# Council Work Session - May 1, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 1, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2498 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2498?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-05-01 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 26,354 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 Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government held a meeting on May 1, 2012, at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 2nd Floor Government Center, presided over by Mayor Jim Gray. The meeting included 10 agenda items, during which the council took 21 motions and votes and heard 5 public comments from citizens. The council addressed a range of business including the approval of meeting summaries, budget amendments, new business items, and continuing business with presentations. Several items were designated as informational, including public comments on agenda issues, requested rezonings and docket approvals, public comments on issues not on the agenda, and the Mayor's Report. The meeting concluded with adjournment following approval of the standard procedural items. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on May 1, 2012: - Jay McChord - Doug Martin - Steve Kay - Bill Farmer, Jr. - Linda Gorton - Tom Blues - Chuck Ellinger - George Myers - Julian Beard - Diane Lawless - Ed Lane - K.C. Crosbie - Sally Hamilton - Jerry Hancock - Mike Fields - Rocky Burke - Charlie Martin - Chris King - David Lucas - Jay Christian - Deb Winograd - Knox Van Ogle - Ralph Rochelle - Bruce Simpson - John Sheed - Jane - Meredith No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included 21 motions, most of which passed by voice vote. The following summarizes the key votes and decisions: **Procedural Approvals** [timestamp: 00:01:08] Motions to approve summaries from Work Sessions on April 10 and April 17, 2012 passed by voice vote, as did motions to approve Budget Amendments [00:01:38], New Business Items [00:02:09], and the NDF List [00:32:19]. **Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Matters** Three motions to place items on the docket for first reading all passed by voice vote: - 2012 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives [00:37:18] - 2012 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives Dashboard document [00:38:50] - Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment for the Adult Day Care Definition [00:58:05] - Fencing Ordinance Text Amendment [00:59:09] **Code Amendment** [timestamp: 01:07:57] A motion to approve text changes amending section 7-2.1(a) of the Code of Ordinances passed by roll call vote with 8 ayes and 7 nays. Those voting in favor were Jay McChord, Steve Kay, Bill Farmer Jr., George Myers, Julian Beard, K.C. Crosbie, Ed Lane, and Diane Lawless. Those voting against were Doug Martin, Linda Gorton, Tom Blues, Chuck Ellinger, K.C. Crosbie, Sally Hamilton, and Jerry Hancock. **HUD Section 108 Loan Program** [timestamp: 01:25:37] A motion to initiate the application to HUD to implement the Section 108 Loan Program passed by voice vote. **Committee and Meeting Scheduling** The May 8th, 2012 Social Services and Community Development Standing Committee meeting was cancelled by voice vote [01:28:23]. A Special Council Meeting was scheduled for May 29th, 2012 for a Public Hearing on the Mayor's Proposed Budget [01:51:18]. **Lextran Budget** [timestamp: 01:38:50] A motion to place the Lextran budget on the docket for first reading passed by roll call with 10 ayes and 1 nay (Tom Blues voting against). A subsequent motion to table the Lextran Budget failed with 2 ayes and 9 nays. **Golf Program Subsidy** [timestamp: 01:38:50] A motion to instruct Steve Kay to report the specific recommended subsidy number and rationale for the LFUCG Golf Program passed by roll call with 11 ayes and 1 nay (Sally Hamilton voting against). **Closed Session and Adjournment** The council entered Closed Session pursuant to KRS 61.810(1)(f) [01:53:33] and returned [01:54:03]. The meeting adjourned at 6:01pm [01:54:33]. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting approved the following financial actions and expenditures: **Design Services Contract (L325-12)** J.R. Miller Inc. was awarded a contract for $57,965 to provide design services for converting the current Vehicle Wash Facility on Byrd Thurman Drive into a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility. **Downtown Revitalization Study (L417-12)** Stantec Engineering Services, Inc. received a grant of $465,000 for the Downtown Lexington Traffic and Revitalization Study. **Wastewater Treatment Plant Services (L435-12)** Bell Engineering was contracted for $157,495 to provide professional services for sanitary sewer detail design services at the Blue Sky Wastewater Treatment Plant. **Greenway Restoration Project (L429-12)** Advanced Mulching, operating as Ecogrow, was awarded a contract modification (Change Order No. 2) valued at $4,511.05 for the McConnells Trace Greenway Restoration Project. **Social Services Accreditation (L431-12)** The Council on Accreditation (COA) entered into an accreditation agreement with the Department of Social Services for $16,245. **LexTran Budget Appropriation** LexTran received an appropriation of $23,000,000 for 2012-2013 operating and capital expenditures. ## Public Comment Five speakers addressed the board on May 1, 2012, raising concerns about the Comprehensive Plan, economic development, and addressing ordinances. **Comprehensive Plan and Economic Development** Bruce Simpson [timestamp: 00:44:47] advocated for flexibility in the Comprehensive Plan to allow for potential expansion of rural activity centers. He emphasized the need to consider future economic development opportunities while protecting adjacent properties. Ralph Rochelle [timestamp: 00:45:51] stressed the need for large, shovel-ready tracts of land to attract high-paying manufacturing jobs. He cited Fayette County's competitive disadvantage due to lack of available industrial land. Knox Van Ogle [timestamp: 00:52:59] supported the current plan's focus on inward growth and quality of life. He emphasized that strategic planning and existing land use can attract investment without sacrificing farmland. **Addressing Ordinance and Historical House Numbers** Jay Christian [timestamp: 01:18:39] argued for preserving unique historical house numbers on Richmond Avenue, stating they are charming and have worked safely for 100 years. Deb Winograd [timestamp: 01:19:43] defended the current house number on her street, stating she has never had issues with emergency services and that the numbers are not unsafe. ## Contested Items **Addressing Ordinance Text Amendment** The council voted to amend the addressing ordinance to allow non-whole numbers in limited cases. The motion passed 8-7, indicating significant division on the council. Council Members Blues, Martin, and Gorton voted against the amendment, expressing concerns about public safety and the precedent it would set. The narrow margin reflects the contentious nature of this decision. **Golf Subsidy and Enterprise Fund Discussion** Council members engaged in a heated debate regarding golf operations funding. The discussion centered on multiple interconnected issues: the appropriate level of subsidy for golf operations, whether bond debt should be included in financial calculations, and whether golf should be reclassified as an enterprise fund. The disagreement revealed differing philosophical positions among council members about the proper role of municipal government in funding recreation. Some members advocated for viewing golf as a public service worthy of subsidy, while others questioned the sustainability and appropriateness of ongoing public funding for what some considered a private recreation activity. **Blue Sky Wastewater Project Scope** Council members raised procedural and substantive concerns about the Blue Sky Wastewater Project. The dispute centered on whether the project's current scope was sufficient to accommodate future growth and industrial development. Some council members questioned whether the existing design would adequately support the community's long-term expansion needs. Despite these concerns about the project's adequacy, the technical memorandum served as the decision point for moving forward with the project scope as proposed. ## Public Comment – Issues on Agenda [timestamp: 00:00] Several residents provided public comment on matters related to the Comprehensive Plan during this agenda item. **Key Speakers and Topics** The following residents spoke during this period: Bruce Simpson, Ralph Rochelle, Knox Van Ogle, Jay Christian, and Deb Winograd. **Issues Addressed** Speakers addressed multiple aspects of the Comprehensive Plan, including: - Land use considerations - Economic development - Historical house numbers **Concerns Raised** Residents raised concerns about the need for flexibility in zoning regulations and expressed interest in the preservation of unique community features within the planning process. **Outcome** This agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal action taken. ## Requested Rezonings/Docket Approval [timestamp: 00:01:08] No docket items were presented during this session. The Council confirmed that there was no rezoning docket scheduled for this week. ## Approval of Summary [timestamp: 00:01:08] The Council approved the summaries from the April 10 and April 17 Work Sessions without dissent. Julian Beard and Linda Gorton were the key speakers on this agenda item. The summaries were approved by resolution as presented, with no objections raised during the discussion. ## Budget Amendments The Council considered budget amendments during this agenda item, with discussion led by Linda Gorton and Tom Blues. [timestamp: 00:01:38] The amendments addressed fiscal impacts related to police and computer services positions. The Council approved the budget amendments without dissent. ## New Business [timestamp: 00:02:09] The Council addressed several new business items during this portion of the meeting. **Items Approved** The Council approved a series of new business items, including: * Contracts for hazardous waste facility design * Sewer studies * Zoning amendments **Lextran Budget** A motion to approve the Lextran budget was brought before the Council. The motion passed following a roll call vote. **Key Participants** The discussion was led by Steve Kay, Doug Martin, and Rocky Burke. **Outcome** All new business items presented were approved by the Council. ## Continuing Business/Presentations During this agenda item, the Council addressed several matters brought forward by committee reports and presentations [timestamp: 00:32:19]. **Approvals and Adoptions** The Council approved three significant items: - The NDF list - The 2012 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives - The Dashboard **Planning and Public Works Committee Report** The Planning and Public Works Committee provided updates on three ordinance-related matters: - Zoning ordinance updates - Fencing ordinance provisions - Addressing ordinance revisions **Social Services and Community Development Committee Report** The Social Services and Community Development Committee reported on two initiatives: - The Section 108 Loan Program - The Senior Citizen Center task force **Key Participants** The following individuals participated in this agenda item: Bill Farmer, Jr., George Myers, Chris King, and David Lucas. **Outcome** All matters presented during this continuing business and presentations segment were approved by the Council. ## Council Report During this agenda item, the Council addressed several administrative matters and scheduling decisions. [timestamp: 01:51:18] **Key Actions** The Council approved the scheduling of a Special Council Meeting dedicated to the Mayor's Proposed Budget. Additionally, the Council received a presentation of the Fire and Emergency Medical Task Force Report. A motion to enter closed session was approved by the Council. **Speakers** The following members participated in this discussion: - Steve Kay - Bill Farmer, Jr. - Ed Lane **Outcome** The agenda item was approved. ## Public Comments – Issues Not on Agenda [timestamp: 01:18:39] During this portion of the meeting, residents provided feedback regarding the addressing ordinance. Two key speakers, Jay Christian and Deb Winograd, shared their perspectives on address-related matters. The primary focus of the public comments centered on the addressing ordinance, with residents emphasizing several important considerations: * **Preservation of historical house numbers** – Speakers highlighted the importance of maintaining historical address designations * **Consistency in address changes** – Residents stressed the need for uniform standards when addresses are modified * **Safety concerns** – The discussion included considerations about how address changes impact public safety and emergency services The speakers advocated for a balanced approach that would protect the historical character of addresses while ensuring that any necessary changes maintain consistency and support community safety objectives. **Outcome:** This agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal action taken. The comments were received as public input on the addressing ordinance matter. ## Mayor's Report No mayor's report was presented during this agenda item. ## Adjournment The Council adjourned at 6:01 PM following a motion by Chuck Ellinger. [timestamp: 01:54:33] --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve the Summary from the Work Session on April 10, 2012 - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve the Summary from the Work Session on April 17, 2012 - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve the Budget Amendments - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve the New Business Items - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve the NDF List - **Motion** — passed: Motion to place on the docket for first reading the 2012 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives - **Motion** — passed: Motion to place on the docket for first reading the 2012 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives Dashboard document - **Motion** — passed: Motion to place on the docket for first reading the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment for the Adult Day Care Definition - **Motion** — passed: Motion to place on the docket for first reading the Fencing Ordinance Text Amendment - **Motion** — passed (8-7): Motion to approve text changes amending section 7-2.1(a) of the Code of Ordinances - **Motion** — passed: Motion to initiate the application to HUD to implement Section 108 Loan Program - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve the cancellation of the May 8th, 2012 Social Services and Community Development Standing Committee meeting - **Motion** — passed: Motion to correct the Social Services and Community Development summary on page 48, sentence 2 - **Motion** — passed (10-1): Motion to place on the docket for first reading the Lextran budget as presented - **Motion** — failed (2-9): Motion to table the Lextran Budget - **Motion** — passed (11-1): Motion to approve instructing Steve Kay to report out the specific recommended subsidy number and rationale for LFUCG’s Golf Program - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve the scheduling of a Special Council Meeting on May 29th, 2012 for a Public Hearing on the Mayor’s Proposed Budget - **Motion** — passed: Motion to present the Fire and Emergency Medical Task Force Report at the May 8th, 2012 Work Session - **Motion** — passed: Motion to enter into Closed Session pursuant to KRS 61.810(1)(f) - **Motion** — passed: Motion to return from Closed Session - **Motion** — passed: Motion to adjourn at 6:01pm --- ## Full transcript Music And first on our agenda today, on May 1st, is public comment for issues on the agenda. I don't have anybody signed up to speak now, so we can move on to item number two on the agenda, which is... Oh, okay. All right. Is it for an issue that's on our agenda today? All right. Okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah, it's all right. Okay. He's going to speak after the planning committee update. All right. All right. Next on our agenda is rezoning's docket approvals. There's no docket this week, no council meeting this week. On the next item, number three is a summary approval. There's a motion by Council Member Ellinger to approve the summary. Second by, who is the second? Council Member Stinnett. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay, hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. The motion carries. Next on our agenda, budget amendments. Is there a motion to approve budget amendments? Motion by Vice Mayor Gordon, seconded by Council Member Blues. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next on the agenda, new business. There's a motion by Council Member Beard to approve new business. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Council Member Ellinger. Is there discussion on the motion? All right. Just a second. All right. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. I had a question on I under our agenda. This is on the Blue Sky Parkway RFP. There's a question on, we have a question on our I. All right. And who? Okay. Charlie Martin. Mr. Martin. Yes, sir. I see here we chose Bell Engineering. This is the low bidder, correct? Yes, sir, it is. And we don't anticipate any change orders on this, correct? Well, let's hope not. We've worked pretty hard on trying to negotiate this contract, and it is substantially lower than the other 11 proposals that we had. Obviously, if there is some completely unforeseen circumstance that no other proposer would have anticipated, there's that potential. But I do not expect any change orders relative to what the scope that's been advertised to date. And this is to come up with what route we go to connect to Blue Sky? We had awarded this, well, first of all, we advertised it of two different routes. And so we wanted to make sure we had costs for both routes, that way that we didn't have to negotiate it in the back end. What's proposed there is the most expensive one. So if we find that the shorter route is as equally good an alternative, we'll be back here asking to amend their contract and reduce it. So we're still going to look at both routes? Yes. Oh, yeah. We absolutely have to look at both routes because we have to look at it from a capacity standpoint. Can it accept the flow at those two connection points? And one route, excuse me, for going back instead, one route being the town branch route through 2A that we're supposed to build and the other route being the West Hickman? No. Okay. Here's our map. Whoops. I'm sorry. I went too far here. Can you load me back up again? I'm sorry. Okay. Yeah. I got ahead of myself with my pointer here. Here's Blue Sky. This is I-75. This is Athens-Boonesboro going out towards I-75 away from Lexington. The routes that are under consideration both involve going back in towards the urban service boundary up Athens-Boonesboro Road. One would connect roughly in front of Jacobson Park at a manhole that's there, or the other may take a turn and come along behind the back end of the reservoir and tie in at the existing pump station at the dead end of Alumni Drive. A route that goes completely in this direction, the infrastructure that was built up there as part of the expansion area and the diversion line never contemplated the capacity associated with Blue Sky. That predated the discussion about Blue Sky. And so we felt like not only is it more costly to go in this direction, but also that we would be robbing capacity away from folks who maybe should be entitled to that capacity in that system up there. Well, that way is attractive because we own the real estate along the interstate, the government does, and we wouldn't have to buy as many easements. And that's what I – the cost in this to me is buying the easements once we take that left turn you mentioned here or a few minutes ago and going through people's backyards. So you're saying the other way it would be more costly because just the length of the height. This is a longer route, for one thing, and so it would cost more dollars per linear foot. The last right-of-way acquisition parallel to the interstate we got was for the diversion line. It took us nearly two years to get it, and the feds basically said they weren't never going to give us another one. And so I myself would not recommend that we even try to embark on an alignment along I-75 if we're looking at a deadline of having this complete by January 3rd of 2015. Of 2015, this whole project? And this is putting Blue Sky on our system? Yes, sir. That's the deadline associated with the consent decree. The final amount that you, the contract is 157. Was that what they bidded in the bidding process, or was this a number you all came up with in the negotiation? That was the negotiated fee. I don't have them all memorized here to commit it to memory. It was a disappointment that we spent so much time on the scope of services, and prices ranged from $90,000 to almost $600,000. Very disappointing to get that kind of spread. But this one was significantly lower, and even as we negotiated the fine points of what we really meant, This negotiated fee, based on my recollection, is lower than the second highest quoted one when we opened the bids back in December, January. Okay, how soon do you anticipate having back the design so we can see what the outcome is? As soon as we get this contract awarded and they get to work, they've been doing a little bit of work for us already kindly on the kindness of themselves because they realize we're on a short time frame. One of their first deliverables is a technical memorandum, which is one of the things I was going to talk about here. I've already said this is where Blue Sky is. The activity area that we're looking at is essentially this outlined area that I drew here. Blue Sky has a treatment plant roughly about right there. And then there's also another treatment plant back behind the old Jerry's restaurant, which is now a Wendy's. So there's two different ones that are serviced this rural development area. What they've been tasked to do is to estimate the flow that's generated within that red box based on the current zoning at full development. And that gives us a starting point about how much flow will be generated. The second thing they're supposed to do, if I can get my thing to work here, is estimate the impact on the downstream system. If we bring it into the urban service area, which is the shaded area here, Does that rob capacity? Are we over capacity? What's the delta in what's available? And then using that information, the difference between the existing capacity and the projected flow is going to be placed into a technical memorandum that will be available on our website for everybody to see. If there is excess capacity in the downstream system and there wants to be a decision on the part of whoever to look at how to utilize that, that discussion can be held publicly it's not a decision that would be made by the division of water quality okay very good charlie thank you for uh answering those questions appreciate it mayor sure thank you okay council vice mayor gordon thank you mayor charlie thank you very much i have a question on item i also and so how many acres within the rural activity center there are currently undeveloped do you know i don't know that right off the top of my head and undeveloped and maybe also be underutilized as well as that the um with the moratorium that's been in place out there probably most of the time that i've worked here uh you know you wonder whether or not you've got some properties that are not essentially at their full capability and use right now so it's the best way that we could project what the estimated flows would be is based on current zoning, what would be the anticipated amount of sewage to be generated? Because at the end of the day, I felt like it was important that whatever we build out there leaves whatever property owners are within that boundary whole based on where they currently stand right now. And do you know, I know planning would know the answers. I don't know if anybody from planning is here, but what's the current, is the current zoning within the Rural Activity Center all, is it, Do you know what it is? I'll ask Chris King to come up to it. And Chris also, if you know the undeveloped and underdeveloped acreage according to zoning, thank you. We can get you the information on the acreage. I don't have that with me, but I agree 100% with Charlie in that there's a whole lot of uses out there that I would call underutilized that could certainly be put into a higher productivity than the uses that they are now, whether they're developed or not. The zoning that we have within that area ranges from some I-1, light industrial. There is some B-3, highway service business. There's some P-1, professional office. And there's some B-5P, which is highway service business interchange zoning. Thank you. So there is a mixture of different zoning categories out there. Okay. I appreciate that information. And if you can get me that acreage. Absolutely. Okay. No problem. Charlie, if you would speak to, I know we've had a conversation about this, but just to be certain, this contract or agreement does not plan for any growth and development between the Rural Activity Center boundary and the Urban Services boundary, correct? If you're talking about this area right here. Yes, that rural. No, that goes back into Council Member Stenet's question, is that if somehow the decision were made is that we were going to enlarge this project to allow for additional flow coming from this, that's a change in scope for this contract that you're under consideration, and that would not happen without coming back in front of the Council. But it's not the plan right now. The plan was to limit capacity here. But in this technical memorandum, knowing back when I wrote this last fall that everybody's going to want to know whether or not there's capacity, their first task is to develop this technical memorandum and put a number to whether there is or isn't. So it would separate out the rural activity center capacity or add in any other capacity if the planning commission so changed that zone? Just using round numbers, if it says there's 100 gallons a minute that's coming from that red box at full development, and the downstream only has 50 gallons a minute available, that tells you that we're going to have to even upgrade the downstream just to handle the minimum. If it's the opposite, if it's 50 gallons a minute coming out of the box and 100 gallons a minute at capacity, then you know you've got 50 available to use as you wish. And that's a decision that, like I said, that someone else is going to make other than us. We just need to know what direction to go when I authorize them or my project manager authorize them to proceed to final design. Okay. So, in other words, it does not make any assumption about the land that's zoned rural? No. Okay. Thank you. Oh, excuse me, Mayor. I had one other quick question on item C, the Stantec services for the two-way street study, which now is called the Downtown Lexington Traffic and Revitalization Study. So I just wanted quickly to know, this is about the same company that did this in 2007, and what is the timeline for getting this back? I'm back. The timeline would be 12 to 14 months, but we've built into the project schedule and are working with them to try to have meaningful output along the way rather than waiting and having the whole thing at the end break the project up, get information and try to see if there are things that we can move on quicker than that. Okay, very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Stennett. Yes, Mayor. I want to follow up on something that Charlie just said about the Blue Sky Project. So you're telling me that in our own RFP we did not put a technical piece that would assume that maybe one day, if there is capacity, that that land would be developed. If that happens, we're saying that how we're designing this connection, that it won't be able to handle any additional capacity. We're only designing it for the current capacity. The scope of services is to build a Class C pump station, which goes up to 999 gallons per minute. So we're trying to figure out, you know, what's the full amount, and maybe around 300 or 400, so there may be additional capacity before you have to upgrade to a B. Upgrading to a B would be we'd have to negotiate a design scope with them. Because, no, we're not going to make the assumption that we're going to build a B, pay them to design a B, and we don't need a B. We've got a price for it already. They had to give us a price in the negotiation. So we know what it would be, but it would be $70,000 more, and we're not coming forward and recommending a contract that's $70,000 more than we believe it needs to be based on current information. I understand that, but there's also a fine line between planning for the future, too, and spending $70,000 today versus $400,000 in 10 years. So I'm trying to think, if we're going to tear up this land, dig up, put a pipe in the ground, aren't we going to design it or look at designing it before we make that final decision, the cost of both? Preparing for the future in this city has not been our strong suit, and because we haven't done so, you and I worked on a project in 2007 called a diversion line that went through hundreds of backyards and homes and streets, that we shouldn't have to keep doing that to manage our city's growth. I guess I'm not being clear. I agree with you. The technical memorandum is where they stop. We don't authorize them to do any design work until the technical memorandum is published. And this body, I'm sorry, this body, the planning commission, whatever body, has a chance to digest those numbers and make a decision about what they want to do. Okay, so you'll bring that back to us. We'll pause and then make that. Okay, because that wasn't clear, and that's why I asked. Sorry, I wasn't clear on that. You're fine. Very good. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Good afternoon, Mr. Martin. I actually have a couple of questions for Mr. Maloney, but I do have just one comment on the blue sky, which is in my district. and I do know that there has been a moratorium on expansion because of lack of capacity for sanitary sewers, and so I feel there would be some additional expansion in existing buildings, putting in more employees or adding more bathrooms or whatever. The other point I wanted to make, and I think I concur with Mr. Stennett, is whatever line we run from that part of the county in towards the treatment plants, I think it ought to be of adequate size and capacity so that we would have future growth potential over a long period of time to do all the excavation engineering and do all that and then put in a pipe that may not be large enough 10 years from now or 15 years from now I think may not be the best investment for the taxpayers. So I just throw that as a satellite in there. That's all that I have, but I do have a couple of questions for Mr. Maloney. I was going to say Council Member Maloney, but Chief Administrative Officer Maloney. Excuse me. I didn't mean to insult you. The first question I had, Mr. Maloney, is item A, which was the fee of, I was looking for the number here, $57,965 to design conversion of a building to a household hazardous waste collection. And it seemed a little bit expensive, but I don't know that much about what this project is. And I wonder if you could just give us an idea of what the scope of that work is. Well, a little bit, and I'm teased here that he can get more detail, But what we have right now is that we're looking for a place to start this program. It's about a $750,000 project. And as you know, every year, once a year, we have a cleanup where we take the wastes, and it's about $225,000. We found out it was a lot cheaper if we had one year-round, and we could do it all for around $700,000-something, that could save down the road. I mean, it's paid for itself three or four times, and then it's five, six years. So right now we're just looking for location, but I think Steve could – oh, sorry, not Steve. I'll be glad. Is there anything you want to add? You want to put the microphone down there, Susan? Thank you. The design of the household hazardous waste facility does have some special features that you wouldn't see in a normal building because you have spill containment, ventilation, and material segregation requirements that make it a little bit different than the typical design. Okay. So what you're saying is the mechanical systems, because of environmentally hazard materials, has to be more sophisticated. That's why the design costs are higher than normal, maybe? Yes, sir. Okay, good. That answers my question. I did have, let's see, one other question in here, too. I've got so many Maloney's on here. Let me see if I can find where it is here. Okay, this is item number F, and it was the contract for advanced mulching at the McConnell's Trace Greenway Restoration Project, and the change order was for $132,700. and I just wondered, that seemed like a pretty good size change order and I was wondering if there's some unusual issue there. I'm concerned that when we get bids that they ought to be pretty close to the total project cost because once we approve it and then a change order comes in, $132,000, even if there may be grants or something involved there, it just doesn't seem like a good process. The change order is only for $4,500. That's the total contract price is $132,000. Okay, so I've misinterpreted the number there. All right. Well, then I feel a lot better. Thank you very much. Don't be worried. Oh, you were thinking of it. That was the opposite there? You were thinking it was a $4,000 contract with a $132,000 change order. That was merit to question. I thought the change order was $132,000, but knowing that you're a construction wizard, I'm sure that was mistaken now. Thank you. I was looking at it, too. All right. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I was trying to figure out the queue, so I forgot where I was. Charlie, do you have a second? I appreciate it. This comment is not directed at you. I'll get to you in just a second. But this is back to the item I about Blue Sky. And this is for us. This is where vision matters. This is where long-range planning and thinking really matter. Because the current debate is whether Lexington should recruit manufacturing jobs. And some on this council and some in the community want manufacturing jobs to go somewhere else. And that is the debate, and I think it's good to have a conversation about it. My personal belief is that high-tech manufacturing jobs like the IBMs and the Lexmarks and the Microsofts are important in our knowledge economy because we have smart people in Lexington, and that will create jobs. We have to have a place to put them. And if we don't have land that has water, sewer, electrical, gas, rail, we won't be able to bring some of these jobs to Lexington. So, and I know we've had a conversation about this on the comprehensive plan goals and objectives, and there's a number of us on that, and I appreciate Chris King being out here and his folks. And so, Charlie, what has to happen for the scope of this to include what we might decide to do in 10 or 20 years? Because I don't feel that the scope of this RFP is adequate because I'm concerned that by the time we build it, we're going to have to start designing another one. Because if we want to put manufacturing someplace, this is the likeliest place to put it in Olfey County. Because I, for one, don't want to chop up Lexington or Fayette County. We don't want to lose our horse farms. That makes us the pride of the bluegrass, the pride of the world. And so we don't want to have one-acre lots like other counties do nearby. What we want is to preserve our farmlands but also bring jobs. So, Charlie, what can we do to be able to make this sewer large enough to handle future needs? Not just the ones we can identify today, but ones just a little bit down the road. Wait for the technical memorandum. As I said, the technical memorandum is what's going to put the sizing and the costs associated with it. Because we can talk about building the pump station and the line down Athens-Boonesboro, but what about all the lines it takes it to get to West Hickman if they're undersized? You know, I recognize, the division recognizes that this is a question that the community needs to have answered, and with answered with data. So the purpose of the technical memorandum is to give the council, the planning commission, whoever is making these decisions, the data necessary to know that, well, if I do open that up for whatever intended use I have, it's going to cost me this many million dollars versus a guesstimate of something less than that or something more than that. So the whole purpose of what we're doing in this exercise to start with is to put a technical memorandum together that provides the data to make the decisions. Now, let me finish. I included the design in there based on if you do X or Y, because I do have an endgame of this. We've got until January 3rd of 2015 to get this done. If we don't, we expose ourselves to fines up to $1,000 a day, cumulative for every day that we're late. So I kind of made sure I built myself a parachute in, so to speak, in this. But I hear what you're saying, And it's not for the division of water quality to make the kind of decisions that you're talking about. But is this the point in time where it gets decided, or is that further down the road? What I'm trying to figure out is where's the decision tree? Is this the moment in time where this vote decides that we're not going to have manufacturing at Blue Sky? No. The technical memorandum is what that decides. Because, again, it's going to tell you you may want to have a 30-foot yacht, but your garage is only 10 feet long. So you need to know that before you go by the 30-foot yacht. So that's the kind of data that we're giving you here is that you may want this, but this is what the downstream constraints are, and this is approximately what we think it will cost to upgrade the downstream necessary to do whatever it is you want. So we're still going to have options available to us to decide what we're going to do after this. Precisely. That's what I need to know. Thank you, Charlie. I appreciate it, as always. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question related to item C. Sorry, you get a break. I'm just curious, how many studies have we done on this same issue over the past, I'll say, 20 years? There's been a lot of visionary and conjectural type studies. There's only been one empirical study, and it was very limited. It was done in conjunction with the downtown master plan. about five or six years ago where a couple of alternatives in terms of just generating traffic volume estimates and delay estimates was done. And what were the other ones? What kind were the other ones? Some of the ones, the downtown master plan process suggested that this be something the community investigate. the other, you know, I'm trying to remember. It's okay. If you want to, could you just send, maybe just email how many studies and what they were and what the purpose was? I mean, you don't have to email the whole study, but just. Certainly. Again, most of those studies were studies that said this is something the community should consider. So what we are trying to do with this study that's on the table now is to get the facts to finalize that process. I just remember one where it was actually contradictory to what you're stating, but it may have been one of the older ones, so I'm not sure. And it's been such a long time, I can't remember. So if you could possibly just e-mail us before we vote on it, that would be great. Thank you. No problem. Council Member Lane. Council Member Lane. Do you? I'll show you. Okay. That's a technical issue, not me. Yes, sir. All right. We got it. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mary. I guess, Chris, I'm going to need to talk to you. Mr. Keene. Mr. Beer. Initially, please don't hold me to the fact that I can't tell you exactly when it was, but we were talking about, and this is on item C, a traffic study to determine the feasibility and or whether we decided we wanted or did not want two-way streets. And now it's being couched as a traffic study and a revitalization study. And I look at revitalization as more leans toward the wish side of things as opposed to actual traffic that we deal with every day and have to deal with in the future. Tell me about what the thinking is, because it's a fairly stiff price tag, it looks to me, for initially what we wanted to do. Well, again, the price tag was established by the grant. Over a year ago, this council approved the seeking and acceptance of this grant, transportation-related grant, so it's limited to transportation, in order to study this and to put the answers on the table to the questions that have been hanging around regarding the one-way, two-way. Where are the problem areas? What will it take to fix them? What will it cost? All those kinds of things that have been impediments to the progress and decision-making on this. So there was a grant that came down, and this council authorized that. The LFUCG entered an agreement to accept that grant, and this is the final step of getting to that study. So we feel that the policy direction has been set. This council set an incremental review process for decision-making on the one-way pairs and conversion of those to two-way, and this will give the facts to move that forward. Okay. I don't know. I guess I was just somewhat shocked at the size, and I didn't remember what the size of the grant was. I do remember, obviously, that we did vote. Generally, when people were willing to push money at us, we say yes. Thank you very much, Chris. Yes, thank you, Mayor. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Beard. I don't have anybody else signed up. Do we have a motion? We have a second. We've had discussion. We can take a vote. New business, all in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right, next on our agenda is presentations, continuing business. There's an NDF. Is there a motion on the NDF? That was a motion by Council Member Beard, second by Council Member Myers. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. That's never contentious, that NDS. All right, Council Member Farmer, your Planning and Public Works Committee report. And then we have some visitors that are going to speak to this issue. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Members of the Council and members of the community, this is our Planning and Public Works Committee report out for our April 17th meeting. It begins on page 33 of the packet. The first item we undertook on that day was the 2012 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives. After I've made some comments here, I'll ask you to look at page 38, which actually has the proposed goals and objectives, which I'll ask you all to take action on in one business item, and I'll follow that up with another business item to pass the so-called dashboard issues as outlined on page 43. In stepping into the arena, that is the councils for the Comprehensive Plan update, It is the goals and objectives, which we as a community had a discussion and a press conference, I think, January a year ago, to talk about the fact that in this comprehensive plan we would not really be having a boundary discussion. We would be working on the actual comprehensive plan itself rather than having a discussion about what area would be brought into the urban service boundary. Taking that as a beginning point, planning staff and planning commission began to craft a little bit of a different style of conferencing plan goals and objectives that forsakes the previous style of goals and objectives that were rather detailed and rather long. In this instance, they were about 19 pages long. In recrafting that and going to a simpler outline value, they actually submitted back to the council goals and objectives that were about four pages long. Subsequent to that, and with the vice mayor's help, we set up a competency plan, goals and objectives work group, and we met eight times, completing our work on March 22nd. In that time, we took what was the original four pages and really made it just a little bit longer. We had a very diverse group and had very good meetings with council members being involved, staff being involved, and people external to the government being involved. We added elements to deal with accessibility as well as placing an emphasis on preserving Fayette County's unique landscape while planning for compact and contiguous mixed-use development within the urban service area. We also added a preamble stating the importance for reviewing the urban service growth boundary and policies and other long-range planning issues every five years as mandated by state statute. and at the end, realizing that there were issues that really, in the new style of goals and objectives, wouldn't necessarily fall inside those five pages, we decided to create a dashboard with specific requests back to the Planning Commission with subject matter that was not addressed in the draft. So it gave us an opportunity to add things in that had not been specifically addressed before. Now, in asking the Council to consider this draft goals and objectives and to pass them, that would give two things. One, the ability for public comment today on the goals and objectives, public comment next Tuesday about them, public comment at their first reading as well as the next work session, and then as well as their second reading. So it would be ample time for the public to be involved in this further, although all of the meetings have been public meetings and have been reported as such. By keeping the goals and objectives separate from the dashboard issues, that also gives us the opportunity to want to add things into that list, the opportunity to change that, because the only thing that will go with weight from this council to the Planning Commission will be the actual goals and objectives. The list of dashboard issues are just things we are suggesting that they incorporate or take a look at in their deliberations in actually writing the comprehensive plan. Let's see. Dashboard. Finally, the work group added public art and the promotion enhancement of Fayette County tourism into our draft. And as are noted in our committee notes here, this document was presented and unanimously supported by all members of the work group. when it was presented to our planning committee at our April 17th meeting. We had some input from the public at that time, some questions from members of the council, but ultimately there was a motion by Gorton to forward the 2012 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives as drafted to the full council for approval. The motion was seconded by Council Member Blues and passed without dissent. And I therefore so move on behalf of the committee mayor. Second. Motion by Councilmember Farmer, second by Vice Mayor Gordon. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. To follow that up then, and referring specifically to page 43, would be the Conferencing Plan Goals and Objectives Workgroup dashboard issues, which are just, if you will, a shopping list, so to speak. They were encouraging the Planning Commission to take some interest in writing the Conferencing Plan specifically. That includes historic preservation, mixed-use activity centers, open space, green housing, adaptive reuse, regionalism, encouraging job creation while ensuring a balance between urban and rural space, the restrictive nature of text amendment or zone change processing, and identifying barriers to land suitable for employment, as well as a couple of glossary definitions that we're trying to work into the whole framework, which is the definition of complete streets and the definition of secured by design. I would now make a motion on behalf of the committee to approve this dashboard as it is submitted but would be open for any additions or substitutions. So moved. Motion by Council Member Farmer, seconded by Council Member Beard. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carried. Mayor, if you wanted to take public input at this time, the next item on that day's agenda doesn't deal with goals and objectives. All right. We have some visitors who have asked to speak on this matter. And first I have Mr. Bruce Simpson and then Ralph Rochelle. Just pass giving the... Oh, so take the right one. Bruce, you want to wait until these are all handed out? Yeah, if you don't. I think they're meandering down that way. All right. Mayor and members of the Council, I appreciate the opportunity to address the body with respect to the goals and objectives for the 2012 Comprehensive Plan. I do recognize that the goals and objectives have undergone the Planning Commission review and a task force review. And they come before you today after a lot of work by a lot of volunteers and members of this council and follow-up the planning staff and others. I'm here today on behalf of the Crutcher family. They have property out close to, right contiguous to Blue Sky Parkway. I'm not here specifically urging any specific land use for that property, but just to address the goals and objectives. And as we heard comment earlier from Charlie Martin and some of the council members, Council Member Stennett and Council Member Martin, about planning for foreseeable events, the amendment that I'm asking you to consider, which is set forth in the letter that I prepared for each one of you has to do with Goal E, Section 3, and the potential to consider an expansion of a rural activity center. Now, I'm mindful of the longstanding policy, at least for the last eight or nine years in this community, that we're going to grow up and not out. We want to use land inside the current urban services boundary, as well as the existing rural activity centers, before we expand any more. That's a laudable policy. That's a good policy. However, as with any potential goal that you might consider adopting, I think it would be a major mistake for any legislative body to preclude, in terms of a goal, consideration of subsequent events in the future. that would be meritorious for the Planning Commission to consider, particularly for economic development in the area of Blue Sky, which is where the Crusher property is, to preclude it with a goal that says maintain the existing boundaries without at least allowing some degree of flexibility for the Planning Commission and this body to consider a proposed amendment if there were compelling reasons to do so. Now, I recognize any applicant would have a very heavy burden to justify a potential expansion of a rural activity center. But there are a number of remnant parcels, I will call them, adjacent, contiguous to existing rural activity centers that have absolutely no value as farmland or have any value or potential for agricultural development. They're just sitting there waiting for some kind of use other than to be mowed. And particularly in our hopefully reviving economy, I think we at least ought to have the opportunity to consider an application that's contiguous to existing rural activity centers that will not harm contiguous rural properties for which adequate infrastructure is available and the applicant can demonstrate a justified employer coming in to use that property. That's what I'm asking for in the amendment to Goal E, Section 3, is that degree of flexibility and also that degree of protection so there are no adverse consequences to land nearby. Bruce, you know we've got a three-minute rule. How much more time do you need? I'm just about to wrap up. Go ahead, then. I know that you all have some time to consider this before you vote. I think that it would be a mistake. It's always a mistake simply to say we're not going to consider any additional slight increments to potentially developable land that has no other use. And so I urge you to consider the amendment and adopt it and allow the community and potential employers that want to come and locate here the opportunity to use land that has no other useful purpose but employment. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Ruschel. Mr. Ruschel, you know we have a three-minute limit. You've got Mr. Polnick. Yes. Now, he's offered to give me his time. Is that possible? All right, then you've got six minutes. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Ralph Rochelle. I live at 4806 Bryant Station Road in Fayette County, Kentucky. And I want to go over a little bit of stuff that I've prepared here today concerning the goals and objectives, as well as some other things that have been discussed. I want to mention how impressed I am with the discussion that's been here today. It's really very encouraging, and I think we're getting somewhere. Lexington, Kentucky needs more better paying jobs, as found with manufacturing and industrial employers. They average $820 per week, and we do not need more leisure and hospitality jobs, part-time jobs, averaging $275 per week. We all know these to be the facts. More good-paying jobs mean more revenue for the city, less financial burden on the city, and less crime, and reduced auto emissions and air pollution, and less need for affordable housing and better quality of life for more Fayette County citizens. Fayette County's inability to attract larger new employers offering higher-paying jobs has existed for more than 10 years. So the ED zone was created. Unfortunately, in 10 years, not one job has resulted as a result of that creation. Good effort, but it hasn't worked. This is because of the additional open space requirements and exaction fees which can add another $110,000 per acre. Competing communities not only impose no exaction fees, they are even helping companies buy down land costs to locate in their communities Because of the nationwide intense competition among communities, with these kinds of new facilities and the high-paying jobs they bring with them, Fayette County must have large, shovel-ready tracts of land available, or it will not even be in the running. Meanwhile, the childhood property rate in Fayette County has increased 300 percent faster than the rest of Kentucky. Between 2000 and 2010, 14.7% in 2000 versus 26.5% in 2010. From Kentucky as a whole, childhood poverty was 20.8% versus 26.3% in 2010. Congratulations. We've now caught up with the rest of the state. 2011 poverty levels for a family of four was $22,314. The medium incomes in surrounding counties are catching up with and passing Fayette County. In the past five years, ACS, a subsidiary of Xerox, has located in call centers here in this county and hired several thousand new employers, becoming the fifth largest employer here in the county. Most of these new jobs, however, only pay about $10 an hour or $19,000 a year. Fayette County should be able to attract higher or better-paying jobs since it's among the top ten communities in America in terms of educational attainment. 38.5% of residents aged 25 and older in Fayette County have a bachelor's degree. Winford County is one of the three wealthiest counties in Fayette County. I mean in Kentucky. Others are Jefferson and Holden. Not Fayette. This has been caused because of an acute shortage of land available for manufacturing. The Herald-Leader editorial of April 5, 2012, says that full-time and manufactured jobs pay almost four times as much as leisure and hospitality jobs. An average full-time manufacturing job pays $820 per week versus $275 for leisure and hospitality. So critical is the available land problem that in August 2011, Bob Quick, president of the Commerce Lexington, was compelled to publicly state that Fayette County suffers from a competitive disadvantage and cannot compete for new, large-scale job creators. None of the 70% of Fayette County's land located in the rural service area is presently available for manufacturing or industrial development. The 2011 Commerce Lexington Survey of Available Properly Zoned Tracks of 5 Acres of Land reveals that less than 75 acres is in scattered, non-contiguous tracts available for manufacturing or industrial use. The Fayette County Public Schools need to build a new 6th public high school and can find an area that's of 50 acres where they can build it. Due to the lack of available large tracts of land, properly zoned, no major company, considering building a new manufacturing plant or industrial park and even consider locating in Fayette County. There is no land here upon which they could build. Large tracts of land, contiguous, properly zoned, and shovel-ready tracts of land totaling between 750 and 1,000 acres are needed for us to compete with such companies as BMW. It took 900 acres in Greenville, South Carolina in 1995, or any next company that might want a building site. When IBM came to Lexington, it was one of the greatest days that ever happened to Lexington, and when it left, it was one of the saddest. 2,000 acres reserved solely for the attraction of high-paying manufacturing and or industrial jobs in Fayette County is a must and will not hurt the agricultural contribution to our community. When Fayette and its surrounding counties are considered, over a million acres are available for farming and other agricultural activities. Many of the area's most famous horse farms are located outside Fayette County and are considered as much a part of the horse capital of the world as the rest of Fayette County. Fayette Alliance wants to talk about underutilized land and land in the urban service area, but there's no tract of so-called unutilized land totaling 750 to 1,000 acres, contiguous, which would be necessary in order to attract a major manufacturer. Mr. Rochelle, you've got 15 seconds. We're about to run a treatment plant, a sewer line out here at the Blue Sky. It's a great opportunity to achieve all the things that we need here. Just make the sewer line bigger, make the pump station larger, sewer line bigger, and move the sewer. The pump station needs to move about 300 yards out, and the Tucker family offers that to happen. Thank you, sir. All right, I have no one else signed up to speak on this issue. We can now... Okay. Knox Van Ogle. Knox. Thank you, Mayor. I'll be very brief. I'll be very brief. First of all, I would like to thank Council Member Farmer and the Vice Mayor and others on the council who were so involved in the goals and objectives process. It was a very transparent process. It was a diversely represented process. We had a lively discussion. I know we met nearly a dozen times, and it was a wonderful and very productive enterprise. So we very much appreciated being a part of that. I will just briefly speak to some of the points made here today. This is a five-year plan. We know there is explicit and express language in the current draft of the goals and objectives that states that in five years, the comprehensive plan will be reviewed, at which time we can then consider future expansions. But at this time, over a year ago, the community came together and said, let's focus, let's drive market forces inward, let's try to create a vibrant city and really express and use our calories to that end so we can better address issues such as underutilized property, downtown design, good neighborhood protections, development incentives, affordable housing, farmland preservation, all of these things, which are critically important to our quality of life. Enhancing our quality of life is really a linchpin in our economic development. We know the better our quality of life, the more investment will come and stay in our city. With careful strategic planning and follow-through, we can capitalize on our many assets and realize this economic opportunity. For example, we do have 1,500 acres of vacant land inside the urban services boundary designated for economic and employment uses. This acreage could increase for business parks or other commercially related uses as we evaluate infill opportunities inside the city. Additionally, there are over 8,000 acres of land available currently for economic development and manufacturing uses in the Louisville-Lexington Super Region. as we may be uniquely positioned to pursue a regional beam or local advanced manufacturing effort without sacrificing our farms or factory floor of our $3 billion ag industries. It's not farm versus factories. Rather, if done responsibly, we have room to grow, both as evidenced by the average lot sizes of advanced manufacturing facilities in benchmark cities such as Waco, Texas, Grand Rapids, Toledo, Baton Rouge, where the lot sizes vary from 3 to 42 acres. However, Lexington must have more than raw land to grow a viable, advanced manufacturing or other economic base. It needs a plan and an ecosystem with a strong business network, access to capital, partnerships with our schools and universities and research institutions, institutions, access to talent tax incentives, utility rates that are predictable, shovel-ready sites, et cetera, et cetera. We all know this. We can play to our many strengths as a horse, health care, and high-tech hub and get the job done. However, it will require a holistic approach where real obstacles are identified and solutions are determined. For instance, we have over 425 five acres of raw land available for manufacturing use. Your bet. Okay. Your bet ready? Yes, sir. Okay. I'm just going to wrap up really, really quickly. And it has been sitting vacant since the 90s. Why is this? What are the hurdles getting in the way, and how can we better market and manage the land that we already have? We appreciate you listening to my comments today. We look forward to working with everybody in the community to come to a solution, and thank you very much. Thank you. All right. We can move on now to the next report. Mayor, I'm so sorry to say I have a fair amount more. Okay. Proceed, Mr. Farmer. Next from our April 17th meeting was the item of adult daycare definition to initiate a zoning ordinance text amendment. This item was brought forward to us by Council Member Ford, who has asked the Council to initiate a zoning text amendment to draft a new definition for adult daycare, which you'll see on page 45 of the packet. In early December, the New Day Life Center moved on to Martin Luther King Boulevard. When they applied for their certificate of occupancy, they listed themselves as a community center. There was a lack of community engagement in the process. Neighbors did not have an opportunity to express their concerns regarding the center. The text amendment would allow for a public hearing. You'll see, as the summary reflects, Bill Saleh made some comments, and to the extent that if we do pass this, it will go to the Planning Commission, and they will hold it public here within 60 days. Registered neighborhood associations will be notified, and the Planning Commission will then issue a recommendation back to the Council. And you see some of that verbiage at the bottom of page 35, and the top of page 36 is the motion, which is to forward the issue to the full council to initiate the appropriate zoning ordinance text amendment. This was made by Council Member K. Pardon me. This was made by Council Member Ford, seconded by Council Member K, and passed the committee without dissent. And so I would so move on behalf of the committee to ask the Planning Commission to look into the adult daycare definition. So moved. Motion by Council Member Farmer. Second by Vice Mayor Gordon. Is there any discussion? Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. The last item on the agenda for the 17th meeting was the fencing issue. This is an issue that previously had been in the Planning Committee and been in the Council. We had moved a text amendment forward to the Planning Commission. They did not deal with it successfully, so it returned to us. And as Council Member Blues had taken it up before, he did so in his follow-up capacity. He worked with the Division of Planning to kind of look for new verbiage that would go along with some of the fencing issues as it relates especially to corner properties and the placement of fences along the front and the side yard. and that resulted in what you'll see at the bottom of page 36, which is any residential or office zone. It talks about what those zones are, except on the alley, four feet would be the height of the fence where on the front of the side yard, as in a butson alley, would be eight feet where the property is a double front lot. The frontage abutting on the arterial highway or collector street where driveway access is prohibited would be 8 feet, and then side or rear yard would be 8 feet. As it continues at the top of page 37, it gives a couple of different definitions for where it would be 4 feet and or 6 feet. We had some discussion at that time, and then we had a motion by Council Member Blues to forward this issue and this verbiage as outlined at the bottom of 36 and the top of 37 to the full council for our consideration for adoption because this has already been to and from the Planning Commission. It has been changed and brought back to us. We would now be acting in our legislative capacity to make the changes as outlined at the bottom of 36 and the top of 37. That motion passed with Beard and Martin voting no, and I would now so move on behalf of the committee. Motion by Council Member Farmer, second by Council Member Kaye. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay. Council Member Lane? Yes, sir. I was not on this committee. I think it would be appropriate if Chris King maybe just said a comment or two about the fences and what the Planning Department's thinking was on this. Mr. King, would you share your thoughts on this, please, sir? Thank you. Certainly. This was a matter that we worked with the Council Planning Committee for, I think, over probably 18 months off and on and investigated various different approaches in terms of dealing with an issue that primarily was one of how do you allow private property rights and mitigate potential site distance and other issues related to fences that were being encountered by many Council members, including Dr. Blues and his district. In the end, the council did propose the fences. Most people are very surprised to find out that by right you can have a six-foot high fence in your front yard in any residential zone in Fayette County unless otherwise restricted by private deed covenants. And I think when we investigated other communities and other areas, that was certainly excessive and atypical. and the four foot size seemed to be a much normal and reasonable type of approach to take that did mitigate some aesthetics, although aesthetics were not the prime consideration, and also mitigated a lot of potential site distance problems. The council initiated that text amendment. It was reviewed by the planning commission and on their 60-day clock. Some commission members wanted aesthetics and other things, But all in all, we felt comfortable that those are issues that can be pursued in the future if so desired. And the best thing to do is to make this one revision that we proposed to the planning committee and proceed on and make that the law of Fayette County. Just a follow-up question is the heights that are shown here are the maximum heights on the fences, So it would be at the option of the property owner, as long as they didn't make it taller than the heights shown, they could make it any height they wanted or they don't even have to have a fence that they don't want one. There's no mandatory issue here. This is just showing the maximum height. There's no mandatory height requirements. They are, well, they are maximum heights that they could do. It still allows up to an 8-foot inside and rear yards, which is, again, very atypical. Most, even dealing with high fences or looking at a 6-foot type of fence is what you typically see. So 4 and 6 are pretty much the standards, but we still allow up to 8 inside and rear. The other thing that I would point out, that if someone had a unique circumstance where they felt they needed to have a higher fence than specified, they do have the right to go to the Board of Adjustment and seek a variance. and then you get the input of people nearby and neighbors as well. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Kang. Certainly. Is there any further discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The motion carries. Mayor, the end of the April 17th meeting, we removed several items from the committee that we have dealt with, some of which we have dealt with here today. I need to pause and bring the council's attention to a couple of handouts that were placed at each of your places, one of which has the one that's most important is the one that has the logo in color on top of it that says Urban County Council Planning and Public Works Committee, summary and table of motions for March 13th. At the time I did the readout for the March meeting, the notes as it pertains to item number two on that, which is the addressing ordinance, both the notes for the meeting and the actual ordinance as it was redrafted were left out at that time. So by way of finishing last month's report this month, let me just take you to our addressing ordinance, which was an item placed in committee by Council Member Lawless. And this has to do with, I would just say, discomfort with process at several levels and is an outgrowth of most specifically a Richmond Avenue issue that has to do with numbering and how the addressing ordinance and or the appeal process works. We had a lively discussion, as is outlined at the bottom of that page and following up at the top of the next page. I think what was most salient to the legislation, which you'll see outlined on the legal sheet of paper here, is that it was pointed out that exceptions have been made in terms of addressing by both the council as well as at the addressing committee level. And allowing exceptions to be made not for safety issue has had the effect of strengthening the ordinance. The appeals process does, however, take you back to the same, in essence, the same committee twice or an overlap of the same committee twice. And in this instance, it was the judgment of the committee, however, it was a split decision. We had comments at the time about the specific use of whether or not to change 17.2.1 to include only whole numbers may be used in addresses, and this would be the new part, unless the particular address at issue already uses a non-whole number. And this was verbiage given to us by David Lucas. And it is determined by the Irving County Government that there is historical and or cultural significance to that numbering and that the continued use of such numbers will not create E-911 response issues. You see virtually the same verbiage reflected for non-sequencing of numbers below that. this doesn't mandate that those changes can't happen, but it does give neighbors, neighborhoods, and people involved in the addressing issue at the front line, those who are affected by it, the opportunity to make the case that the changes that the addressing ordinance, as it now provides for, it gives them the opportunity to make the case that they don't need to make those changes, that there are historical or other significant changes or other significant information that the Addressing Committee could take into consideration and not force a change onto the neighbors or the neighborhood. That's what's outlined in the draft. It's dated 4-16-12. After some discussion, the motion was passed to endorse this verbiage, and it passed 5-4 with the I's being Ford, Lawless, Kay, Ellinger, and myself, the N's being Henson, Martin, Blues, and Gorton. So I would now so move on behalf of at least the five of us on the committee that day to approve this ordinance change to 7-2. Second. Some motion and a second? I would just say there may be, as with our goals and objectives conversation, there may be a couple of folks in the audience here to give comment to this potentially. Mayor. All right. The floor is available for discussion on the motion. Council Members. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. As Council Member Farmer indicated, this indeed was a lively discussion and debate. I just want to go through the four reasons principally why I voted not to support this ordinance change and will vote against bringing it to the docket. First of all, with reference to the opportunity of a neighborhood to appeal a decision by the Addressing Board, that right is already there. I know this because I've been involved in it, and I've seen a successful appeal before the addressing board. Second, I have a serious problem when we say that there's a good reason to consider not having to change the number when such numbers will not create E911 response issues. How can anybody say that that is the case? Are we going to say it around the horseshoe, there's no problem here? And then if there ever is a problem, say, oh, well, we must have made a mistake. Or are we going to follow the ordinance that's now written and provide for the professionals in E911 to make these judgments to give us our best recommendations. Third reason, it was suggested in our discussion in the planning committee that there are exceptions to every rule, and there should be. And I think that, generally speaking, that is true. But this is not an exception to the rule. This is the making of a new rule. Because what council member in this chamber, when the residents of a street who are asked to change their street numbers or their street name, come to one of us and say, we're not significant, we have no cultural significance, we have no historical significance, what makes the central difference in terms of public safety and public welfare between our neighborhood and another neighborhood? Once we've made this exception, we must make other exceptions. And every council member who was asked to deal with this issue with his constituents on their streets, their house numbers, is going to have to face up to that question. It was also suggested in our discussion that we should do nothing for the convenience of the government. And indeed it would be, it is more convenient in certain ways to say, okay, we'll just go forward with the recommendation of E911. But I view it not as convenience, but rather as our obligation to protect the public's safety to the best of our ability and using the best judgment that we have. I appreciate the effort that has gone into this and the interest of the council member who introduced it to work with her constituents on their behalf. But I think that this is very dangerous legislation. It creates a new rule. It goes against what this Council, in its wisdom, created some years ago. And for those reasons, I will not support bringing this forward and putting it on the docket. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Farmer, you're showing up next, but you want to let Council Member Lawless speak? Please. All right. Council Member Lawless? This isn't about one street or one issue or one group of people. To take a street that has had the same numbers for years without incident and then, I'm sorry, what? I'm talking to the clerk. Okay. Then one day, all of a sudden, without any reasoning behind it at all, except it falls in a regulation, not an ordinance, to come in and change people's addresses and oftentimes making it more unsafe because it's harder for people to find. It's very costly to the individual. The case on Elizabeth Street, they're starting the block that started out 103, 101, 103, and starting it at 148. So how much sense does that make if you're looking for the beginning of the 100 block? You just fly on by 148 until you found out, oh, you know, why is it, where is that? I'll have to turn around and go back. Speaking from my own personal experience, my street name was changed probably 12, 13 years ago. and it still does not show up correctly on many GIS instruments and maps. I'm on the north side of Maine and I'll tell delivery people, don't use GIS, follow my directions, and they'll call and say, I'm over on Deshay Road, and I'll say, you followed your GIS. So, you know, if my pizza's late, that's not of issue. But I think what is of issue here is it is inconsistent. Part of this ordinance says that there will be only, there will be no two-digit numbers. There will be no one-digit numbers. one street over, they have one and two digit numbers. They have one A, one B, one C, and one D instead of one and a half, one and two halves, one and three halves. So it is inconsistent. And they did those streets at the same time. And so they are inconsistent in how they apply the rules. The issue on Elizabeth Street, first they tried to change one to an odd address on the wrong side of the street, which went against their own rules. And he appealed it and made a case that they were going against their own rules, so they changed 33 other addresses. Again, there had been no problems. and so it's not just one or two streets. It's not about culture or historic, although that could play into it. It isn't about that. It is about what is the safest way, being consistent, giving some leeway, and they already take leeway, but I think citizens have the right to come up here. and it's extremely expensive to change your address. You have to change your wills, your credit cards, your passports, your mail, notify people. So it's not just changing somebody's number. So my time, oh, I have 39 more seconds. I can recite the Gettysburg Address in that time. I will, however, keep my comments short at this point and say thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, ma'am. All right. Mr. Farmer, you wish to speak? I was going to defer to maybe the two folks that were going to speak to us and then make some closing comments if that's all right with you, sir. All right. Is it two or just one? Two. Okay. Please give us your name and address. And we have a three-minute rule. Thank you so much. My name is Jay Christian. I live at 31 Richmond Avenue. And, you know, our block is a little different. It was built almost 100 years ago. Some of the houses, most of the houses go back to the 1920s like mine do. And, you know, we read a lot in the newspaper and we talk a lot about preserving what is unique about Lexington. And I think my block is very unique because it has these old house numbers. Mr. Blue seems to suggest that our house numbers are dangerous. I think they're charming, and I think that they're worth preserving. This is a very small change. It's a little thing we can do to keep our history and culture from slipping away. It's not tax financing. It's not creating historic districts. But like I said, it's a small change that can make a big difference over time. Thank you. And we are a concise group on Richmond Avenue. Deb Winograd, 26 Richmond Avenue, and I very much want to remain at 26 Richmond Avenue. I have lived there for almost 20 years now. I've had to call EMS twice. They have had absolutely no problems. I do not feel unsafe. I do not feel insecure. I have felt like there's been a lot of fear-mongering going on with this, and it's just silly. It's a street number. It's worked for 90 years. Let's let it just keep working. Thanks. All right. Thank you all. Mayor, I'll sum up very quickly. Okay. In the final analysis, the proposed legislation gives hope to the citizenry, provides for common sense in terms of the addressing issue. And I love the gentleman's term of protecting us from, I don't know, hazardous House numbers. I believe that there's always an opportunity for us to serve in these positions and to sometimes be blinded almost by the work that we do. And we need to step back and say, what is best for the people you represent in terms of their daily life and their daily living? And the professionals that are involved in this area that do the addressing work need some other opportunity to give leeway to provide specialists to the neighborhoods that are involved. So I will be voting in favor of the legislation as has been proposed. And thank you, Mayor, for the time. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I have to side with Council Member Blues on this. I'm very concerned that this is just going to sort of create the big exception and everything is going to fall into it. it's going to be really hard to have an addressing ordinance with substantial permissions for nonconforming stuff. I mean, how do you tell your own folks that they have to do this if there are a lot of exceptions to this? And so I think we also have problems with our database, including partial numbers, and it's very difficult for our first responders to get where they need to go. And God knows we have a hard enough time now. They're so short on hands that we need to give them every chance we can. And so I can't support this at this time. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. I have no one else signed up to speak. Mr. Lane just signed up to speak. Almost. This will be very brief, Mayor, but I was just going to comment that we do live in the digital age, and many of the automobiles have navigations in there, and they use a certain numbering system. And I think that trying to standardize with the national standard is a good idea so that people won't get lost trying to find a location. Now, the people that have been at a half number for 100 years, maybe that's not going to be a problem. But I think the point that Mr. Farmer made is that if we do start making exceptions, there's always another exception. And so I think we need to be thinking about that when we make this vote. Thank you. All right. Now take a vote on the motion. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed? No. All right. Then let's take an electronic vote, please. All in favor, please vote electronically yes. Can you restate the motion? The motion. Council Member Farmer, would you restate the motion, please? Yes, Mayor. Thank you. That is the actual motion is to approve accepting the changes as outlined. Well, what it is is to approve this piece of paper. That is not page 12 of the packet, but actually an ordinance amending section, this says 17-2 of the Code of Ordinances Flex and Fade, Urban County Government to provide for the use of non-whole numbers and the non-sequencing of street numbers in limited instances. Motion passes. 8 to 7. Thank you, Mayor. That concludes all of those reports. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. Next on our agenda is the report of Social Services and Community Development Committee. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. On April 17th, we had our Social Services and Community Development Committee meeting. We had a few different items on the agenda for discussion. The first one was the Section 108 loan program. Irene Gooding, the director of community development, gave us a great overview of the program and what opportunities might be there for our government to take advantage of that program. And one of the things that we learned is that we could actually borrow up to $9.9 million out of our normal annual allotment of CDBG funding to do a project, and we could borrow that for a term of up to 20 years. In that discussion, Council Member Ford made a motion that the government initiate an application to HUD to implement the 108 loan program. That motion passed by a vote of 6-2. So now I move. And there was some discussion about whether or not we should have a specific program or project that we wanted to include in that application. Council Member Ford wanted to keep it open, but just that we started to initiate that process. So I go ahead and move now to ask the mayor and administration to initiate an application to HUD to implement the Section 108 loan program for LFDCG. So moved. Thank you. Motion by Council Member Myers, seconded by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. The next issue on the agenda, we received an update from CAO Maloney on the Senior Citizen Center. If you look at our minutes on page 48 in our packet, under number 2, it says that CAO Maloney gave an update on how Vice Mayor Gordon had created a task force that it's working to find a location for a new senior citizen center. That's actually a little bit incorrect. It's C.A. Maloney that has put that group together. The vice mayor will at some point put together a task force to study a new senior citizen center, but she did not create the group that's looking at the specific opportunity that we have before us. If C.A.O. Maloney is available, if you could give us an update on where we are with respect to that opportunity that your committee was looking at. Please. We have met with the folks, and they are getting their numbers together, and hopefully we should have something in another week or so. And once we get those numbers, and if it seems feasible, we'll be glad to meet with the administration, and then we're going to close session to talk to you all, see if that's an avenue that we would like to go. Okay. Is it possible to go ahead and once you guys get to that point and you're ready to just go ahead and schedule that close session? If the number's not right, I don't want to put you on in a meeting today until I'm right now. We want to see if the number's right. And I appreciate that. We also don't want to let it get away from us either, so rather than just following up, if you guys get to that point where there's something you want us to know, if you just go ahead and schedule it, please. Be glad to do that. Thank you, sir. And then finally, we also had an update from Commissioner Mills on the Social Services Partner Agency funding recommendations for our FY 2013 budget. They also gave an overview or kind of an update on the new process and how well it worked and that they are looking at a couple of tweaks that they might make for next year, but that the program went very well and they're very pleased. And I think the committee was also pleased with the process this year. So that is it for that report. However, there's some conversation about our next meeting, which is scheduled for this coming Tuesday, May 8th. We don't have anything that's ready to bring forward, and we have a lot of budget meetings and things that are happening as well. So if there's not any reservations to do so, I'd like to make a motion that we cancel the May 8th Social Services Community Development Standard Committee meeting. It's a motion and a second by Council Member, motion by Council Member Myers, second by Council Member McCord. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right, hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. That concludes my report. Vice Mayor Gordon. I simply wanted to move to correct the summary on page 48. The first sentence of number two to State CAO Maloney gave an update on how he is working to find a location for a new Senior Citizen Center. So moved. Second. Motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The motion carries. All right. Thank you, Council Member Myers. Next on our agenda is a Lex Tran presentation, budget presentation by Rocky Burke. Rocky, about how much time are you thinking? Oh, probably ten minutes, no more then. Okay. All right. Well, good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of Council. Each year, Lex Tran is required to come before you to present the budget to you for Lex Tran for your approval. So that's the reason that we're here today. And kind of keeping with my tradition, what I want to do first of all is talk to you a little bit about our accomplishments for this current fiscal year that we're in. So with that, I'll start with that. Of course, the biggest thing that we are concerned the most with is our ridership. and it continues to grow. This past year we've experienced a little over 5% increase in ridership. We accepted seven new buses this past year, and keeping with our efforts to be as green as possible, we bought two new hybrid buses. Something that's, I think, a real first for us, Metro Magazine recognized Lex Train as one of the top 200 bus fleets for 2011. We put some new service in place this past year. We implemented a second late-night jobs bus serving the Citation Boulevard, Newtown Pike, Commercial Road area. The other bus serves the Nicholsville Road corridor. We had an expanded partnership this year with Keeneland, resulting in a 91% increase in weekend ridership to the race compared to fiscal year 2011. So that was a wonderful partnership. And I certainly see what that means. A lot of people were riding the bus to Keeneland. Something else that we did this past year, which was unique for us, we provided bus service on Thanksgiving and Christmas and New Year's Day for 2012. We've never done that before in the past, but there was a lot of requests for that. And we participated in many, many employee-based community service projects, including the Adopt a Highway program. Our highway is Winchester Road, and we participated in the God's Pantry program this year. Continuing, one of the neatest projects that we've undertaken since I've been here is we've got a systems integration project underway, and that's where we've installed computer-aided dispatch automated vehicle locator systems on all the LexTran buses. We continue to increase passenger amenities. With one of the grants that we had, we installed 28 new bus shelters. We have a total of 81 benches and 86 trash cans around the city. So, again, we try to spend a lot of our capital money and grant money for the passenger amenities to make people more comfortable as they wait for our buses. Talked to you a minute ago about ridership. You can see the 12-month period. The only two months throughout the 12-month I'm showing up there that we had any sort of decrease were in October and this past March, and that was a very, very, very slight decrease. But all in all, the ridership continues to grow. I would just highlight two things. The ridership for the student segment of the ridership is what continues to grow the most. And we've really been focusing on a lot of senior citizens' ridership this past year. So ridership is very good for us. Kind of turning to the next slide, which sort of summarizes our revenue. People always ask the question, where do you get your money? As we all know, the major part of it is 70% of the revenue for Lex Train comes from the property tax or the mass transit tax. The next largest category is 15% comes from Federal Transit Administration funding. And then passenger revenue, which is 10%. And then you can see some of the others, advertising and state funding. The next chart there shows you the pie chart for where our expenses go. The number one expense category for Lex Tran, as with most organizations, are wages and fringe benefits, that being 53%. Next comes paratransit costs for us. That's the contract that we have with the Red Cross for the wheels program, followed closely by the cost for diesel fuel for us. And then you can see some of the other smaller categories that we have. but the big three are wages and fringes, paratransit costs, and diesel. Now for the real meat of the presentation, I wanted to share with you the capital and operating budgets for this, what we're proposing for 2012-2013. The top part of the chart shows the operating budget. We're showing revenue from mass transit funds being a little over $16 million, federal assistance 3.3. Our other revenue source is $3.2. And, of course, the expenses would be $23 million. On the capital side of things, you can see that most of the revenue comes from federal and state assistance, so local and matching funds. And then, of course, there's the expenditures. Now, I'll break that down a little further for you. The three major assumptions that really drive our budget, Wages and fringes this coming year, we are increasing that by 3.1%. That's primarily because of our labor contract we have with the Amalgamated Transit Union. We have a three-year contract with the union, and it's a 3% increase. The paratransit cost is going up 9.5%, and the reason for that being we just began a new five-year contract with Red Cross, And in that, there was an increase in the per-trip cost for Lex Tran, as well as we pay for the gasoline or fuel for the wheels vehicles. And then lastly, the diesel fuel price for Lex Tran. This current year, we actually budgeted about $3.75 a gallon. Fortunate for us, we averaged about $3.19 a gallon. So for this coming year, our suppliers have suggested that we budget at least $3.50 a gallon. so you can see that being $2 million. So those are the big three items that drive our budget. And this is very small, so I hope you can look at your packet in front of you if you can't see the screen. What I essentially wanted to share with you, I've pretty much talked to you. At year end for 2012, we're going to be at $22,253,000. That's our projection. The proposed budget for the revenue side is $21,692, which is showing a 2 percent decrease. And that's primarily due to the federal transit administrative funds going to the capital budget in that amount. At the bottom of the chart is the wages or the expenses, which I've pretty much already covered with you, would show that they're going to, you know, at year end, $22,000, $230,000, compared to a budget of $24,129, which is very positive. We're, you know, $1.9 million under budget for this current year. And then for 2012-2013, we're proposing a little over $23 million. Now, of course, the item at the bottom shows that we have a deficit of $1.3 million, and we propose to cover that using our cash reserves, which is what we proposed to do last year and the year before. And fortunately for Lex Tran, we have yet to have to dip into our cash reserves. And we're hoping that we get lucky with our fuel costs this coming year and things like that and not have to do that again. But that's how we plan to balance the budget. So essentially what I'm asking you to do is approve this $23 million budget this year. All right. And this is just the capital plan. Typically on this page, you'll see the biggest line item for us typically is buying buses. This current fiscal year that we're asking you to approve, there will be no buses purchased. So it's just a lot of smaller things, some security, capital cost of contracting for paratransit costs, some capital maintenance items, benches and shelters, security items, things like that. So it's a very small budget, capital budget this year, $5.7 million compared to last year of $17.5 million. Questions? All right. We have some council members that have signed on for comment or questions. And before I call on the council members, I just want to mention that I've asked Flash Mayor Gordon if she'll take over as chair. I've got an off-campus, off-site commitment at about 5.05. So thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Martin, and then Council Member Lane, then Council Member Beard, and Council Member Gordon. Vice Mayor Gordon. Am I up? Yes, sir. Council Member Martin. I heard Council Member, Vice Mayor Gordon, so I thought I'd wait a second. No, no, Council Member, you're up first. Go ahead. That's all right. Brockie, thank you so much for coming. Yes, sir. I continue to want you guys to find a way to do open-air trolleys downtown. We talked about this, and I think I talked to the council. I didn't get to go on the Chamber trip, but I did visit Greenville, South Carolina. And they have essentially open-air trolleys that circulate, I think, in their downtown. And it's a great way to connect visitors to Lexington with the streetscape and the community and the sights and sounds, hopefully not the smells, but to be downtown. And I know that it's a federal funding issue. I don't know how Greenville worked through that. But even if we could get the U.K. circulator and the downtown circulator to be more pedestrian-friendly and more cognizant of the fact that visitors who come here like to be connected to outside as opposed to hermetically sealed and a very safe, sealed bus. And so is there any chance for us pulling that off? Well, I guess to answer the question, it's certainly something that we can look into. I know you and I have talked, and I have done some research. I'm not sure how Greenville purchased those vehicles, whether they used private dollars or what the situation may have been. But, you know, all the vehicles that we buy have to be tested at this government-sponsored track and things like that so that they're safe and will last as long as they're supposed to last because you're getting the federal money and those kinds of things. So up to this point, that's how we've always purchased our vehicles. So we have to fall within those guidelines. So, I mean, just thinking outside the box, so to speak, there could be ways that we could buy these vehicles not using federal money. Unfortunately, when you maintain them, you kind of start co-mingling funds in a way because we pay for a lot of our bus parts and mechanics and things like that of some of our federal money. So it's just something we have to look into, sir. Well, as we look at large projects like Rupp Arena or other things downtown, what we're wanting to do is to give pedestrians and concert goers and game goers and things like that more things to do, a more enjoyable experience when they come to Lexington. And I think that's a part of it and something that's like, wow, we don't have this down wherever. And so I think it's just worth looking into. And I understand, believe me, our just terrible budget constraints. But as a to-do and as a way to bring more dollars into town so that we can pay for all these things we want, it's something we should think about. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Just a footnote before I call on Council Member Lane. Rocky, you know that I've been asking the same questions that Council Member Martin has been, and I think a lot of other folks are as well about the trolleys, the ridership, the percentage of ridership, and opportunities to improve. That's what it's all about. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Good afternoon, Mr. Burke. I just have a couple of quick questions. They're sort of budget-related items. Yes, sir. The first one is, do you have the approximate number of total riders in fiscal year 11, and what's your estimate for fiscal year 12 total count? I believe we have that. My budget analyst, Nikki Falconberry, is with me. Why don't we go to the next question and then we can come back. You mentioned something about U.K. students, and I missed part of that. We used to have a contract to transport students on campus. Has that gone away now? No, sir. We still do that, and it's a direct cost. They pay us for that. It's a contract set price for us. But the increase in the ridership that I'm primarily talking about is the transportation of the students who live off campus, primarily in the Red Mile area. It's gotten to the point where we have actually had to put three, four buses over there in the mornings and in the afternoons getting students to class. So as more and more students are moving off campus, they're just routing the bus. All right. I believe there's several more apartment complexes that are going to be developed over in that area, so you'll have even more riders, I suppose. Yes, sir. All right. The third question I had was you're showing a slight operating loss for the last, I guess, I don't know if it's this year or next year's budget, so you've got two years in a row. So do you have cash reserves that you can draw on to handle that without much problem? Is that part of your plan? Yes, we do. We have approximately $12 million in cash reserves. And as I said, the last couple of years we have projected to have to need that. As a matter of fact, this past year we projected we probably needed about $1.9 million to do that. But fortunately, our expenses just haven't been where we thought they were going to be. We haven't had to use that yet. So it's still there. And, of course, in public transportation, the two ways you can cut that deficit is service reductions and fare increases. We need to have more cash reserves at the Oregon County government. We might want to have you come over and give us a speech on that. The other question, do you see the long-term trend continuing? Will you be at a loss, or do you feel that things will turn around in a year or so? I'm sorry, say it again, sir. the long-time trend on operating loss, do you think you may go back into the positive in a year or two? Do you see any economic indicators that would help you there? You know, one of the things that we did just in this budget to try to help things a little bit, we have some service modifications in this budget. And what we're trying to do, you know, we now have a lot of technology on our buses, so we're able to see when people are riding, what buses they're riding, what times of the day, what routes. So what we plan to do is try to be more efficient. and eliminate service that's not needed and eliminate a lot of service that's just not being used. So that's one of the ways, seriously, that we plan on, I guess, eliminating some of that expense that we have. Ridership continues to grow. Unfortunately, we haven't had a fair increase in 10 years, so we don't generate revenue that way. The Federal Transit Administration, I don't see them increasing the formula funding for us. So that's what we're looking at right now is, again, is just being more efficient and hopefully shrinking that cost for service. And my last question is, do you feel that with a down economy right now, that may be helping you some because people are trying to save money or they can't afford a car and they're using their transit system? I believe so. And one of the things that I said to you all last year when we had the World Equestrian Games, I think a lot of folks that typically hadn't ridden the bus in many, many years have done it. I mean, there are lots of folks that I run into in my day-to-day duties that tell me they've started riding the bus and things like that. And with gasoline prices, you know, where they are today, I think a lot of people are starting to use a bus. And we know for a fact, again, with some of that technology that a lot of students are getting, you know, a riding that didn't ride before. And, you know, that group is increasing, selling more and more monthly passes and those kinds of things. That's all that I've got if you have those numbers on the estimated riders for FYI. I do. I do. We this past year had about $4.8 million per year, $400,000 per month, and next year we're projecting a 1% increase in our ridership. Okay. Thank you for coming. Yes, sir. Council Member Beard, then Council Member McCord, and then Council Member Kay. Thank you, Mayor. Rocky, you had referenced 10 or 11 new buses. Yes, sir. Are they the green, medium-sized fellows of Debussy? Yes, this last order of buses that we got, we bought a mix of the 40-foot buses as well as the smaller 29-foot buses. And that's just us trying to right-size the bus fleet, if you will. We have several routes that require a 40-foot bus because of loading at peak times and others. We just don't need it, so yes, some smaller buses. Semi-fervolous question, but do those buses have an identity crisis that they have to have Lexington, Kentucky on them so that they won't get lost and end up in Massachusetts or Virginia or some other Lexington? No, sir, they don't. That was just, again, our effort to rebrand, I guess, the buses a little bit, a different paint scheme. But everybody knows that they're in Lexington when they're in Lexington, I think. Noted. Yeah, okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. You disappeared. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just two quick questions, Rocky. Thank you for your report. for your report. Yes, sir. What is your all's current fund balance right now? The cash reserves that we have? It's a little over $12 million. Okay. The other piece is looking for creative solves. I know that we always go back and forth about folks in the suburbs seeing buses half empty and this and that and the other, and we've got statistical data to show that ridership is up and so forth. But one of the things that I wanted to see if we could legally do, and I would really want to put this to your board to find a way to make this a reality, is that within the rules that you all operate in, is there a way for some of the funding that you all have to go towards sidewalks along bus routes, sidewalks that lead to bus shelters? One of the things that we can do is increase ridership by getting people to it. And I want to see if there's a possibility of using some of the funds in the reserves and or from what you get to move to putting that sidewalk infrastructure in place, because I think that we could really take it up an entire notch for our community. Would you go back and take a look at that and see if there's a way that we can make that work? Yes, sir. I'll look into that, and I would like to make the point, too, that whenever we install a new shelter, we do make them ADA accessible, we do upgrade the sidewalk, and we do all those kinds of things to make those locations accessible. I want to stretch that sidewalk improvement to the next block over or two blocks down. I want to stretch this as far as we can legally go within Ural's funding. But to get sidewalk mobility to bus shelters and stops I think would increase ridership. And under that banner, I think we can get there. But that's a huge area where we have opportunity for you guys to have a big win and really take some of the argument out of play that we tend to go around and round about. So if you wouldn't mind looking at that, I'd really appreciate it. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Councilmember Kay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Rocky, good to see you. Sir. Thanks for coming. I'm also happy to see the contingent in the back, my former colleagues from when I was serving on the board, all those smiling faces. Very nice to see that. So welcome to all of you as well. So there's just a couple of points. On the downtown trolleys, the circulators, I know that there are safety issues. One of the things that I believe is that they, and I don't know if this is possible, but taking the tinting off the windows so people can see that there are actually people in the buses, and if they opened up. So even if we can't have open-air trolleys, at least visibility make it a little more welcoming for the pedestrians. That would be a good thing. Secondly, basically I want to remind my colleagues and all people who are watching that the context for mass transit nationally is that they are mostly going in a negative cycle and not a positive cycle. That is, they're requiring more and more subsidy. They're raising fares. They're losing ridership. And we're fortunately not in that position. And I think a lot of the credit goes to Rocky and his team for doing a really good job of watching the budget, making improvements where they could, and increasing the ways in which mass transit becomes truly mass transit for our community and not just the last resort for folks. So thanks for doing a good job. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I didn't have any questions today, Rocky, for the first time probably, but I do now. The $12 million reserve, what is that earmarked for? Well, you know, as I've said before, we have built that reserve primarily in the early years when the property tax passed, and that's because we had very few buses and a very, very small staff. and the 6% property tax passed. We didn't have a whole lot to spend it on, so it was put in the bank wisely, and it's been there. But essentially what it's there for is for us to buy our capital buses and all the capital projects that we have. And, again, unfortunately, it's the rainy day fund for us that we've projected the last two or three years to have to use that. But when you project out five, six, seven years down the road, unless we stem the tide of this deficit situation that we're in, the cash reserves will go for that. And as I think Council Member Lane just asked the question, I believe it was Council Member Lane, we have got to figure out what to do, whether that's increase the fares or do some service modifications and things like that. Those are the only two things that you really are selling in the public transit system. So when do you project that deficit hitting when you won't be able to meet your... I don't know. What do you all project it? Was it 2017? Assuming the property tax doesn't go up, assuming... Correct. ...revenues, because I know you're budgeting flat revenues on property tax. Yes. We talked to PVA Stro-Neal before we put this together, and he suggested we do that. And, of course, not too long after that, we got information that it may be a 1% increase. But we did not change the budget. Sure. Because having $12 million was almost equivalent to one year of that property tax revenue. It's a pretty strong reserve, considering our reserve is $14 million for a $280-something million budget. So that's nothing to sneeze at, and it's nice to have that luxury. I'm glad you all have saved it. I would like to look at that projection five years down the road to really see how you're going to tap into it, if you're really going to need to, because as strong as this community has been in supporting the tax back in 2004 and the number or the amount of revenue that's come in, I think you're going to keep building a reserve personally. That's just my forecast. I know you hope I'm right because you don't want to face a deficit. That's correct. But I would also like to see when you put this together maybe next year, what are your audited numbers? Because what I'm seeing here is your budget versus last year's budget that you all projected. I don't see your audit numbers, your actual expenses, actual revenues. I know I can go out there and get them on the National Transportation Database. But can you start including those in there? Because I think that gives you a little bit more validity. You want the ridership numbers that we put in? No, I want your financials. Audit? Okay. From the external audit service that we used? Exactly. You're in your CAFR. You're in numbers. Yes, sir. Same as we look back and compare. Just so we can actually see what you really took in versus what you really spent. I think that would be a little more helpful, too, next year. That's the only thing I would ask for differently. Thank you. Appreciate the job you're doing and your folks are doing over there. And hopefully we can continue to keep improving the ridership. And a couple with Jay McCord's, Councilman McCord's ideas and some other ones out there, I think we're getting there. Thank you, sir. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you for coming in today, Mr. Burke, and thank you for your presentation. And I was trying not to say anything today. Out of all due respect, I respect you immensely and what you're doing. And I just have to say that a $12 million reserve at a time when we have all these other issues in our city with drying out fire stations and all those things, I think that's problematic for me. To me, the solution is either to increase ridership to the point where that offsets your budget rather than this tax, or we've got to do something different. But I think this community has to sit down and look at what's important to it to fund and how we best utilize the tax money that we're taking from people. And I know that you guys are doing everything you can to increase ridership and to make the system more efficient and to get people to want to ride the bus, and I appreciate that. But I just think that this community is going to have to take some hard looks at how much money it's taken in, where that money's coming from, and whether or not it's being best utilized. Thank you, sir. Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think as a former board member, I want to respond to the question of the $12 million. And again, I don't want to speak for Rocky. You may want to modify what I have to say. But when I was on the board and the board was considering the need for new facilities, that money was potentially on the table. Now, Lexitran went out and got federal additional grants in order to fund the facilities that they need in order to service the buses, et cetera, and so on. And so it's not like it's just kind of sitting there doing nothing. It's really money that a couple of times seemed to be something that the bus system would need to use in order to keep providing the services they provide. It's also, as Rocky said, it's been generated by a dedicated tax. And while it kind of looks like a lot of money sitting there, It's not the only place where we have money that's generated by a specific tax. So I guess I get a little nervous when people say it begins to sound like, well, we ought to go think about doing something else with that money. And I believe that it needs to be there in order to continue to have a first-rate transit service. So having said that, I would also like to make a motion, and that is that we approve the budget as presented by the transit authority. Second. Okay, we have a motion by Council Member Kay and a second by Council Member Blues to approve and put on the docket the LexTran budget as presented. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say, oh, Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Before we vote to do this, could we get the audited numbers that Councilman Senate was talking about and then have you come back and look at the audited numbers before we approve the budget? This would go on the docket for first reading on the 10th and then would get second reading on the 17th. So I guess your question is could we have it before the 10th? Yes, ma'am. Sure, we have the audited numbers. Would Council Member Myers, would you want them emailed to you, to all of us? Yes. Would that suit? Yes. And then they would, I'm sure, be available at first or second reading if we had any questions. You know, we have those numbers with us. If you wanted to save some time and I could share those with you now, we brought those. Do we have time? Does anybody have a problem with that? We could put them up on the Elmo, or do you have copies for everyone? She's got a hard copy with her. Okay. Excuse me, Vice Mayor. I think it would be more appropriate to put them into that chart they already showed us so we can all have a copy versus then the public can see it a little bit clearer versus trying to do it ad lib today. Okay? Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. All right. Thank you, Mr. Burke. So you could do that so that we see it before the 10th. Okay. So when would you all like for me to come back then? Or do you just want me to send it to you all? Just if you could e-mail it to us. Okay. Would that be possible? and then council members, I'm sure, will email you back. Okay, just to answer the question. So I won't need to come back before you. You all will put it on your docket or whatever the case may be. Council members haven't asked for that. Okay. Okay, so I will answer you all's questions, and we'll send that to you, and we'll get back to you. Okay, very good. Is there any other discussion about the motion? Council Member Martin. Vice Mayor, we had this conversation last year, and since this is the point in time in which it gets put in the budget, and since it's not in the budget, I don't know how to get you guys to look at these open-air trolleys. And so I guess what I'd like to do, I'm going to move that we table this motion until the next work session, and so maybe we can have an additional conversation about the trolleys, because I just don't know how to get that off ground zero, and so I'm going to make that motion. Council Mayor may not want to do that. Do I hear a second? A second. Is there a motion on the floor? To table. So that's non-debatable. All those in favor of tabling say yes or aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? No. I believe the motion to table failed. And is there any other discussion about the motion on the floor to approve the budget as presented? If not, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? No. Okay, there's one no. Meredith, Council Member Martin, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Burke and staff and board members and crew. We appreciate it. Now, rolling right along, next on presentations is golf, and we have Commissioner Sally Hamilton. And, Council Members, you should have received a separate presentation packet. Welcome. We have Commissioner Sally Hamilton, Director Jerry Hancock, and Director of Golf, Mike Fields. Welcome. Thank you very much, and my charge today is to present information on the Goff subsidy. I intend to provide a subsidy number that you can consider in your deliberations. Before I begin, I'd like to thank my council link, Council Members Kay Crosby and Lawless. We reviewed our information with them at our council meetings, and they gave us a lot of assistance and guidance on how best to simplify this issue and to define it. So we appreciate that. I want to start by looking back at the January 5th golf plan. If you remember, we did a golf business plan, and I need to bring you up to date on the progress of that plan in order to show you how I arrived at that subsidy number. In the golf business plan, we talked about personnel. You remember, I won't read all this to you, but we were going to accurately reflect where that personnel needed to be. We were going to reduce some positions. We were going to transfer some positions, and we've done that. We talked about our expenses. I think in a lot of the conversations that I have with you all, you questioned how our utility costs were not really outlined properly, and we've come back and adjusted all that. We have corrected this lakeside water billing era that we had, and we've reduced some fleet costs. As far as the rates are concerned, we implemented winter rates, and we have done our seasonal rates. We have changed our Ladies' Day from a Monday through Friday and dropped the age for a senior. We have done loyalty and range memberships, and we have done online promotion. Now, what has that resulted in? Well, we think that we have a lot of success underway. Our change so far has resulted in some very positive gains in six months. If we look back at our operating in October of 2011, we were at a low point going down and going down quickly, $106,000. When we look at our operating today, we are at a plus. So we've moved from $106,000 up to $121,000. And that is as of April the 15th. And we've got some really good months left to go. Okay. We need to look at those rounds that are being played, because as we proceed through this presentation, I'm going to tie these rounds to the dollars. When you look at the rounds, and I'm going from July 1st to April 15th, You'll see that the total over there at the bottom right is $63,321. We divided them out, and I think that Council Member McCord asked me if I could come out and show seniors, ladies, and juniors so that that would give everybody a better idea of who was on these courses, and I think that was appropriate. We divided those out, and you see the rounds. I was sort of taken with, and maybe everybody else knew this, but I was surprised at the fact that those rounds were pretty consistent over those courses. You know, you have Meadowbrook that's low, but that's what Meadowbrook is. Meadowbrook is never going to have those high rounds. But otherwise, I thought they were very consistent. Now, now I'm coming over, and I have tried this color a million times, and this color just won't work. I'm going to tell you about this number. Okay. This is what has happened in the last 10 months on rounds. This is how we have gotten to the 63,000 rounds. I pointed out November. And when you look in your packet, you will see that November, we were down the 12 rounds, fiscal year 12 versus fiscal year 11, we were down 3,400 rounds. And as we pointed out before, going down, down, down. The changes that we have made with the golf plan, we are at 4,092 rounds up. In the total of to date, at April 15th, we are running 63,000-plus rounds to 59,000 in 11. Now, that's not all weather, and I know we have had wonderful weather. It's also following that plan. We adjusted rates, we made golf fun, and we made our courses vital again. And in fact, we're on our way to our best April in five years. Okay. Now I'm going to bring this to dollars. I've talked to you about the rounds and all the stuff that we have done in the business plan, but now how has that resulted in dollars? When you look at our actual 11, you see that our net cost was a little over a million dollars. Then we added in that 163 for the bond debt, and you came to that 1.2 million. That 1.2 million is that number that we have always sort of quoted. And when I remember my first meeting with you all, it was like you looked at $1.2 million and you sort of stood back and said, whoa, we got to talk. And so that's when we really started. Mike and them were already working on it, but with your all's encouragement and push, we started to do a really detailed business plan. And look over now at that 2012 column. I've got a year-to-date, which brings me to April 15th, and I projected that out. We projected that out to the end of the year, June 30th. And start to look at the differences. That net cost is now $629,488, and the total with the bond is pulling down to $792,753. Now that is a $402,000 swing. It is very hard to get everybody to project in realistic terms to an end of a year because everybody always wants the year to turn out better. than what their projection is, but we truly feel that this is the way our year will turn out. Okay, I'm going to this next slide, and this is based on the revenue with rounds projections. Now, basing this on trends that we saw in 2012 and then our management changes that we have made. In our budget, that far column over there, and let me say one thing before I start this. Our link committee said, you know, if you could do a good, better, best scenario or a low, medium, high scenario, I think it would be clearer. And that's what these three columns are doing. The as submitted is our good scenario. That's the way we submitted our budget to you. That's what you see in your budget. You're seeing that deficit of 888. We did this budget early February. We hadn't had any weather. We hadn't seen our trends in our management plan, and so that was what our budget was, 888 deficit. Then we looked at a better scenario. What would be a better scenario? We took that 2013 budget, we said we can increase around 15%, and that net cost is now $751, and that total is now a deficit of $735. We went to a 20% scenario, and that's the best. And now the net cost is $436, and our total deficit is $600,000. Listen, we feel very comfortable, and this is not a thing that a bureaucrat normally says, but we feel very comfortable that that 735-180 is your subsidy number. We feel, based on those trends that are going in 2012, all the things that we have implemented as far as the management plan is concerned, that 735 is it. We can reach that 15%. That 20%, I don't believe that right now. Now, that may be, but we think that number for you all is 735-180, barring any unforeseen circumstances. Okay, we feel that Goff is on a path to success. We've had significant increase in rounds. We've increased in revenue. We've decreased operating, and we've decreased that subsidy in less than six months. But a lot of that is due to following that plan, but you all forced us into that plan. You said you've got to look at this. You've got to take steps, and you've got to think about what you're doing. You've got to manage appropriately. And we think that really you've made us much better stewards with this money. I want to thank Mike Fields because he and his staff, or those pros, have really been conscientious about this plan. They've checked on it all the time, they've followed it, and they care about what they're doing. And I also want to thank Council Member Myers. When I stood here the first time, he said, you need to let those superintendents have more say in those golf courses because they are the ones that are the operators and they are the ones that are in constant contact with those customers. And we've done that, and you're right. That paid off. So I want to just leave you with I'm comfortable. And I told Council Member McCord that I would try to provide a figure, and we are very comfortable with that figure, sir. Thank you very much, Commissioner Hamilton. And I also wanted to recognize Jamshid Baradaran, who I know has worked with you also. Now, we have several questions. First is Council Member McCord. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner, I want to thank you for your leadership. And, John Sheed, it started with you, but I want to thank you for pressing. And I want to point out that this commissioner stood here and said, without this council's pushing, that this wouldn't have happened. So for those who have said, oh, we don't need to look at that, or Jay is out there trying to push this public versus private thing, I want you to look at what we finally got a hold of because we pressed and we asked, and we weren't satisfied with inaccurate numbers from 2010. So again, I want to thank you for that, and I want to thank you for recognizing that we were going down, down, down in October of last year. I want to also have the council recognize that, as it was said, we've had the best year we've had in five years, primarily because of a business plan, but also you've got to factor in we've had freakishly great weather. So that does play some part in this. And in that best year, in five years, council, we are still subsidizing golf basically three-quarters of a million dollars. So that's the fact. So in the best, most fantastic year, ideal circumstances, great business plan, we are subsidizing golf three-quarters of a million dollars, roughly. $735,180 is the number. So I'm going to restate what this is about for me, and I'm going to have a motion when we get done discussing. But this is not about public versus private golf. This is about doing what golf asks, what Jerry, you ask us in June of 2010 for policy leadership, policy guidance from this body as it relates to golf. That's what this is about. And what we're doing is we now have numbers to work with. And we spent an hour, you all, the other day arguing over a motion to discuss to even get these numbers. So I'm glad that there were enough council members that wanted to see accurate numbers and listen and make some decisions off this. But the bottom line to it is that through the bigger budget process, as my colleague Council Member Kay said, we need to figure out how this fits into that discussion. The other thing that happened last week that was very interesting to watch was how council discussed amongst ourselves what's the best way to come at this number, but more importantly than the number, and this is what I really believe that we need to camp out on, is what is the rationale for the number? What is the subsidy going to be, and why is it that? So in our current situation, to provide golf to our public in the best year ever in the last five years, it's three-quarters of a million dollars' worth of subsidy. What is the rationale behind that, and does this body believe that's the right rationale? And that's what we have to come to by the time we pass this budget. So after we've made a discussion, after we've had discussion from the other council members, what my suggestion is and what I'm going to make a motion is for individual council members to send to Council Member Kaye as the chairman of the General Services link whatever our suggestions are for the rationale behind the subsidy and the number for our input. Or if we don't care, then we don't care. But at least you're going to hear from Councilmembers as to what they want factored. And, Councilmember Kay, I'm going to ask by motion that when you report out the entire General Services budget, that you report out specifically the rationale and the subsidy number for parks. And that way we've got it in the larger context of the budget, but we've got the rationale, and we can move on and let these folks do the good job that they can do with some policy guidance. So I'm going to come back with that motion at the end, but I wanted to let folks know where I was heading. Thank you so much, Commissioner, and thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner, thank you. I appreciate the concise and well-put-together presentation. It gives us the information we need to have a good discussion here today. And thank you, Jerry. Thank you, Mike. I know it's been a long road to get here, and I know your direction has sometimes been fuzzy with changing of commissioners or lack thereof and changing of administrations. There's a lot of new ideas on the table, but thank you for staying the course and getting us to this point. And I think that's important that we're at this point and we can all make a decision together, whether it be today or the next two months on the budget and move on. So, Commissioner, going back to some of your numbers and things you put in the budget, what is your long-term goal with golf? Is it to put it into an enterprise fund so that it is self-sufficient like a sewer fund is for us, like some of our other funds we have out there? Is this where it's taking us, or what is your vision over the next several years? Where is this taking us to keep reducing costs? And, obviously, I'd like to have it to zero. I'd like to have to be a break-even proposition. I think we can get there because golf courses all over the country have to get there. I'm just trying to figure out what direction, looking past this budget, are you trying to get us to. Okay. And I'm going to speak from my view. Sure, please. Without expressing. I would like us to keep on reducing this subsidy. Now, you know, there are all kinds. When we look at our pools, they're subsidized to about, I think we showed that figure the other day, 521 or so. And I know that government has to pay for certain things. Not everything in government pays for itself. But I want to keep on coming back to you, and so does Mike and so does Jerry, with lower numbers and with different ideas of how to reduce the subsidy. Now, I always sort of had in my mind of going to the enterprise fund. When we talked the other day in the council link, we talked about how that would have to have all the indirect allocation. We'd have to, and Jane, I may get lost in this conversation, so you help me, that basically the indirect allocation would have to show up in an enterprise fund, and that will make this number bigger. I mean, if you do it that way, then you're going to make this number much larger. I did not want to get into that here in trying to present that because I felt that one of your concerns was that our numbers kept moving, and if I changed the whole area, then I was going to be in major trouble. But I would like to get us as close, and so would they, as close to a break-even position that we can get to in government. I think there's some ideas that we need to talk about through the year. And I would like to have a more detailed discussion than what we started the other day with Commissioner Driscoll of what an enterprise fund would really do with us. because I think it would be good if what we earned stayed with us, but we're losing right now, and it's sort of contradictory to an enterprise fund. And I ask that because you hit on one key point. I know Councilman Lane is high on this point, too, is our indirect charges that always seems to be increasing each year to different funds. Give me an example or the council some examples of those indirect costs. Are we talking about from the law department's work on legal matters? Are you talking about LexCol? Mm-hmm. Okay. And right now. You're not currently being charged, though, is correct? We're not. Like, you know, the department has certain indirect charges that they do, but it's not like charged to golf. And when I sat there and listened, and Council Member Kaye, when I sat there and listened to this conversation, and Jane was going through it, because I think Jane is a proponent of an enterprise fund, All I thought was, oh, my gosh, that subsidy is really going to climb now. And so that's why don't you sort of. And you don't have to go into the detail. What I want us to be aware of, though, is that's one of the unintended consequences of an enterprise fund is you're going to have to start charging for every service outside that fund, whether it be from law, sanitation, et cetera. No longer can it be under the park's umbrella. Right, and there are some opportunities, and I have experience with the enterprise fund, that some costs are outside of government as a result of some changes in how the golf courses may be managed. So it cuts both ways. I think the opportunities are there. And have you all explored any time frames of the number of years it would take to get us there? We can get to that. Or do you want to have those discussions this year? No, my time frame was today. No, I understand. And I can appreciate that. I may be jumping ahead a little too much. No, I think you're right on. I mean, I think our next step would be to look at some of these options and to look at a time frame and to come back to you and say, you know, it's just not going to happen. We're not going to get down below a certain amount. Yeah, and I think it's a good thing to have that discussion. I think it gives you a pros and cons for and against it because, as Council Member Driscoll said, too, you also get your revenue. So that could be a positive, too, to the golf operation. I guess we as a body need to decide, do we want to house under an umbrella of park and rec, or do we think it's sufficient enough or could be operated as an enterprise? And that's a discussion we'll have another day. Let me ask you my last question is, why are we including the bond debt in your numbers? Because I understand it's used for golf, but we didn't buy that just for golf. We primarily bought that to save it on our sewer system. Storm water. When will that be paid off, and why are we putting it in there? That was an excellent question. that will be paid off in fiscal year 2020 in September of 2019. That was brought up at our council link also. And Council Member Kay asked me at that time, he said, take this and darken and show what your net cost is before you get to that bond issue. Because I think we feel that that bond issue payment should not be in there, should not be calculated in. But we started this conversation at that $1.2 million level, and it was in that level. And it was in that number. And we just decided to keep those, to not mix again, so that we didn't confuse everybody. And so that's why it's still there. Well, and again, going back, the point of buying that property was not just for golf. It was to protect the neighborhood, and that's what's done, and it'll be paid off in 2020. And that helps that subsidy tremendously if we take that out. The last thought I'll leave you with, if we don't go to an enterprise fund, is there a plan to what it would look like to get us to the lowest zero subsidy, basically, which would include closing a course or whatever it may be? Those discussions also need to be had. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to emphasize what Council Member Stinnett just said about the bond debt. As the Commissioner said, when we had this discussion, I asked her to separate it out because it seems to me that the number that gets used is really inaccurate and unfair. We don't include bonded indebtedness in anybody else's budget. But if you think about all of the golf courses, I think it's reasonable to say that those are appreciating assets, and we don't reflect that in our budget. So I think going forward, if we can agree when we're talking about the budget for golf in particular, but for parks in general, that that bonded indebtedness should not be a part of the discussion. If we close that golf course today, that bonded indebtedness goes on. So I would use for fiscal year 2013 the 571 number as really what the subsidy level is. Just maybe a couple other clarifications. I appreciate the way in which Council Member McCord has continued to put this before Council. I would see just a little bit differently the question that we were discussing last time. I don't think anybody objected to getting the right numbers. In fact, I've been on that since I sat in a link last year and felt that I didn't have enough good numbers to know really how to make a good decision about something. And in general, the Council wants the best numbers possible. The question last time was whether to isolate golf from the rest of the budget procedures and treat it separately. And I still have a concern about that. I'm pleased with the way in which changes have been made and there's been improvement. I continue to be as concerned as anybody else on council about the level of support that we have for golf and whether we can continue to justify it. I don't know if an enterprise fund may be an answer, but I think the underlying question is where does golf fit in the overall picture of, one, parks and recreation, In an $18 million budget, we subsidize a lot. The question is, where does golf fit in that, and is it disproportionate? Are we spending more money per capita than we ought to be spending? That conversation needs to go on, and we need to address that question. But I would not want to jump to a conclusion that an enterprise fund is necessarily the way to go. I think that's it for the moment. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I feel like a cloud has been lifted. Maybe you all do, too. First, let me just mention something about the bond debt. If, in fact, everybody is concerned, it's not an either-or kind of a thing. It's there for stormwater, so that means golf doesn't have any part in it. It's there for golf, so stormwater doesn't have any part in it. Why not sit down and flip a coin, cut it in half, do whatever, and come up with what we might think the balance might be between the two entities and use that number? And, you know, maybe it isn't $163,000. Maybe it's something else, whatever it may be. $80,000 would be a 50% cut of that $163,000. I guess the only problem I have is not with any of this at all, and it's not with what has happened recently. It's that it took five years of pulling and tugging to get anywhere on this subject. and so I'm very happy that Councilmember McCord escalated and that you all caught the ball and did something with it at this point because we didn't have that for at least five years, wasn't it, Jay? And then you lose confidence, and that's a bad situation for you all. It's a nice situation for us, too. And, you know, we're in this together as I see it. So thank you all very much. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, sir. You're welcome. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Commissioner, for your excellent presentation today. And I want to thank John Sheed and his work that sort of preceded you and Jerry and Mike and the rest of the team. And certainly thank you guys for taking the recommendation to allow the golf pros to run their own courses. And I think that obviously they're trained. They have the skill and the expertise to do that. And we're seeing that as this plan develops. I appreciate, Commissioner, you and the transparency and the integrity and the energy that you bring to your position. It's been quite refreshing. and I guess when we look at this entire conversation and I know for example the question of whether or not we are or should we single out golf my perspective is that we need to look at how much we're going to subsidize golf in the context of that $18 million budget because one might say that swimming has been singled out Every year I've been on the council, it started out with four pools slated for closing, and then it went down to two. And every year that was singled out. And one of the statements that we always heard made was that we have too many swimming pools for a city our size. The question to me, now that we have these numbers, and we have reliable numbers that now are going to be consistent and we can continue to track and compare is, as the question was raised earlier, where does golf fit into Park's $18 million budget? Because for me, when we look at that $18 million, what I see is an opportunity if we weren't subsidizing this one particular sport or activity to the level that we are, is room for a whole lot of other things to grow and to flourish in parks. I look at our disc golf courses that we have been trying to put together for several years. One-time cost. A lot of sweat equity done by the group that plays that sport. One of the fastest-growing action sports in the country, actually in the world. If we weren't subsidizing golf at a million dollars every year, how much could we do in other areas? Part of why I came on board with the aquatic plan, and you recall, I said, if you're going to close down the pool, you've got to come up with an aquatic plan. Where are we taking swimming in the future? We all have talked continually about having an indoor aquatic center. Now it's time to do that for golf. Do we have too many golf courses? Are we spending too much on golf? Because when we get to the bottom of that question with an answer, which I believe is yes, we are spending too much on golf, then all of a sudden we have money for disc golf. We have money for all kinds of other things that this community wants and needs. But right now, the sacred cow has been golf, and it's been in a way that it's just part of the budget where it can't be singled out, where we can't have the thoughtful discussion that we've been having and the answers around it that you've brought forward. So to me, now that we have these numbers, because if you look at the page on your presentation that has the $888,074 as a subsidy for FY13, if you have a 10% increase in rounds, to me the next level of analysis I'd like to see is, I do believe weather plays a major role in the numbers that we have this year. But when that stabilizes, when the new business plan and all those things actually stabilize the number of rounds of golf that we have, then we have to look at how much we're charging for each round to then figure out how we're going to get to a place where we no longer need a subsidy. And it might mean that we just can't get there unless we close a golf course or two or however that's going to shake out. But I think that's the next thing that we need to look at is when the rounds stabilize out, then what is the dollar amount per round that we need to charge to be at our optimal for golf? And then once we figure that out, I think that will help us determine how much we're oversubsizing golf. So as we continue this discussion, that's what I hope we look at is it's not just that we're picking on golf or those things. I'm simply saying there's a whole lot more opportunity out there for our community to have different things going on inside of Parks and Rec that make us a destination city, that economic development comes. And I go back to the disc golf simply because it's a low-cost opportunity to get started. A lot of that money that we had in the budget for that was for infrastructure, a parking lot, other things that people didn't really realize. But, you know, in Bowling Green, they have a tournament every year that has 750 people come from all over the country, as far out as Wyoming, to play disc golf for a weekend. And they fill up the hotels, they fill up the malls and the restaurants for three days for that one event. How many other things in parks and rec could we do if we simply don't subsidize this one activity to the extent that we are? So I'll let you comment, and I look forward to that increasing analysis on the stabilization of rounds and then how much do we have to charge per round to get where we want to go. Thank you. Thank you. I think after we see this thing run its season for a few more months here, we're going to be able to really differentiate what was caused by weather and how these rounds are really going. And that will sort of I feel our job is to give you as much accurate data as we can give you to come to this decision along with us of what is the subsidy and what do we do from there. because if we close one, you know, I'm prone to look at that bottom line real fast and say it costs us $800,000 to operate X. I don't look, and then I have to force myself to look up there at that top line and say, what kind of revenue was I getting from that course? And there's not a lot of difference between those two lines. And then those golfers have got to go somewhere else. But I think is a part of this entire conversation, if we get down to really low, low subsidy numbers and you all get down to talking major changes in golf courses, we need to do like we did the pools, like you all insisted we do the pools, to reprogram what would be happening. Absolutely. Because we cannot leave one of these assets, these very, very valuable, in my opinion, I shouldn't say you can. I apologize. In my opinion, it would be hard to leave one of these very, very valuable assets sitting just mowing it. I'm afraid of the danger that we get into. Could I have just a quick follow-up, Vice Mayor? I agree with you 100%, and your opinion, in my view, I want your opinion. That's why you're here, so I appreciate that. If I could just add one thing, and that is when you look at the number that you have for the FY13 budget, that 10% increase in rounds, if we don't achieve that 10% increase, then the subsidy will be more than that $888,000. It would be, but trust me, that's golden. That's doable? That's doable. And I'm sure Jane is reducing my budget right now to the middle column. She's probably back there taking notes to come down to a $735,000 subsidy. I bet she doesn't let me have the difference. Thank you very much. Okay. Council Member Martin was next. Did you still want to speak? Okay. And we still have, we've not heard from Councilmember Ford. Please. Shall we go ahead, Councilmember Ford? Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Commissioner, for the information. I think this definitely gives us a start. That's what I'm hearing from my colleagues around the council, is the appreciation to have this valuable, quantitative information. One thing, as we continue to study this, I don't think that we're going to definitely drop the ball with golf again. We're not going to solve all of its issues today, but this gives us a start. One thing that I would like to know is I know it's kind of been a lot of comparison, our public courses versus the surrounding private market and those kind of forces. One thing I would like to know, and we haven't discussed, what is golf worth, quantitatively speaking? What are our assets collectively worth? I would imagine that it would be pretty sizable and impressive. And that kind of changes the dynamic of where we are. Another thing I would like to ask, where do we stand comparatively speaking with public golf, with our benchmark communities? You know, we get on our business community and elected officials go on trips every year. Be glad when some of those folks come visit us every now and then. But where do we stand as far as our offering with public golf? And I think I count, is it five golf courses, Commissioner? You know, for us to kind of consider those things. And then from the quality of life standpoint, what does it mean to us, our community? What does it mean to the youth? What does it mean to the seniors? What does it mean to the, I would imagine, based on those numbers, a great deal of the business community. and lay working folks patronize our golf courses. So I kind of want to keep some of those things in mind. Just another thing that kind of comes to mind, myself, I'm not a golfer. I own a set of clubs, but I don't use them very much. But where would somebody like me, an amateur or an apprentice, where would I go if it were not for public golf? on my limited time and limited resources to try to pick up a new recreational opportunity. And Vice Mayor, that's the one thing I would, in my opinion, I'm not against the enterprise or those continuing thoughts, but let us continue to realize that it's a recreational opportunity. So those are some of the questions I want us to kind of consider. What is it worth to us financially and otherwise? Thanks, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Councilmember Lane and then Councilmember McCord. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to say to Commissioner Hamilton that I appreciate the efforts you've taken to drill down into these numbers and continue. They've all done this with us. Well, and your staff. Your staff has been very helpful, too. I just want to thank you for all the work that's gone into this. And, you know, I think you've given us something to think about, and I will be evaluating this information, and I'm sure we'll have a decision coming forward in the near future. Thank you. Council Member McCord. Thank you. Again, I want to thank everyone for their part in this and this very meaningful discussion. A couple of things that have been said, I want to point out that, you know, to the point of pulling something specific out and looking at it, all you have to do is look at what we did with pools. As Council Member Myers said, for years we kept saying we're going to close it as part of the budget. We pulled it out. We forced an aquatics plan. We looked at it in its by itself. We know exactly what the subsidy is. We have a rationale for that subsidy, and we've moved on. We don't have to go back to it every single year. So we do do that as it relates to recreational opportunities. And, you know, what happens if we close that? Well, we just close two pools, and that's a recreational opportunity. We repurpose that for some other things. So the point is that this is a good discussion to have. It's an appropriate discussion for the council to have. And there's a policy discussion now. And so budgets drive priorities. And what we're saying is, what are the priorities of this government in total with this budget? And what are the priorities within parks? What are the priorities in the amenities and the services that we're going to offer? And that's what this comes down to. So my motion is that, Council Member Kaye, your link, when you report out to the full council for all of general services, that you would report out the specific subsidy number and the rationale behind that number. You had mentioned earlier you didn't feel like we should count the debt service on Hickadol. Well, there are some of us that don't believe that necessarily, and so that's why I want you to bring forward the recommendation of rationale so that we can have that discussion. But at the end of the day, as we talked about last week, we do our budget work through the budget links. I want to honor that process. So the motion is that the general services link would report out what the golf subsidy is and the rationale behind that number when they report out to the full council. So moved. Second. Second. We have a motion by Council Member McCord and a second by Council Member Myers. I would ask you to clarify your motion. Are you asking him to set a number or to report this out? I'm asking him to give a recommendation. If that's the number you feel like is the number, I would just say that this is what the link suggests as the rationale behind that number and do it as a part of the budget. I also would add, and I forgot to say this the first time around, but this would provide individual council members the opportunity to send to you, here's what we feel like should be taken into account. And that way we don't have to spend all of our time up here, you know, my opinion versus this person's opinion, whatever. But that way you have everyone's input that wants to give it. You've had time with them. You can report out as a part of the whole budget. And you can provide a rationale, and we can then take it up as a budget discussion. So an information piece to come out of general service? I have no objection at all. Thank you. Okay. Council Member Blues? Well, I have a concern, and that is that it seems to me that the purpose of the link is to review the figures, to listen to the directors, commissioners, and to make in their best judgment a recommendation to the council and to provide a rationale for it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's not our experience to tell the link what to advise us. And so, that being said, I hesitate to support this motion. I would rather leave the link free to take into account all the information it has, all the advice it has from council members to use the best judgment and to advise us accordingly. that's what the link system is designed to do, to provide the full council with information, advice, a recommendation that then we can respond to. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. My understanding of the motion is that it essentially asks for a highlight of that particular aspect of the budget that we'll be bringing back. So it's possible in a LINCS report to report only on changes that are made and to talk in general terms about what the budget proposal is from that LINCS. My understanding of this is that I would certainly want to do that, but in addition, we want to make sure that we highlight this particular aspect of the LINCS budget so there will be more detail and specific attention to it. And as I said, I have no objection to that. I think it's perfectly fine. Thank you. Council Member Stennett. No, I just want to clarify. I mean, what Jay is asking is the same thing every LINCS does. Review the budget, report back to Council with a recommendation. I think that's all you're asking for, and I'm not mistaking. Whether you agree with the number, don't agree with it, that could be the recommendation. It's up to you all, but I think it's pretty simply put, and I think it's what we do each year and every link we do. So I'll just leave it at that. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Vice Mayor. One other point which I'd like to point out for our constituents, and something that we have been talking about, some of us have been talking about for some time, especially because Meadowbrook is located in the 4th District. Of all the ladies that played golf through April 14th, 74.6% of them played at Meadowbrook. Of all the juniors that played during that same span of time, 43.1% played at Meadowbrook. Meadowbrook is a special entity and everybody needs to remember that, I think as opposed to lumping them in they're not a Tate's Creek, they're not a lakeside they sure as heck aren't a Kearney Hill but they are a special little gem of themselves and I was glad to have that data it supported some things I've been crowing about for some time. So thank you again for uncovering that for us, too. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Does anyone else want to comment on the motion on the floor? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? No. I have one no, Meredith. Council Member Blues. No. All right. Commissioner and crew, thank you very much. We really appreciate your hard work on this and look forward to more parks issues like this. Thank you. Okay, next on our agenda is council reports. Please log in, council members, if you have a report to make. Thank you. budget, the municipal aid program fund, the coal severance fund, and the mineral severance fund. So move. The motion and second are to place a special meeting on the docket for the public hearing for the mayor's budget, et cetera, as stated. Any questions or comments on the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Is there any other council report? Councilmember Farmer. Vice Mayor, when we were meeting in our public safety committee meeting earlier today, we were supposed to take up the issue of our Fire and Emergency Medical Services Task Force report. Given the late hour and the fact that all are not here, at that time during that meeting we made a motion to forward it to this body at this time to report out. And since I believe it would be better couched next Tuesday as one of our regular presentations, I would make a motion to have the report out of the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Task Force next Tuesday during work session during our presentation time. So moved. So we have a motion by Council Member Farmer, second by Council Member Kaye, to schedule the report out of the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Task Force on May the 8th under continuing business presentations, and our council administrator will take care of that. Thank you, both. Any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? So, Stacey, I'm trusting you'll schedule that. Thank you. Any other council reports? If not, is there any public comment of issues not on the agenda? No. No. All right. There's no mayor's report, and so Council Member K has a motion. I move that we go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.810.1F for a discussion that may lead to the appointment of an employee. I have a motion by Council Member Case, second by Council Member Farmer to go into closed session. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? We are in closed session. Thank you. I'm out. Tonight Alright Hot music Hot music Tonight Tonight It's a Razzle Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey Oh Walk into a beat drop I'm a tree When I'm here to fall You lay right down now I'm right until your head breaks I'm right into a freaking pause I'm blue and beat now I'm on chain with a red box