Hello. We got a quorum? We're getting close? There's Peggy. Hello, Council Member Henson. Greetings. Hello, Bernard. Are you back from Florida? Oh, okay. Well, you know, time passes when flies when we're having fun. All right. Hello, everybody. Greetings. Welcome. This is a meeting of the Lexington and Fayette Urban County Council. And first on our agenda at a council meeting is always a roll call by our newly appointed council clerk, Meredith Nelson. Meredith, please give your roll call. Ms. Henson? Here. Mr. Kay? Here. Mr. Lane? Here. Ms. Lawless? Ms. Massotti? Here. Mr. Myers? Here. Ms. Gutchfield? Here. Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Akers? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Present. Mr. Clark? I'm here. Ms. Ellinger? Here. Mr. Ellinger? I had to do a Susan there, sorry. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? Here. Ms. Gorton? Here. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. And next on our agenda is invocation, and tonight we will stand for a moment of silence as our invocation. All right. Thank you all very much. All right. First, next on our agenda is I'll ask for a motion to approve three sets of minutes from the June 20, July 2, and the ninth council meetings. Motion by Council Member Ellinger, second 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. Allows us to move on to ordinances for a second reading. And Madam Clerk, in your new official capacity, please read the two ordinances for second reading. Thank you. Ordinance No. 1, an ordinance amending Section 2152 of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing one position of computer analyst, Grade 115E, and creating one position of associate traffic engineer, Grade 115E, both in the Division of Traffic Engineering and appropriating funds, pursuant to Schedule No. 6. No. 2, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures and appropriating and reappropriating funds, Schedule No. 7. Motion by Council Member Ellinger and second by Council Member Myers. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then I'll ask the clerk to please call the roll. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Kay? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Ms. Massadi? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Ms. Scutchfield? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Akers? Yes. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Clark? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? Yes. And Ms. Gordon? Aye. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The vote reflects passage of the motion. Is this related to this motion, this vote? All right. Just a second, please. Okay. Okay. All right. This allows us to move on to ordinances for first reading, and it's my understanding there is a request for a public hearing on number three. Mr. Grady? Thank you. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I emailed a letter to you this afternoon, and I have additional copies for anybody who has not received that letter by email. I represented the opponents at the public hearing for the Planning Commission on June 27th. I thought that my clients had made a specific request for a public hearing before the Council work session. I was in trial before Judge Scorsone Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday until late last night. Unfortunately, I was not happy with the verdict, but I couldn't be here on Tuesday. I thought the request had been made, and I wanted to confirm our request for a public hearing on the Bayer zoning application. My letter to you requests a public hearing before any action is taken. This is a proposal for one million square feet of additional development. on Nicholsville Road, a man of war, the most heavily traveled corridor in Lexington, and I think the most dangerous. And I would urge that this council hear from the public and perhaps consider some modifications to this proposal, maybe some sequencing in order to lighten the burden before this proposal gets ready for approval. So I would urge you to have a public hearing on this matter. I think it affects the entire community and beyond Lexington before you take any further action. If anybody needs a copy of my letter, a hard copy, I'm ready to distribute it, but that is my request. All right. Thank you, Mr. Grady. Council Member Beard. Unbeknownst to Mr. Grady, the comments in this letter talking about me and involving a public hearing. A reference was made that I said that there would be a public hearing last week. I was in Puerto Rico last week, so that wasn't really quite popular for me to see that. As far as I'm concerned, if the residents want to have a public hearing, I see no reason why they can't have one. I would make a motion that we go ahead and go forward with it. All right. There's a motion by Council Member Beard, seconded by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion on the motion, the motion to hold a public hearing? Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. I think what we need to do is determine what date it's going to be and when does it have to be heard by. And I think we have lawyers from both sides. Your deadline for a hearing would be September 25th. and due to the time constraints on mailing the legal notices out, the earliest date you could have it is September 10th, and that would require the notices to be mailed out tomorrow. Mr. Beard, would you? Wait, wait, wait, wait. I didn't hear that. Could you do that again? Your window of opportunity is September 10th through September 25th, and September 10th would be extremely aggressive because that would require the letters to go out tomorrow. All right, you all want to pull your calendars. You got your calendars. We got our calendars out. David, the 17th? Would the 17th be adequate? That is within the, yes, that's within the time frame. Okay, I would move that we do that, but if we have some problems with the quorum or whatever, I'd like to know about that now. Okay, we're looking at the 17th now. We're looking at the 17th. at 5 o'clock. All right. Hold your hand up if you cannot be here on the 17th at 5 o'clock. Uh-oh. All right. It looks like you've got cannot. All right. So let's write those names down. At 5 o'clock. Check the 19th, did you say? Yeah, just a second. That would be the Thursday. Is there a council meeting that day? No, council meeting. Cannot? So who cannot do it on the 19th? I'm sort of. I've committed to something on the 19th, too. I might do it on 17th. Mayor, I might mention I've also recused myself from this matter, so I will not be able to be counted in the quorum, I believe. 11. We're looking at the, what are we, okay. What date are we looking at here? 17th. 17th first. No, but you have a less. 13. Let's do it. 12th? You said that David... Wait a minute. I think if it's the 12th, they'll probably send the letters out tomorrow, too, would be my guess. So that would be the... Did he say... No. It's 21 days. Yeah, it's 21 days. The 12th will not give us? It would be close. Did you say the 12th? As long as they get the letters out tomorrow, the 12th will work. We got a council meeting that night on the 12th. The 24th is another option. 24th. 24th. 24th. 24th. 24th at 5. Going once. How many cannot do it on the 24th? Hold your hand up, please. Just a quick information. I think it's appropriate. We have to be done. I'm sorry. It would have to be done by midnight. And just in case anybody forgot, we were here until 1225 before we got final motions the other night. So we would not. We started an hour late. That's true. So, I mean, we could. Well, unless you tailor the workstation. All right. We've got, we've got. David, do you have any comment on that? What's the specific question? Pardon? I didn't hear the question. The comment by Council Member Kaye was that based on the deadline, that the deadline would require that we be completed by midnight on the 24th. I think as long as you make your final decision on the 25th, by the 25th, you're fine. Okay. So what's the date again? 24th. How many can't be here? Okay, let's do it one more time. I counted one not being able to be here. Right. Two. All right. Wait a minute. Is this to comment or are you all saying you cannot be here on the 24th? Comment. Cannot be here? No, I was going to comment that even though Council Member Lane has to recuse himself, he can be here according to our rules. All right. That doesn't sound like there's a lot of agreement on that, Council Member Lawless, right now. He can't speak or can't vote, but he could be here for a matter of requirement. Let's go back to the 12th. So if that was the case, everybody recused, but we all believe it, I think Chris Ford may be asking us. Chris, Councilman Ford, you said you could not be here on the 24th. Is that right? Could not. All right, that means we're down to 11. So the first date was the 17th, and it seemed like we had 12. There are five who count. It's four epsom and one week here. No, no, three epsom. Gordon, Kaye, Akers, and Grant. Oh, that's right. You count. We don't. All right. All right. We'd have 11 for the 17th. For the 17th, we have 11. Sounds like we've got 11 on any day. Yeah. All right. Let's vote on. Okay. Is there any? Okay. We're down to two days here, 17th and the 24th. All in favor of the 17th, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no? No. All right, let's have a hand vote. All in favor of the 17th, hold your hand. Well, you're not going to be here, are you, Linda? On the 17th. That's why I'm voting now. Okay, all right. All in favor of the 17th, hold your hand up. One, two, three, four, five, six. Is that a vote? Yes, seven, eight, nine. Opposed? All right, looks like the 17th carries. All right. 17th at right after the work session, 5 o'clock? 5 o'clock, yeah. So this would be described, what's the description on the Bayer property, Fritz property? Bayer property. All right. Bayer property. Okay. All right. Council Member Ford, do you wish to speak, or is this before? I wish to speak, Mayor. I have a question. It appears that the 17th at 5 o'clock. I would recommend that we just cancel the work session altogether in order to start the public hearing at 3 p.m. Mayor, I don't mean to convolute things, but this is the reason why, just by example, we had all-day meetings beginning this past Tuesday, and we walked out of here after 1230. I know that's not too rare, but also a lot of the members of the public that were able to come to the public hearing, many of them were tired before we finished. And we have work sessions every week. We can modify and not have a work session and double up on the work and just go straight to the public hearing. May I make a motion that we cancel the work session and begin the public hearing at 3 p.m. on the 17th? All right. We've had a motion and a motion by Council Member Ford, second by, I heard Council Member Massadi earlier, but Council Member Vice Mayor Gordon. Is there any discussion on the motion to adjust the start of the hearing to 3 o'clock? All right. Mr. Grady, do you have a concern about it? As a representative of the neighbors, I am concerned about meeting in the afternoon. My clients have had a difficult time attending Planning Commission meetings and Planning Commission work sessions during the working day. And my clients are better able to attend, because they work, they're better able to attend a meeting in the evening. and they didn't get to speak at the public hearing in the Planning Commission because they worked. So in order to accommodate the public at a public hearing, I would ask that the meeting happen after working hours. All right. Thank you, Mr. Grady. All right. Now we're in discussion on the motion. Mr. Farmer. I appreciate the motion and how it's couched. I think we need to bend on the side of the public who wants to be here. I think this past Tuesday was kind of an unusual circumstance because it was our first day of school, if you will, and we had a lot to do. I think on this particular day we could decide to tailor and have no presentations and limit reports and have the work session run shorter so we would have time to step out and take care of human needs before we come back to take on the evening. So I would stay with our 5 o'clock and vote against the motion, although I found it well couched and well thought out. All right. Thank you, Mr. Farmer. Council Member Akers, you were up. I was just going to also agree with Mr. Grady, and Council Member Farmer basically said what I was going to say. In consideration of the public input, we should probably keep it at five. Thank you. All right. No one else has signed up to speak, so we can take a vote on the motion. All in favor of the motion to adjust to 3 o'clock, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. No. No. All right, motion fails. The motion fails. All right, so the hearing is set for the 17th of September at 5 o'clock. All right, that allows us to... Meredith, did we vote on it? I thought we voted to... We voted to... Wait a minute. What did we get a vote on? Which on... Did we vote on motion? We did, yes. And that passed. All right. So now we can... Be on to first readings. Yes, ma'am. Please. Council Member Henson. Wait a minute. Council Member Henson. Yes, ma'am. Is this for the first reading of ordinances? Council Member Lane has a motion before you read those. On number four? He has a motion before number four? Yes, sir. About number four, right? Are you ready for me? I was going to let you do it when she comes to number four, but go ahead now. Go ahead. Okay. I hereby make a motion to remove ordinance number four under first reading of ordinances from the council meeting docket, which relates to a zone change request and conditional use permit request for a property located at 1100 Alexandria Drive. The Division of Planning has received official notification from the developer that the application for this item, number 0845-13, has been withdrawn. In turn, I ask that this item be removed from the docket at the request of the developer. So move. Second. Motion by Council Member Lane, second by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, we can take the vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. Now, Madam Clerk, when you're ready, please. Certainly. Ordinance number three for first reading. and ordinance changing the zone from an agricultural urban AU zone to a mixed-use community MU3 zone for 49.17 net, 54.73 gross acres, and from a single-family residential R1D zone to a mixed-use community MU3 zone for 0.65 net, 0.82 gross acres for property located at 4100 Nicholasville Road and 104, 108, and 112 East Tiverton Way, including Dimensional Variances, Bayer Properties, LLC, Council District 9. Number 4 has been removed. Ordinance number 5, an ordinance changing the zone from a high-density apartment R4 zone to a Lexington Center business B2B zone for 0.137 net, 0.205 gross acres for property located at 562 West Short Street, 562 Short Street, LLC, Council District 3. Number 6, an ordinance amending Articles 1 and 23A of the zoning ordinance to define hospice and add hospice facilities as a principal use and regulate parking for such uses in the Economic Development ED Zone, Urban County Council. Number seven, an ordinance amending Articles 8 and 23A of the Zoning Ordinance to permit mobile food unit vendors as accessory uses in the Wholesale and Warehouse Business B4, Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial I1 and I2, and Economic Development ED Zones, Urban County Council. Number eight, an ordinance amending Section 2152 of the Code of Ordinances abolishing one position of program coordinator, grade 109N, and creating one position of public service supervisor, grade 111N, both in the Division of Family Services and appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 9, effective upon passage of counsel. No. 9, an ordinance amending Section 2252 of the Code of Ordinances creating one position of program supervisor part-time, grade 106N, and one position of custodial worker part-time, grade 102N, both in the Department of Social Services, effective upon passage of counsel. No. 10, an ordinance amending Section 2152 of the Code of Ordinances abolishing one position of police analyst, grade 111N, and creating one position of property and evidence technician, grade 111N, both in the Division of Police and appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 10, effective upon passage of counsel. No. 11, an ordinance of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government making certain findings concerning and establishing a development area for economic development purposes within the Lexington-Fayette Urban County to be known as the Summit Lexington Development Area, approving a local participation agreement among Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, the Department of Finance of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government and Bayer Properties LLC, the developer, establishing an incremental tax special fund for payment of approved public infrastructure costs and land preparation costs, designating the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government's Department of Finance as the agency responsible for oversight, administration, and implementation of the development area, and authorizing the mayor and other officials to take such other appropriate actions as are necessary or required in connection with the establishment of the development area. Number 12. An ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures and appropriating and reappropriating funds. Schedule number 59, fiscal year 2013. Number 13. An ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures and appropriating and reappropriating funds. Schedule number 8. Number 14, an ordinance levying ad valorem taxes for purposes of support of the Soil and Water Conservation District for the fiscal year July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014, on the assessed value of all taxable real property within the taxing jurisdiction of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government, including real property of public service companies at a rate of .0005 cents on each $100 of assessed valuation as of the January 1, 2013 assessment date. Number 15, an ordinance adopting the request of the Lexington-Fayette County Health Department under KRS 212.755 and levying a special ad valorem public health tax for the fiscal year July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014 on the assessed value of all taxable real and personal property within the taxing jurisdiction of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, including real and personal property of public service companies, non-commercial aircraft, non-commercial watercraft, and inventory and transit, and excluding insurance capital, tobacco in storage, and agricultural products in storage, at the rate of $0.028 on each $100 of assessed value as of the January 1, 2013 assessment date, and levying a special ad valorem public health tax at the rate of $0.028 on each $100 of assessed value on all motor vehicles and watercraft within the taxing jurisdiction of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government as of the January 1, 2014 assessment date. Number 16, an ordinance levying ad valorem taxes for purposes of support of the Agricultural Extension Office for the fiscal year July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014. On the assessed value of all taxable real and personal property within the taxing jurisdiction of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government, all taxes on each $100 of assessed valuation as of the January 1, 2013 assessment date as follows. $0.0034 on all taxable real property, including real property of public service companies. $0.0038 on taxable personal property, including personal property of public service companies, non-commercial aircraft and non-commercial watercraft, in excluding inventory and transit, insurance capital, tobacco in storage, and agricultural products in storage, and levying an ad valorem tax for purposes of support of the Agricultural Extension Office at the rate of $0.0032 on each $100 of assessed value on all motor vehicles and watercraft within the taxing jurisdiction of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government as of the January 1, 2014 assessment date. Mayor. Yes, Mr. Fonger. Before we take up number 17, I'd like to speak to it and make a motion to amend. This goes back to our rather lengthy conversation about all of the property taxes on Tuesday that ran over into the meeting that was supposed to begin at 5 o'clock. So we were kind of rushed to the post here to make decisions at the end that I think could still be made differently and or better. I'm still a proponent for the idea that the franchise fee spreads the cost of remedying needs for streetlights over the entire community rather than harboring it at least partially, if not totally, within the area of property owners. And I think that it's incumbent upon us to find ways to do things as efficiently as possible, and to spread that out I think is efficient, and it even has a sustainable side to it because not only would it allow us, and which will be the motion I will make, which is to take the streetlight fee from .0210 to .0000 and then let us put it back on in terms of a franchise fee. It rolls it off. that is, in essence, a tax reduction for property owners. And part of the conversation we had the other day was, would this be fair to renters? And I think the idea here is everyone needs to have a stake in what is sustainable for our city, our county, our state, and all the way to our world, if you will. And I think if you see on your bill what the charges are for utilities, and it stimulates you to use them less or more wisely, that helps our environment, as well as this taxing situation where we have been out around on the placement and usage of streetlights for many, many years now. So simply my motion is to change the streetlight number from .0210 to .0000. So moved. Second. All right. We have a motion and we have a second. But I'd suspect that it's going to need a lot of explaining and translating, which may require some help from Mr. O'Mara. And did you understand the motion? Yes, Mayor, I think I did. He is asking for us to pass a zero rate for streetlights, which would then have zero funding for the program. I would anticipate a second move by council that would establish an alternate funding mechanism for the streetlight program. which was proposed and delivered on behalf of the administration on Tuesday, that alternate mechanism, which is the 2% franchise fee. Am I correct? That is correct. Thank you. Is this going to have the effect of... So we had a vote. Okay, well, we just put it on the docket. All right. Yep, yep. We would still be within the time frame as set forth by statute. All right, so the floor is available for discussion on the motion. We've got Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. I still have a serious problem with doing away with that tax and just raising the franchise fee on every utility user in the county. We currently, before we raise it from 3% to 4%, are getting a 3% fee, and that amounts to about $18 million per year. And if we go from 3% to 4%, that will be about $24 million a year when all of the utility companies that are paying the franchise fees are paying the full 4% amount. To say that we will do a way, we have this precedent set where if you're in a neighborhood and you want streetlights and the city puts them in at the expense of the city, and you pay an ad valorem tax on that to cover that cost. We don't have streetlights on every street in our city and every neighborhood, and I just think it's bad once we've set the precedent that you pay for it if you have it in your neighborhood, that we're going to say now we're not going to charge those people at all. And then if we make everybody pay for the franchise fee, then why should not everyone say, I want to have a streetlight in front of my house too, so the city would then be obligated at no additional cost other than the franchise fee to go ahead and put the streetlights in in order to be fair and equitable to all the other people who are now getting the streetlights at no additional cost. I think we open a whole lot of problems up here. And although I don't like raising the rates when the utility costs go up, somebody's got to pay, and so the user's got to pay. And I think what we've done was sort of a balanced approach where we're paying partially for all the streetlights in the city that are being used. And then the persons that own homes that are in neighborhoods where they have streetlights in front of their house, they're paying the additional tax assessment. So I think we should continue on the route that we're on and not to change the plan. That's my thought. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I would like to speak against the motion. On Tuesday, I felt that we had a really good plan with the hybrid. The franchise fee would pay for the streetlights on the arterials, the streets where everybody drives every day, and the tax would stay flat for those people in neighborhoods who voted to have streetlights and who pay for them. And I thought it was a really good compromise. If we go to funding streetlights fully from a franchise fee, My question to you, Mr. O'Mara, is the neighborhoods who do not currently have streetlights, they will be permitted, I would assume, to come and ask for streetlights to be put in, and we should be able to fund them, correct? Because everyone will be paying for streetlights. Well, as I expressed on Tuesday, I think what a realistic expectation is, We have a qualification process for the urban service district now where it takes so many votes per person in the neighborhood to decide whether they do or do not want streetlights and petition to bring in. I would anticipate that traffic engineering would develop a second set of criteria for people outside the urban service area in order to assess the cost basis in order to furnish that streetlight in front. And I used the example of maybe a road outside the urban area where there's a cluster of 10 to 12 houses that would petition versus a single house at the extreme end of the county that has no other residential in the area. and I could see where the cost would be prohibitive for the single person out in the far reaches of the county versus the cluster that is outside the urban service district. That would be my envision. It would be up to the council in order to endorse or to vary from that, but that was kind of how I answered on Tuesday. I think that's inequitable, folks. What that means is everyone in Fayette County will pay for streetlights, but some people will not get them on their street. How is that equitable? It is not. And I appreciate Mr. Farmer's effort, but I think it's not fair to those people who don't have them even inside the urban service boundary. We have neighborhoods without streetlights. Everybody would pay under this scenario, and I just can't support that unless I'm assured that everyone will have streetlights. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Romero. On Tuesday, we had a fair amount of data that showed us what the various options would generate in terms of costs and where the savings would be and for whom. Is there any way we can get that same information on this proposal? Because I don't know. I can't tell what it really means. I understand in general what it means. but it actually was one of the options that was illustrated on Tuesday. Which one? I'm sorry. We'll show it to you if you'd like. I think it might be helpful. It was on page 11 of the presentation. Excuse me. That's incorrect. It was on page 16 of the presentation. There were two illustrations, one for a house at $165,000 with a $100 utility bill, and then a scenario B, for example, that was a $225,000 home with a $200 monthly. Yeah, thank you. I was just going to ask to get it up. Thank you. So option two, the middle option, this is for the $225,000 home assessment with a $200 monthly bill. They would forego paying a current property tax of $47.25. A 2% increase in the franchise fee would equate to about $48 a year on an average $200 monthly utility bill. so they would wind up paying net about 75 cents more than they are now. That would be an illustration of someone that is currently in the urban service district that is assessed for the streetlights at this time. And do we also have information about if you add 2% to the franchise fee, what impact that has on all utility payers? Well, that would be the middle column in the illustration. It would be $48 for someone who averages $200. It would be $24 for someone that has an average of $100 utility bill. So given those figures, is it fair to say that someone at present who is not a property owner but a renter might see a rise in the utility bill of about, depending on their usage, somewhere between $24 and $48 on an annual basis? That's correct. That's the two illustrations that we put before you. Okay. So I would have to agree with the Vice Mayor's conclusion on a slightly different basis. It seems to me what this proposal does is it shifts the tax burden from people who own property to people who do not. And I think that's the wrong direction for us to go, so I would not support the proposal. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Kaye. Council Member Clark. Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to go the opposite direction, Council Member Kaye. I think the point I want to make, and I hope I can make this strongly, is that when we increase taxes, most of the time we look at our homeowners. And there's nothing wrong with homeowners paying tax. I looked at my tax bill today, as a matter of fact, and I'm paying $2,600 for a medium-sized house, $2,600 a year, which I'm most happy to pay. Most happy. The value is wonderful. But I also look at people who live in our community, who live here, take advantage of all the wonderful things that happen in Lexington, paying very little, if anything. Some are paying electric bills, gas bills. So why can't we ask them to pay a little bit? because I'm now paying state tax, school tax, general service, extension, soil and water, health department, LexTrans, street lights and street cleaning, waste. I'm paying all that, and I love it. It's great. No problem. But why should just homeowners bear the taxes of Lexington? That's what I can't understand. And if we do this, at least we're saying to the homeowners, Okay, let's give the homeowners a break here, just a little tiny break. That's all it is. Most people are only going to save a couple of dollars maybe, but everybody who lives in Lexington is going to help pay the bill. And let me add this too. We've already agreed to 1%. We've already agreed to 1% for all these people to pay. So another percentage or even less, which I would propose an additional 0.8%, that would keep it from being a full 2%, that would give us over a million-dollar surplus. If we have a million-dollar surplus, guess what? We can buy streetlights because we only need approximately 500 new streetlights to cover the areas that we need to cover. and that would cost us about $400,000. So we'd already have a surplus there. Taking the property tax completely off the tax roll, adding 4.8% franchise fee, we'd pay the bill plus another million dollars. So I'm going to vote for this because I think it's the way to go. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Clark. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I agree with Council Member Clark that I do see this as being a more equitable way. I don't think any way we do it is going to be completely equal to all citizens, but I will say that I feel like a streetlight I use in front of my house is just as valuable as a streetlight across town or in another area where the house might be more expensive than mine. And chances are that's a good bet that it is. But I just see that street lights should be equal in value, and when you put it on the property taxes, it makes them unequal in value. So this way it is more equitable, and you're only talking, I know my utility bills are nowhere near $200 a month, but you're talking $2 to $4 probably average a month on a utility bill. And you know how strong of an advocate I am for lower income. But I just see this as being much more equitable and fair. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Stennett. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. You know, the good news about tonight is this council, for once in a very long time, is finally willing to do something to fix one of our major tax problems. That's the good news. You have a body that's trying to come up with a solution and not pass the buck down the streets, so to speak. So we're trying to find a solution. I know we all may disagree a little bit about how we get there, and I know some of you are very passionate in one way or another. But the motion, let's go back to the motion, the motion was just to change property tax. It was not to change the franchise fee. That was tabled until budget and finance meeting. The motion does not change that if you vote for it. It just changes the property tax to zero. That's it. and talking about franchise fees, what we've talked about all along has nothing to do with the water company. Zero. So I don't understand why it keeps coming up. We're just talking about electric and gas for now. It has nothing to do with water company. And the last point I want to make is fire hydrants. Why is it okay to pay for our fire hydrants out of the general fund when not everyone has a fire hydrant in front of their house? Why is it okay to pay for the fire hydrants out of the general fund and not street lights? Everyone does benefit from streetlights. You may not physically have one right in front of your house, but when you drive down Main Street, when you drive Man O' War, when you drive New Circle, you benefit from it. When I visit my neighbor, I benefit from it. It's a public safety issue. And as Council Member Henson said, let's spread the share equally amongst all taxpayers, not just put the burden back on the property owners that have sheltered that burden for years. This is a public safety issue. It should be paid out of the general fund, period. Now, how we subsidize the general fund, we'll have that discussion in two weeks, whether it be a franchise fee of 1.8% or 1% or 2%. I think if you look at our budget history, you may be able to abolish the tax and only do a 1% franchise fee. Technically, we have fund balances out there. We have a lot of other things to discuss, but tonight only is our property tax night. And the motion was zero on the property tax for streetlights, and I do support it. Thank you, Council Member Farmer, for making that motion. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. while I'm making my comments to just remind us of what percentage ad valorem taxes contribute to the overall revenue that we bring in. If you just happen to have that deal, if not, don't worry about it. It's a small percentage. The majority of ad valorem taxes in this county are collected by Fayette County Public Schools. Fayette County Public Schools often increases those Avalon taxes to cover the cost of services to educate our kids. They don't hesitate. They don't moan or groan when they do it. Their defense and rationale is we have to raise the sufficient revenue to educate our kids. Newsflash. Every property owner in Fayette County who has accessed an Avalon tax that goes to the Fayette County Public Schools has to pay it. And they cannot dispute that I don't have a child being educated in the Fayette County Public Schools. It doesn't matter. So why should we make that same distinction here when it comes to the health of our community in regards to streetlights? There's nobody on Main Street asking the superintendent for a refund because their kids have already graduated from public schools, are not in public schools, or in private schools, but you still pay that Avalon tax. The same issue pertains here. Let's be honest. This is a shell game, and I don't say that maliciously. But all we're doing is shifting burdens from one party to another. The example that the commissioner has given has been on homeownership. But this also affects businesses as well, and I agree to something that Council Member Lane mentioned about the tax advantage that the property owners, not just homeowners, but homeowners in this case, but property owners bear in this tax. If you have a residential tenant and a commercial lease tenant, they don't write the check to the sheriff's office directly to pay for the taxes at that location they are. Believe you me, that property owner and that homeowner, that landlord, passes those burdens through the lease. So now we have lease tenants that are going to be, who are already in a majority of the part paying the property tax through their lease payments. And then they're also going to be assessed greater franchise fees. And then when we increase the franchise fees and then when the utilities raise their rates to cover that, we have issue with that as well. So the responsible thing to do that Council Member Kay alluded to earlier is that, and the commissioners clearly laid it out, there is a cost of service. And it is responsible of us financially not to be excessive in leavening taxes and fees, but just enough to cover that cost of service. And I don't see how responsibly we can dramatically reduce one fee that an increase is not being proposed. Where it's going to keep that avalorm rate flat and to barely increase the franchise fee? With all that said, Mayor, I'll be voting against the motion. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Ford. Councilmember Farmer? Briefly, Mayor, thank you. First, I want to thank the Council for having a wonderful discussion that shows passion and professionalism and is tackling subjects that are hard to talk about sometimes. Specifically to the motion, at least from my point of view on this legislation, this isn't about who has a street light or who needs a street light. or who wants a street light. It's about who uses the street light. All the citizens use the street lights, whether they drive to town once a year or once a day. They use them, and I think that's why this is a better spreading of that usage over a broader path. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Farmer, Council Member Akers. Along the same lines as Council Member Stennett and Farmer, I want to speak, though, on behalf of property owners and homeowners. Like, as Council Member Clark stated, it does seem like we are constantly, anytime that we need to raise a fee, that we look to the homeowners and property owners to foot those bills. And as someone who is a single mom and has worked to own my home or buy my home on a social worker's salary and a very modest home at that that I can barely, you know, I mean, afford. I can afford, but every year the taxes go up. Every year the fees are higher. Every year, you know, there's a new fee, there's a new tax, there's a new levy, and it feels like it is always constantly on the property owners. If someone visits me at my home and I have a streetlight, they benefit by parking under that streetlight. If they visit, if they go to Walmart and shop, they benefit for the streetlights. If they're driving around New Circle and down Main Street, They're benefiting from the streetlights. The entire city benefits from the safety provided by streetlights, and it should not always fall on the burden of the homeowners. And so I also will vote in favor of Councilmember Farmer's motion. Thank you. Councilmember Lawless. You know, this is going to be hard no matter what. But the bottom line is, and speaking to Vice Mayor Gorton's point, people vote to come into a certain service in their neighborhood. They have to get signatures and they have to then have a vote to be placed into refuse collection or streetlights or whatever. And that property tax is also tax deductible. Then there's the streetlights that are public and everybody pays for. And it seems to me that that hybrid is somewhat, I mean, I'm torn by it, but I also know that many of the less expensive homes are going to have much higher utility bills because they're poorly insulated. there's not adequate updated HVAC or appliances, etc. I live in an older home and when they came to my house one day they said, well, you don't have to ever worry about carbon monoxide poisoning here because it's kind of a wind tunnel. So looking at both those things, it seems to me that if it is only a franchise fee, then everybody should be entitled to have them. But if we up the property tax just slightly to cover it for those neighborhoods and add the franchise fee that spreads to everybody for the public use of lights, that that's somewhat of an answer and not too much of a burden on any one person or one group of people. So that if my neighborhood has streetlights, I'm not the only one paying for all the streetlights everybody uses, but I am paying a little extra in my property tax, which is tax deductible. And then the franchise fee will pay. Everybody kicks in for the public use of lights. And, you know, we talk about taxes and fairness and, you know, somehow, let's face it, not any of it's fair. Life isn't fair. Taxes aren't fair. Wealth isn't fair. Education isn't equal, you know. So all that being said, I do think that giving neighborhoods an opportunity to up their property tax a bit so they have the street lights as appropriate and then spreading it around to everybody else for our public lights is a good alternative. And the same argument is made about the property tax for refuse collection. I hear all the time, well, I live in an $800,000 home. I don't generate any more waste than somebody who lives in a $100,000 home. And that's true. But if everything was fair, everybody would be living in an $800,000 home. So there's not really a good way to be fair because, you know, some of us are more blessed and privileged and grateful than others. So that's my point. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Madam. Just to further confuse everybody, I want to talk a second about the historical perspective. Prior to the merger, it's in the 50s and 60s. Pardon me? This is about the same subject. Oh, same subject. You didn't hear it. I'm just getting all curious. Well, it's a matter of setting the stage, okay? the way the city annexed various subdivisions as they were built and there was a big hurrah about who gets streetlights and who doesn't get streetlights as it relates to those that are coming through an annexation versus the ones that were already there the funny thing about it is that nobody who was annexed wanted streetlights and I was even approached by someone when I was a teenager, would I take my pellet gun and go out when they put them up and shoot them out because they didn't like the light shining in their front bedroom. So, I mean, there's always a different twist on any of this and all this to satisfy everybody's needs perfectly is not going to happen. And I think we've got to go ahead and hammer one down, and we can adjust as we go along. But we've got to do something pretty soon, do we not, David? Yeah, Mayor, can I address a couple of procedural points if you would let me? Yes, sir. Mr. O'Mara has educated me that I think the intent would be to bill at zero, but I think technically there would be a one at the last digit. It would just get billed at zero. The other thing I wanted to point out to you all, because this may have gotten lost on Tuesday, is the one thing you can't do beyond the 29th is go up on your tax rate. If you all are not ready to make a decision tonight, and I'm not trying to comprehend this on this, but if you're not ready to make a decision tonight, one of the things you could do is you could go ahead and adopt whatever your streetlight rate would normally be. and if you're not ready to make a decision on all of this together, you can make a decision later on this year to do some sort of, if you're going to eliminate it, you could eliminate it, or you could do some sort of rollback, and that's perfectly appropriate. We would just end up giving people refunds. So I just want to make sure you all are aware of that particular option. I don't know if the majority of you are ready to make a decision on this tonight or not, but that is an option. You could go ahead. What you need to do by the 29th is you need to establish your billed tax rates. If you decided in October or November or the next week that you did not want that to be your rate, you could take a subsequent decision that would just involve giving people money back at some point in time. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Beard. Councilman Massadi. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, David, for the information. I'm not sure anybody likes the position they're in today about trying to make the decision of where you raise either franchise fees or you raise property taxes. I will tell you, all of us are very fortunate that sit up here, own homes. I deal with people every day that don't own homes, that try to purchase homes and can't. And when you hit a franchise fee increase, those people feel it real, real hard. And as Council Member Ford said, that we all pay for school taxes, whether we have children in school or not. Also, I deal with people every day that are from different locations and come to Lexington and can't believe the services that we get for what we pay in taxes. They're amazed. Street cleaning, sidewalks, parks, public safety, you could go on and on. So I think we're very fortunate that we do pay what we do pay, and we need to recognize that we do have to pay cost of services for what we receive. I don't think just putting a franchise fee on a certain segment is the answer. I think we need to be more equitable in our distribution of taxes. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Massati. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. O'Mara, do you happen to have with you your map that has the inside the urban service boundary, the neighborhoods that do not have streetlights? I think you had it separate. Oh, great. Okay. Now, are you able to speak to, it looks to me like some of the white area to the east is in the expansion area perhaps and would automatically be added, streetlights would automatically be added. I'm not. You're not the person to comment. Okay. Is anyone from planning here? They were earlier. I'm not sure they're here now. Do you know Commissioner Paulson? My feeling is that no, a lot of things aren't equitable and fair, but it's our duty to make them as fair as possible when we can and when we have a choice. and all these white areas are areas without streetlights. And I do not know if they do automatically get streetlights or if they have to vote, and unfortunately I let Bill Sally go home. That's okay. See how long Tuesday. I think when we do new development, we automatically put them in, but we haven't been able to afford them lately. But some of these white areas are not new development. So my point is a little bit different from Council Member Farmer's point. Yes, I believe people do drive up and down Nicholasville Road, Richmond Road, Main Street, all those arterials, and everybody benefits. Everyone does not drive up and down Culpeper Road or Beechmont Road or some of the other roads where neighborhoods are. And those people who are in a neighborhood that doesn't benefit the whole community with streetlights, those people need to be assured that if they pay a franchise fee, they will be able to get streetlights if they want them in their neighborhood. This is where I see the 100% franchise fee, if that's what's going to be proposed, as inequitable. It will not, unless we raise it high enough to put in streetlights everywhere people want them, yes, everywhere people want them, it will not be fair. I think that's a problem for us. And the beauty of the hybrid was, or is, that we would not raise the property tax. the neighborhoods that vote and want streetlights would get them, and the franchise fee would pay for the common good areas that everybody benefits from. It actually is, I don't know how better to say that I think it's a beautiful blend of both. And actually, Council Member Stenet, I think you made the argument for me when you talked about people benefiting from streetlights. People who go deep into neighborhoods are the people mostly who live there or visit a friend. They're not the people who are driving through there every day and benefiting from those streetlights. And so I'm still convinced that a hybrid would be the most fair thing for our citizens, and it would spread the burden, and it would allow those neighborhoods who want streetlights to get them and those common areas to be paid for by the franchise fee. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Lane, I believe this is your second. Looks like everybody's on the second round. Thank you, Mayor Gray. I wanted to go back to something that Council Member Clark said about only the homeowners are paying the taxes because I think what he stated may have been misinterpreted by me and maybe some of the other people listening, but every property in Fayette County has taxes on it with some exceptions. That's like government buildings, churches, and maybe state property. But every building has taxes on it. So if a person has an office in an office building or in a shopping center or an industrial park under the terms of their leasing the property. They're not actually paying their taxes, except under the terms of their lease agreement. It says they would pay their pro rata share of taxes, insurance, maintenance, and utilities, et cetera. And so the bottom line, they are paying their taxes. That is also true for somebody who's renting an apartment because the owner of the apartment building ends up paying all the taxes, and the rent that the tenant is paying for a short-term lease or a year or five years or whatever is going to include the taxes that are being paid. So the inference that we're unfairly taxing people because we're asking them to pay for the lights in our neighborhood I think is not a good, solid argument. And I also concur with the vice mayor that we need a plan that is fair to everybody, And I just can't say that it's fair for people that live in neighborhoods that don't have streetlights that they have to pay the same rate as the people who do have streetlights, because we have set a precedent that's gone over 30 years that if you get a streetlight in your neighborhood, you pay an additional tax for that. And I think we need to stick with that. But I believe the way we compromised of increasing the franchise fee to pay for some of the common areas that are being lighted and therefore not raising the rate on the individual property owners is about as good a plan as we can come up with. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Stennett, just to take sort of a check on where we are. We are on the second round, which our council rules typically, or our council rules on debate allow for. This is an important issue, so we'll see where it goes. This is Mr. Stennett. I can't think of any more important issue than spending money. That's right. There we go. You know, let us not forget how we got here tonight. Our street light fund is bankrupt. For years, the councils and mayors have set up here and not monitored that fund. It has not kept up with their utility rates that have risen 6% to 8% on electric alone. That's why we're here today. We do not have a current mechanism to keep up with those rate increases. We're also here today because not everyone pays property tax. The old government here, we don't pay for streetlights. We don't pay the property tax. UK doesn't. Schools, churches don't pay for the property tax. Our property tax fund is bankrupt. The good news about, once again, about tonight is we're trying to fix it. At the end of the day, whether we decide property tax, a hybrid model, or a franchise fee model, or some other model that we may talk about in two weeks, at the end of the day, the renter still will pay it in form of rent, and Councilman Lane just alluded to that. It's built in leases. It's built into the rent. The property owners will still pay it. If they have to pay the franchise fee, they'll pass it on to the renter. Everyone's still going to pay it. The question is, if we can put the other chart back up there, is how much or extra are they going to have to pay? And without a doubt, abolishing the property tax in a franchise fee system, either it be 1%, 1.8 or 2%, whatever it ends up being, is the cheapest increase. The cheapest increase. That's what we're talking about. But regardless of what option we go with, the renters are still going to pay it in the form of rent. It's going to be built in. You think the landlord and property owners are not going to recoup that somehow? And I'll tell you what, having a property tax deduction, if you're in business or if you're a homeowner, is overrated if you're given the chance you don't have to pay it at all. Because you only get a portion of that tax deduction back. Let me tell you, you don't get 100% of that back. That's overrated to say that's the advantage of having a property tax. You can deduct it from your taxes. I'd rather not pay it at all. I'd rather pay less as the franchise fee gives us that option. Paying less at the end of the day to fix our problem for all citizens is the key tonight. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Denny. Mr. Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to do a commentary based on what the law department had said. Mr. Barbary, were you saying in order for this to be a correct motion that this needed to be points or answer? If you want the streetlight rate to still exist, it technically needs to be .000401, and it would be billed at nothing. Okay. I just think that I need to make that part of the current motion, and I would ask if the seconder would accept that. Okay, so that we're debating a motion to make it .00001, okay? So that makes that right on that end. Procedurally, does that do it? I think he just needs to make a motion to do that, and if you all want to debate it, fine. I was just making it as an amendment. to make an amendment. Correction? Correction? Is that permissible? Yeah, sure. Great. Does everyone agree to that? Are we going to vote on that? I mean, I think it's just germane to the situation. All right, then what was your second point, Mr. Barbary? The second point, I just want to make you all realize the timing of all of this, the way it works. What you have to do by August 29th, you have to set the tax rates. However, you can make a subsequent decision at a later point in time, should you choose to reduce a tax, you're just going to have to do it. You would just end up giving people refunds. You would do some sort of rollback, or if you eliminate it altogether, you'd eliminate the tax and give them all the money back. But the mechanism you do would just be differently. But you have, as one of your options potentially, you could make your decision on the streetlight tax tonight, and if that decision was, for instance, to keep it the way it is now, if that's the overall decision, you still would have a chance to revisit this as a part of a discussion on how you want to do the streetlight funding going forward. And one of those options would be to reduce the tax at that point in time and give people rebates. I just, in my looking at it and having done this before and knowing what the sequence of events is, I figured if we didn't make this change in this way tonight, we wouldn't have the opportunity. He's describing another critical path. I still want to stick with this motion at this time to see what the value of the council is. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Farmer. Council Member Clark. Thank you, Mayor. I want to agree with the Vice Mayor that I think it would be unfair not to provide streetlights for everyone. I agree with that 100 percent, but I will remind everyone that if we eliminate the property tax and streetlights and increase the franchise fee to at least 4.8, maybe no more, that's a question that will come up later but not now, that would pay for the streetlights that we are obligated to put in because my understanding, and maybe Commissioner Romero would disagree, but I think we got that from him that we need about 500 new streetlights. And at $800 apiece, approximately, that's $400,000. With an increase in the franchise fee of at least 4.8, that would give us $1.1 million surplus. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Kay. Thank you, Mayor. Just a first kind of observation. I would have thought that if Councilmember Lane and I could agree on a funding situation that everybody else ought to kind of line up with that. But that having been said, I just really want to point out one thing seriously, and that is the rate we have before us represents the hybrid model. It does not raise property taxes. The proposal before us does not raise property taxes. It holds them just where they are. It does not increase anybody's property tax on that particular item. It holds it constant. And then it asks us to get the revenue that we forego from taking a raise from the franchise fee. That's what makes it a hybrid model. And in my mind, that makes it fair, or at least more fair. So just to be clear, and I can't resist saying one other thing, and that is the whole question of how we fund government is fundamentally based on a proposition that we have a progressive tax system and that the people who have more and who own more and who make more pay more so that we can have the kind of government we want. That's the underlying basic premise of how we operate government. It allows us to do what we need to do. So there is, in a sense, there is an inequity in terms of who pays and how much people pay and so on and so on. that's what we've decided to do, and that is true at the local level, at the state level, at the national level. That's how government works. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman O'Keefe. Councilman Ford. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner O'Meara, if you could come forward, please, sir. And as he comes, I stepped out of the room briefly, and I think I just want to confirm. So we've tabled the first reading of ordinances, number 18 and number 19, as they pertain to the franchise fee increase. No. We have not. No. We have a motion to amend 17, right? Yes, correct. Right. Motion to amend 17. So I'm glad I asked that question. I'm glad I asked it publicly. Sorry about that. With that being said, I simply want to state what Council Member K said, that this is not a property tax increase, what we agreed on. And it still pertains to this, though, and I'm glad that we're not tabling 18 and 19. What is the deficit? Mayor Gray came in office, as I did a couple of years ago, and he talked about having structurally balanced finances. And as Council Member Stenet mentioned, this fund, the streetlight fund, is not healthy, and it is structurally imbalanced. just using the past fiscal year as a reference. What is the amount of that imbalance? What have we had? We've had to supplant this fund. We've had to, is it $2.5 million? We transferred $2.5 million from the general fund in FY13. we went and analyzed the fund using unaudited numbers. And the actual deficit was $1.5 million, but that was without any capital. So if you put in a $300,000 per year, which is kind of the new addition average, that would be a $1.8 million. And then we see that it would basically grow. the deficit would grow about $200,000 a year going forward. We projected out for 10 years based on some escalation assumptions. Okay. And then that still does not address the $500,000 backlog, which is about a $400,000 capital spend that's needed in order to catch up with all those people who have petitioned and been agreed to be added. Okay. I think I get that. But in late terms, so we pay for streetlights primarily by two funding sources. Avalon taxes that remain flat. What we have on the docket right now is the same tax rate for streetlights as it was last year. And right now the franchise fee is 3% as it stands right now. And we came into tonight's meeting with keeping the Avalon tax flat and increasing the franchise fee by 1%, a discussion that goes all the way back to the beginning of the budget cycle. this spring. To me, it seems if we were to roll back, and that's what it would be doing, eliminate, if we were to roll back this property tax, we've gone in the opposite direction from making this fund healthy. If we eliminate this funding source today, we're going to have to increase another funding source substantially. That's correct. what Vice Mayor Gordon brought us with the hybrid may not be perfect it's a good balance for where we're going and just the last comment I'll make I still got 60 seconds but the last comment I'll make is that's just not logical to me for tonight's action for us to widen the gap structurally in the health of this streetlight fund. At bare minimum, we ought to be prepared to do what we came to do tonight, which was to pass the hybrid by keeping the property tax flat and considering a small increase in the franchise fee. But I don't feel comfortable taking a vote tonight that when we walk out the door, we've actually widened the gap needed to sustain streetlights. Mayor, I'll vote against the motion. Thank you, sir. All right. Thank you, Council Member Ford. All right. Mr. Lane has signaled that he wishes to speak for the third time for less than one minute. I'll make this brief, Mayor. Thank you. I feel it's important that we do discuss this issue because it's very important. Here, in closing, I just wanted to throw this idea out. If we raise the franchise fee tax, we do away with the streetlight tax, and we allow any property owner in Fayette County who wants to have streetlights to get them, then we have really lost control of our expenses because we do not set the utility costs. The Public Service Commission sets those. We put more homes with streetlights in them, and then the rates go up all of a sudden. and we're going to have a skyrocketing inflationary situation for our budget. And I think we do need to consider that aspect of it, the long-term impact. And I feel like the hybrid approach is a better safeguard against escalating costs in the future. And I would close by just saying that Columbia Gas asked for a 17.75 percent increase on May 20th. 20th. Delta National Gas asked for one for 6.5. Clark Energy asked for one for 4.6. Kentucky American, 17.6. And Kentucky Utilities just got an increase of 5.6 percent. So we already see inflation pressure on the utility costs. Thank you, Mr. Lund. You promised one minute. Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. It looks Looks like this is we are now ready to call the question and take the vote. All right. You all know what we're voting on? Everybody know what we're voting? We're voting on the amendment, Council Member Farmer's amendment. We had a healthy discussion. All in favor, it looks like, yep, there we go. All in favor, please vote electronically yes and against nay, no. All right. All right. It looks like the motion. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. Gracious, gracious, very gracious, sir. All right. The motion fails. Yes. All right. Madam Clerk, we're back to reading of the ordinances. Oh, yeah. At some point in time after the conclusion of the reading of the ordinances, if we get that far without any other amendments, I know that Mr. Bill Wheeler has come all the way down to his former, after we get through, Bill. Just a minute, just a minute. I'll introduce you for just a minute. So, Meredith, go ahead, please. Yes, you're going to go ahead, please, and finish the reading of the ordinances, and then we'll let Mr. Wheeler speak because he wishes to speak to this issue. Yes, sir. An ordinance levying ad valorem taxes for municipal purposes for the fiscal year July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014 on the assessed value of all taxable property within the taxing jurisdictions of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government, all taxes on each $100 of assessed valuation as of the January 1, 2013 assessment date, as follows. General Services District, $0.0800 on real property, including real property of public service companies, $0.0990 on personal property, including personal property of public service companies, non-commercial aircraft and non-commercial watercraft, $0.1500 on insurance capital, $0.0150 on tobacco in storage, and $0.0450 on agricultural products in storage, full urban or partial urban services districts based on urban services available on real property, including real property of public service companies, $0.1431 for refuse collection, $0.0210 for street lights, $0.0097 for street cleaning, $0.0920 on insurance capital, $0.0150 on tobacco and storage, $0.0450 on agricultural products and storage, and levying an ad valorem tax for municipal purposes at the rate of $0.0880 on each $100 of assessed value on all motor vehicles and watercraft within the taxing jurisdiction of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government as of the January 1, 2014 assessment date. Ordinance No. 18 and ordinance amending Ordinance No. 35-2013 and the franchise agreements with Kentucky Utilities Company, Inc., Bluegrass Energy Cooperative Corporation, and Clark Energy Cooperative, Inc. to increase the franchise fees for each utility from 3% to 4% of gross revenues effective October 1, 2013. And number 19, amending Ordinance No. 34, 2013, and the franchise agreements with Columbia Gas of Kentucky, Inc. and Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc. to increase the franchise fees for each utility from 3% to 4% of gross revenues effective October 1, 2013. Thank you, Madam Clerk. All right, before we ask for a motion on ordinances and for walk-ons, I'll ask for Mr. Wheeler. Bill, if you want to come to the podium, he wishes to speak to this, and we know that you were here. You've been in this building and this government. You were here and retired. You were here for a long time, and so you didn't come down here just for the social hour. Is that right? You came to speak about something. You are correct. Yes, sir. Okay. And tell the audience and everybody, remind us of your role here and why this issue is important to you. I'm Bill Wheeler with residence on Jessalyn Drive. Thank you for offering this opportunity to me. I want to speak, the main topic would be charter and violations. Now, I assume that each of you, before you took office, gave a very thorough reading of the charter for the purpose of understanding it. If you did, you'll understand why I am going to explain some things to you. First, though, I want to say when I learned of the plan to increase the, what do you call it, the franchise agreement tax, I was going to speak to you on behalf of taxpayers and tell you that that's not the thing to do. You should not increase taxes now. Taxpayers, homeowners, are in the process of receiving increases in their utility bills. Those are underway in Frankfurt. And you know how that works. The utility company gives the Frankfurt Board a dollar amount that they want. The Frankfurt Board deliberates for maybe months. Then they finally give them approximately half of what they asked for. But don't be fooled. When they asked for what they said, they really knew they were only going to get half. So it all becomes a game. But with that aside, when I learned that that franchise agreement tax was going to pay for streetlights, I then became more alarmed than I would have otherwise. According to the charter, you can't do that. You can't raise money in the general fund and give it to the urban services fund. When our charter formers, people who form the charter, and they work for maybe a year to do it after it was known that the governments were going to merge, Part of the charter says... Yes, sir. Try one more minute, Bill, and help us with what you want to say. Well, I'll wrap this up then. I'm sorry. I can't tell you what you need to know, seriously. The charter says that it prohibits, this is Section 8.04, prohibits the transfer of funds from one district appropriation to another. That means from the general services district to the urban services district. You can't do that unless you want to violate the charter. Now, there are some violations that have been done in the past, and they're still current. They should not have been done, but you don't need to add to it. So I suggest that you better go back to ground zero and study what you're planning to do. Certainly the Charter should have integrity. I don't believe anyone in here would disagree with that. but you are destroying the Charter's integrity if you violate it. Now, I'm going to leave with your clerk a copy of the letter that I wrote several years ago on this same subject, and it has the details of what I was telling you. So I hope each of you will get a copy of that and read it and study it. and then in the words of Dr. Laura Schlesinger, go do the right thing. Thank you, sir. Bill, we appreciate you being with us tonight and sharing that with us. And I will say that since you were here, there's a number of lawyers been added to try to keep us straight with that charter. and I believe they've worked to examine this. But we always appreciate your point of view. Thank you, sir. All right. Are there any motions for walk-ons or Council Member Akers? Thank you, Mayor. I would like to suspend the rules and request second reading for Ordinance No. 7, please. All right. We have a motion on No. 7. Is there a second? Second. Second by Council Member Allinger. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Are there any more or additional motions or suspensions? All right. Hearing none, then, is there a motion? We'll need to give that second reading. Oh, yes. Thank you, Meredith. Please give us a second read on number 7. Ordinance number 7 and ordinance amending Articles 8 and 23A of the Zoning Ordinance to permit mobile food unit vendors as accessory uses in the wholesale and warehouse business B4, light industrial and heavy industrial I1 and I2, and economic development ED zones, Urban County Council. Motion approved. Thank you, Council Member Ellinger. Motion to approve. Second by Council Member Akers. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then, Madam Clerk, whenever you're ready, please call the roll. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Kay? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Ms. Mazzotti? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Ms. Scutchfield? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Akers? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Clark? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? Yes. And Ms. Gordon? Aye. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The vote reflects the passage of the motion, which allows us to move on to resolutions for first reading whenever you're ready. Resolution number one, a resolution accepting the bids of Colcruth Roofing and Sheet Metal Incorporated and Pierce Blackburn Roofing, LLC, establishing price contracts for roof repairs and maintenance for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number two, a resolution accepting the bid of ZKB Services, LLC, establishing a price contract for sidewalk ramp installation for the Division of Engineering and authorizing the mayor to execute any related agreement. Number three, a resolution accepting the bid of Gulls, LLC, establishing a price contract for soft body armor for the Division of Police. Number four, a resolution accepting the bid of Bluegrass Contracting Corporation in the amount of $3,310,582.35 for the Clays Mill Road Improvement Project Section 2B for the Division of Engineering and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Bluegrass Contracting Corporation related to the bid. Number five, a resolution authorizing the Division of Human Resources to make a conditional offer to the following probationary civil service appointments. Referee Cooper, Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N, 12.770 hourly in the Division of Waste Management. Melissa Bowman, Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N, 13.025 hourly in the Division of Waste Management. Keith Thomas, Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N, 16.354 hourly in the Division of Waste Management. Rodney Harris, Electrical Instrumentation Technician, Grade 113N, 25.672 hourly in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Robert Nichols, Electrical Instrumentation Technician, Grade 113N, 22.239 hourly in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Lindsay Wright, Telecommunicator Senior, Grade 113N, 16.767 hourly in the Division of Police. Margaret Walsh, Telecommunicator Senior, Grade 113N, 16.67 hourly in the Division of Police. Brian Mongelbon, Environmental Inspector, Grade 113N, 21.482 hourly in the Division of Water Quality, all effective upon passage of counsel. Brian McLaughlin, Project Manager, Grade 114E, 1,820.64 biweekly in the Division of Water Quality, effective August 19, 2013. Alan Morgan, Safety Specialist, Grade 115E, 1,772.08 biweekly in the Division of Waste Management, effective upon passage of council. Authorizing the Division of Human Resources to make a conditional offer to the following unclassified civil service appointments. Lori Henry, Staff Assistant Senior, Grade 108N, 17.500 hourly in the Division of Water Quality. Lauren Bennett, Administrative Officer, part-time, Grade 118E, 932.40 biweekly in the Division of Waste Management, all effective upon passage of council. Council Member Massadi has a question. Yes, I have a question on number six. Commissioner Graham, if you wouldn't mind coming to the podium, please. I'm sorry. Who was it? Council Member Massadi, you asked for. Commissioner Graham, but I think. Janet's not here. I'm glad it is. Yes. How are you, Commissioner? Can you, since I didn't attend the workshop in 2012, October, I guess the HL workshop, Can you explain to me a little bit about this? I'm a little confused in reference to the HR positions, please. As to? Well, are these new positions being created? Are they reorganized? It's not a reclassification. It is not a reclassification. Is that a reorganization? Is that what it is? Are these positions all, they were advertised, and these people were the only people that, I can't think of the word, applied for the positions. Is that correct or not? No, that is not correct. These positions were advertised. If you will recall, I think back in 2012, the council had passed a resolution which did allow us to do internal-only advertisement for positions, and some of these were advertised internal only, but these weren't single incumbent. Not all of these were single applicant positions. And they're not considered reclassifications either? These are not reclassifications. These are all promotions. So everyone in that whole department got promoted? No. Or were all these people that are on the docket? These people who were on the docket were promoted, and then the director is a new hire. Okay. Thank you. Linda, thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Council Member Sadi. Madam Clerk, when you're ready, please continue. Resolution number six, a resolution ratifying the probationary civil service appointments of Robert Thomas, public service worker senior, grade 107 N, 13.441 hourly in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management, effective August 12, 2013. Ernest Clark, Public Service Supervisor Senior, grade 114E, 100788.96 biweekly in the Division of Streets and Roads, effective upon passage of council. Tamara McMullen, Administrative Specialist, grade 110N, 17.457, hourly in the Division of Planning, effective August 5, 2013. Carl Lilly, Public Service Supervisor, grade 111N, 21.313, hourly in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management, effective August 12, 2013. Ricky Hall, Project Manager, Grade 114E, 1,778.64 biweekly in the Division of Water Quality, effective August 19, 2013. Kelly Lykes, Skilled Trades Worker, Grade 111N, 15.818 hourly in the Division of Community Corrections, effective August 26, 2013. John Saylor, Arborist Sr., Grade 115E, 1,877.20 biweekly in the Division of Environmental Policy, effective August 29, 2013. Ratifying the permanent civil service appointments of Alicia Smith, Administrative Specialist Senior, Grade 112N, in the Division of Human Resources, effective December 18, 2012. Mary Lyle, Human Resources Manager, Grade 119E, in the Division of Human Resources, effective October 16, 2012. Ashley Case, Human Resources Manager, Grade 119E, in the Division of Human Resources, effective January 2, 2013. John Maxwell, Director Human Resources, Grade 123E, in the Division of Human Resources, effective January 9, 2013. Tamara Walters, Deputy Director, Human Resources, Grade 122E, in the Division of Human Resources, effective February 13, 2013. Kina Suarez, Administrative Specialist, Senior, Grade 112N, in the Division of Human Resources, effective March 3, 2013. Margaret Nesmit, Human Resources Generalist, Grade 118E, in the Division of Human Resources, effective May 29, 2013. Daryl Doty, Police Analyst, Grade 111N, in the Division of Police, effective June 3, 2013. Stephen Drosick, Engineering Technician, Grade 111N, in the Division of Engineering, effective August 4, 2013. Joy Thomas, Custodial Worker, Grade 102N, in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management, effective August 19, 2013. Ratifying the probationary sworn appointments of Lisa Farmer and Hunter Hershey, Community Corrections Lieutenant, Grade 114E, 2143.21 biweekly, in the Division of Community Corrections, effective July 15, 2013. Ratifying the permanent sworn appointments of Rahsaan Berry, Police Sergeant, Grade 315 and in the Division of Police, effective June 10, 2013 Chase Allen, Jeffrey Brangers, Kendall Buford Wesley Farley, Benjamin Fielder, Nicole Gibson, Cliff Godbold Robert Holland, Stephanie McClain, Jason Mitchell, Meredith Myers Benjamin Riggs, Mary Schaffner, Kelly Shortridge Robert Sennett, Roman Sorrell, Anthony Sullivan Philip Toms, Brian Weir, Brian White, Ronald Willis and Alejandro Saguel, Police Officer, Grade 311N, in the Division of Police, effective July 3, 2013. Ratifying the approved council leave for William Duncan, Vehicle and Equipment Technician, Grade 112N, in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management, beginning July 30, 2013 through October 30, 2013. Resolution number seven. A resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute alarm agreement and addendum with Sonotrol of Lexington Incorporated for installation and activation of alarm system at 1795 Old Frankfurt Pike at a cost not to exceed $1,508. Number eight, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with the Fayette County Board of Education for use of Henry Clay High School track for the Hershey track meet at a cost not to exceed $174. Number nine, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a memorandum of understanding with the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Department for Public Health, Office of Vital Statistics, for the exchange of information contained in vital records. Number 10, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an amendment to agreement with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for extension of the Share the Road Media Campaign Project through June 30, 2014, at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 11, a resolution amending Resolution No. 334-2013, accepting the bid of Leak Eliminators, LLC, and establishing a price contract for sanitary sewer rehabilitation to authorize the mayor to sign an agreement related to the bid on behalf of the government. Number 12, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to accept a donation from Lexington Fayette County Health Department of two televisions for use at the William Wells Brown Community Center on behalf of the Bluegrass Aspendale Teen Center at no cost to the urban county government. Number 13, a resolution changing the property address numbers of 207 to 209 East 7th Street to 207 East 7th Street, of 1391 West Main Street to 1389 West Main Street, and of 6784 Old Richmond Road to 6398 Old Richmond Road, and changing the street name and property address number of 2200 Inglewood Circle to 3929 Pepper Tree Drive, all effective 30 days from passage. Number 14, a resolution declaring a surplus and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government to execute deeds and any other necessary documents for the sale and transfer of property located at 426 and 430 Smith Street. Number 15, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute change order number one to the contract with Calkruth Roofing and Sheet Metal for roof repair for the Senior Citizens Center, decreasing the contract price by the sum of $3,945 from $55,989 to $52,044. Number 16, a resolution authorizing and directing the Division of Parks and Recreation on behalf of the urban county government to negotiate the possible purchase of a 14-acre parcel of land surrounded by Raven Run Sanctuary. Number 17, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irving County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the Kentucky Division of Waste Management to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application and to accept this grant if the application is approved, which grant funds are in the amount of $3,000 Commonwealth of Kentucky funds and are for disposal or recycling of waste tires, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Irving County Government for the expenditure of funds and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 18, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with the Fayette County Commonwealth Attorney's Office for a fast-track prosecutor for the street sales drug enforcement project at a cost not to exceed $59,920. Number 19, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a purchase of services agreement with Roots and Heritage Festival, Inc. for the 2013 Roots and Heritage Festival at a cost not to exceed $35,415 and additional in-kind services. Number 20, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute Amendment No. 6 to the agreement to manage the Kentucky Theater with Kentucky Theater Management Group, Inc., extending the term for one year through October 31, 2014. Number 21, a resolution authorizing the Division of Emergency Management, 9-1-1, to obtain support services for its emergency notification system from Dialogic Communications Corporation, DCC, doing business as Kassidian Communications, a sole source provider, at a cost not to exceed $31,330, and authorizing the mayor to execute any necessary documents. Number 22, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an amendment to agreement with New Star Incorporated to provide access to the Number Portability Administration Center in support of enhanced 911 services for an additional period of up to three years at a cost not to exceed $3,200 in fiscal year 2014. Number 23, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a memorandum of agreement with Kentucky Community and Technical College Systems, Bluegrass Community and Technical College for internship with the Division of Police. Number 24, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute change order number one, final, to the contract with Todd Johnson contracting for the Roland Avenue Stream Bank Stabilization Project, increasing the contract price by the sum of $26,428.96 from $184,631.05 to $211,060.01. Number 25, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an amendment to lease agreement with Winmar Corporation for additional office space at 125 Lyle Industrial Road for the Division of Water Quality at a cost not to exceed $371,505.21 for the entire lease for fiscal year 14. Number 26, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a purchase of service agreement and a lease agreement with Lexington Fayette Animal Care and Control LLC for animal control services at a cost not to exceed $1,105,980. Number 27, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Group CJ LLC for the Mobility Office Marketing Campaign for fiscal year 2014 at a cost not to exceed $44,400. Number 28, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, which grant funds are in the amount of $300,000 federal funds, are for implementation of the Wolf Run Watershed-Based Plan, the acceptance of which obligates the urban county government for the expenditure of $200,000 as a local match, and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 29, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irma County Government to execute certificates of consideration and any other necessary documents and to accept deeds for property interests needed for the Walhampton Stormwater Improvements Project at a cost not to exceed $410,000. Number 30, a resolution rescinding Resolution No. 190-2013, which accepted the bid of MCM Demolition Incorporated and accepting the bid of PACE Contracting for Secondary Digester Blend Tank Damaged Cover Demolition and Removal in the amount of $30,000 for the Division of Water Quality. Number 31, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute Change Order No. 4 to the contract with Triton Services, Inc. for HVAC and piping repair for the Phoenix Building, increasing the contract price by the sum of $6,801 from $234,570 to $241,371. Number 32, a resolution of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Council requesting that the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority issue revenue bonds in an amount of up to $158,195,000, the proceeds of which will be loaned to Catholic Health Initiatives, Inc., to provide financing for all or a part of the cost of the acquisition, construction, installation, and equipping of capital projects for health care facilities and related improvements and expenditures. Number 33, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute change order number two to the engineering services agreement with Hazen and Sawyer PSC for sanitary sewer assessment reports and sanitary sewer and WWTP remedial measures plans for consent decree implementation, increasing the contract price by the sum of $1,444,145.95 from $3,500,000 to $4,944,145.95. since. Number 34, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a quick claim deed and any other documents necessary, transferring a portion of non-utilized right-of-way located at 1324 Camden Avenue to the abutting property owner. Number 35, a resolution establishing a residential parking permit program for the 200 block of the south side of Miller Street from addresses 220 to 240, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and waiving the provisions related to the mechanics of designating residential parking permit areas adopted by Resolution No. 168-90 and amended by Resolution No. 450-91 and 433-2006. Number 36, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute agreements with Martin Luther King Neighborhood Association Incorporated, $250, and Easton Reunion Care of Inner Youth Development Incorporated, $250 for the Office of the Urban County Council at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. Number 37, declaration of official intent with respect to reimbursement of temporary advances made for capital expenditures to be made from subsequent borrowings. Number 38, a resolution approving the Fayette County Sheriff's Settlement 2012 taxes for taxes collected as of April 15, 2013, and granting the Sheriff equitus. Number 39, a resolution authorizing and directing the Division of Traffic Engineering pursuant to Code of Ordinances Section 1886 to install multi-way stop controls at the intersection of Clearwater Way and Ridgeway Road. And number 40, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Lazy 8 Stock Farm to provide fresh produce, meat, and other related items at the government center as a part of a pilot program. All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Are there any motions? Are there any motions for walk-ons? Council Member Ford, Council Member Hanson. Oh, that's a lot of. Okay. Council Member Ford. Mayor, I have a motion to suspend the rules and give a second reading if that's appropriate right now. No, which one? Mr. Spelt, yes, sir. Mayor, I have three resolutions, number 19, number 35, and number 36. Number 19 pertains to the Roots and Heritage Festival, scheduled to begin in a few weeks. Resolution 35 is the residential parking permit program at Miller Street to expedite that process, and number 36 are NDFs, so moved. Second. All right, we have a motion. We have a second. on 1935 and 36 all right all right is there any discussion oh all right hearing none we can take a vote all in favor please say aye opposed no motion carries councilmember henson thank you mayor item um if i could get second reading for number 11 at request of uh the administration and there had been an error in this one, and it didn't move forward when it should have because of the error. All right. Second. Thank you. Motion by Council Member Henson. Second by Vice Mayor Gordon. 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. Council Member Farmer. No. Wait a minute. Beard. I lost it there. Councilor Beard. Thank you, Mayor. I move to suspend the rules and request a second reading on number 32. The reason being it's the St. Joseph Catholic Health Initiatives situation that they would like to go ahead and get those bonds on the road. Second. Thank you, sir. Motion by Council Member Beard on number 32, second 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. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. Mine is a motion to give a second reading to number 10. This was requested by the administration, but it allows us the opportunity to extend this extension of the Share the Road media campaign project into the new budget year so that we can spend the funds as provided by the state of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. So moved. Thank you. Motion on number 10 to suspend and get a second read on number 10 and a second by Vice Mayor Vorton. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member Lawless. I'd like to suspend the rules and give a second reading to number 34 so that they can move on with that project. Motion on number 34 for suspension and second reads by Council Member Lawless, second by Vice Mayor Gordon. 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. Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to move to suspend the rules and give second reading to number 40 so that we can get this pilot project going before the growing season is even further into the year. Motion by Council Member Kaye on number 40. Second by Council Member Lawless. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right, hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. Madam Clerk, whenever you're ready. Mayor, the administration had a request on number five. That's the conditional offers resolution for employees. All right. There's a request for a motion on the conditional offers on number five. Second. Motion by Council Member Ellinger. Second by Vice Mayor Gordon. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. Any more? Nope. All right. So, Meredith, whenever you're ready, you can give us those second reads. Resolution number five. A resolution authorizing the Division of Human Resources to make a conditional offer to the following probationary civil service appointments. Referee Cooper, Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N, 12.770 hourly in the Division of Waste Management. Melissa Bowman, Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N, 13.025 hourly in the Division of Waste Management. Keith Thomas, Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N, 16.354 hourly in the Division of Waste Management. Rodney Harris, Electrical Instrumentation Technician, Grade 113N, 25.672, hourly in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Robert Nichols, Electrical Instrumentation Technician, Grade 113N, 22.239, hourly in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Lindsey Wright, Telecommunicator Senior, Grade 113N, 16.767, hourly in the Division of Police. Margaret Walsh, Telecommunicator Senior, Grade 113N, 16.767, hourly in the Division of Police. Brian Moncobon, Environmental Inspector, Grade 113 and 21.482 hourly in the Division of Water Quality, all effective upon passage of council. Brian McLaughlin, Project Manager, Grade 114E, 100820.64 biweekly in the Division of Water Quality, effective August 19, 2013. Alan Morgan, Safety Specialist, Grade 114E, 1772.08 biweekly in the Division of Waste Management, effective upon passage of council. authorizing the Division of Human Resources to make a conditional offer to the following unclassified civil service appointments. Lori Henry, Staff Assistant Senior, Grade 108N, 17.500, hourly in the Division of Water Quality. Lauren Bennett, Administrative Officer, part-time, Grade 118E, 932.40, biweekly in the Division of Waste Management, all effective upon passage of council. Number 10. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an amendment to agreement with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for extension of the Share the Road Media Campaign Project through June 30, 2014 at no cost to the urban county government. Number 11 A resolution amending Resolution No. 334-2013 accepting the bid of Leak Eliminators, LLC, and establishing a prize contract for sanitary sewer rehabilitation to authorize the mayor to sign an agreement related to the bid on behalf of the government. Number 19. A resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a purchase of services agreement with Roots and Heritage Festival Incorporated for the 2013 Roots and Heritage Festival at a cost not to exceed $35,415 and additional in-kind services. Number 32. A resolution of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Council requesting that the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority issue revenue bonds in an amount of up to $158,195,000, the proceeds of which will be loaned to Catholic Health Initiatives Incorporated to provide financing for all or a part of the cost of the acquisition, construction, installation, and equipping of capital projects for health care facilities and related improvements and expenditures. Number 34. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a quick claim deed and any other documents necessary, transferring a portion of non-utilized right-of-way located at 1324 Camden Avenue to the abetting property owner. Number 35. A resolution establishing a residential parking permit program for the 200 block of the south side of Miller Street from address 220 to 240, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and waiving the provisions related to the mechanics of designating residential parking permit areas adopted by Resolution No. 16890 and amended by Resolution No. 45091 and 433-2006. No. 36, a resolution of authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute agreements with Martin Luther King Neighborhood Association Incorporated, $250, and East End Reunion Care of Inner Youth Development Incorporated, $250, for the Office of the Urban County Council at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. And number 40, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Lazy 8 Stock Farm to provide fresh produce, meat, and other related items at the Government Center as part of a pilot program. Meredith, thank you. We've got a motion by Council Member Henson and second by Vice Mayor Gordon. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then, Madam Clerk, whenever you're ready, please call the roll. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Kay? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Ms. Mazzotti? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Scutchfield? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Akers? Yes. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Clark? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? Yes. And Ms. Gordon? Aye. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. And next on the agenda is communications from the mayor. Move approval. There's a motion by Vice Mayor Gordon with a second by Councilmember Farmer to approve. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay. All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. The next are communications for information only. And next we do have, before public comment, just one thing. We have two disciplinary items that are before the council tonight, and Commander Weathers is here for a police disciplinary action. Actually, for two. Is that right? Yes, sir. All right, sir. All right. The first one I have is for a disciplinary matter that occurred on Wednesday, March 20, 2013. an allegation was made that Officer Ricky Land violated General Order 73-2H, Section 1.23, Use of Force. At the conclusion of the investigation, the employee met with Chief Ronnie Bastin and has accepted a 40-hour suspension without pay. Move approval. Second. Motion by Vice Mayor Gordon to approve. Second by Council Member Ellinger. 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. Commander? On the second one, on Sunday, April 28, 2013, an allegation was made that Officer Michael Jackson violated General Order 73-2H Operational Rules, Section 1.17, Processing Property. At the conclusion of the investigation, the employee met with Chief Ronnie Bastin and accepted a written reprimand. Move approval. Motion by Vice Mayor Wharton and second by Council Member Akers. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Did you have a question? You're okay. All right. Okay. Commander, thank you. All right. And next on our agenda is public comments. And we have several citizens who have signed up, fortunately, for public comment tonight. Thank you all for joining us. Mr. Wheeler has already spoken. Next, and Mr. Prentice has signed on to speak. Mr. Prentice may not be here still. Nope. All right. Okay. Hank Grady has already spoken. Mr. McCarthy. Is Bernard's going to? Oh, my goodness. Goodness. All right. Stephen Overstreet. Is Mr. Overstreet here? Yeah. Mayor, if I may, while he's coming to the microphone. Yes, sir. Go ahead. What would prohibit Mr. Wheeler from speaking during public comment? Oh, I didn't mean to say that. I said if he wishes to. If he wishes to. Oh, yeah, sure. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Yeah, yeah. He had signed up to speak earlier, and I gave him the chance to at the time of the, when we were in the discussion, but Bill is welcome to again if he wishes to. Thank you, sir. Yeah, and I'll maybe want him to know that. Mr. Overstreet. Thank you for having me. Yes, sir. If you'll just give your name, Stephen, one more time. and your address. Thank you, sir. My name is Stephen Overstreet, and I reside at 961 Waverly Drive. And I'm just here on behalf of pretty much the West End community or the Georgetown Street Neighborhood Association and the West End community. Douglas Park is becoming a scarce place for our children, and it's getting harder and harder to take our children there and have a real park experience in that place. And I just wanted to come and encourage this council to support more efforts, kind of like the one I'm doing in the park, just to deter the sale of drugs and the use of drugs and the violence that goes on in Douglas Park. This summer, I've been there every Saturday, excluding the Saturdays when there were other preceding things going on. But, you know, it helps just to have somebody there to occupy the place. And just by our occupation there has really cut down on the violence. And just by us showing up, that means the other people who don't, who aren't there on a positive level, they leave. And to see someone doing positive things in that park, it goes a long way to deter those people who are not doing positive things in that park from doing those things. And I just wanted to, you know, plead to this council to just continue to support things like our efforts and continue to, you know, believe in Douglas Park. And it can be fixed. It's not going to take that much. Thank you. Thanks. Mr. Overstreet, thank you. Diane Marshall. Ms. Marshall. Good evening. My name is Diane Marshall, and I am president of the Georgetown Street Area Neighborhood Association. And I'm here because I'm concerned about my area. We have elderly people that live in the area, and they are afraid to come out on their porch. I'm hoping that the council will take an interest in this, give us support, and I would like to have a meeting with the mayor, the vice mayor, our two council people, and the chief of police, and the commander, if that is all possible. And we can meet either here or at the O'Rear Center. Thank you. Thank you, Diane. Thank you, Ms. Marshall. Mr. Kenyon, welcome to a familiar face and voice like you, Ms. Marshall. Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Distinguished Council Members. My name is Henry Kenyon. I live at 467 Duggas Avenue. I'm currently the vice president of the Georgetown Street Area Neighborhood Association. We've been in business since 1988. I've only been affiliated since 1989. I'm here tonight because we have to come in and draw attention to what's going on in our neighborhoods. As you know, some of the older police officers retired, so therefore the young officers are well educated on what goes on in our neighborhood. Everyone calls everything that's bad Georgetown Street, but that's not true. It's a main street and we have filler streets and filler streets that we need to protect. We have a situation right now where The young officers need to be educated as to what's going on in our streets. We no longer have officers walking the beat. We only see officers speeding down our streets, but it's after the fact. We need more informational officers out there on the street, knocking on doors, talking to people, doing public service. This way, it would help all the neighbors now kind of look up to the police officers. right now we have a disparity going on with our youth. We need to grab them at the fourth grade, and I'm here to ask the city to maybe talk to our education boards and see if we can kind of grab these youngsters and have things for them to do because there's absolutely no money, and they look up to their peers who are out there doing illegal things. You know, if you see a guy with a nice, beautiful car, hey, I want that because I can't get a job. And unfortunately, these guys are illiterate, but they're really great when it comes to managing money. So what I'm here to ask today, if they could even look at some of our money woes, you know, look at community block grant fund money to kind of help programs, kind of tutor some of these people, because sending these young people to jail, because they started in the fourth grade of seeing all the bad things. So if we could get someone to kind of look into that, like the BGA, they have a great program to save our neighborhoods. So these are great, excellent stories, and funds are out there if we could only ask for them. So if we could get help, I'd appreciate everybody in the council. Come in my neighborhood, be seen, and come and visit us. We're glad to have you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, distinguished Council Members. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kenyon. Thank you. And that's all that's signed up for public comment, but Chris or Siobhan, you all might want to speak. Councilmember Ford, Councilmember Akers, because we did meet earlier in the week. And I know that Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Glenn Brown participated in our meeting as well. And we welcome this meeting that you all are talking about because we know that we just have to really press hard whenever issues like this emerge and when they have been over time. But Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. And I want to thank the Council for allowing our residents in the West End to come and speak with us. I'm Siobhan, Council Member Akers, and I, the 1st and 2nd District, proudly represent the folks along both sides of the Georgetown Street corridor in the West End. I do want to thank publicly Mayor Gray and Chief Bastin for their responsiveness in the last week. And I'm definitely confident that the requests and the invitations that's been extended to us tonight will be able to follow up as our schedule hopefully will quickly permit to get out and talk even further with the neighborhood. But I just wanted to – it's not a bad neighborhood at all. You know, Douglas Park, which has been there, Mr. Kenyon definitely is an outstanding historian in that area, has been out there almost 100 years, dedicated, the first outdoor park dedicated to African Americans in this community. And just a few days ago, as we always do, the back-to-school rallies, 19 sites across the city, but Douglas Park is always the fortunate site to welcome everybody. And so we can get it done. And I just appreciate the council's attention tonight and the residents for coming. And Council Member Acres' teamwork as well. Thanks, Mayor. Thanks, Council Member Ford. I also wanted to thank the residents for coming down tonight. As the mayor said, we did meet earlier this week with the chief to discuss these issues. and then we met for y'all's meeting Monday night as well with Commander Pape and Officer Watts. And I do hear you. I agree, like Mr. Kenyon says, if the younger officers don't have that historical knowledge that maybe we need to impart some of that and have a sit-down cup of coffee with you like you suggested at 3rd Street Stuff, maybe we could do something like that. But I also trust Chief Fasten and the work that the officers are doing in the area and stepping up patrols, and I will also gladly meet with you all. And I want to commend Stephen and his group, and I know Patricia Muhammad is also doing great things in the neighborhood, and there's a lot of events and activities for use that are really, I think, going to make a difference in the long run. And what we need to do is focus on the challenges today. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Rakers. Councilman Ford. Mayor, one more thing. I know it's time to go. So, again, while this is an issue, I know that has great support amongst all the council and all our neighborhoods across the city. I get long-winded, but I can summarize it in one word, and that word isn't crime. It's jobs, jobs, jobs. And as we get our strategies together, that would be a big help out there. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Ford. All right. That is all of those who have signed up, I think, have spoken. Thank you all very much for being here with us tonight. If there's nothing, is there nothing, we have a motion to adjourn by Council Member Stennett. Is there a second? Mayor, I have a motion to go in closed session. First, we'll get the adjournment. No, okay. Yeah, no. So we have a motion to go into closed session. So I'm sorry. If I can, read this. Council Member Stenet, yep. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. I move that we go into a closed session pursuant to KRS 61.8101C for the discussion relating to potential litigation in KRS 61.8101F for discussion relating to the appointment discipline or dismissal of individual employees. So moved. Motion by Council Member Ellinger. second by Council Member Scutchfield. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor of entering closed session, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Motion carries. So we will enter closed, council will enter closed session now. Now we're on. Is it on? Okay. Now, do I hear a motion to come out of closed session? All right. There's a motion in a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? We're in open session. Motion to adjourn. All those in favor, say aye. Anybody opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you so much.