee. Well, thank you very much. Councilman Lane. Good afternoon, Mr. Martin. Just to get the lights back up. We've had a couple of discussions in discussing the use of professionals and construction management services to coordinate the ongoing management of our stormwater and wastewater construction effort, which will probably go for a number of years. And you've indicated that you're planning to bring a presentation before Council. I just was curious. I realize you've got to coordinate some of the people that will be in that presentation, maybe to travel in for that meeting, but do you have anything on the agenda on that yet? I don't want to steal your thunder or anything. No, on the 22nd for the Environmental Quality Committee, Hazen and Sawyer, CDM, and Stantec will be here to present on the sanitary sewer end of things. Tetra Tech has been our program manager on the stormwater stuff for many years and has done a tremendous job. I'd be happy to have them come in and do a separate thing on the stormwater end of stuff. The stormwater stuff, as you'll recall, this is more about inspect this, document that. It's a little bit of a different animal than the sanitary sewer system where we're required basically to rebuild the whole thing. EPA does not regulate flooding. They never have, and hopefully they won't in the future. It may be time for me to retire when that happens. But I'd like to have them come in. But next week, it's Hazen and Sawyer and their team for the consent decree implementation of the sanitary sewer construction, the $540 million plan that we talked about before, the opportunity for the council, the mayor, whoever, to challenge them on those costs, challenge them on their ability to be able to manage these projects cost effectively and efficiently to essentially get the job done. They'll be here, I think, what is it, 11 o'clock is our meeting? They're on the agenda. Would you encourage all council members to attend this meeting? It should be pretty important. Absolutely. Okay. Absolutely. Welcome them to, and if you can't attend, be happy to meet with you independently. I don't want to steal anything from Mr. McCord that the Clay's Mill project, a very important roadway project, the most important sanitary sewer project we're doing is implementing this remedial measures plan. Okay. Thank you very much. I will be there. Okay. Charlie, thanks a lot. It doesn't look like there's anybody else that want to thank you for all that you've done in leading this project and for giving this heads-up like this, which is, as you said, really informing for us as members of council, as elected officials, to know what it is you're seeing and trends that you're seeing, and that's exactly what you're describing here, right? Yes, sir. Also, you mentioned Susan Pfluger in your shop, who is your project manager, I believe is the way you described it, for this area. and you've got a lot of folks in your shop that deserve praise and have earned that praise just like we do throughout government. But I will say that Susan's name came up earlier in a conversation I was having with the unelected mayor of Lexington, Emma Tibbs, and she gave Susan praise as well, so you can carry that back to her. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gordon. Can I just clarify with Council Member Blues, I think that meeting is at 10 o'clock, is that correct, on December 6th? Is that the meeting? No, this one is next Tuesday. It's the Environmental Quality Committee. And I don't know the date. I just would recommend everybody check their calendars, but I'm thinking it was 11 o'clock. Thanks, Charlie. Mayor, 1 o'clock. Excuse me, yes, it's 1 o'clock. November 22nd. 1 o'clock on November 22nd. Okay. Well, Charlie's walking away, and while we're going to the next item, I also want to acknowledge, thanks, and recognize Susan Bush for taking on again an acting commissioner role on this occasion with our Department for Environmental Quality and Public Works. Susan, thanks for being with us today. All right. Next on our agenda. presentation on the radio system commissioner clay mason yes we wanted to just come in and give a very brief update i know back in spring we presented to council about the unfunded federal mandate to narrowband presented a detailed report at that time with some milestones and objectives, and we have come to a nearing point of conclusion on a good part of that work. I've assembled a team of folks from 911, from police and fire, to look at this program and work through the technical issues and the RFP and David Lucas is here to give a brief update on that today. Thank you, Commissioner. I apologize. I had a couple of calls today. I wonder why there wasn't anything in your packet for the presentation. That was not an oversight. We are currently under negotiations with one of the vendors, and there's a lot of information I didn't want to circulate at this time as it's ever-changing, but I'm here to answer any of your questions as we go through it. When we were here in May, we outlined a timeline and milestones to reach. We have met all those milestones, which include putting an RFB out for radio system and subscriber units. We received three proposals for the radio system, an additional two for radio subscriber units, and an additional two for logging recorders. So we were very pleased with the number of responses we had. It gave us a good competitive edge at looking through all these different bids and the amounts they were requesting. Our ultimate goal is to implement a new radio system to meet our narrow banding requirement. The narrow banding is just a deadline set by the federal government. We already had a radio system that needed replacing. They just gave us a timeline we had to meet, which is December 31st of next year. When we were here in May, we mentioned it's an 18-month process, and we were in 19 months to do it. We are now, we have 12 months left, and we are currently finalizing our contracts. When I came to you in May, we had a goal of getting a contract approved by December. After looking at the council's agenda or timeline, that means that we will be blue sheeting something before Thanksgiving, so we can talk in detail about it next Tuesday, the 29th, next time you meet, so that hopefully that can be approved before you go on break. That is essential because once you go on break, it will be another month, and we cannot afford another month's delay. So we're looking at that timeline. Also in May, one of the reasons we were here was because it was a budget issue. We had to allocate money in this fiscal year, and at the time you asked how much do we need for the following two fiscal years, and I gave you a number for all three of those, and we are below those numbers at this time. So we are currently under our projected budget for the project. The project actually consists more of just buying a radio system, and besides the radio system, we call subscriber units or the radios that the officers wear on their hips. It also includes a fiber optics network to connect all of our towers and a logger recording system as well. So our vendors that we are selecting are just bidding on one portion. The actual project is actually five different portions we are moving in parallel. Yeah. All right. Mr. Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. Are you finished, David? Yes, sir. Okay. Just wanted to go back a couple years ago and ask some pretty tough questions, and you were able to answer most of them at the time when we were pursuing this project then. And I still have some of the same concerns and questions. And I guess a lot of time has passed in two years, but yet it's gone by pretty fast. And have we asked the FCC for a waiver? No, we have not. I know other cities have and have been successful in getting that waiver. I didn't know if that was an option given our current budget, our current state of financial bliss that was even reported today in the paper. So, you know, I think anything we can do to slow down the process, I don't want to cram something down this council's docket right before Christmas just because we're trying to meet arbitrary deadlines, if indeed that really isn't a true deadline if the FCC would grant us a waiver. Well, the waiver issue has come up ever since they set the deadline in 2004, nine years out. And actually they came out in July, just this past July, since we met in May with the criteria of what they will do a waiver on. We've studied it. Our consultants studied it. We do not qualify at this time. Basically, we have not made any progress at this point for them to give us a waiver. I've asked people, my peers in other cities, Louisville and elsewhere, who have the expertise, and it would be foolish for us to ask for a waiver when we've made no progress to date. And so our consultant is helping us on this, And are they sitting in on the vendor interviews and the RFPs? Yes, we hired a consultant to do an overview of the entire radial system in Fayette County and the surrounding area, and they helped us develop the RFP, which we did. And then we extended their contract to sit through the review of all those RFPs and they're assisting us with the negotiations today. And what is the total of their contract? How much are we paying them for the assistance? The original was $24,000, and then when we went to negotiations, it was another $50,000, so it's a $75,000 total since in the total 15 months we've had them. And then with that new negotiations, will that take us all the way through next year, or does that have to be negotiated again? No, we're negotiating the initial purchase, and we also want to get a 10-year maintenance contract for anything we purchase, so we hope to lock down our costs immediately, and we'll know what our cost is for the next 10 years so we can prepare for that. No, the consultant's contract, how long does it continue? Oh, it's only through the negotiations of all vendors selected. So it'll be ceased probably sometime the first year? Yeah, probably around the first year, yes, sir. And so based on the selections, were these the vendor that the consultant recommended? The consultant did not make a recommendation. It was left up to the committee or the police fire and myself that scored and reviewed all the proposals. They were there for technical assistance and to help us get the answers we needed from the vendors. So if we're hiring a consultant to help assist us in writing the RFPs, why wouldn't they make a recommendation to help us pick the best choice, and why wouldn't they recommend whether or not we should apply for a waiver or not? We asked them specifically not to give us a recommendation. We wanted them to consult. We didn't want them to tell us what to do. So they were there to guide us through the process. The aspect of the extension, we had them review it, not just the individual, but everyone on their team. and their response and those from others is you're not getting an extension. If you haven't done anything, you're not getting an extension. Can we ask in July of this year or August? Yes, but if you've made no progress in the nine years, don't even go there. The FCC, actually, their public notice says specifically that they will, if you're going to request an extension, that they're going to be highly, I want to say they're going to highly intensely review any requests, and they actually provide guidelines. If you want to do the request, and there's actually over a page of stipulations, and we don't meet those at this time. Will we meet them later? It could be. But it's not meant for getting a waiver because you did not fund it. It's because of things outside of your control. I just don't want to get into the dilemma of trying to rush something through. when, you know, if we're buying old technology or if we're not buying the most modern radios, you know, we're going to be back at this table in two years buying them again. And I've been down that path with some of these systems in government, and I want to make sure this is so important to our community and to our public safety responses and individuals that I want to do it right the first time. I don't want to have to band-aid and come back. So that's my concern, and I don't want to rush it just because we have a deadline that may or may not have to be there. Well, I understand that completely. And, yes, we are on a very tight timeline for implementation, but we've been studying it for over 18 months. And as you know, I was here two years ago, and, you know, I'm not going to make the same mistake twice. So I learned my lesson that time. And we went out and got very competitive responses, and we're happy with what we received, and we think we can get a contract to you guys your next meeting. So we've already selected the vendor through the RP process? We're negotiating with a vendor now. Yes. And we will be using up the full money allotted this year in the budget for this system. I did not state that, no. So we can put it somewhere else? I mean, I'm just trying to. We are in tough crunch right now. He said this time, I'll know more. Intervene for a second. I think what he's trying to say is that if we're in negotiations, it would be inappropriate to reveal all of the commercial elements of the transaction publicly. I think that's, don't you think that's what he's saying? Our budget's public, and we know what we can do. Yeah, but the negotiations with the vendor, if we can get something for 50 cents and the bid is a dollar, then why shouldn't we be going for 50 cents? Perfect. But I guess the question is, what we've earmarked in the budget, you still want us to keep earmarked? Until after the contract starts on. Fair enough. Now, listen, I appreciate your list. It's all about accountability, Mr. Stenet. Appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Anybody else got any questions? Mr. Farmer. I kind of want to be by you like you are your consultant. I don't want you to. I want you to consult with me and not tell me what to do. And that's the way I feel like it's coming to us. I feel like you're trying to solve a problem rather than solve an opportunity. And I'm interested in the waiver process because you're talking about the hard work you've done over 18 months. That's got to count for something somewhere. And while my point has nothing to do with what's in the current year's budget, I'm just thinking waiver opportunities have got to have been exercised out there in municipalities of different size based on the hard work that's been done, but also based on just the brass tacks of how much money there is or isn't to do something. So I'm really interested in what our waiver opportunity is in terms of softening. I mean, we've worked harder on this budget this year, and we will next year. I just want to make sure that if we can defer this opportunity and make it better, I would prefer to do that rather than take what's going to be served up in a week's time. We've got a six-page FCC public notice. We'd be glad to circulate to Council. It explains the waiver process. And it's pretty clear what it sets out in terms of the types of actions that a community has to have undertaken, and how far along the process they have to be before a waiver will be granted. So we'll make copies of this and get it to everybody. I think that we as a body need to know as much about this as possible because it's a big buy, and I don't want to get last year's model. Understood. One of the requirements that we had when we went out is to ensure that whatever we purchased would be migratable to the next stage, and we know what that cost is today. Because if we migrate to Phase II two years from now, we want to know what that cost is, and we got that response from each one. So we know the total cost. We don't want to be going back in two years and saying, look, we bought these radials. They don't work. We got this infrastructure. It doesn't meet our expectations. So we made sure we outlined that in the total cost, and I'll be bringing that to you. And part of the reason that the consultant was brought on board was to avoid the concerns that both of you have expressed about buying yesterday's technology. Having come from an agency that would frequently experience that sometimes with things like radios, I've been assured and I've been in on just enough meetings to see that that is not what's going on here. We're buying very good technology from a major producer of radios. our partners in surrounding counties have they solved this problem well madison county solved it by replacing their whole system but they had a lot of federal funding with that some of the other counties solved it in different ways but we are implementing a system that we will be able to tie into there so we can actually use the networks in the other counties and of course they could use ours so we're leveraging that has every county met the narrow banding issue. We are the largest that has not in the state. The smaller you are, the little easier it is to get grants and to solve it. So our own size is being difficult with us right now. Of course, Louisville replaced all their radios in the 911 system a few years ago, so they're meeting that already. They did it through a lot of federal funding. I'm just not on board yet. I'll look forward to the six-page waiver document, and we'll go from there. That's all right. I'll get you there. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Lawless. It's my understanding that early on we did get a waiver because we weren't doing anything for the Phase I part of it. And that is part of why we're not eligible for another waiver. The urban county government has not received any waiver concerning the radio system. Okay. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you again for coming to talk to us about this. I think I was the only person voting for the 800 system about two years ago, and so here we are still. And that's sort of where my concern is. I share Councilmember Farmer's concern about sort of the system and whether we've waited too long and whether we need to look at this with fresh eyes. And, you know, obviously we need to be in compliance with our requirements from the federal government, but we also want to make sure that we don't have to retool in two years, that we're buying state-of-the-art system that is going to have the most usefulness to our entire public safety operations. And so in the event of an unseen emergency of catastrophic level, that folks can be there, immediate, ready to help our citizens. And so we want to give them the best equipment we can. So are you guys going to come back and talk to us again about the process and about the bid? Has this been bid out? Yes, we did a bid for the whole system and for some of the components. I was hoping I can go in great detail today, but negotiations are going longer than we expected. We'll be able to go through in as much detail as you want, hopefully in two weeks of that Tuesday. But to your point before about when we talked about this almost two years ago, I remember sitting there in the bonding, and we were cutting projects, and that was cut. And the question that was asked me at the time was, how much time do you need? And I said 18 months, and guess what, 19 months before the deadline we started. So it is a tight timeline. I will say that the advantage that we got from postponing it, even though it wasn't because it was for budgetary reasons, was the technology has moved that the requirements to be standardized for radios has progressed, that we were able to get three very competitive bids. Last time we were arguing because we didn't have any competitive bids. So not only did I get three on radio systems, I got five different radios I could choose from. And if I only buy half of what I need today, I can buy the other half next fiscal year, and they're all going to work together. So we're at a system that we can get what is best for users because what fire needs is different than what police needs. But can we still use them in 10 years? That's the thing is that we can't. This is so expensive, we can't just buy this every five years. And I agree. And where we're moving, and it's not just us, public safety radios overall, is they're moving to the hardware. It stays the same. We just flash new software on it. to actually work, which is, in the past, they'd give you a whole new hardware. Well, we've progressed. We're more IP-based, computer-based. They just flash with the new stuff. And we're getting the warranties with that, so we know that over the next 10 years, we'll buy more because we have more officers, not because we have a turnover in their anchors. Well, when you come back, if you could walk us through the bidding process and the type of radios and just give us a little bit of something to chew on because it's a big, as Council Member, what's his name? Oh, Farmer said. It's a big buy. Thank you. Thanks. Rush Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. David, thank you for your presentation. It seems to me, if memory serves me right, we've been talking about this for longer than two years because we were given a heads up by our public safety folks that it was coming down the road. So I just wanted to say I'm glad that the delay helped. and that we're now to a point along this road that we can keep going and get this into place because I know our police and fire are very anxious to have it. And, I mean, to the question about the technology being good in 10 years, I don't know that any guarantee could be made about any technology 10 years from now, but it sounds to me like you've actually looked into everything you could look into to get the best equipment, which I think is what I've heard up here is people want equipment that's going to work, and it's going to be the best we can get. So thank you for bringing this. You're welcome. One of the highest criteria in our grading system was coverage. The most important thing to us was making sure that no matter where public safety or anyone using these radiars are in the county, they will be able to get service. We don't have that today. So we wanted to get a high quality for that because you only get one chance to get that. And so that was our number one scoring option. Councilman McCord. Thank you, Mayor. I think, you know, Dave, we've been talking about this for quite a while, even when we had the little work group up talking about technology and Wi-Fi clouds and things like that. And I think what the pushback is, it's not necessarily you, but if there's some folks up here that have some institutional knowledge of the ERP system, and basically $10, $15 million for something that didn't work right, and, well, this isn't the best technology, and so forth and so on, is kind of what we heard. And so there's a bit of buyer's reluctance up here. And, again, just from a historical standpoint, I think that's what the pushback is really all about. For me, it really wasn't about the money. And you can attest at these meetings, I was screaming technology, technology, technology, and how it's changing so rapidly. And, you know, you've made the comment a couple times, the delay actually helped us. The delay actually helped us. And so I think that the two things that I would like to see from you before I'm comfortable voting for this is what Commissioner Mason said. He feels very comfortable that what he's looking at is the best technology and the most updated technology. I would like to see a definitive answer that this is that, that what we are buying is absolutely the best, top of the line, most advanced. There is nothing else out there that what we are buying could be beat by. That's the first thing. The second thing is I would like to see, no offense, David, but from someone other than you on FCC letterhead that we don't qualify for a waiver. I mean, somebody in authority, because I've heard we don't, and then I've heard we can't. And I go back and forth, somebody's wrong. And I just need to know, before I make this decision, before I vote, I need to know those two things definitively in concrete. So I want to let you know where you stood with me at least. No problem, we'll be able to get both of those to you. Okay. David, I just want to encourage you. When you said what I heard Councilman McCord say was a document from the FEC, right, on a letterhead? The SEC, the first part of that is federal. And if you're wanting a letter on their letterhead in the next two weeks, that's out of our control. We will provide you with this that you can digest and see that we really don't qualify. I'm not sure anybody, any community, can get a categorical answer from the FCC on these things until and unless an application for a waiver were made. I think that's the dilemma. Well, again, that's my dilemma is that we haven't done that. I'm being told that we don't qualify. I don't know. Maybe we do. Maybe we don't. Again, we go back to the COPS grant. You know, only 6% or 13% of the communities that apply for those got them, and we got them, primarily because of some of the talent that's a part of this group in this government right now. And I just need to know from somebody in authority that we don't get it. And if it's you telling me there's no way because here's a six-page document, I don't know. I don't know what I'm looking at in that situation. and I'm looking for someone higher up in the federal government or someone that can say, no, Lexington, there's no sense in you all even applying. That's what I need. I just want to make sure that we don't overcommit here because if there's a, you know, anybody can have a reason not to vote for anything, understand that, and that defaults out. But what we are hearing is that the procurement process has exhausted the competitive dimensions of the project, the technical dimensions of the project. Yes. And this is your recommendation, right? Yes. Okay. And you're going to come back with a final after the negotiations illustration of the process, the technology, and why the recommendation, right? That is correct. Now, is that going to, it sounds like we're moving toward a deadline where we're looking for a green light or not, or a red light, okay? and it sounds like some council members are opposed to it already. And so when you have this prepared, when you're finished with negotiations, because I don't think anybody wants to engage the objection that, well, you know, we waited until the last minute and now you brought it to us. Because the reason for that is that they're going through negotiations. So I want to make that, I think it's important that that be clear, that they're engaging in negotiations, it's part of the procurement process, and be bringing it within adequate time to examine it. Now, everybody's got a different definition of adequate. I tend to rely on people who are technically equipped for the work. And I'll also look into it myself as we go in the next two weeks. That's okay with you all. Okay. Councilman McCoy? Again, with something this big, I would say definitely all hands on deck. But at the same time, what I'm hearing is that this is, with you all looking at it, that this is the best thing. I've also got a bit of buyer's remorse from what happened a few years ago with the ERP system. And then secondarily, what I'm hearing is we have not applied for it because we've looked at this document and said there's no sense in applying. So we haven't applied. We don't know definitively, but that's what I'm hearing up here. So I'll just let you know how it's translating over on this side of the horseshoe. You heard correctly. All right. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor, and thanks again. I just want to say I think that, at least in my own case, neither the council nor the mayor should think that I'm trying to oppose this or that I've formed a decision to oppose this in any way. I think it's important for the council members to kick the tires, and I think it's important for us to examine what we're doing. That's our fiduciary duty, I think, both to the citizens and to the government. So I want to make sure that, yeah, that we're making the best decision we can and that we're being good stewards of money. Otherwise, we could just vote it in from home. We can just kind of click something like that. So I think it's important to kick the tires. That said, can you bring us an article about what we're buying, like something from PC Magazine Editor's Choice or something like that? Just show us something. Send us an article that says, God, this is the greatest and you've never seen anything better. Can you send us some information? The magazine won't be that flashy, but, yes, I'll be able to send you something. That would be great. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Martin. Councilman Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Lucas, could you also provide us some information regarding what other options were out there that you chose not to pursue? Can you be more specific? Well, there's more than one way to skin the cat, right? Yes. So you have an RFP out. You're working, well, RFP's back. You're now negotiating with one particular company in terms of price. That's correct. But there are other options out there instead of what this company offered, correct? All the companies provide a same option, different flavor. If you're asking why did we go with that in our RFP and not go in a different direction, I can provide that. Okay. Thank you. Councilor Lawless. As far as this being a last-minute thing, we've been talking about this forever, and the mandate was handed down in 2004, so that's seven years. And I think we need to be aware of what the penalty is for every day or week we don't comply after the deadline. It's like $100,000. It's up to $16,000 per day per frequency. We have 18 frequencies. Okay, so $16,000 a day times 18 for every day we're out of compliance. So I think that is something that we need to take into account as we are trying to decide whether or not to kick this down the road. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Well, I agree this is a very important decision we're going to make because it's expensive and it's a major component of our public safety system. I would appreciate if the consultant would be here, too, and to have the consultant make a brief statement about the system we're buying. And I would also like to have the chief of police, chief of fire, and maybe one of their representatives with them to make comments on behalf of the two primary departments that will be using that system so we can get their input on it. That way we can solve a rounded objective comment. I'm sure they've all looked at this in detail. This would just, I think, reinforce our decision-making process more fully. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lane. And just a postscript on this, I appreciate the Councilmember's input to this. Again, the theme of accountability, which we all endorse, I think what I'm trying to translate so, David, you know what you're being asked for and the timetable for it, because I don't think anybody wants to be, I'm hearing this Council Member Martin's comment, nobody wants to be squeezed into a decision. So you may not be able to tell us right now. I would urge you to carefully consider this window that you've got and what you're going to be presenting to the Council the data that you're presenting, okay, and how you're going to be presenting because you may need to have some one-on-ones with some council members to share the data. Big purchase, significant, lots of reasons to examine it carefully, which have all been illustrated today. We've had some rough waters with some of these technologies that we've invested in. Understood. And we can understand your frustration after you've gone through and gone through and gone through the process. I'm not frustrated. Okay. I've always felt that the radial purchase was something we needed more than anything we have or haven't gotten. Some of the information requests I can get to you later this week because it doesn't involve what we're negotiating as background information. And on the 29th, we'll go into great detail in session, but I'll probably have some information for individuals before that time. Thank you, thank you. All right. That's all the presentations for today. Next on our agenda are Council reports. Council Member Blues. Whoops. Council. Yes, sir. Your Council Member Blues is signed on, Vice Mayor Gorton, then Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to announce that this coming Thursday, Thursday and November 17, three divisions of the urban county government, the GIS services, fire and emergency services, and police will be participating in a regional GIS day as part of the National Geographic Awareness Week. Again, that's this Thursday, November 17th, from 9 to 4.30 p.m. in the Student Center on the University of Kentucky campus. The event includes over 100 sessions and activities from over 40 participating organizations around the region. The sessions are divided into six learning tracks, including public safety, medicine and public health, technical development, career building, GIS exploration, and applied GIS. So if you want to learn more than you thought you needed to learn about geographic information systems, This is the event for you. In addition to the learning tracks, there are also poster sessions, exhibitors, games, lightning talks, and the mayor's GIS Day proclamation. This event is free and open to the public. For more information, you can go to the GIS Day website. That's at gisday.uky.edu. Thank you, mayor. I look forward to seeing you Thursday morning. Thank you, Councilor Beluse. Thanks. Good morning, Mayor. I'm looking at the schedule right now. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I have two items. I'm hoping to have the draft 2012 Council calendar to you on Thursday. We have been working with Jeanette Williams on it for a month or so, and we should have a good draft that I'll bring to you then. And then I also wanted to just publicly welcome our new council administrator, Stacy Maynard, who is with us today. and today's her second day on the job. So we're loading her up with lots of reading, lots of meetings. She'll be making her way around government to meet folks and getting up to speed on our issues. So thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Stannett. Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple items. One, I know earlier Mr. Reed spoke about the hiring of the new recruit class, Mayor, and he said January 1 and they'd be on the street in six months. I don't think he meant six months because a training class usually is a lot longer than that, so I didn't want anyone to have the false expectation that it would be six months. We may want to clarify that, Mr. Maloney, what he meant by that, because if we can retrain them in six months and get them on the street, that's remarkably fast that I've ever seen. So I just want to make sure we clarify that. And also, I know I've talked to your office, Mr. Maloney, about the railroad bridges around town that were recently painted by R.J. Corman Railroad. A lot of us are getting phone calls and e-mails about those bridges. And I know a year ago when this first started, we all looked into it before this administration, and we did receive information from the current law commissioner or the prior law commissioner that they were exempt from any signed ordinance, and there was not a lot we can do. Commissioner Graham, you want to kind of reiterate that so people watching can understand that we've tried to take a stance on that and that we've looked into this issue and where we stand as a government? Yes, thank you. There are two prongs to this related to the sign ordinance and railroad property. And the first prong is our sign ordinance is based upon how property is zoned. And with railroad property, it's federal right-of-way, so it's really not covered by our zoning ordinance. And the second prong is that there's a pretty good argument in my estimation that this is preempted by federal law. So even if we tried to rewrite our signed ordinance to apply to it, I think you would still have a problem in court enforcing it because there's a significant body of federal law that relates to railroads. And so that's the general problem with trying to enforce it legally. However, it's my understanding from CAO Maloney that they are going to be talking to R.J. Corman just to see if there's something informal that might be able to be done. Well, that's good. I know myself and a lot of other people in town appreciate the cleaning up of the bridges and the painting and sprucing them up, so to speak. But there are concerns from constituents that we're all getting about the wording and lettering on both sides of it and does it fall within our guidelines of other things. Also, on the public safety issue, we have police officers sitting out there that are closing lanes or closing the intersections. My understanding is RJ Corman is reimbursing and paying those officers directly, that it's not a city-funded cost. I just want to make sure that's put that out there for the public. That is the case. Okay, so we're not using taxpayer dollars to close those down. That's according to. Okay, very good. Thank you. And then last but not least tonight is the Eastland Parkway Neighborhood Association meeting. It begins here at 630 at Christ Center Church there off of Eastland Parkway. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Stanton. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. Tonight at 6.30, the Beaumont Residential Association is having its annual meeting, and it's going to be at the Rosa Parks Elementary. And there's going to be a business meeting, and I understand the council members are going to talk. And I think a member of our police department is going to be out to update folks out there as well. We have a stream cleanup on November 19th from 1 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. along Vaughn's Branch that runs behind Bobolink Drive. As this is now Council Member Henson's district, I would encourage folks from the 11th district to come on out and anybody in the 10th. I had just a delightful time visiting with the third grade elementary class at Rosa Parks Elementary on the 4th. And my daughter was in the class. I had everybody, the entire third grade, we had them in the cafeteria. They chose council members from their tables, and they all got together to rename the school. So I'm the first to announce that the Rosa Parks has been changed to Sparks Parks Elementary. And that because I was the presiding officer, we had a four-to-four tie, so I cast the vote on my daughter's side. So a good life lesson for the third graders. We also have some new four-way stop signs at Dogwood Trace Boulevard and Agape Drive, and we have a new four-way stop to be installed at Palomar Boulevard and Pepper Tree Drive. I guess on a more serious note, I wanted to just comment briefly about the resignation of former Commissioner Taylor. At a time when the city of Lexington is poised to spend an enormous amount of money retrofitting our sewers, $540 million. I think anything that is irregular or that is out of the ordinary that's in close proximity to this large amount of money is something that gives us pause. And I think something for serious concern. And thus far, really no information has been provided that the council about this, and I understand it's personnel matter. So we've been left to learn what we know from the papers and from gossip. And I think this is really not the position that council members should be left in. And so I hope that the administration in some future time, shortly to come, will take some time to update the council about what's going on within this department. I was opposed to combining these two departments. I think it's too big. And so I'm very sad to see Commissioner Taylor leave. And I guess hope that the administration will come and give us an update about this development. Thank you, Mayor. Well, I'm happy to speak to that. Thank you, Councilman Martin. As I say routinely, that it is a great blessing that we have a council which encourages accountability. And as many members of the council know, just as the council has made employment decisions on its duty, in some cases to recruit or to separate employment. Those decisions are made deliberately. They're not made casually at all. And that is just how the mayor's office works as well. Employees at the commissioner level, mayor's staff, are at will employees. And Commissioner Graham can speak to that. But what we are doing is being done in the interest of our citizens, in the interest of the future, and in the interest of good management as we go downstream. Thank you, Mayor. The Mayor is correct. This is the advice that I always give people on employment separations is to not make public comments. It's the same advice that I've given the council related to employment separations of council employees. So the mayor is following my advice, as are the mayor's staff, and we won't be making a public comment on this. You wish to say something more? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. You know, but we are not the public. We are the urban county council. And if you all need to go in a closed session in order to communicate with us, that's fine. But I think to have the complete lack of transparency about this, the Urban County Council, we have the responsibility. We are the board of directors of this city. And to not give us any information about a rather serious development with a lot of, frankly, strange rumors going around, I think is disappointing. And so I've been happy to try it. I'm not trying to make a big public stink about it. But, you know, for us to basically know what we know what's in the newspaper as council members, I don't think it is an appropriate level of information to be received from the administration. I understand completely about employment stuff. And so find an opportunity to talk with us in a way that satisfies the employment concerns of the city. And if you – I can address that a little bit, and I understand. and I appreciate the benefit of that perspective. If you look at the law on how systems are set up here, and under KRS 67A, the mayor is set out as the appointing authority under state statute, just like you all are the appointing authority for council employees. So it specifically exempts the ratifier from being part of the executive decisions related to hirings or dismissals or suspensions, that kind of thing. However, I can tell you, it's my understanding, I believe from Nistraub, the press secretary, that we have received an open records request related to some records regarding this manner. So I'm sure that to the extent those are provided to the public, they will also be provided to the council for your review. In fairness, there's no doubt you guys have the right to do it. But don't forget that we approve your budgets and everything. So as a matter of courtesy, it might be nice to just kind of keep us plugged in. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, Councilman Martin, I think it's important that I respond because I think what the Commissioner has just said is pretty clear, that this has, in her point of view and her advice to me, was that this does have this issue has to do with the appointing authority and then running more deeply than that, is the separation of powers and authority. So I really want to do as much as I can to discourage the impression that there's been anything withheld, because that's not the case. What we are trying to do is follow the law, respect the law, and the interests of the institution that we're serving. So I just want to make sure that that point of view is also expressed. Did I say that in a way that you shared with me? Right. Thank you. And can I add one other thing about the closed session just so the council can be clear? Because Council Member Martin brings up a question or a point that I think other council members may be wondering about. And to go into closed session, you would need to be considering the hiring or dismissal of an employee, but an after-the-fact inquiry would not be a proper subject of a closed session. And so I just wanted to make sure everybody understands that since we are scheduled for a closed session this afternoon on other matters, I didn't want there to be confusion about us addressing that in this closed session. Yes. Yes, it's my understanding. Council Member Lawless is next up. I'd like to make a motion to place into the Planning and Public Works Committee reviewing the ordinance that building inspection uses to determine the percentage of paved pavement on a lot and how they're calculating that, and do we need to, is it a misinterpretation of the ordinance, or do we need to change the ordinance? So review and to possibly change. So thank you. Did I hear a second? It's a motion by Councilman Lawless, seconded by Councilman Ballews. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. I see that Mr. Reed has presented himself on the second floor. And just to relieve any anxiety as you come up, I'm frequently wrong on things. And so if you need to share, Mr. Stenet. Could you repeat the question? Can I repeat the question? No, I just want to make sure we're clear. What we told the public was accurate, that how long is the training class, and those new officers, if we begin training January 1, how long will they take to get on the street? On the street, 29 weeks, independently functioning in cars, so you have the additional, is about 11 to 12 months. So the long and short of that is I was wrong. No. Thank you all. I appreciate that. I was thinking you might be. I just want to make sure, because obviously it's a sensitive issue. You know. I don't want people thinking we're going to have about there. Oh, we know you're smart, Mr. Kevin. Thank you, Mr. Reid. I appreciate it. We know you're smart. We know you're smart. May I continue, Mr. Mayor? Oh, I'm sorry. We thought you were done, Councilman Wallace. I'm never done. Okay-dokey. I just have one other. There are a lot of things obviously going on in our community and in the 3rd District and downtown, but I did want to mention that Morris Bookshop is having a grand opening this Saturday the 19th all day at their new location at 882 East High Street. So I think there's going to be music and levity, so if you're looking for something to do on Saturday, you might want to stop by Morris Bookshop. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I guess the first thing I want to do is commend you for taking on the task of two-way streets downtown. And I know it's going to be an interesting issue to tackle, but I appreciate you stepping out there and doing that. There's a lot of folks smiling around the chambers. I don't know if they're smiling in agreement or not. Look at Council Member Beard. I don't think he is. That's why we sit next to each other. We balance each other out. There we go. I do have a question, though, on the termination or the separation of the commissioner. Commissioner, you said that you recommended that a public statement not be made because of legal issues. And I guess the council does confirm commissioners. Yes. I understand the appointing authority is the mayor, but the council does confirm. So can you speak to that at all? Yes. If you look at it, it's KRS 67A 210 and KRS 67A 230 sub 2 kind of explains the way that the urban county government system was set up under the statutes. And it does provide for confirmation. In other words, it provides for a legislative body to be the ratifying authority. But it's specific as to the appointing authority, and it exempts out and says under subsection B does not include any ratifying authority entitled to approve or disprove an appointment. So it exempts out the legislative body from being part of basically the dismissal process for an executive branch at-will employee. Okay. then I guess I would ask for consistency's sake, when it came to terminating the fire chief, did you give the same advice? The fire chief is in a little bit different category because he is covered under Section KRS 95-450. And under that one, you have to have a public hearing on the dismissal. In other words, and we're at some point going to be presenting charges to you all as an adjudicative body on that point. So I think he's in a different spot than an at-will employee because he's kind of an at-will employee who's also covered by a specific way that he's dismissed by the council. Right, and that brings me to that point is that it's the council that is the one that can terminate the fire chief rather than... So, in other words, I'm not sure if the council is the appointing authority or not, but it's the council that has to terminate that position. Yes, and that's pursuant to KRS 95-450. So the fire chief is covered under a different provision, and the at-will employees that I'm referring to are covered under 67A. So then, because he's covered under a different provision, it doesn't matter if the mayor makes comment publicly. Is that what you're saying? because that was the original question was did you get the same counsel. And the reason I asked that and I put consistency in there is because the media has asked questions about this one and haven't gotten a response, but yet there was a response in the media with the other termination. I think the difference there is the process for terminating the fire chief had to be explained because I think there was some misunderstanding because the police chief and the fire chief, although it sounds like they would be the same, the police chief can be terminated at will. The fire chief has to have a hearing before you all. So I think in order to explain the process of how that was done, there had to be public comment to do that. Thank you. Councilman Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner, while you're there, I had the same thoughts that Councilman Myers had. It makes absolutely no sense to me at all that we are the confirming entity for any appointment at this level anyway. And it's like, yes, you can go in the door, but you can never come back out again. and if in fact the folks in Frankfurt can't sort through this and get this cleaned up, it needs to be fixed. It isn't something that you hide behind. It needs to be fixed. I personally don't feel that the council is respected because of this, and it needs to be fixed. And just personally, and I'm sure from the mayor, when I give legal advice, I don't want it to appear that I'm disrespecting anybody on the council because that's certainly not the case, and I know it's not the case for the mayor too. No, I don't question that. It's the things that go on in Frankfurt when they knitted all this situation together and the fact that they didn't do the same thing for Louisville and they had a little different situation there, obviously. But it seems like every time we turn around, we're going to say, okay, now we're going to go down there and we're going to get this fixed and we're going to get this fixed and nothing ever, ever, ever happens. And we need to start taking control of our own destiny somewhere along the line. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Beard. I'm frequently reminded about the conundrums like this that we experience. I was advised by my grandfather once, Jim, you didn't create this world and you won't solve all its problems. Council Member Lane. Well, I hate to keep beating the drums on this, but the work to remediate our sanitary sewer systems under the EPA consent order is being managed by the Environmental Quality Division of the government. And the cost to do this remediation is really not even known yet, but as just a wild guess, it's going to be about a half a billion dollars of the taxpayer's money. You know, the loss of Commissioner Taylor is unfortunate, and it could happen we'd have another commissioner and they'd be gone three years from now. Now, my concern is not who's running the environmental quality, but who's running the job to build the sanitary sewer systems. And I have been concerned about the long-term management aspect of that. And the mayor has been very supportive of this. It's not an address that she may are, but I just want to get across the point that this is a huge expenditure on behalf of our taxpayers. and we need to have the very best construction management that we can possibly get to run this job over the 8 to 10 years it may take so that if we do have changes in personnel, changes in council members, changes in mayors, that the continuity of this construction will go forward on behalf of the taxpayers and because of changes in personnel it will not be interrupted or mismanaged due to the change in management. So I keep beating the drums on this. I think this is very important. And unfortunately, with the loss of Commissioner Taylor, this just sort of puts an exclamation point next to the issue that I've been bringing up over the last five or six months. So I just encourage the council to think about this and make sure we get the proper construction management in place. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, sir. And as you did mention, I appreciate your interest in this, and we share that interest in the full project management, cost management, quality management, value engineering on the project. It's significant. Okay. Who else has signed up? I believe that's it. Doug, you want to speak again? Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I'm sorry to beat this, but as I understand the Commissioner's basically legal advice to the city is that the law says that the administration doesn't have to consult with us before making this personnel decision. And I agree with that. I'm not disputing that. I just think that because of our fiduciary role in supervising the operations of the city And as the board of directors of this city, I think we need to be updated on this. You know, is it Montgomery, Alabama? Is that what it was? Just filed bankruptcy, largest bankruptcy in U.S. history. Los Angeles is pleased that they're number two now. Birmingham, Alabama. And so it was over this exact type of project. It was their 10-year fix on their sanitary sewers. And so because of fraud, corruption, and mismanagement there in Montgomery, Alabama. So the fact that we have to be so transparent and so without question, we need checks and balances everywhere, and the loss of a commissioner of the department that supervises this, I think, raises serious issues. that you need to be able to assure the council, close session is fine, that things are on track and that we're not having similar problems because this is not going to go away. We have 15 people who can ask questions at every meeting from here to eternity until we satisfy ourselves that we are on proper footing and that this $540 million is not going to be mismanaged. And so I second Council Member Lane's call for an independent outside manager for this project who can, in fact, be around between changes of personnel. This illustrates the exact reason why we need something like that. We need to institutionalize a long-term 15-year project that's going to help sort of keep this on track. God forbid that Charlie Martin gets hit by a bus because we're going to be a mess. And so this just all illustrates why it's so important that, first of all, you keep us in the loop, which we're not, but also that we have a long-term vision about how we're going to achieve this very massive project. Well, clearly, let me say, once again, acknowledge what you've said, Councilman Martin. I don't agree that your counsel has not been kept in the loop. We have followed what we have been advised by the administration, and that is the protocol that we're following. As I said, we didn't create these laws. We followed them. I understand we disagree. Do you have anything else to say about it, Commissioner? Okay, thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak? Vice Mayor Gordon. Yes, thank you, Mayor. I would like to weigh in on Council Member Martin's concerns from a little bit different angle. I have a lot of confidence in Charlie Martin. I have a lot of confidence in his staff, Susan Bush. I am concerned and would like for perhaps our CAO or someone to perhaps report back as to whether we have actually filled all the positions in water quality that the Council voted to fill and fund so that we know that we're up to strength to support these folks on the job that they have to do. Council has passed some positions and funded them, and I want to be sure and have some reassurance from you that we have filled those positions that were at capacity. I want to start off by saying we are still on track. Susan Bush is now our acting director, our commissioner, which she has done before, and we are glad she's on board. The team we've met with, everybody's back on track. We're doing everything we've been doing. The merge that we did this summer was a good thing because we've got engineers finally. They're in water quality where they need to be. Instead of going through two departments to get projects done, Charlie is able now to get. And I appreciate all their hard work, and they know what's going on. And we do meet every two weeks with jobs and to catch up on all the jobs. So we are continuing to go the pace we are right now. Nothing has changed. We have the same people, and we are on a fast track to try to finish finding another commissioner. And we have got some good people who have already sent their resumes in, and we will work with you all on that. But I just want to let you know nothing has stopped. We're on track. I'm glad Susan Bush is here. She's been a great worker, and she's willing to take this job for temporary. You all know what she's like. You've had her the last six months. Before we came on board, she was excellent, and we are going forward. And I just want to tell you, there's nobody off track here. I appreciate that. And I didn't actually say you were off track. No, no, I just wanted to make sure we are hiring people. The jobs are, we have a committee put together. I think Charlie has something to offer. My question, Mayor, is about open positions. that we've already funded. As far as positions that are open, we go to the committee and we make our justification. They've been very receptive to how we're trying to change the way we are. As you know, there's some positions that I've held back because I've waited for reorganization and attrition for us to recreate ourselves. I don't want to just renew a position just because it's a vacancy. Because of the changed world we have, I want to have a position that fits the job ahead. So there are some manager positions and stuff I'm still holding right now. I'm doing that, and I'm doing that in order to facilitate an orderly reorganization. Otherwise, the committee has been very cooperative and moved quickly in filling vacant positions. So you're confident that every position that you've asked for in the reorganization has been filled or is about to be filled? So far, no problem, but I appreciate the support. Thank you. Council Member Beard? You want to speak again? No. Okay. All right. My monitor is still showing. One, two, three. Yeah. All right. All right. All right. How about you want to do your council report now? Okay. I've got. I'm showing. Who needs to do a council report then? That's it? My monitor is still showing Mr. Beard and Mr. Lane. All right. I'm done, Mayor. We're ready for the session. All right. Thank you, sir. All right. I have no one signed on for public comment. No mayor's report this week. So, Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I move that we go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.8101C for the purpose of discussing litigation involving the urban county government and KRS 61.8101B to discuss the acquisition of real property. An open discussion would likely affect the value of the specific piece of property that may be acquired. Second. Motion by Vice Mayor Gordon, second by Council Member Ellinger to enter closed session. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Motion to approve the NDF request. Yeah, I'll make it. All right. Are we ready? Jennifer, okay, thanks. Council Member Kaye. Mayor, I have a motion to approve the NDF funds. Motion by Council Member Kaye, seconded by Council Member Martin to approve NDF funds. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All right. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Vice Mayor Gordon. I move to place on the docket for the November 17, 2011 Council meeting a resolution ratifying the Department of Law's execution of a settlement agreement, stipulation, and recommendation in Public Service Commission case number 2011-06-0161 pertaining to approval of Kentucky Utility Company's environmental surcharge recovery. Second. Motion by Vice Mayor Gordon, second by Council Member Lawless. Is there any discussion on motion? All right. Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. There's a motion by Council Member Blues to adjourn, second by Council Member Ellinger. All in favor, please say aye. All opposed, no. Motion passes. We are adjourned. Thank you all very much. Thank you.