I'm going to go to the next video. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'll call the meeting to order, please. This is a work session of the Council, and first on our agenda is public comment for issues on the agenda. The floor is open for public comment for issues on the agenda. Nobody for comments on the agenda. Mr. Mundy, thank you. Next on our agenda is docket approval. Is there a motion to approve the docket? No, motion. Motion by Council Member Ellinger. Second by Council Member Akers. Is there any discussion on the motion? For the record, at work session on the... We have some zone change. Right. All right. For the record, at work session on June 4, 2013, Council Member Ellinger made a motion, seconded by Council Member Dianne Lawless, to set a special meeting for a public hearing for the zone change request, Item number five on the work copy docket for Tuesday, August 13, 2013 at 5 p.m. All right. Does that require a motion? Just FYI, just to read it. All right. So we have a motion and a second to approve the docket with that notation. Is there any? Wait a minute. All right. We also have we need a motion on number six. Vice Mayor Gordon. Mayor, thank you. I just wanted, since we're putting since five is on the docket with the public hearing for August 13th, I thought it might be wise to see one more time a show of hands of who can be there for the public hearing on August 13th at five o'clock. Or a show of hands who can't be there. Who can't be there. So the show of hands is for those who cannot attend on August 13th. Uh-oh. They're doing like one. One, two, three, four. That's two more. It's getting smaller. So it's 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. All right. All right. Is there a motion on number six? Council Member Lawless? Actually, I wanted to go back to the zone change hearing on 13th for the Euclid Avenue marquee zone change. and if it's permissible, it seems to me that people are dropping off the radar here that said they could be there. This is an extremely important one. There are a lot of people with a lot of passion on both sides of the issue. and so I'd like to propose I've got to look at my calendar so Council Member Masati just said she can be here yes it was a different date so could we have another head count so that means there's 12 at 12 okay I don't think I'm going to do that again. All right. That's a good question. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. One issue that we had when we set this is we had to make sure that planning had enough time to get notification. Has that been taken care of? So when is the earliest, if we did change it, that we couldn't actually change? Because we shouldn't set a date if they're not going to be prepared for it. The notifications have not yet been sent, so theoretically the date could change. The notice requirement is a 21-day mailing, and usually it takes about three days to check those in, make sure they get out. So probably the earliest date would be around July 12th from today. All right. So how many? All right, let's do this again. How many cannot attend on August 13th? Cannot attend on August 13th. One, two, three, four. So it was four. So you could attend, and now you can't attend. Right, George? You know, I tried last week to change this date, and everybody said wait until today. And so now we wait until today, and we're on break. Okay. We've still got 11. I'm curious. I want to. We're sensitive to a lot of constituencies here, including investors in new jobs and investors in capital in our city. has the appealing party, not the appealing party, the Kroger, this is Kroger, right? Have they expressed any concerns about this protracted process? no they're happy with whatever protraction we give them they have not expressed one way or another but their representative mr simpson was here when the 13th was set as the date and he did not comment to counsel one way or the other all right okay vice mayor thank you mayor i just have a comment i think that and our clerk might know, I don't know that it's the charter that says this, but if it's not the charter, it's our rules say that we're supposed to try to schedule a zone change when we have 13 council members who can attend as a guideline. Just for your information. All right, Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. And I appreciate what you're saying about trying to be sensitive to several constituencies. And you talk about job creators. To me, the real travesty in this is that we waited an extra month when we could have done this in July so that if it does go through eventually, this business who's creating the jobs has to wait a whole extra month just for this to go through. The second point I'll make is that I'm going to bring a motion later on. I've talked to a lot of the council members, not everybody. But the real issue here to me, I'll just speak for myself, is we sit in these meetings and people have jobs, people run businesses, people have families, and we sit in this meeting and expect everybody to just vote on a new meeting date. And then people go home, they look at their business calendars, they talk to their spouses and all these different things, and you find out, oh, I just set a meeting in this meeting without checking to see if there's something else going on. So my motion is going to be that when we create the calendar for the council every year, we add four quarterly zone change hearings in there so that that works with the 90-day notice or 90-day you have to do the zone change within 90 days of the planning commission taking action. But then we'll have four set in the calendar so that we know those are available and that we don't necessarily have to sit here and juggle around and bargain for the day that we can get the most people here. So I think that's the real issue, is that we do this and then we go back to our businesses and our families and find out there's other things going on that we didn't take into consideration. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Council Member Myers. All right, Council Member Lawless, do you have a motion on No. 6? No, thank you. All right. Council Member Akers? Number six. All right. All right, we have a motion. We have a second. Council Member, stand. You're good. Okay. All right. If there's no further comments, then we can take them. Council Member Ellinger? Don't we need a motion on number six that we put on without a public hearing, so moved? There's a motion by Council Member Ellinger on number six. Is there a second? Second. Second by Council Member Farmer. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. I'm hearing none. Then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. Vice Mayor Gordon. So I would like to, I have gotten some information that Council Rules Section 4.104 say that 13 people are needed for a zone change. I'd like to move to suspend that rule because we're probably not going to have 13. We're going to have 11 and allow this hearing to be heard with 11. Second. Motion by Vice Mayor Gordon to suspend the council rule as noted and second by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take Council Member Farmer. I don't ever remember us invoking that rule or having it part of our lexicon. We have not had to, to my knowledge. We've usually had 13 people. One of the difficulties we had last year was that we had the number and then we showed up here and not enough people showed up. So, no, we've never invoked it. But I think it's important because we're supposed to be following it. Thank you. No further comments, then we can take a vote. All in favor of the motion to approve the docket, please indicate by saying yes, aye, opposed, no. Motion carried. We're on her motion. You're right. Forgive me. We're on the motion to suspend. We're on the motion to suspend. Right, right. All right. All in favor of the motion to suspend the council rules, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. Now we're on the motion to approve the docket. Right? We've got it. We've had it. Now we can vote. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you very much. All right. Is there any further business under rezonings or docket approval? All right. Then we can move to approval of the summary. Is there a motion to approve the summary? Motion by Council Member Ellinger, seconded by Council Member Myers. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right, then, all in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. It allows us to move to budget amendments. Motion by Council Member Beard, second by Council Member Farmer to approve the budget amendments. Is there any discussion? Council Member Stannett. Thank you, Mayor. I move to amend the budget amendment motion to remove Budget Journal 69959 through 69961 on the work session agenda. So moved. Motion by Council Member Stannett, second by Council Member Farmer. Is there any discussion on the motion? Council Member Ellinger. And why are we doing that? Is that what we took care of earlier? That's correct. Okay, thank you. Thank you. All right. Is there any further discussion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Is there any further discussion? We can take a vote. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. allows us to move to new business. Is there a motion to approve? Motion by Vice Mayor Gordon to approve new business. Is there a second? Second. Second by Council Member Beard. Is there any discussion on the motion? Council Member Farmer. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. First on item C, which is the grant for the agreement with the Department of Local Government for the construction of a trail, I would just like to see just a map of where that trail is, where it goes from and to nothing to do with the new business item today. Something that can be conveyed to me via an email would be my thought. Then next on item D, I'm sorry that we're having to extend this yet again, this performance period for the Tayspeak Road sidewalks, but it's just unavoidable in terms of what the grant was for and what the bid has come back to be for that endeavor, and I hope that we can get it done as quickly as possible. And then turning back to item K, this is for signal timing. So this is for them to complete their study and then enact the changes. It seems like we have seen this more than once. I know it's come through in, I guess, other capacities, and I'm just wondering what will this facilitate and when, when it's all said and done. All right. Question. On item K. Item K. It looks like Commissioner Maloney is coming to the podium to help. The traffic signal timing project includes the development of 12 new timing plans for 35 intersections along specified corridors. There are going to be four roads that I have to break down. Georgetown, U.S. 25, we'll be getting 25 new corrections for their intersection. And that's the grant we're going to pay for that. On Vassels Road, we're going to be doing 11 interceptions to correct the timing. and then on Newtown Pike we'll be doing eight interceptions and then on North Broadway we'll be doing four interceptions. What's the performance period? When will we see the difference being made, do you think? Please. How long will it take for this to be implemented? I believe we'll start. It should be done by the end of the year, what schedule is allowed, if everything is right, it should be done by the end of the year. So some traffic would be bettered between now and the end of the year in terms of the amount of time people might have to wait on those arteries. All right, then while you're there, one last one, which is item M, requesting council approval to amend subsection 25-5C of the code of ordinance relating to nuisances to prohibit vegetation from interfering with vehicular traffic in the right-of-way. Tell me about this. The reason why that's coming, and Susan probably could follow up a little bit more, we've been having meetings with our staff with parks and streets and roads for the last five months, and the biggest problem we have is we get a lot of honeysuckles that are growing out, but they only go up to the sidewalk, and a lot of them are starting to grow in the right of ways that are getting into the road, blocking signs and all that, so we're putting responsibility. When we go out there, the problem is we can't cite them, And with David Jarvis, who's been on board with us, he's willing to go out and cite them. We can put a lien against the property. And so everybody's all in favor of this, and we'll be able to, instead of us going out and cutting these things, and not citing anybody because we don't have any rules about right-of-ways. But the problem is it's coming on the property owners that are starting to go out into the right-of-ways and blocking the views. I can see the usefulness of it, and I understand. But I think that in a couple of my neighborhoods, we've had problems where we as a government have come through and cut down some of the vegetation in the right-of-way and lessened people's privacy and lessened people's quiet enjoyment of their home. So I would like this to be addressed in a common sense matter that provides for the public safety but also provides for the public privacy, too. because some people live too close to roads that we're cutting branches down and bushes out and we're denuding them between where their privacy is and where the traffic goes by. Well, the number one thing is safety. Safety is going to be the number one. If it blocks the stop sign or anything or a sidewalk where people cannot walk by, we will make that. There will only be a complaint driven is what we're not having sued and be able to answer that. But I believe we have looked into that, what your concerns are. Mine's on Eastbrook Court, just so you know. I'm familiar with Eastbrook Court. Yes. This is an issue where in alleyways where we have vegetation on private property that is allowed to grow out into the roadway, blocking the roadway. This will allow code enforcement to address that so the vehicles can get down the roadway. Right now, the ordinance only allows them to cite if it impedes sidewalk traffic. Right. but we need to extend that to the road because sometimes there's no sidewalk there, and obviously we can't go on private property and trim something back, even if it's interfering in the road. Particularly, Bush Honeysuckle is the main problem. I understand, and I'm not disagreeing with that, and I don't really disagree with promulgating this. I think the continual appeal for common sense is something that never goes out of style. And I will tell you, this would probably be handled on a complaint basis. Well, I've got some of those. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Farmer. Council Member Stenet has an add-on to this question or this theme. How does this affect street trees that are growing into the road? Does this also apply to that situation if they're blocking a stop sign or a street light? We can currently address street trees growing into the road. 17B does address that. But since things like bush honeysuckle is not a tree, that's where it fell between the cracks. So we won't actually cut it. We'll cite the homeowner to cut it and then abate it after the 14 days? On a street tree, yes, if it's in our driveway. Under this new ordinance? This new ordinance will address trees on private property, vegetation on private property. Right. So we cite. We don't go cut. Correct. But we will cut if it needs to be abated. If there's a safety issue there like blocking a stop sign, yes. So they call 311. Who gets the call on this situation? Do you get it in your office and then you route the code enforcement or does it straight go to code enforcement? Well, calls will come in every way. The way it should go is, and we'll talk to Lex Call about this, that it should go straight to code enforcement. I just want to make sure we all understand that. I didn't want your office to be flooded with the calls first. And I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Stennett. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for those details on item M, which was one of my questions. I want to go back to item D, the Tates Creek Road sidewalk improvements, which are now getting old. And I wondered if there's anyone here who could tell us what the new projected date is for starting these sidewalks. This is about, I think, about four years we've been at this. That is true. We have put the project out to rebid. We advertised it on Friday the 14th. The bids will open on June the 28th, and we want to bring it to Council for approval for the July 9th meeting, so we'll have a contractor who should be able to start providing the bids come in to match our budget in July or August. Okay, and so will it be finished then by when? We've actually put one of the reasons why the bids came in so high is we had a contracted schedule, so we've extended the schedule. We are projected to finish in May of 2014 because it may go into the winter months, and so we don't want them working through the winter months. So May of 2014 is the completed date. Okay. All easements are acquired, correct? Correct. Okay. Thank you for that information, Keith. Just as a footnote, I'll... Okay, Council Member Reard. It came in $1,250,000 roughly over what we anticipated, correct? Yes. How are we going to get it down to anything reasonable when we don't have the money to generate to do so? I interviewed all of the plan holders, and I interviewed the bidders who bid on the project and found out the reasons why the bids were so high. And what we have done is modified the plans to address those concerns. Some of the major concerns were the liquidated damages in the time of completion. So we've adjusted those. Another major concern was the current plans only allowed them to work to close lanes between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. So we've extended the amount of time that they can close the lane, and we anticipate that to be a huge difference because their workday is much longer now. So we'll have a lane killed at 5 o'clock in the afternoon? On the inbound side, we will only close the lanes during peak hour on the lower volume side of the street. So that means in the morning we will close the outbound lane, and in the afternoon we will close the inbound lane. So we won't impact the peak hour. Much. It will impact, but not much. Exactly. Right. Is that going to get us down to what we anticipated as the number? The plan is that it will get it down to where we can afford to do the project. We've made some other modifications, too, but those are the big items. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Keith, and thank you, Brad. Before you all run off, remind us of the original estimate, and then the two bids were $2 million, and the bids came in at $3 million. 1.2 versus 2. Okay, so that's like 80% over the original budget. I appreciate y'all's optimism. I just want to say that having been in the little exposure to the business over time, that that is an ambitious number to overcome. And I would just caution about raising false expectations based on what I know of. It's going to be challenging, I think. So we may have to make some value engineering adjustments and some scope adjustments. I'm just an observation. Yes, sir. I know you all worked hard on it. Council Member Fauntmer. I was giving this less words than it may need. I was giving this less words than it may need in my comments about it earlier. I think we, this is so frustrating, it's already been value engineered and then it's gone from a six-foot-wide sidewalk on both sides of States Creek to a five-foot-wide sidewalk. And I'm appreciative of the rewrite of the bid so we can get it down, but I think we're going to be looking for some more money, maybe from a federal capacity in the new year. Some adjustment. If you talk, as you, I know, know how to, if you talk to some concrete people who look at both sides of Tate Creek Road and its length, they say $2 million isn't off by that much. Oh. And, you know, we're at 1.2 and frozen in time. Right. So we may have to make some adjustments. While there's a community of opinion among some council members about the worth of this, I will tell you that the public out there is more than thirsty for it, and are a little bit, you know, kind of miffed about all this because they want it done, not talking about it. And we've spent a lot of time waiting for the state to do things, and now it comes back to us, and we can't get out of neutral into forward. And it's just something that needs perhaps the touch of the ballroom about it, sir. I don't know. Well, I think you guys have felt that. And they're still smiling and ambulatory, so it's encouraging. Brad. Is there any other questions on this? The mayor's point is well taken, so is the other council members, and we appreciate that. Brad, why don't you try that one more time? Sorry. There's been some communion underway over here. All points that the mayor and the council have made is on target and very much appreciated, and we understand that. And as Keith was saying earlier, we've put it out for a second time. We interviewed everyone to find out what the paramount issues were, to go ahead and make those adjustments as best we can to go ahead and see what that would be. We're going to have a pre-bid meeting this time around, which we didn't have before, and go ahead and have that application happen, have an addendum issued based on those results, and go from there and see what we get. Okay, thanks, Brad. Yes, sir. Thank you. Councilman Beard. Well, there is a quick fix. And the quick fix would be, especially with the thirst that Councilman Farmer had, and that would be to let him have a sidewalk. No. There is absolutely no need for one. No. I don't care. It makes no difference. All right, Council Member Lawless. I respectfully disagree on the need, and I want to say thank you very much to you all for your tenacity. And I also want to point out that this was not just, I mean, you know, we're talking about five or six years of inflation here, and this was not just held up by government and engineers and the state. It was held up a lot by objectors. And so, you know, so I just want to make that perfectly clear, that it isn't just about the city or the state or the federal government. It's about it being held up for a very long time. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lawrence. Does anyone else wish to speak to item D? All right. And Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Mayor. Speaking about money, on item K, a consulting fee for $349,599 for the traffic improvement project here. Is there no one in-house that can do this for a little bit under budget, under this amount? I'm sorry. Would you repeat the question, Council Member Massadi? Yes. Under item K, we're paying a Nevada corporation for, it looks like a consulting fee for $349,599 to help us with our traffic improvement. And I was wondering if we had someone in-house rather than having to farm this out to a Nevada corporation. I don't believe we have one in-house, but I'd be glad to look into that. And this is a grant, so we contract it out, and I think, but I'd be glad to find out for you why we didn't know. It's a grant, I know, but it's still $350,000. But I don't think we have the staff to do something like this. If you could get back to me, I'd appreciate it. I'd be glad to. Thank you. I wouldn't say not do it at all. Thank you, Councilman Masada. Councilman Rakers. Thank you, Mayor. I had a question on I and J. All right. So Commissioner Paulson's not here, but it looks like his job sheet. Are you coming up for Mr. Baradaran? For I or for J? Basically, it's along the same lines. It looks like these funds were accepted in 2008 and we're in 2013, and now we're extending this to 2014 to finish the Town Branch Trail Phase 3. so I'm just curious when we can expect the beginning or completion of that project. I'm sorry, but I don't have that item I, and what I've got here, it's with Commissioner Reed on the HVAC and piping repair. Maybe I'll have that. It wasn't strolled. Okay. That's L. Yeah, I'll jump sheet. Hi, Keith. Keith. Yeah, I can answer I. This is a project where we actually had to change the scope, and we're also involved in a negotiation with R.J. Corman. We're trying to do a land swap, and so that's taken time, and so that's why we've asked for the extension. It looks like things are going well, so we should be able to get started on that project. We do have a consultant for the project already selected. We're just now waiting until we can get the property transferred. And the consultant is to do what? Design the trail. To design it. And our goal is to get it designed this year and constructed in 2014. Okay. And so has Corman, have you all agreed to the easement, I guess, of his property? Yes, I don't want to get into too much detail, but yes, we are moving forward, and they've told us to go ahead and start the design. Okay. Jay? Is there nobody here for Jay? Keith, that's the... And I know that this is in progress. I do receive updates from Paul Schoeninger, who sends me the updates as part of the corridors commission. So I just wondered when we can expect completion, I guess. I'll tell you what I know about the stone fence project. We had to re-bid it three times. It was kind of a similar situation to the sidewalk. First time. It goes back to 2006. Well, I think we didn't get to the point of bidding it out until just a couple of years ago. But it came in over budget. We went back to the state and got more money. I think the second time we had an issue with the low bidder wasn't pre-qualified by the state. and then the third time we finally got somebody on board that could actually do the fence. I think they're close to being done. I know they started work back in February or early March, so I think that one's close to being complete. But that's what I know. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. I just need to answer Councilman Mazzotti's question. I just got a call. We don't have a staff, and we've done this before we've contracted out, and that's the reason, and they do it a lot quicker. If we were to do it, it would take two or three years with the staff that we have, so we'd get the grant money. We'd apply for the grant to get somebody to pay for this, so that was the reason why we did this. Did we have any firms in Kentucky that bid for the job? Please. Did we have any firms in Kentucky that bid for the job? I assume that's what we'll probably do is bid it out, and it'll probably be whoever did the last one. And I believe that would be something that Todd would be working with on whoever does it. They'd probably bet it out. Thank you. Mm-hmm. All right. All right. Councilman Lawless. I'm sorry. Council Member Massadi, on this traffic, intelligent transportation system, congestion management, I have acquired quite a bit more knowledge than I ever wanted about these things. This is very specialized, and there are very few firms in the U.S. that do these things. So it is a highly specialized thing. Bye. All right. All right. No further, no council members signed up for further comments on new business. So that allows us to take a vote. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. That allows us to move on to continuing business and presentations. Is there a motion on the MDF? So moved. Second. Motion by Council Member Ellinger, seconded by Council Member Myers. 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 a summary of the June 4th meeting of the General Government Committee by Council Member Steve Kaye. Chair. Thank you, Mayor. The first substantive item on our agenda for that day was the relationship with the Bluegrass Area Development District. That was a very extensive conversation which covered Senator Tentaki Jobs Center and the Bluegrass Workforce Investment Board and larger issues of how regionally we're addressing issues of unemployment. There was also a request for a comprehensive review of our involvement and programming with the Bluegrass ad. Commissioner, I'll get it right, CAO Hamilton. First, I'm going to go up the ladder. Next, you're going to be king, I think, or queen, whatever you want to be. Anyway, CAO Hamilton said that she can provide the information about that set of programming. There was then a question about changing the bylaws of the Bluegrass ad to make the mayor a voting member, which is not a president. And C.O. Hamilton said she did not see any resistance to that and would work on that with our law department. There was further conversation about the regional economic development and how that's being approached. and Mr. Atkins then came up from downstairs and engaged with the council in a conversation about regional economic development, which included questions about the ways in which council may or may not be able to participate in the setting of priorities that the region advances in D.C. There was then some questions about the fly-in, which is scheduled in July, July 17th and 18th, that this government will be a part of. And there was a question about how the regional priorities are set by that body, and a question about whether we might be able to see the document before they go to D.C. and Mr. Atkins said that the Bluegrass ad, Commerce Lexington, and the administration are working to kind of put that all together. And then Mr. Atkins later said that he will send the council members the policy statement from last year and a draft of the current year document so that the council could review that document. I'm saying, I'll do it. I'm saying, why don't we have that money? It's a million dollars. And there was no, there was a little further discussion, but no action taken on that item. The next item on the agenda was the procedure for underwriting or sponsoring one of our parks. Commissioner Reed introduced the topic, and then Roger Damon gave a brief overview of a proposed policy. That policy would be divided into two sections. The first would be donation guidelines, which would provide overall guidelines for recognizing people and entities by the Division of Parks and Recreation. And secondly, a naming policy, which would outline policy for parks and facilities over $50,000. Then he shared with us the highlights of the donation guidelines, which include a set of goals, a set of criteria, and a way for recognition. It was then a discussion of the appropriate levels for the naming policy and further discussion among council members about levels and how appropriate they might be. Excuse me. after that discussion questions were raised about renaming as opposed to naming something that hadn't been named yet and there was agreement that that needed to be included in the in the document the upshot of this was no motions were made and no action taken except that that Commissioner Reid and Mr. Damon agreed to return in August with a redraft of that policy. There were no additional substantive issues, but there was a motion to cancel the meeting in July, which was approved without dissent, and the meeting was adjourned. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman O'Keefe. All right. That report allows us to move on to council reports. And if council members will please just sign on electronically. Okay. Council Member Henson is up first. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I wanted to provide the council with an update on the turf and mall TIF. And John Ferris and Kevin Atkins are here. If they could use my time and come to the podium, I guess. And there's a new property owner that is wishing to develop and is very interested in continuing with the TIF. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member? Thank you, Council Member Henson. We're happy today to tell you that, as many of you in this room know, Ron Schweitzer purchased the former Turfland Mall site several months ago. And at the time, Council Member Henson and I went out to talk with him and see what his plans for the site were. And he asked us at that time just to be a little bit patient. He was putting those together. So he called recently and came back to ask us to come back out, and he had John Ferris there as well. several years ago a few years ago a tiff was passed for that site he informed us at that meeting where council member henson was also that he plans to activate he plans to fully apply for the tiff he has a potential client in in discussion for one of the buildings part of the structure will be torn down but the exciting news is he does plan to move forward with the redevelopment of that site I'm going to let Mr. Ferris talk a little bit more about the particulars of the TIP. Right. And thanks, Kevin, and thanks, House members, for your time. This is really just an update that we are taking the application to the state. We did all the necessary local government work back in 2010, and we're just the state. We've informed the state that we're bringing the application, and they're excited to receive it. and we did everything properly back in 2010, so it's just a matter of bringing the TIF application to the state for the state program. Any questions? All right. Thanks, John. Thanks, Kevin. Any questions from any Council members or comments? Council Member Henson, do you wish to add anything? No, sir. I appreciate their help very much. Thank you. Update. Thank you. It's very helpful. Okay. Okay, Council Members, Dennett. Thank you, Mayor. I just have one issue. We approved a couple, actually one council meeting ago, on a local agreement for Phoenix Park improvements between a three-way party between the library, Park Plaza owner, and the city to make improvements. But yet we didn't see what those improvements are, so I'd like to request next Tuesday at work session. If we can have, the only reason I'm asking for next Tuesday is because that's when they're scheduled to be completed. I think it would be a good idea to see what changes are being made to Phoenix Park, both physically and, how should I say, use-wise, because I think it's an opportunity for the public to understand what's going on there and possibly improve activities going forward. So if we can have that next Tuesday. I said I didn't know if our agenda is packed, but if we can have a five-minute update as to what changes actually took place, and then going forward we can have that discussion too. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Stenet. I guess that would be Mr. Reed. Is that an agreement? Yes, sir. Yeah, great. All right. Thank you, Council Member Stenic. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Mayor. As most everyone knows, the Parking Authority Board met last week and voted to approve specific zones for the food truck pilot program. They also amended the hours of operation within the zones. And based on their recommendations, I have revised the pilot project that has already received first reading. And I just wanted to let everyone know that you all should have at your seats the motion that I will make on Thursday, along with the revised ordinance and map of the new zones. So I just wanted to make everyone aware of the changes that I'll be making on Thursday or proposing on Thursday. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Akers. It seems like there may be some questions. Council Member Ellinger? Are you going to go ahead and tell us what those changes are now, or are you going to wait until Thursday when you make it? Did you understand the question? I think I would like to just allow Council Members the time to read it for themselves, and then we can discuss it on Thursday. Unless the council would prefer otherwise. Vice Mayor Gordon. I will respect your wish to talk about it on Thursday, but I just want one clarifying question. that it would allow that 5 o'clock, is that the hour that would allow just open trucks in any parking spaces other than the rules that say not within 100 feet of restaurants and those rules? Yes. To simplify the ordinance and not have rules between 8 and 5 and different rules between 5 and 10 and then different rules between 10 and 3 and different rules on weekends, I thought it was easiest to, since the parking authority only regulates parking spaces until 5 p.m., that then we would just follow the rules of the buffer areas 100 feet from any business that's open for business and 100 feet from residential beginning at 5 p.m. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Council Member Akers. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. GTV3 is going to put up a flyer for me here. This coming Friday, June 21st, is International Ghost Skateboarding Day. And so there's going to be an event. So come celebrate International Ghost Skateboarding Day with the Lexington Skate Community at Woodland Skate Park. and it's called the Cosmic Invasion. And so there will probably be about 1,000 to 1,500 skaters there and it's going to be a great event. It's from 12 o'clock noon until 6 o'clock p.m. again on June 21st, which is this coming Friday at Woodland Park. Thank you, Mayor. Thanks, Council Member Myers. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question about the food truck issue. I want to be very supportive as supportive as I can. But in a lot of ways, I'm just kind of confused in regards to what's going on with the issue now. I do respect Councilman Brackers' hard work on this and her desire to bring discussion on Thursday. But any assistance or advisement I can get between now and Thursday will help. I've read the motion in the amended ordinance, but I'm still unclear. One of the questions I do have I would like to pose for the council and Council Member Akers is the status of the workgroup. Has the workgroup disbanded? Has the workgroup concluded all of this study and deliberation to this point forward? or has the work group in the interim reconvened. There's been a lot of moving parts since this started, and we know that one of the reasons the ordinance was tabled was to allow the parking authority time to meet. All I know is what I've read in the newspaper, and I'm just asking for information to be supportive of how this plays out. I think this is what work sessions are about, Not that Thursdays have to be mundane and routine, but the more we can hash out on a Tuesday helps me between now and when I have to vote. Thank you. Yes, Council Member Ford, the work group has disbanded. We approved a pilot project and submitted, you know, approved that from the work group, and that was brought forward to Council. and then we were informed that the board from the parking authority actually had to approve all of the zones that had been proposed by the work group and so it has changed the ordinance certainly. But the zones that are proposed in this amendment are those that were approved by the board of the parking authority. They were not those that were necessarily approved by the work group. If that answers your question. It helps. So, Council Member Akers, the motion that you brought forward, the changes are a direct result of what the parking authority has sent over? Or is this motion and the applicable changes your legislative response? to what occurred at the parking authority meeting? Both. Okay. Thanks, Councilman Brakes. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Ford. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to mention two interesting events that we have each week. one is in the 10th district and one is across the street from the 10th district but the Southland Jamboree which you all know and saw in the paper this week is incredibly successful I just want to mention that to everybody 7 o'clock by the bowling alley it's an event that has grown and grown and grown and it's I think a worthy comment here and at the same time unfortunately the jazz series at Moondance takes place at the same time. So you have to pick your poison, so to speak, or pick your pleasure, or try to do both. But I just want to remind everybody that that's happening, and the jazz series is at Moondance at this point, and we'll go back to Ecton Park shortly, I do believe. Mayor, may I speak to the issue of the food trucks? That's his point. Council Member Ford, I think it became very clear that the recommendation of the Council in front of the parking authority was not successful because the parking authority thought that basically the four-hour time factor, that we had recommended was not appropriate, and they simply sent it back to two hours, which we felt like, at least I felt like, it was not doable for food trucks. That was just simply not enough time. They simply did not agree to our suggestion. So I think Council Member Aker's attempt to do something to make this pilot program, it is a pilot program, to give them any chance of success, there had to be some kind of changes to make that happen. Personally, I do not believe the pilot program can be successful the way the parking authority has limited the time and the zones. And so if we want the pilot program to be successful, then we've got to do something to add hours to the proposal. And I think that's what Council Member Ager has been trying to do here, and I applaud her for that. Unfortunately, it would not have been necessary if the parking authority had given us a four-hour limit instead of the two. It's absolutely that simple. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilmember Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. This is not about food trucks, but I just want to also ask for next Tuesday. We made a modification, actually a significant modification last year in the fireworks ordinance. I think it would be helpful for all of us to have a rehash, just an update from our fire department and our commissioner next Tuesday before the 4th so that residents can know what to expect this year on the 4th and how we're going to enforce it, Mayor. So if we could do that next Tuesday briefly, that would be good for us all. Okay. Did we get that? Did whoever needs to do that get it? Yeah. Did you say? Fire department and Commissioner Mason. Great. If we could have a brief update on that and how many tents have been applied for this year to sell fireworks and all that kind of good stuff. Okay. Commissioner, Chief Administrative Officer Hamilton, you've got it. Check. All right. Thank you, Council Member Stennett. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Council Member Stennett, for that reminder. It might be helpful if you send out an email with just the basic rules and regs that we can send out and post before it gets too close to the 4th, before people are running somewhere else and buying fireworks that they don't realize they can't use here. And I would like to also speak to the food trucks. I feel like I've been very supportive, and I worked very, very hard with the food trucks for a year and a half. And I wasn't aware. where we were told in our last, I am one of the five council members on the food truck task force, and we were told from the very beginning, I think it's unfair, and Gary Means reiterated at that food truck meeting that he could not approve anything. It had to go to his governing board. He works for them. And so it wasn't, I just think that needs to be clarified. And I look forward to going through this and looking at it. I was under the impression at our last one that we passed something pending the meeting of the task force, passed something pending on the parking authority approval of it, and it came to council prior to that. And I'm anxious to look over this to see if it's the same thing that the work group passed, because I just got it when I sat down here. All these zones and the impact is almost 100 percent in my district. So thank you very much. I appreciate Council Member Akers and all the other folks involved in working on this. And I also want to say I appreciate the parking authority who is made up of volunteers because they have done tremendous things, and we don't always agree with them, but we don't always agree with anything. We don't all always agree with anything. So thank you very much. Thursday Night Live, Farmers Market's going great. Downtown's hopping, so come on down. Thank you, Council Member Lawless. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Mayor. I would like to say a couple things. In the work group that I have chaired, that we've been working on for six months, the original feelings of the parking authority that had been the same feelings of the past two years while Council Member Henson chaired the previous task force, the parking authority's opinion was that they did not want to allow food trucks on public spaces. So we originally, I think the previous task force and the current work group, had looked at ways to allow food trucks outside of the hours of the parking authority's purview. Previous drafts of the ordinance included just that, that the pilot project would begin at 5 p.m. and would allow for weekend operations. And then in a meeting that I had with Mr. Means, the executive director of the parking authority, he agreed to actually allow us to use metered parking spaces during the hours of 8 and 5. That changed the ordinance and the proposed pilot project based on his agreement. He was presented with specific zones that were identified as lower use areas. He agreed to those. That was the proposal that was passed from the work group by a vote of 4 to 1 and was brought forward to council. There was never mention that that was passed out of the work group contingent upon the approval of the parking authority. That did not arise until it came to Council and then there was discussion of the Parking Authority Board's approval. And so as I said in the Parking Authority Board meeting last week, if we had known that the Parking Authority was not comfortable with the use of public spaces during the hours of 8 and 5, then we would have presented a very different proposal to Council that would have allowed operation only after 5 and on weekends. since they have restricted it to two hours making it nearly impossible for food trucks to operate between the hours of 8 and 5 I went back to basically the intention of previous work groups that I know Council Member Henson also that was what their pilot project proposed was after 5 and on weekends that's what my previous draft proposed and so that's why we have the after 5 and on weekends included now thank you Mayor Thank you, Council Member Akers. All right. I have no other Council Members until just now. Signed on to speak. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. Just a quick question for Council Member Akers. Has this revised ordinance or motion, has it been approved by the legal department? Yes, it was actually drafted and revised by our law department. Okay, because the only question I had is that the parking authority has certain duties and rights under where they're organized. I wondered if we can actually override their decisions regarding the use of parking spaces. Well, I did not ask, but it has been asked. Okay, there's David. Thank you. There's nothing in the current draft that overrides anything they've done. She's adopted the same zones that were suggested by the parking authority. Well, the first paragraph said to amend subsection to remove approval of the zones by the Lexington Fayette County Planning Authority. There's still some approval language in there from the parking authority. I'd prefer that that remain in, but I don't think from a material standpoint it's going to make any difference if that particular language gets taken out. Okay. All right. Thank you. That answers my question. Thank you, Mayor. That's all. Thank you, Council Member Lane. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Where do we stand right now? Have we had first reading on this? We did have first reading, and it is on the docket Thursday for second reading, and that's why this motion to amend will come on Thursday, and then it will require a new first reading on Thursday. Okay, that's why I once left. Are you planning then to, if it passes first reading, then try to get second reading and move forward? I hadn't thought about that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Ellinger. Council Member Ford. Thanks, Mayor. I just want to ask this question to help me. Again, that's what we're here for. Council Member Bray, you suggested to me that this is your legislative response. I would, so I don't take that as in any kind of way that this is circumvision of, to circumvent, excuse me, the intentions of either the parking authority or the board. Let me ask you just particularly in application, one of your revisions basically changes what was proposed to allow the food trucks to operate from 10 p.m. to 3 a.m., and it moves the allowable time back to 5 p.m. Just give a little guidance on the rationale for that and how that may apply in practice on the streets of Lexington. Sure. So as I said a little bit ago, one of the original drafts, because the parking authority was not willing to allow use of public spaces before 5, one of the original drafts was then that we would try a pilot project beginning at 5 and on weekends, since that's the time that the meters are free and open to anyone. Since they have restricted the use between 8 and 5 to 2 hours, which in my opinion makes it impossible to operate, and the opinion of the food truck operators makes it very difficult or impossible to operate between those hours, in order to have a viable project, a six-month pilot project that we can look at, that we can measure, that we can see results or not, successes and failures. In order to have something viable to measure at the end of six months, we have to give it a reasonable, fair try. We can't, I mean, if we restrict it to the point of they can't operate, then I can tell you right now that the findings in six months will be that the pilot project failed. If that's the finding we want, then certainly let's leave it two hours, let's, you know, make it where they can't operate on weekends, Let's put them out on Corral in North Martin Luther King, where Gary Means said he specifically called a ghost town area. If that's where you want to put them and restrict them so far, then the pilot project in itself is irrelevant. Well, let me just ask this question. And this is just to get information, Siobhan. This is helpful to me. So we're going to move it back from 10 p.m. to 5 p.m. Right. And it says. And that would still be taking into consideration the restrictions that they would have to still be 100 feet away from any open business. So it's not just restaurants. If Shorty's is still open, they can't be there. If Town Branch Market is still open, they can't be located there. The cigar store, the cigarette store, what have you, within 100 feet as well as 100 feet from residential. Well, let me ask just two quick questions, and then Mayor and Vice Mayor, I'll be done. After 5 p.m., metered parking spaces throughout the city of Lexington, who monitors them? No one. The parking authorities monitoring windows of operation are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. That's correct. So any citizen from Lexington can come down to one of the parking meter spaces, and the police department will not. It's Lex Park's authority over the parking meter spaces, and it basically lapses at 5 p.m. At 5 and on weekends. Monday through Friday. Siobhan, one last question. It's on page 4 of your, page 4 at the top of the page. And again, it opens that window from 10 p.m., which was originally 10 p.m. to 3 a.m., now to 5 p.m. to 3 a.m. That's right. And it says in on-street parking areas which it is otherwise legal to park. My question is, does this apply to the zones or does it not apply to the zones, or is it just any metered parking space throughout the city? Any metered parking space. Now, in the work group that we did, and we took the entire county and marked out all of the residential areas, 100 feet from any restaurant, the entire county, what was left was pretty much downtown. There's very little other areas where you could pull up and park that would not be within 100 feet of residential or would not be within 100 feet of a restaurant. So that's why we are here. That's why the previous work group identified downtown, and that's why the zones and the previous boat that they had come up with, it's because the only available areas left remaining would be in downtown. This helps me a little bit. Thanks, Councilman Brankers. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Ford. Council Member Lawless. Now, this will be the second round for several of us. Just as a friendly reminder, yes, Council Member Lawless. So, to be clear, it's any parking space, metered or unmetered, that is not within 100 feet of a residence or residential zone and is not directly at the front door of any business that is open. They can be across the street, or they can be, if, for instance, the business has a street behind it, they can park behind it. As long as it is a legal parking area that is also safe. There is another ordinance that was passed, assuming that the sidewalks are wide enough, assuming that it's safe for pedestrians, assuming that lots of, I mean, basically, again, back to Council Member Farmer, It's common sense. So you don't pull into an alley that you're going to block the alley. You don't vend onto a sidewalk that's two feet wide and gravel and dangerous. So it would prohibit vending 100 feet from the entrance of any business that's open for business, as well as any property zone residential. But they can park across the street from the front door of a business that is open, even if that's 100 feet. In other words, all down main if the business is, is that correct, Mr. Barbary? I just want to be clear. And that was what law took that out of there. As currently drafted, you're correct. If they're across the street, when I say roadway, the 100 feet does not apply. Unless there's no business on the same side of the roadway that they're on. So it's only at their front door if they're parked on the same side of the street. I need to look at the front entrance language, but it is the same side of the street, and I believe you're correct that it is the front entrance of the establishment. Primary entrance. Yeah, primary entrance. Okay, thank you. Let's sort of calibrate where we are here. Earlier there seemed to be agreement that Council Member Akers had suggested that we would debate this on Thursday night. And, yeah, so we've kind of gone into it, but it seems like this is okay. All right. Okay. So we'll, Council Member Lane. Yes, for Mr. Barbary. Just the provision still says that if you have the permission of the owner of the property, even if there's a business there that you can use space or parking or be on their property? How does that work? This is sort of a complex ordinance that you have to know all the nuances. It does allow for the permission of the business owner is still in there. If there's not a public safety issue and the licensee has the permission of the affected establishment, you could be in front of an open business establishment during the hours that are being suggested. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mayor. I'll come ahead now. Thank you, Council Member Lane. Council Member Kaye. Mr. Bob Reed, please don't go too far. I've had this conversation a little bit before, but I understand the rationale for not prohibiting a truck from being across the street. But I believe that a case can be made that it's no more or less a safety issue, whether it's across the street or on the same side of the street. my guess is that no one who is supportive of this is interested in allowing food trucks to operate right across the street from a restaurant. And I would suggest that even though we may be on somewhat shaky legal ground, that we delete that phrase. I think that Council Member Akers actually would prefer that that phrase be deleted as well. And if that's what you all want to do, that's fine. Okay. I just told him earlier today that I hate that line and that I would like it removed. But if you think it makes it cleaner for you all and makes you want, you know, is what you want to do, then that would be fine to take that out. Thank you. So if I may comment further, it seems to me I follow this fairly closely, and I've tried to think about it as carefully as I can because I think it really is some conflicting and competing interests. Where I end up so far is with that phrase taken out, it seems to me there's a good chance that, in fact, I see it differently from some people on council, there's a good chance that this pilot will have some success. I understand that the parking authority has the responsibility to regulate the length of time that people can park. This council, on the other hand, has a responsibility to decide who can vend. So right now, a food truck can park anywhere it wants in a parking meter. It just cannot vend while it's there. And that's our responsibility. I believe that the somewhat compromise that's been reached about the areas that are available during the day is not a bad compromise. I definitely take exception to the notion that Corral Street is a ghost town. It is two blocks from the heart of downtown, and my guess is that if three, four food trucks, and there's plenty of space there, if three or four food trucks would let their potential clientele know that they're going to be there one or two or three days a week, they'll get business. In fact, that might turn out to be the best spot they've got. So long story short, I've raised a lot of questions about this. I've had some concerns about it. But at this point, I'm going to be in support with the removal of that phrase. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Kaye. All right. All right. Any other council members wish to offer a council report? All right. All right. All right. Hearing none, then we can move on to the mayor's report. Is there a motion? Motion by Council Member Stennett. Second by Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you very much. 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 public comment for issues not on the agenda. Mr. Munday, nobody's signed up. All right, sir. Then that allows us to move to adjourn. Is there a motion to adjourn and second by Council Member Masadi? Unless there is objection, we are adjourned. Thank you.