Music Thank you. Thank you. I'm out. I'm going to go. I'm going to go. Thank you. Nick, the second on our agenda is rezoning and docket approvals. This might be an appropriate time. Mr. Murphy has a comment that he just shared with me, and if you'll just share it with the whole council. I didn't quite understand the issue, but you do, Dick, so share it with us. Mr. Mayor, I'm here to apologize. We've had a procedural glitch in the zone change we have scheduled for a week from tonight. I mentioned it with Ms. Lawless's office. We have a zone change scheduled for a week from tonight, 6 o'clock, on Burley Avenue. We sent out the letters. The ad got run, but we discovered yesterday we had not posted the sign. It was posted yesterday, which would give eight days' notice, but the statute requires 14 days' notice, and I needed to bring that to your all's attention. and I've informed the law department yesterday when I found out about it and the planning staff, and fortunately there is some time to reschedule this and meet all notice requirements. I think it has to be heard on or before October 25th. We would be available any day to do that at any time if the council wanted to postpone it. I don't know if the law department wants to state it. We would waive any requirement, but the problem is, I think, to be honest about it, that we can't waive. We as the applicant are not in a position to waive any requirement of notice. Okay. Again, I want to thoroughly apologize. It was overlooked by the person who was going to post the sign. We did all the other notice things on it. All right. Thank you. Thanks, Dick. I was going to ask Janet, Commissioner Graham, do you want to guide us through this maybe? I would probably say the best practice would be to reschedule it just so that it's fair to everybody. So if the council doesn't mind, that would probably be the best practice. All right. Okay, then I'll call the vice mayor. Vice mayor. So I'll do step one and move that we cancel the October 9th, 6 p.m. zone change. Second. Councilman, motion by the Vice Mayor, second by Councilmember Farmer, to cancel the zone change on October 9th. Motion and second. Floor is available for discussion. Councilmember, stand it. I think the Law Department would agree we can't do that during the work session since we already did it on the docket. It has to be done in a Thursday night meeting. Our problem is we won't have a meeting Thursday night to do that. so we may have to have a special meeting or to cancel. We said at a work session we already had first reading on it at a council meeting and now we won't have another council meeting before the hearing. And you can't take it off the docket once it's already on there at a work session. So Commissioner, do you want to help us with this? We could suspend the rules and have a meeting. All right, there's a, what we're suggesting here, Linda, Janet, is that we might suspend the rules. Because it's received first reading, and it's going to receive second reading next Thursday. Okay, so yes, we could hold a special meeting. It had to be Tuesday. When was the zone change scheduled? Before Monday? Night. That complies with the notice requirement. and that would fix it. All right. Vice Mayor, you want to... To clean it up, I'll first withdraw my motion. Okay. All right. This is withdrawal of the motion and consent by the seconder. Motion is withdrawn. All right. Mayor, so the, yeah, so you're going to get, you give us a recommendation then, Glenda. Are we saying we want to do it next Tuesday? What did I hear? Yeah, let's remind us of what you've recommended. Okay, that we hold a, schedule a special meeting. And it sounds like that you all are saying next Tuesday at 3 would work. Did I hear that correctly? Looks like you've got a lot of nodding heads adequately. Vice Mayor? Well, Glenda, does that give time to put the public notification that the meeting's canceled? That's what I was asking Dick for that work with his notice requirement. The only issue is that you could even informally advise me of the date. We have to post it 14 days before the hearing date. So say if you're going to set the date for just, say, October 16th, we'd post the sign this afternoon. If you could even informally do that, and we would go ahead and do the notice and get that rolling, because we have to have the sign up 14 days in advance. My question was, if Council sets a special meeting at 3 o'clock on the 9th to cancel the meeting that night, there's no time to advertise that it's canceled. The earliest would be the 16th because you have the 14-day posting requirement. No. The question, Glenda, is my question is how do we cancel the meeting on the night of the 9th that's already currently set and follow legal notification? We just need to post a notice that that meeting is canceled. Oh. We don't need 24-hour notes. Okay, so you've just confirmed that we just post the notice that it's canceled. That satisfies the protocol. Correct. All right. Okay, so then next step recommendation. Is to schedule another meeting in order to hear this. and we have to comply with the notice requirement of the 14 days. So if we have to advertise the meeting 14 days in advance, it can't be until after those 14 days. And I think Mr. Murphy was saying if you informally pick a date today, they'll go ahead and post it in order to comply with the 14-day notice requirement. Does that make sense? I think so. Okay. All right. Council Member Crosby. Do we have a... I was going to... I'm not even sure how to ask my question. So if we cancel... We know how to cancel the meeting next week. We've got that covered. Okay. So then to repost or to give time for them to post it, does it have to go through another first reading? Like, would we have to do that? Like, if we do it now, would it have to then go through another first reading, or can we go ahead and just, why can't we just, while we're using the word informal, I guess, why can't we just say we would like to schedule this, and then it will have had a first reading before the 16 days or however many days are up. What is on the docket would not be able to receive a second reading until? I'm not asking about a second reading. I'm asking why can't we just, we're establishing that we're canceling next Tuesday's meetings. That's established. why can't we just make a motion to schedule another meeting for whatever, how many days from today until that point? And then would that be? Yes, we could do that. Okay. Thank you. That's what we need. All right. So we need to pick a date. We need to pick a date. All right. Is there a suggestion on a date for council? Excuse me, is the 16th adequate for you? Yes, we will have it posted today if you put it on the 16th. Okay, we're going to have to take a show of hands. Yeah, we're going to take a show of hands to poll. All right, so the suggested date is the 16th at what time? Your other one was 6 o'clock. Any time you want it, we'll be here. Well, I'm just, Council Member Beard, you suggested. All right, just show of hands, who's available on the 16th at 6? Show of hands. One, two, three, four. So it doesn't look like that's going to work. All right. Another date. Same day. We'll be 2-30. We have a work session. We've got work session. It's going to be a quick one. We've got an employee planning. And, Mayor, just to make sure we're clear on the record that we're canceling the meeting that we currently have, does someone mind making a motion for that and having the council follow through with voting to cancel that meeting? Did you do that? Did I miss that? Then you withdrew the motion. Well, that was because we don't have a docket, and I was advised we cannot cancel it and take that off the docket. until next Tuesday. That's for our parliamentarian. Is it possible to suspend that rule? Yes. No. You can't suspend it. This is an odd, unique situation. Can we talk about it for a second and come back as opposed to us trying to figure this out right here? Is that okay? Wait a minute, Dick. Don't run away. Let's try to get a date while you're here. All right. Does anybody else have a suggestion date? That was a suggestion by Council Member Ellinger. Try the 18th at what time? Well, we don't have a council meeting that night. 18th at 6 o'clock. Show of hands who can do 18th at 6 o'clock. One, two. Okay. That one doesn't work. All right. Council Member, Senate, we were just talking. What's on the docket to get second reading is actually the zone change, and we're not taking that off the docket. What you all are doing is actually canceling the hearing that was set for next week. So I think you could do that today. All right, just so you can. So I remake my motion to remove the zone change hearing from 6 o'clock on October 9th. All right. Second. Motion by Vice Mayor Gordon. Cancel the meeting and nothing is being removed from the docket itself. Our problem is it will still be on the docket. Right. It'll be listed as a public hearing on the docket, and that's what it's listed at right now. It's listed as public hearing October 9th. Which is the second reading. No, it'll be before the second reading. Yeah. But couldn't we address that issue at the meeting on Thursday, that that's still on the docket since the meeting has been canceled and rescheduled? We can take it off at the work session. Yeah, because we'll have the dock. So the question is, can it be taken off at the work session? I thought you all are having the powwow there. momentous decisions over the period of 237 years yes that's why we have protocol council member lawless just one second looks like we're emerging with a recommendation here i still think we're okay i mean we can still go ahead and cancel that meeting today and we can deal with what's on the docket at the meeting next thursday all right so vice mayor gorton has made the motion do we get who's the second on it council member farmer second all right this is the motion to cancel is there any discussion on it hearing none take a All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. I think we're good. Go ahead. Now we've got to get a date. We've got to get a date now. Council Member Lawless. I'm sorry. Would people have to fix that? And I will be at the meeting next Thursday, so. All right. All right, Council Member Lawless. Could we look at an earlier time on the 18th? You said 6 o'clock. We don't have a council meeting. What's the earliest? What's the earliest threshold date? The 16th. Okay, so your question, Councilman Lawless, is could you look at an earlier time on the 18th? Say five or? All right. I don't see any nods of that. There's another suggestion emerging on the what? Date of the 23rd? Wait, wait, wait. but you're asking for the 18th at 4 o'clock, Councilman Martin? All right, there's a suggestion on the 18th at 4 o'clock. How many can do the 18th at 4 o'clock? One, two, three. He's got four people. I can do it, but I think most people that live there work. The 23rd. All right. Councilman Ellinger suggested the 23rd at 6 o'clock. How many look at your calendars, please? The 23rd at 6 o'clock. The 23rd. All right. Chris? The 23rd. Council Member Lane? Council Member Lane, can you? All right, all right, all right. Everybody's checking still, right? You okay? Okay. Council Member Stenet? Farmer? I'm a Navy. We have to have 10 or 12. What's the minimum? What's the? 10. 10? Yeah. 10? At least 10. Yes. You have to have 10? Yeah. We not have it? How many? Will you all raise your hand again, please? Two. One, two. This is the 23rd at 6 o'clock. 23rd at 6 o'clock. All right, so that doesn't work. Okay. What's your last date? What's the last date? The 23rd is the last day. Actually, the 24th. 24th is the last day you have. Let me try the 24th. All right, is anybody going to want to reconsider the 23rd back to the 23rd? Try it again. How many can do the 23rd? What time? 4 o'clock. No, we have work sessions. Five at the earliest. I don't know. Who suggested 4 o'clock? No, we can. All right. Okay, I didn't hear the time. Yeah. Yeah. The 24th? Now we have the 24th suggested. At what time? Six. Six o'clock? Who can do the 24th at six? One, two, three, four, five, six. All right. So where does that take us? Sunday. We've got to find. We can go forward. Any time between the 16th and the 24th. We can pick a date any time between the 16th and the 24th. No, we can't, but we can try. Those are our dates to comply with the notice and meet the time frames that are legally required. All right. I'm going to dial back then to what are the dates that... Any day between Tuesday, October the 16th and Wednesday, October the 24th. All right. So if you can't get the required number of council members to agree on a date, then what's the next step? The zone change is approved. The Planning Commission's recommendation is approved. You're going to speak, Crystal. Yes. All right. Mr. Mayor, what is the zone issue, and was there opposition? I mean, I don't even know what parcel has been involved. It's for about five tracks on Burley Avenue. I think the address is 99 through 119 Burley Avenue. It's adjacent to the railroad tracks between the South Quadway and the railroad tracks. We had a hearing at the Planning Commission. We had one objector at the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission voted to approve us by a vote of 6 to 2 on it. It's from R1D, I believe, to R1T. It's from a single-family detached to a townhouse zone for basically a block front along Burley Avenue up against the railroad tracks. It's across the street from the KU substation and some single-family homes on Burley Avenue. All right. So then the Planning Commission, if the Council does not have the meeting, then the Planning Commission's decision prevails, right? Yes. Right. It's upheld. Council Member. Okay. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Mayor. Chris, can you tell us, there was one objector at the Planning Commission, and can you tell us what the Planning Commission vote? but we don't have the information in front of us to be able to refer. You all have received the final report of the Planning Commission. We have, but none of us have it. We were anticipating. The 6-2 vote is Mr. Murphy recorded. It was a lengthy hearing and discussion. Staff recommended disapproval. The Planning Commission did recommend approval by a 6-2 vote. And I don't recall which council member put it on the docket for. Okay, thank you. It's in the 3rd District. I was just asking with one object or in a 60 vote who put it on for us to have a public hearing. That's all. All right, then, Council Member Lawless. I'm sorry. I was asking a question. I forgot. I do feel like it needs a public hearing. Part of the issue is that that is a neighborhood that has become very high density. It's an older neighborhood. Part of the issue is stormwater runoff, and that was why the recommendation from the Planning Commission. It's also an area where a lot of people don't have a means to communicate like computers. Point of order, Mayor. I think this is getting into the merits of the zone change, and we're not permitted to discuss that. I was just explaining. All right. I think we're ready to move on. So if there's no motion, then the Council has taken no action. Okay? May I? All right. I'm just confirming that. All right. Vice Mayor. Well, this will require a second reading, and Council will have to vote on this, correct? So that will be the final action, correct? It is already docketed, and Council will take action one way or the other through its yea or nay vote. Or is that not correct? I don't want to advise you on the wrong thing, and this is an area of the law that I'm not all of that familiar with. So is this something that we can talk about and come back with and answer maybe at the end of work session about the implication of what's on for second reading? Would that be okay? Because I don't want to tell you the wrong thing while I'm standing here. No, I don't want to let them do that. All right. I just don't know the answer to that. It's a good suggestion. Sometimes the best thing to do is say we need to check this out. All right. Thanks, Glenda. Okay. Thank you. All right. We're going to move back to the agenda then. There is no docket of approval required this week because no council meeting. Moving to item number three, summary approval. Is there a motion by Council Member Stenet, seconded by Council Member Beard to approve the summary? Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next on the agenda is budget amendments. Is there a motion? Second. Motion by Council Member Farmer, seconded by Council Member Myers. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. On the agenda next is new business. Is there a motion? Move approval. Second. Motion by Vice Mayor Gordon, second by Council Member Beard. Is there any discussion on the motion? Yes. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. I have several questions on, first of all, A and B. This is the lease for the Metro Employees Credit Union. I'd like to know why it's on the docket for today when it's still in the General Government Committee. The committee took no action during their discussion. So I'm trying to figure out why this is even on the docket. Well, we've got Commissioner Hamilton racing to the podium. Because this item was in committee, a council committee, and no action was taken. The discussion just ended at the last meeting, and it's still on our committee reports. And that's my fault, my lack of experience with the system, and I apologize. I just, at that last meeting, the question was, what was my recommendation? And I just assumed, obviously incorrectly, that once there was no action taken, that I moved it to the DACA. And I apologized for that. I didn't realize that. Well, it would be under my experience and review that this is in committee, and unless the committee takes action, it stays there. Is that not right, Councilman Lane? Is it still in your committee? Well, the position I took was that the commissioner came in and gave us some advisory information on what she was working on, but it was going to come before the work session for the recommendations to come here for a vote. That was my interpretation of the stance. But what did the committee recommend? We didn't recommend anything. We only got briefed on what the commissioner was going to propose. We didn't vote on it or recommend it one way or the other. I thought the whole point of us putting it into committee was to come back with some kind of outcome to the full council in your report. My point being is that we didn't have a lease agreement. We just had an outline of what the potential terms could be, and that would come before the work session for us to vote on. So that's the way I approached it. Maybe I did that incorrectly. Well, there's certainly been a lot of conversation about these, and I found that Commissioner Hamilton has been the paragon of patience in dealing with trying to find $100,000 and maybe spending $300,000 to find it. and I appreciate the commissioner's response and candidness on our process and it's nothing against you or this item it's in committee and if we start saying okay it's okay just to bring this out no big deal then we have a lot of other items in committee that some people may just want to bring straight to work session and move on move it out of the committee faster so I just try to respect our process I won't make a motion yet I'll let my colleagues weigh in on that I also had a question on item J What is the cost of the contract for the next calendar year for our health insurance with Humana? Does anybody have that total cost on the administrative cost? And this is what we're asking to approve, the claims payment agreement. Can we get that before we get second reading? John, the question was, can we get it before the second reading? I think if you don't have it right now, you've taken note. I don't have that right now. It wasn't in the packet, or I would have flipped to that page. But I know our agreement is not static each year, so I know our costs will increase with Humana. I'm just curious about what that increase was for next calendar year. Yeah, I can certainly get that to you, Councilman. Thank you. And then that's all questions I have, Mayor. I'll reserve my comments for later. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Councilmember Paulson, you've gotten a heads up there. I mean Commissioner. Sorry about that. It starts with a C. It's alliteration. Council Member Lane. Sorry, Mary. My grandness is not evidently working appropriately. Yes, I had a question on item number G, the authorization to approve and adopt revised regulations for the procurement of personal and professional services. Could someone give me a little bit of a briefing on that, please? Yeah, this is basically fine-tuning the regulation that we adopted back in December of 2011 that took the place of the CAO policy. And what the new, this version, gives us a little more latitude to pre-qualify firms and then put them on a list for particular projects. And then this will be like like projects, like water quality projects. So we'll have a pre-qualified list, and then we can negotiate with three firms on that list for each project, and they'd remain on the list, and it would rotate. But it keeps us from having to go through the entire RFP process for every single project. Well, the concern that I've got is that we would not be competitively bidding for the services for the price, but we would be negotiating the prices. I just have a problem with that. we're talking about millions of dollars and not doing it on a competitive bidding basis. It's a concern. Do you feel that you can represent to the council that we'll be getting the right price for the services rendered? This is for professional services, not like the construction phase. I understand that, and I understand completely. But we're talking about millions of dollars. I mean, I think we're looking at $60 to $70 million in professional services over a 10-year period. let me let charlie yeah i'm going to i'm going to jump in here because i'm kind of the driver on this um the first step is to pre-qualify the professional services the second step will be is once they are ranked in order based on their qualifications or the amount of past work that they've had with urban county government in the past 365 days then we will present the project to the top three on the list, they will competitively submit proposals for that work. So there is a competitive component within this. The first step is to establish who's qualified and who's not, essentially a pool to where we don't have to keep coming back to the council to try to get you to sit on these selection committees and read an infinite number of proposals over and over and over again. But there will be a competitive part in this is that you don't get the work unless you are the lowest and best qualified proposer for each individual project. Okay. So you're going to publish the bid prices on each job so that it will be? It will be a matter of public record because in order for them to be able to actually work, they have to get an authorized task order signed by me that will state what the scope of the work is and what the price of it is. So you also have the bids from the other two firms listed there, who's the middle, high, and low bidder or whatever. Okay, as long as it's a competitive bidding on price, then that works for me, as long as all the bidders are qualified. But I just think this is we're talking about major dollars. We need to be as competitive as possible on the prices that we get. I'm crystal clear. Okay. Thank you very much. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted some clarification. Both items I and Q, it's an authorization for a sole source provider. And I would like to know what that means. Q is with traffic engineering and I is with community development, I guess, or police. But, Jim, can you tell me what, I mean, does this mean we're going to be hooked in with this provider forever? No, ma'am. This just offers us another tool for signal detection. And it doesn't mean we have to purchase from them, but this is the only firm that provides this particular product. and it would give us the option to use it. So it was like there was one bidder and that was the other. So if we have a company, a competitor that moves in and begins providing this service, we could change? Yeah, I guess if another company could come in, but they're the only ones. This product is territory restricted, so this company is the only one that is an authorized distributor of this product. Okay. I guess I just want to make sure we're not getting into a situation where, because competition is a good thing. It is, and these prices are in line with market costs, this company here. And it just gives us another tool for a good product. Thank you. Okay. All right. Councilmember Farmer. Well, I had item I also. It's the same. This is an ongoing system under emergency management, their radio advisory system. And it's a grant money coming from the CSET program to continue some maintenance and repair, I think, on this system. and that's why it's a sole source. I think the provider may be the original installer of the system. So it's not compatible with other? Right. Yeah, there's a compatibility issue here to keep going with the contractor. Okay. Thank you. I got a question for that. but councilman lane is that on these two uh yes sir yeah my question uh i noticed that we were entering into a four thousand nine hundred forty dollar a month pest control service for the division of community corrections which is about sixty thousand a year it seemed like a pretty hefty fee but i know it's a fairly large facility do we have a special problem there that we're We're trying to eliminate, or is that just more or less a standard fee? I'll have to check on that. I'm assuming it's a standard fee. That's a large facility, people coming in. There are all kinds of issues with, you know, make sure that infestations don't occur with bedbugs, with the kitchen, all kinds of things. So I'm assuming it's a regular preventive. All right. Thank you. All right. Councilman Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. I have several questions, and if I'm timed out, I'll just reload and go again. But I wanted to start with items A and B, which I guess just from a personal perspective and not being a member of the general government committee or part of the discussion, I'm not sure that I'm personally comfortable with trying to charge, quote-unquote, market rate to the Metro Employees Credit Union, who do a lot of great things for many of our employees. So I'm uncomfortable with, at this point, leaving these on new business, and I'm going to make a motion to remove A and B and return them to the General Government Committee for what I would call due process. So moved. Second. There's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Mayor, could Mr. Farmer restate that? I'm sorry, I waited on the sidebar. I was just returning items A and B to General Government Committee. All right. Is that clear, Council Member Martin? All right. Council Member K. Thank you. Council Member Farmer, perhaps you can help me understand. This was in the committee. It got discussion. There was no conclusion to the discussion, which, as I understand it, the commissioner was looking for guidance from the committee only. That is that this is something that they can bring forward, as she has. What more are we going to know by putting it back in committee? Well, I think there's the opportunity to make a decision, and I think that was part of my outlining comments. Personally, I could come to the committee and may not be part of its quorum, And if these are go-ahead and my motion is unsuccessful and we docket this, I would vote against these two items because personally, I don't believe the Metro Employees Credit Union should have to pay fair market value, quote-unquote, however that's determined and whatever it means, for the services they provide to our employees. I think that's just something that still should be arbitrated out or talked about, but making them come up to full market value in three years' time, I'm just personally not in favor of. Okay. I have no concern about your concerns. Yeah. My only concern is that it's been in the committee and that we can have that discussion while it's on the docket, and we can vote it up or down. I don't see the value of putting it back in the committee to redo a conversation that we already had. Then I would encourage you to vote accordingly. Any further discussion on the motion? All right. All right. Then all in favor of the motion to remove items A and B from the docket, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. No. All right, show of hands then. All. Well, we can use the electronic machinery. All in favor, all opposed. So not everybody's voting. I'm locked out of something. What's your vote? The disabled there. So you're voting two? No, you're voting no, right? No. All right. So I get to vote now? So the motion passes. All right. So the vote reflects passage of the motion. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Faulkner. Thank you, Mayor. Next, I want to move on to, and thank you all for that item on business. I wanted to ask about item H on page 21. This is ordinance revisions to incorporate the federal pretreatment streamlining rule, and this says budget impact zero, and I'm appreciative of that. Does that mean that there are no costs associated with it whatsoever, though? There are no costs to LFUCG associated with it, and we believe probably minor costs associated with the regulated community. But this is one of these examples of situations to where we don't really have a choice. It's dictated by the Federal Register and then passed down from the state and passed down to a local level. I'm appreciative of that. And while you're there, I want to ask you about the other one that has to do with your 50, however many item in on page 29, $56 million worth of bonding at 1.75% through the KIA. What is the likelihood of our success here? Any idea? I would say our likelihood is extremely high. We're invited to submit a loan application. That's a pretty significant milestone for us, and provided that we can demonstrate in that application that we have the wherewithal to repay these loans, then we'll get them if we so choose to. And this is a new avenue for us, isn't it? It's an avenue that we have explored in the past, obviously not to this amount. In the past, when things were going better at the federal level, We used to try to mine around looking for grants more so than we did for loans. And at some time, federal loans, they have federal grants for that matter. They have a lot of strings attached to them. So there's a lot of overhead associated with them. But now the interest rate has dropped so significantly, it makes them very attractive. And then lastly, another attractive thing about these is that you don't begin to pay the debt service on them until the project is completed. Wonderful. And then just one last one. So what was your matrix to pick these particular projects? These are the projects that are in the FY13 budget for the remedial measures plan, along with the stormwater projects are also either in the budget or they are maintenance-level projects that we had identified through the course of our investigations in the street and what have you. Some of them are actually done, And so I'm going to have to reconfigure our various stormwater list because we submitted the application back last fall. And, of course, we keep moving here regardless. And we will also keep moving on this current list while this funding mechanism plays out, provided that we follow all the requirements that are found in the KIA's manual. That includes prevailing wage, Davis-Bacon, those kind of things like that, is that we can also pay ourselves back. with this money as well. Well done. Thank you for your work there. I appreciate it. Mayor, thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. I want a clarification on item M. This would allow but not require someone on workman's comp to work if they had a second job. Yes, that's correct. If they are able to work a second job that's within their limitations currently, we don't allow anyone who's getting workers' comp to do that. So they would be allowed to but would not be forced to. Right. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Mayor. I have questions kind of related to C and J. I'm not sure. With C, it just says in the body of the letter that there's a contract, C contract attached, and I don't have a copy of that. But I'm hearing from many of our, if you go to page 15, attached you will find the contract for the senior health policy. There's nothing attached. I'd like to get a copy of that because I'm actually getting a lot of phone calls on this, that there's increases to many of the people who are involved with these plans. So I just was curious if we could get that information. The plan is for the retirees, C and D, or both for the retirees. I can certainly get you a copy of that plan. The cost, those are fully insured plans, and the cost has actually gone slightly down this year. Okay. It was $287 a month, and it's going to $271 a month. Well, if we could get that, and maybe also a good comparison would be, did it increase last year? Because that might be what the increase was. But it would just be helpful to us because when we are getting phone calls, and I'm being told it's increased and I don't have anything to see if that's the case or not, it's not very helpful to me to be able to answer questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Crosby. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Mayor. I feel that I asked a question on item O. This is a match grant for the Stonewall along Old Frankfort and Pike in Alexandria. Where is the match coming from? It wasn't identified. There was just an account number. And if we could know what account that is or what pool of funds. Irene. Can you help us with that, please? Yes, it comes from the Corridors Committee match. Corridors has funds, general fund dollars allocated to it, and this comes from that budget, which has been moved to another account number, which is maybe part of the... Well, just the account numbers listed, it didn't explain what part of the budget that is. so it is actually in it is now under the commissioner of planning preservation and development but it was corridors it's just been moved over to right another council and councilman martin fought hard to put extra money in the corridors for maintenance and i'm not sure the money when the council passed the budget was to be used to do match and that's the concern i have did the corridors committee uh discuss this vote on it someone gave me the high sign we We had this amendment upstairs for several weeks, and Paul Schoeniger ultimately said, no, this would be okay to do. So I'm assuming he talked to someone here. Well, Dr. Blues is absent, so we'll talk to him before this goes through. But I think the council had an extensive discussion about corridor funding and what we really wanted it to be used for, because we've done a lot of work with it, with streetscapes and stuff, and it was supposed to be used for maintenance. and we put extra money in there for that so we can have that discussion before second reading. So thank you. It's fine. Council Member Martin. Council Member Stinnett has covered the issue, so we'll talk with Dr. Blues about this. This is just the kind of project that just sort of grows, and with $300,000 we could have put a lot of trees in a lot of corridors, and so we're always hoping for more Richmond roads around town. So I look forward to talking to Dr. Blues about this. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Martin. All right, nobody else has signed up. Council Member Lane. All right. I just wanted to say the Commissioner of Public Safety has advised me that the $4,940 fee is the annual rate for the service, so that sounds a lot better. Thank you, sir. All right. Thank you, Council Member Lane. All right. If no one else signed on for new business, we can take a vote on the motion. All in favor of the motion, please. Yeah, Councilman Martin. Do we need to amend that, or is that legal going to take care of that? You're talking about on removing A and B? Monthly versus annual pest fee. Oh, I think it. It's in the letter. It's in the letter. Yeah. It's not on the... I move to amend it to, say, annual pest service. Second. Item E. All right. There's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Thank you, Mayor. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Now we can vote on the original motion on new business. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right, we can move on now to continuing business and presentations. Is there a motion on the NDF? Motion approved. Motion to approve by Council Member Ellinger, second by Council Member Beard. Is there any discussion? All right, hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next on our agenda is a report from Council Member Myers on Social Services and Community Development Committee. Councilman Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I'll wait for my document to come up here. Actually, Mayor, can you come back to me? Surely. All right, we'll move on then to Planning and Public Works Committee summary. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. We met on September the 18th and had several items of business that produced outcomes for the Council this afternoon. We had our second conversation about exploring the use of alternative fuels, specifically compressed natural gas. We had received a really good memorandum from Chris King, the Division of Planning, about how we might regulate in the use of compressed natural gas in different zoning categories. I think the idea is that this is an emerging fuel source and one that will become more used in our community as we move forward. but they had sampled two different types of kind of text amendments here as highlighted on page 39 with two little arrows down there. And one where in one case they're all principle permitted uses and in the other they're all conditional uses. Director King kind of gave us input that we found very useful in that as this is an emerging use, it is something that probably wouldn't be used, at least initially, in a neighborhood setting because some of the first users of this are going to be larger vehicles that we really don't want necessarily in neighborhood usages as some service stations have now. So he encouraged us to, and we did make a motion to have what is referred to here, I think, as a hybrid option, which brings forward the ability for us to start a text amendment process today into which in certain industrial zones this would become a principal permitted use so that someone comes forward with the place and the resources to have a compressed natural gas facility, it can automatically be qualified for. For the time being, in certain more neighborhood residential type uses, it would provide that we would come back with a zone change as other things would come forward with that. So with that in mind, there was a proposed motion that was sent that I would now make. I moved to place on a docket a resolution initiating various zoning ordinance text amendments to Articles 1, 8, 11, 12, and 16 to authorize automobile and refueling stations for the dispensing of compressed natural gas or any liquefied petroleum. So moved. Second. Motion by Council Member Farmer, second by Vice Mayor Gordon. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you very much. This is still an emerging item that the committee wanted to retain in committee for other potential opportunities, but that was kind of the first way for us to say to the public, we're ready for compressed natural gas if you are, is the way I view it. Our next item of business was just an evolving issue termed here, repaving, which we'd had a previous set of issues around what are the repaving specs and how are streets graded and at what time do they become eligible to be repaved. And that conversation led us to kind of more of a conversation of we have $26 million or $27 million worth of paving needs and our paving budget is $3 million this year, and we were looking for another way to try to find paving opportunity money sooner than that. And Council Member Stenet had an idea on that, and that really is the balance of the conversation in this part of the report. I would just ask him to take it from there if he would. Thank you, Mr. Farmer. I emailed all the council members. I don't know if you got it since our email is down, the proposal yesterday afternoon, but if you did, I'll pass them. Who needs one? I'll pass them extra around. But as Council Member Farmer stated, during the Planning and Public Works meeting, it was identified, currently in Fayette County, we have $27 million of paving need, repaving need. That means all streets under 65, rating or below, totals up to $27 million. An effort to make a dent into that $27 million, this number, to put it in perspective historically, back in 2006, when we made a conscious effort as a government to start putting more repaving down, that number was $30 million. and we've made a very small dent into that over the last six budgets. So an effort to kind of put a bigger chunk down on the ground and knock that number down, we came up with three or four different scenarios. I want to thank Commissioner Driscoll and Ryan Barrow and then also Commissioner Paulson for their work on this because as we began to work on this issue, and Steve Kay, Council Member Kay, alluded to this during our meeting, another issue unfolded, which I'll make a motion as well to put back into Planning and Public Works Committee and that is how we spend municipal aid money going forward and what policies should govern that, as well as how does that relate to our SLX dollars, which are state funding dollars for roads. And I think that's a bigger discussion that's well beyond our discussion today, but the commissioner wisely put it into this packet that you are receiving so we can begin discussing some of those issues before next budget cycle and then figure out a way to make the map process part of the budget cycle versus what we're trying to do today and catch us up. But they went over three different scenarios. The first scenario on the second page is basically keeping it as is, the $3 million annually that we're currently approximately doing each year. The second scenario, and the more preferred scenario that we came up with, was doing a one-time bond, and that's $13 million. So that would be in addition to the $3 million we already are doing this year. So that would be $16 million over two years, or however fast the asphalt could be laid. but that would be a one-time bond of $13 million coupled with the $3 million this year. That's $16 million of the $27 million going down on our roads. So that's a big number to undertake and a big chunk. Now, we also looked at the third scenario, which you all can see we probably financially can't afford to do that without compromising future MAP money, but that's $25 million all at once, $25.5 in today's dollars, and that's doing a one-time bond of that. So, again, I know I went over everything quickly, but scenario two is what we're asking the council for approval and to move forward. Again, having said that, there's a lot of issues this will play on down the road with our future MAP dollars and SLX funding of other road projects that we probably need to have a larger discussion on. But this number, using our average annual revenue of $3 million a year from the state MAP fund, is what we normally get on average. Now, this year, of course, we got a little bit more than that, But this has taken half of that, basically, $1.5 million to pay debt service over the next 10 years. So right off the top, each year, $1.5 million will have to go to debt service, so that's less money that will go into the roads unless we get more money, of course, from the state. So just keep that in the back of your mind. It's a 10-year bond. I know from an actuarial accounting standpoint, Commissioner, you can correct me if I'm wrong, we normally use 27 years, 28 years for asphalt, 25 years. We could actually bond up to 25 years, but in talking with Ryan and Jane, that's not something we really want to get into. I think a 10-year bond is sufficient. We as a government project life expectancy of most asphalt roads 12 to 15 years. So a 10-year bond would have most of these roads paid off over the next 10 years. Chair, that is all the information I can share. I can answer questions. I know Commissioner Driscoll is here and Mr. Barrow is here, and then Commissioner Paulson is here to talk about if we want to talk about any more of the MAP process or anything. But I think that's an issue we need to put in committee, Chair, and have a further discussion on that. Thank you. Is Council Member Stenet? Okay, you can lob that back to me. Is that it? Can I have a comment on that? Council Member McCord. Thank you, Chairman. Historically, let me take you back eight years ago, the only money that this government used for its roads for quite a while was the state money that came through, this $3 million. and you split that up over 12 council districts and you didn't get a whole lot of paving. That's when you saw the crack seal come up, and that was the solution that this government took, was you held your roads together a little bit longer using crack seal. That first year that we were on council, when Council Member Stenet and Myers and Lane and I were on council, we proposed something that had never been done before, which was locally bonding money, which is ironically what we're talking about doing today. And one of the things that we did, and I would encourage council members that will be here past January to do this exact same thing, is when you look at doing what Council Member Stenet is proposing, which I firmly believe in, you need to do what we did eight years ago, Council Member Farmer. If you remember that if this government makes a conscious decision to put new road money down for itself, You need to have a simultaneous discussion with the state and say that we are bonding this if you'll match us. If you remember how we worded that very cautiously, we didn't say how much the match was. They could match a dollar. And we ended up getting $10 million to $40 million of investment from that particular administration because they saw that Lexington was doing something for themselves. So first I would encourage this council to, when you put this together, whatever form it takes to put language in that you're looking for the state to match it. Don't limit the match. Don't say exactly what that match is going to be or needs to be, but that may yield a great deal more money for us in an unexpected way like it did seven years ago, eight years ago. The other part, and Councilmember Stenthal, this is a really critical piece, is what you just said about the length of the bond. Yes, you can bond this out for 25 years, but a road in Lexington holds together for an average of about six years right now. So you don't want to bond this thing much past 10. But with that, and Chairman, this is another discussion that you have to have before you move forward on this, is you have to have ATS sitting in front of you, and you have to rework their maintenance and their guarantees of their work, because you've got roads that they've laid down that fail within a year. So this won't do us any good if under the current structure we don't force our contractors who lay that asphalt down to guarantee their work to a certain point. So a couple of key things as you move forward towards this, which I highly encourage. One is have your contractors guarantee your work to get you closer to that 10-year mark if you're going to bond there. And then secondarily, look at phrasing this in such a way that you can take it to Frankfurt and use it as a piece of leverage like we did eight years ago. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Mr. Stennett, for doing this because this is exactly what's needed. Good background and discussion. Thank you, sir. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to ask Commissioner Driscoll, when we talk about this again, if you'll just also bring us information showing us what this new bonding would do in context of all of our bonds. Some of us still remember the downgrade we got in our bond rating, and I just would like to see it in the big context. Thank you. Mr. Senator. And I thank Vice Mayor Gordon for bringing that up, because this will be a GO bond. This will not be a revenue bond. Even though we're using revenue from MAP to pay the debt service, it will be a GO bond. It will not be revenue. Thank you. You're welcome. and I agree this is excellent background work, and I think it's something that has come to the Council without really a motion from the committee. We will just keep this issue and specifically this scenario number two in our committee and have a further discussion about it and hopefully bring a motion back on it after our next meeting so that way we all have a little more time to digest and understand the different type of endeavor that's been discussed here today. Last on our agenda for the 18th was the Adult Daycare Center, which was a zoning ordinance piece that had been initiated originally through the good work of Council Member Ford. The Planning Commission had held a hearing on it on July 12th and had come back to the full council. And then there were questions that had been asked about it and had been returned to committee. for a couple of different instances that are outlined had to do with some of the parking as well as some of the definitions. We had really a very nice discussion by several of the council members about this recommendation. However, in the final analysis, and I will make a motion on behalf of the committee, but there is other input from council members subsequent to our meeting. But at the time that we met, we had a motion by forward to forward this ZODA with the amendment of the parking requirement being changed from 1 to 10 to the full council. And it was seconded by the vice mayor, and the motion passed out of committee by a vote of 8 to 1. So pursuant to what I would call our mode of operation, I would so move on behalf of the committee, recognizing that there may be other points or other conversation to be had. So moved. Second. Motion by Council Member Farmer. Second by Council Member Myers. Is there any discussion on the motion? Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, subsequent to this vote, which I favored in the committee, the Mayor's Commission on Homelessness, which I chair, approved a resolution, and I believe everybody on council received a copy of the letter. And the request was that this particular zone text, the decision on this, be held off until the commission has had an opportunity to do its work, which would include consideration of items like this. So I think the simplest thing would be my request that the council at this point vote down the recommendation to forward it to council, which would put it back in committee, and that it would stay there until the homeless commissioners had a chance to work and make a report. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Kaye. Is there any further discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. Oh, Council Vice Mayor Gordon. I just had a quick question. Thank you, Mayor. I guess my question really revolves around the bigger picture, and maybe you can clarify it, Council Member Kay. I had imagined that the Commission on the Homeless Commission would deal with the big-picture view, and is it your sense that the Homeless Commission is going to deal with individual ZOTAs and make recommendations such as this one, or do you have a feel for that? My sense is that it would not be making that level of recommendation, but that the work that the Commission does can inform a decision about this particular zone change amendment, which is really about the homeless population. And I may be wrong. I can't speak for the commission. I chair it. But the commission is a fairly large body. But my sense is that we definitely are working on the larger issues. But there was a concern that specific decisions might impact that in a way that once we did our work, people would rethink that issue. Is that? Yes, that helps me. My only, I guess, concern with doing this has to do with our lengthy discussion over neighborhood notification. And so since I received the copies of the letters, I thought, well, we could go ahead and pass this, put it on the docket, and then if the commission had changes to propose, they could come later, and if we passed it, there would be the piece in place that was so concerning to neighborhoods, and that was that they received notification. That piece is built into this adult daycare ZODA. If we don't move this forward, then we don't have the neighborhood notification piece until the Homeless Commission has made a recommendation. So I do have concern about leaving that empty and leaving the neighborhoods without that notification piece. So I guess I'm wondering how much problem it would be if the Council did go ahead and move this forward, knowing that changes may come or may not come from the Commission. Well, that was a part of the conversation at the Commission, and there definitely are concerns about that. Given the timeframe, the Commission intends to issue its report January 15, roughly, and the sense was that that wasn't that big a time gap. But if the council today puts it on the agenda, puts it on the docket, it will then have to go. Where are we? It's come from the Planning Commission, and now it's before council. Council will take final action on that. I guess it's the question of withholding final action until there's more information about the comprehensive report from the commission. And, you know, to be perfectly frank, I don't think this is make or break. This was – there were actually two, and I'll mention it now, although it's not relevant to the – directly relevant, but there were two items, and council members received letters about both. And one was the – yeah, the affordable housing. Thank you. And the idea was to hold that up as well, not to delay. and the commission had a fairly lengthy conversation about it and then there was a consensus to make this request on this particular one I would say is less crucial so thank you all right thank you council thank you vice mayor council member Ford you wish to speak on the motion all right thank Thank you, Mayor, and thanks to our committee chair, Mr. Farmer. Before I begin my comments, I want to thank in advance our council colleague, Council Member Kay, and the folks over on the Mayor's Commission on Homelessness, and for the Mayor's leadership on convening the expertise to address this issue. Speaking specifically to the ZODA, I know that there's been a lot of work that has gone into this, and the planning staff. I see Chris King is here, and I've reviewed the staff report and the Zota that they provided. And it's a lot of detail. And what it basically says, in summary, again, is that a lot of work has gone into it. This issue has been debated at the Planning Commission level, a zoning committee of the Planning Commission. It has been before the Planning Committee of this council twice, And now we're discussing it. I'm respective as the lead sponsor of the ordinance of the ZODA. I'm respective of the request of the commission in light of what they're doing, what they are tackling a big issue. My concern is, similar to what Vice Mayor Gordon has just mentioned, in the interim of such a delay, if it's the council's wish to do so, it still leaves a void that addresses the very intent of this ordinance amendment, which is to provide notification for neighborhoods. And I have to be frank, that concern still stands. That concern still stands. So I'm not against and definitely wish the best work for the come of the Homelessness Commission. But if we were to delay this, we would have missed an opportunity. We will be missing an opportunity, in my opinion, to be responsive to the neighbors, residential neighbors, business owners, and the educational institutions that have been affected. I guess the only question that I would have in the interim is recognizing that field opportunity on behalf of constituency responsiveness to neighborhoods. What will we be gaining by simply delaying? The affordable housing trust fund, I'll also, that concerns me as well because that represents a tough issue that we've dealt with. That's four and a half years in the making. And I definitely don't sit here and wish that fate upon this, what I consider to be a simple zoning ordinance text amendment. We did have good discussion at our last planning committee. Those are my thoughts. Lastly, I'll say this. Vice Mayor did allude to this. If we were to finish 10 months worth of work and be in concert with the Planning Commission and to carry forth this ZOTA, we could do so respective of the Homeless Commission's request. but if we did that we can indicate that this is won't have a negative impact in my opinion on the homeless community and those that wish to serve it it's not restrictive I don't believe, I think we've already studied this but we would simply be just carrying forth a need for responsiveness so those are my concerns and in closing procedurally I wouldn't be in support of voting the report out down maybe there may be some other ways if the council so choose to delay this process that we can do it I just procedurally the committee voted it to the council and those are my thoughts thank you mayor thank you council member for Council Member Sint, before you start, I have a couple of quick announcements. I don't want to interrupt this good discussion necessarily, but I don't know how many of you all have reached that age where you have experienced a root canal or not, but I have. And I have a dentist who is waiting after hours on me to get there. so I've asked the vice mayor if she'll take over the meeting and she has graciously accepted that invitation I also want to mention before I leave that Jeff Fugate asked me to just alert you all that he has a package of information that he's going to deliver tomorrow I think on the project proposed for the old First National Bank building as Council Member Farmer has fondly referred to it as the proposed new 21C project. Sometimes we see it. Sometimes we don't. So anyway, Jeff is going to have that for you all, I think, tomorrow. Well, peace be with you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thanks, Vice Mayor. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Kay, I appreciate the recommendation from the Homeless Commission as this is voted out today. that this council needs to be aware of, that this issue, when we had this discussion at the planning committee level, this came about because of one situation, and that's a homeless shelter that was placed about half a block from here up the road. And because it was done, the ZODA came about because of a homeless situation. I greatly respect the Homeless Commission because this has a direct impact, not just on future homeless shelters in our community, because, again, the public needs to understand this is titled the Adult Day Care Ordinance or Zone Text Amendment, Adult Day Care Text Amendment. Adult daycares don't just include the homelessness. They include every senior citizen center, Alzheimer's center, mentally handicapped centers, a number of adult centers this would affect. There's actually 26 that if we were to pass this Zone Text Amendment tonight, they could not open up without first going before Board of Adjustments. And if anyone is naive enough to think that if I pack this room because I'm putting in a homeless shelter before Board of Adjustment, they're going to make an educated judgment to pass that after what we've seen the last two years on this issue, you're wrong. Because that is putting politics in front of what's good for our community when you send it to a body like that based on what we're really dealing with. And that's the homeless issue. I think this needs time to really understand this issue. This has far more reaching bureaucracy than just homeless issue. This goes to every senior. I can see attorneys. I know we have one in the room waiting for this issue to come forward because they get to go before BOA if I want to open up a homeless or a senior citizen shelter. And that's wrong. That's not what we want to be in Lexington. Now, I agree, and I see everyone else chiming in, that we do need public notification. We do need a chance to have the public input. But to shrug our responsibility as a council and say, well, we'll just let the BOA decide. That's a lot easier to do than sit here as a council and create criteria about how we get these places in our community and how we make it fair not only to the neighbors but to the people who need the services. Because this is going to be the biggest impact of zoning over the next 10 years because as we deal with our aging population and our population that's less fortunate because of this economy, if we pass this, and I feel strongly about it, I wouldn't sit here and try to delay anything just for the fact of delaying it. But I think it's the wrong type of legislation. I think we as a body owe it to our citizens to figure out a way to do this, to help people get these centers open, because we need them in our community. We don't want them sitting around on our streets. We want people to have places to go get help. We want people to go have a place in the daytime to protect the caregivers. So I will gladly vote no to bring this out of committee. And I appreciate the work on the Homelessness Task Force Commission. Thank you, Steve Kay, for bringing that letter forward from the commission. And I think we do need more time to really see the great impact that this will have on our community, not just the homeless community, but the senior community, the handicapped community that we all want to protect. Thank you. Okay. It looks like we have four more people to speak to the motion. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I can't agree more with Council Member Stenner's remarks. And I guess my biggest problem with this is in all the zones where an adult day center is allowed, we're going to say you have to go before the Board of Adjustment and get permission to locate where you want to, your proposed location or whatever. And I just really think that if you look at the zones where conditional uses are required, it is not about people. It's about different types of businesses. And I see this as being strictly the disadvantaged folks in our community. And I certainly have to agree that we protect our neighborhoods. They should be notified. But I don't understand why it has to be in all zones where this particular adult day center is allowed. So I just strongly disagree with it. And particularly for people with disabilities and our seniors, the homeless population is an issue, but we just should have more respect for our disadvantaged citizens. Thank you. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor. I need to make the Council aware of an imprecision here. because in our notes on page 42, the third from the last, Council Member Stenet also mentioned parking. He said that parking should be one parking space for every 10 attendees. Assisted living allows for overnight accommodations and adult daycares do not. In the report out on the next page, motion by Ford to forward the Zota with the amendment to the parking requirements for the one-discrimination to the full council is how it was reported out. but that's not how it's reflected in the draft that is before us today. So I think there's an opportunity procedurally for this to potentially return to the committee for one more month to make that so, or we can, just by virtue of passing it in its current form, make that change in the vote that we have here momentarily. Say that again. Yes, I'm glad to say it again. The draft that we have here says that adult daycare center, one space for every four persons being provided, plus one space per caregiver on the maximum shift. That's amended. And that's the way we would pass it unless we amend it based on the fact that the motion brings it forward to amend that in it. Council Member Farmer, as I recall in the meeting, this, it was amended. Okay. The motion included the amendment. All right. Then if everybody's square. I think this is correct. All right, fine. Then we can move forward. Is that how you recall your motion? I think that it did get amended with the new motion. All right. Very good. Thank you, ma'am. Yeah, thank you. Council Member Ford. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I kind of want to set some things out. Since when did the Board of Adjustment fail to serve a very valuable purpose to this council and our government? They are not, by definition, the bad guy. Since when did a conditional use not have a very distinct purpose to integrate certain land uses into the fabric of our zoning ordinance? by nature and by definition, in my opinion, the Board of Adjustment and for certain uses to have a clearer and more intact definition is not a bad thing. I think it's very unfair. I have to disagree with my fellow Council Member, Councilman Stenet, that it's probably as far from anything as political the decisions that the Board of Adjustment make. I don't think that the Board of Adjustment sits down with the intent to be a burden or an enemy to the homeless, to its advocates, and to its service providers. I'm going to ask Chris King's help here for a second if he would help us to understand what it is that we're asking here. There's a reason we have the Board of Adjustment. I'll give a case an example and the report that the planning committee provided clearly states how the ZODA initiated. It initiated in Council District 1 just up the street from us because of an issue, lack of notification to neighborhoods. The reality is, in my opinion, is that the service provider who has gone in, who has spoken to this council since that time, has done a good job. to give him credit. I think he's done a good job operating his facility. What happens when another service provider or other service providers, given the same opportunity, fails to do so? We've seen that happen before, here recently. The Board of Adjustment ruling at the community end, that's why we have the Board of Adjustments to make these rulings, to do, if anything, to make it non-political. We don't, as a council, don't want to be faced with making those issues. First and foremost, I think it's paramount that it's our job that when issues arise, we take policy opportunities like this to allow some recourse and some resolution for our neighborhoods. and I'll do it as long as the constituents and district 1 will allow me to. The council has a decision. I won't obstruct that decision, whatever the council wants to do in regards to this issue. I think we still have good policy. We've created a definition consistent with planning standards. We've used a definition across four different cities, benchmark cities. And there's definitely nothing wrong about having notification again. I've said that word several times. There's definitely nothing wrong with that ordinance. Chris, for clarity, and I'll yield the floor to you. Revisit us the proper role of a conditional use in our land use planning and the confines and responsibilities of our Board of Adjustment. It's not an automatic denial, I will contend. No, I would say generally quite the opposite. So conditional uses are when, by policy, this council decides that a use, when looking across a zoning category, is a use that can be acceptable, is typically acceptable, but at times it may not be, or may need special conditions to make sure it is not a detriment to the neighborhood. So I know from long experience with the board, they do give great deference to all parties, the applicant, neighbors, and others, staff recommendations, in their deliberations on whether or not to approve a conditional use. One other aspect of a conditional use is that the board can put special conditions, tying it to an individual operator or other conditions on the operation of that use. And when they have done that, then we as the enforcement staff are charged We inspect that site. We can inspect every conditional use once a year to see if it's in compliance with the conditions that the board placed on it. And if it is not, then we try to correct that. And if it is not correctable, then we refer the matter back to the board for a potential revocation permit. So I haven't done anything other than state the facts of the matter, but that is basically the implications of a conditional use. And I'd be glad to answer any additional questions you might have about that. Thank you, Chris. Thank you, Vice Mayor. If I could just have 20 more seconds. I appreciate you giving us the technical aspects of it. The reason for public notification is just not notification for the purpose to deny, obstruct, not be welcoming to these service providers, whether it be senior or homeless providers. The purpose of notification is to allow for collaboration, to allow neighbors to express concerns if they have any, or to offer recommendations on how these new neighbors can integrate into the neighborhoods. Thank you again, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council Members. You're welcome. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess just a couple of final comments. The first is that I think we're, in some of the conversation, it seems to me, we're mixing two questions. So one is, on the merits, would you support this zone tax amendment or not? The second is, when should we act on it? And I would submit that whether you eventually favor this zone change or would vote against it, that you still might be willing to postpone that decision and allow the commission to do its work. So I find myself actually in a – I've got two roles here. I'm a member of this council, and if this issue were being voted on today on the merits, I would be inclined to support the zone text for a variety of reasons which I could lay out. But as chair of the planning commission, I'm clearly in a position of supporting postponement and asking the council to do the same thing. So that would be my final thought. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Is there any more comment on the motion? Council Member Farmer. In your position as chair of the Homelessness Commission. Yeah, I use that. So then would you want us to table this in some capacity or just vote it down? I guess I'm interested. I thought the simplest thing would be ask for the council to vote it down. If council would prefer to honor the recommendation from the committee and vote it up, then I would want to introduce a motion to table it. Understood. So I was looking for a simple procedural way. Understood. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. And I guess if I could ask Chris, if the council actually votes down this ZODA, can it just be reintroduced later in the very same form? I don't believe it could be without starting the process over at the very beginning once again. That's why I asked is the process is such that if the Commission on Homelessness didn't recommend any changes and the Council had voted down this ZODA, the whole process would have to start over again. Okay, thank you. One other point of clarification. There is no time deadline on the Council to act. Since you initiated this text amendment, there was a time deadline on the Planning Commission, which they complied with. But you can move this forward or hold it at your will. In other words, you don't have to deny it to hold it. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council Member Ford. Thank you again, Vice Mayor. I have just a question for Council Member Cain from the rest of the council. Again, I think the merits of the policy we have before us, warrant, consideration, and passage. But again, I'm respective of the Commission's request. I would not, I would gear us away from expediency. I think expediency would be to vote it down in order to allow the Commission to work. I think we can have a compromise that accomplishes both. If we find that the merits of what we have here now meets the council's satisfaction, I would ask us to at least vote it out of the planning committee. It's been there twice. The planning commission has had it. But implementation, final implementation, if that would suffice, to be effective after, if at all, but definitely after the final report and recommendations of the Homelessness Commission. I think I heard exactly what Steve was saying. There's two different issues, whether it's a good policy, one, and then secondly, whether or not we want to implement this policy in concert with the forthcoming recommendations of the Commission. so I don't know if there is a way for us to marry those two or if there is even the interest of the council but if we were to vote on the merits of it and then hold it off because I'm looking at the letter it says we respectfully request that the council reserve final action on the proposal It didn't say to vote it down. It didn't say, and I know Steve was mentioning, but it says final action. So I would ask us to carry on our process of getting it adopted and considered. And then we would, I think, should honor the request to hold off, because you guys may come back with some things that may help us improve upon it before we finally implement it. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. You're welcome. Council Member Farmer. This may be my third time. I think unless there's a protest, I think that's okay. This vote would send it forward to docket, which would then take two readings and votes. So there would still be time for us to consider other options as we move forward. Does anyone else? Council Member Stennett. I was just going to say that I think, first of all, you vote on the merits of it if you agree with it or not, and then we can make a motion to table it at some juncture, Council Member Kay. I think to deny people, just to have people vote no, just to table it is kind of contradictory to what our process is. So as Council Member Ford said, vote on the merits of it, and if it gets to the full council, then the motion table can be entertained. Council Member Kay? I think that sounds right to me, so I will vote in favor of putting it on the docket, and then at first reading I will make a motion to table. Thank you. Are there any other comments, questions on the motion? The motion on the floor is to forward the ZODA with the amendment to the parking requirement to the full council. All those in favor, go ahead and log in since the electronic voting is up and running. and okay that motion passes eight to five vice mayor yes mr farmer that completes my report i wondered if it did thank you very much we appreciate it okay we're on to council reports Council members log in please oh I'm so sorry we still need social services and community development report by Council Member Myers thank you Vice Mayor we were having some technical difficulties and the server was down I couldn't pull the report up but now I have a hard copy so the social services and community development committee met on September 18th 2012 we received updates on the following the social services needs assessment and the 2013 consolidated plan During the discussion about the social services needs assessment, committee members provided input for a meeting with the University of Kentucky College of Social Work students that took place on the following day. Council Member Henson asked about the family services needs and asked that there be an emphasis placed on parenting skills and family resources. Council Member Myers discussed the benefits of developing the social services asset map for the community to utilize and asked that the students look at poverty, education, and financial literacy needs in the community as well. There's also discussion about the consolidated plan process to notify public interest parties about the availability of funds. Director Irene Gooding noted that the available federal dollars for CDBG home funds have been decreasing in recent years. Councilman's Tinnett asked about unspent CDBG funds and Ms. Gooding stated that LFCCG engineering has been slowed to spend project funds typically because of the time required to acquire easements and rights of way. Councilmember Ford discussed the issue of workforce investment funds and ensuring that Lexington and Fayette County is receiving adequate support in this department, pointing out that Louisville's Kentuckian works as an example of one community being able to do their own project or program. Council Member Ford said he would like to bring a motion forward to put this in committee at some future point. The motion was made and passed to remove the CDBG Consolidated Plan and the Section 108 Loan Program from our docket from these items referred to the committee list. That concludes my report. Thank you, Bryce Meyer. Thank you very much. Council Members, did you have any questions about the social services report? Thank you, Mr. Meyer. Now we will move to council reports. And first up is Council Member Stenner. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just want to give recognition. This week is Customer Service Appreciation Week, so I want to give an extra appreciation to our LexiCol folks. They're usually our front line who have to answer every call that comes in the government, as well as other departments who also provide a high level of customer service. Thank you for everything you all do. And remember, it's not customer no service. It's customer service. So we do a good job of going above and beyond of giving that service. So hopefully everyone can appreciate that this week. And when you get a call that you may not like on that phone, just try to smile. And remember, it's Customer Service Appreciation Week. So I just wanted to pass that along to everybody. Thank you for everything you do in the next call and our director, Pat Tatum. Hear, hear. Councilmember Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to make everyone aware that the Keep Lexington Beautiful Commission has received a grant to improve the creek alongside Richmond Road in the Lakeshore and Fontaine Road area, and the overhead reflects that. The project involves the removal of brush honeysuckle on the creek bank, litter and debris, and the planting of new native plants. The removal of honeysuckle along the corridor, which accounts for approximately 40% of the existing canopy, which is amazing, will begin within the next week. On October 20th at 9 a.m., volunteers will be needed to clean up the stream by picking up litter, and then following that on October 27th again at 9 a.m., volunteers will be asked to help install native plants in the Creek area. If you would like to, please visit eventbrite.com and enter Keep Lexington Beautiful to register to participate. The partners include the Lowe's Store at Richmond Road and at Todd's Road, Greystone Property Management and the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government, Bluegrass Pride, along with other local groups. So again, that's Saturday, October 20th for glitter cleanup, and October the 27th to plant native species. I encourage all to attend and enjoy, as I will. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. This is to let people know that there will be a fundraiser for Food Chain this Saturday from 4 to 8 at the Wessex Brewery, which is donating 6% of their gross on the 6th of the month to this particular nonprofit. And one feature of the fundraiser will be a dunking booth with various and sundry people. If you come at 5 o'clock and you bring your pitching arm and a little bit of aggression, you can get to dunk me. So I invite everybody to come out to. And don't bring any ringers. No Little League players, no et cetera. March 6th at the Wessex Brewery. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Martin. We could call Doug Flynn or something. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just want to announce that the Pasadena Neighborhood Association is having their annual meeting this Thursday, October 4th, at 6 p.m. at the Broadway Baptist Church on Harrodsburg Road and New Circle. And we're always glad to have our at-large council members there. If our regular council district members just have nothing to do, you're welcome to. But this is one of the more active neighborhoods we have. It's just always a terrific meeting. There's a lot of folks there, and so I just appreciate everything they do. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just quickly, there's a dedication in the naming of the park shelter at Valley Park on Saturday at noon. And thanks to the Parks Advisory Board. And Vice Mayor, if you want to show up, you're more than happy to. But I just think that this gives us an opportunity to really recognize a young person that did a lot for the community. And I think we hear a lot about the youth violence and so forth, so this puts things in a different light. So thank you. Any other council reports? I had a couple of things. If we could resolve that final question on the zone change. Mr. Murphy's been very patient through all of this. Blenda. Okay, just to recap, as Mr. King said earlier, the staff recommended disapproval. The Planning Commission recommended approval. So if there isn't a public hearing, then the Planning Commission's recommendation is going to pass as a matter of law. In terms of what's on the docket, we would just remove it. because there's nothing for you all to vote on because it will have passed. Is that clear? There's a lot of under-breath discussion up here. So it's not like you could not schedule a hearing and then vote one way or another on the legislation that's on the docket because you wouldn't have given the parties their due process rights by voting on it without a hearing. So I guess that means all zone changes don't necessarily come to Council. In a situation like this, the Council has no say when they aren't able to reschedule a hearing. If you aren't able to reschedule it, yes. Okay. Council Member Lawless has a question. and this is absolutely no disrespect to Mr. Murphy. I find him to be a person of integrity but the reason this had to be removed is because the developer did not put up the sign notifying that there would be a public hearing. So it's disconcerting to me that we have a situation where, not necessarily this one, but anyone in any zone change, that the zone change hearing can be delayed by the lack of action by the developer and then the council can't vote on it. So, you know, it's not about this one. It's about we need to look at that process. And, again, this is absolutely no disrespect. I know that it wasn't intentional on your part, but I think we all know that it could be intentional on someone's part. So I would like to see if we can come up with a time for this hearing. And I didn't find out about it until today. and well I'll ask for one more call on a proposed date for a hearing where we can get ten council members to be here do you have another date you'd like to propose or does anyone sorry What about Monday the 22nd at 5.30? Okay. Let's see a show of hands. Council members, who could come Monday the 22nd at 5.30? I would be number seven. So we do not have ten people. And there's 23rd at 5.30. That's after the council. I think we tried 6 o'clock that day already, and we did not have ten people. And the 24th is the last day. Is the last day. Could we try that? Yes. Okay. Same thing, 5.6. Are there any other dates? The 18th at 5.30. I think we already tried that one. I think we've actually tried every day except a Friday, a Saturday, or a Sunday. Did we try the 17th? Maybe not. Let's look at the 17th. Do we? Raise your hand if we. I think Mr. Murphy said he could do that. This is for the 17th of October. We have four. Five. Obviously, this isn't going to happen, but I think that this is something we seriously need to look at as a council going forward. It is very disconcerting, and I think, Glenda, this is the first time I ever remember this happening, at least since the 90s. Right, that's what we were just talking about. We haven't really had this situation. Council Member Ford Thank you, Vice Mayor. This may be really out of the norm, but trying to accommodate the need to have this. Is there a way that on the afternoon of the 23rd, of course we always have a work session at 3 o'clock Is there a way that we could abbreviate work session to take care of the necessity, business at hand to help us always prepare for our council meetings and then transition over to that That may not be as convenient for members of the public, but I think what the council is trying to do is trying to make sure that we can get all of us here. I think one of the problems is that we floated 6 o'clock and we did not have 10 council members who could stay because of commitments that night. So I think we need to have several hours available. Oh, okay. Well, Vice Mayor, what I was thinking is if we started the public hearing at 3.30, but then again the challenge would be if you have to keep folks there. The challenge would be keeping the quorum. Any other? I'm presuming Council Members do not want to look at a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. Correct? Does anybody want to weigh in on that? Friday is fine. We have one who says he'll do a Friday. Do you want to propose a Friday and see how that goes? Friday the 19th. Let's see a show of Friday at what time? 5.30, Friday the 19th at 5.30. Okay, the proposal's been made for Friday, October 19th at 5.30. How many council members could be here to do that? Four. Okay. Well, I am sorry. Unless there's another creative way to look at the dates, I don't think we have. We need ten council members here. And again, it's not sorry to me. It's the situation, and I think it's certainly something we need to address sooner rather than later. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. And thanks to all for trying to accommodate this. My other question, then, is Commissioner Driscoll. There are lots of rumors floating around about the amount of money in the UDAG funds, and various council members have asked to have that number. And can you give that to us now? I can. Thank you. Yes. I might add that we spent a significant amount of time making sure we had all the appropriate information because it was housed several different places. I actually have copies of this. Great. Thank you. it's just the one page. We worked with accounting. Obviously, Irene, with community development, the CAO's office, just making sure we had all the appropriate information to give you a good number. We started with the fund balance I gave you in the report, or Irene, I guess, gave you in the report two weeks ago, which is the unaudited fund balance for fiscal year 12. That is an exact number that's in the draft statements as we have put them together to date. So that's the $1,262,103. We have in the financial system shown expenses to date in fiscal year 13 of the $104,450, and there are encumbrances in the system to date of $4,256, which leaves the balance in the fund at $1,153,397. There is an asterisk there. We have, and I know there was some confusion in emails back and forth about grant match for home. We have, and I think when Ms. Gooding talked about a balance that we had in the account, we had not made that transfer for grant match for the year that we are doing our financial report now. But the 1153397 is the balance in UDAG. However, traditionally or historically, we budgeted grant match for home out of this program as we had UDAG repayments ongoing. We will be required to have some home match during this year, but it all depends on how much home we spend in that fiscal year. So we have some grant match already budgeted for the year. in speaking with Irene, she said that estimate could be up to $250,000 for the year. It does not have to come out of UDAG repayment, but historically we've taken it out there. So I wanted to asterisk that amount. And I'll tell you the other process we went through. I think where some of the confusion has been is there are some projects that had budgets, budgets but the money we've seen this in a lot of our capital projects where projects were approved budgets might have been approved but the cash to fund the projects wasn't there so that's been part of we're going to do budget adjustments to clean that up because there were some projects out there there are several capital projects that we've been cleaning up since at least since my time And I think that work probably started prior to me. So there are some of the confusion with some of the projects that had budgets, but the actual dollars weren't there for those projects. And this encumbrances item, is that projects that are ongoing, or is that completed projects and that money could be released to the balance? That balance encumbrance is for we anticipate some bills on that amount. Okay. There may be some questions on this. Council Member Kay? Thank you, Vice Mayor. Jane, do we anticipate or do we know about any other funds that could come back into the UDAG fund, that is, loans that we've made? or is this the end of the road for the UDAG fund? I ask that question. It's the end of the road. With the potential, if you take the available balance and loan it out, there would be potential. But as of today, we don't anticipate any additional repayments. Okay, and the match for the home, that will, if there's funds available from UDAG, they traditionally have been used for that match, If the funds are not available in UDAG, we'd have to find the funds somewhere else to match home funds. Yeah, and I'd have to ask Irene if we used general fund before. We've used general fund before, I thought. It's just been, you know, in some of the more recent budgets, we've used some funds with UDAG for the match. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Lane. On these funds, can they be either granted to some type of development or investment, or can they be lent to?