# Urban County Council Work Session - August 20, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 20, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3091 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3091?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-08-20 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 27,312 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government held a meeting on August 20, 2013, at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the Government Center. Mayor Jim Gray presided over the session, which included 10 agenda items and resulted in 43 motions and votes. The council heard 7 public comments during the meeting, with opportunities for public input both on agenda items and on issues not listed on the agenda. Key actions taken included approval of a summary, budget amendments, new business items, and the mayor's report. The meeting also included informational presentations and reports from council members and continuing business discussions. ## Attendance **Present:** Linda Gorton, Chuck Ellinger, Steve Kay, Chris Ford, Shevawn Akers, Julian Beard, Bill Farmer, Kevin Stinnett, Jennifer Scutchfield, George Myers, Jennifer Mossotti, Harry Clarke, Peggy Henson, and Ed Lane. **Absent:** Diane Lawless. **Late:** None. ## Votes and Decisions **Ordinance 0845-13** — Approval of the Fayette County Sheriff's Settlement - 2012 Taxes, and granting the Sheriff a Quietus. Motion by Kevin Stinnett, seconded by Linda Gorton. **Passed unanimously.** [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Resolution 0846-13** — Reimbursement resolution for the FY2014 Bond projects. Motion by Kevin Stinnett, seconded by Jennifer Scutchfield. **Passed unanimously.** [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Ordinance 0845-13** — First reading without a public hearing. Motion by Ed Lane, seconded by Jennifer Scutchfield. **Passed unanimously.** [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Resolution 0849-13** — Authorization to execute an agreement with Lazy Eight Stock Farm for fresh produce, meat, and other related items at the Government Center. Motion by Steve Kay, seconded by Bill Farmer. **Passed unanimously.** [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Ordinance 0839-13** — First reading without a public hearing. Motion by Julian Beard, seconded by George Myers. **Passed 9-4 on roll call.** Voting in favor: Steve Kay, Peggy Henson, Julian Beard, George Myers, Linda Gorton, Harry Clarke, Jennifer Mossotti, Kevin Stinnett, Chris Ford. Voting against: Shevawn Akers, Chuck Ellinger, Bill Farmer, Jennifer Scutchfield. [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Approval of the docket.** Motion by Chuck Ellinger, seconded by George Myers. **Passed unanimously.** [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Ordinance 0846-13** — First reading without a public hearing. Motion by Chuck Ellinger, seconded by Bill Farmer. **Passed unanimously.** [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Authorization to install multi-way stop controls at Clearwater Way and Ridgewater Drive.** Motion by Julian Beard, seconded by George Myers. **Passed unanimously.** [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Approval of the summary.** Motion by Linda Gorton, seconded by Shevawn Akers. **Passed unanimously.** [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Approval of budget amendments.** Motion by Bill Farmer, seconded by Julian Beard. **Passed unanimously.** [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Approval of new business items, except item ee.** Motion by Linda Gorton, seconded by Chuck Ellinger. Voting in favor: Linda Gorton, Chuck Ellinger, Steve Kay, Chris Ford, Julian Beard, Kevin Stinnett, Jennifer Scutchfield, George Myers, Jennifer Mossotti, Harry Clarke, Peggy Henson. Voting against: Bill Farmer, Shevawn Akers. [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Correction of numerical error in item DD, changing from $144,145.95 to $1,444,145.95.** Motion by Linda Gorton, seconded by Chuck Ellinger. **Passed unanimously.** [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Tabling of item hh 0853-13** — Authorization to accept award of funds for the Local Food Coordinator to provide additional time to resolve grant funding issues. Motion by Steve Kay, seconded by Jennifer Mossotti. **Passed unanimously.** [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Approval of NDF.** Motion by Kevin Stinnett, seconded by Linda Gorton. **Passed unanimously.** [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Setting general services fund tax rates at option 1** (same as current rate). Motion by Linda Gorton, seconded by Kevin Stinnett. **Passed unanimously.** [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Setting health tax rate at 0.028** (same as current rate). Motion by Linda Gorton, seconded by Shevawn Akers. **Passed unanimously.** [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Setting conservation and soil rate at 0.0005.** Motion by Linda Gorton, seconded by Jennifer Mossotti. **Passed 9-5 on roll call.** Voting in favor: Steve Kay, Peggy Henson, Julian Beard, Bill Farmer, Linda Gorton, Jennifer Mossotti, Ed Lane, Kevin Stinnett, Chris Ford. Voting against: Shevawn Akers, Chuck Ellinger, George Myers, Harry Clarke, Jennifer Scutchfield. [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Setting extension real property rate at 0.0034.** Motion by Linda Gorton, seconded by Steve Kay. **Passed unanimously.** [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Setting extension personal property rate at 0.0038.** Motion by Linda Gorton, seconded by Steve Kay. **Passed unanimously.** [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Setting refuse collection rate to option 1** (prior rate with no increase). Motion by Bill Farmer, seconded by Kevin Stinnett. **Passed unanimously.** [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Setting street cleaning rate at option 1** (amended to option 4). Motion by Bill Farmer, seconded by Jennifer Scutchfield. **Passed 8-6 on roll call.** Voting in favor: Steve Kay, Peggy Henson, Julian Beard, Shevawn Akers, Linda Gorton, Jennifer Mossotti, Ed Lane, Chris Ford. Voting against: Chuck Ellinger, George Myers, Bill Farmer, Harry Clarke, Kevin Stinnett, Jennifer Scutchfield. [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Amending street cleaning rate to 0.0097** (option 4). Motion by Ed Lane, seconded by Jennifer Mossotti. **Passed 8-6 on roll call.** Voting in favor: Steve Kay, Peggy Henson, Julian Beard, Shevawn Akers, Linda Gorton, Jennifer Mossotti, Ed Lane, Chris Ford. Voting against: Chuck Ellinger, George Myers, Bill Farmer, Harry Clarke, Kevin Stinnett, Jennifer Scutchfield. [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Setting insurance rate at 0.092.** Motion by Bill Farmer, seconded by Steve Kay. **Passed unanimously.** [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Amending the suggested approach to fund streetlights** by eliminating property tax and adopting as general fund obligation, changing franchise fee to 5% total (amended to set property tax at 0.0210 and franchise fee at 4%). Motion by Bill Farmer, seconded by Shevawn Akers. **Passed 8-7 on roll call.** Voting in favor: Ed Lane, Peggy Henson, Jennifer Mossotti, George Myers, Diane Lawless, Steve Kay, Chris Ford, Linda Gorton. Voting against: Harry Clarke, Jennifer Scutchfield, Bill Farmer, Kevin Stinnett, Julian Beard, Shevawn Akers, Chuck Ellinger. [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Amending to set rate at 0.0319 per $100 of assessed value.** Motion by Ed Lane, seconded by Jennifer Mossotti. **Failed 5-10 on roll call.** Voting in favor: Chris Ford, Ed Lane, Julian Beard, Jennifer Mossotti, Diane Lawless. Voting against: Linda Gorton, Chuck Ellinger, Steve Kay, Bill Farmer, Peggy Henson, George Myers, Jennifer Scutchfield, Harry Clarke, Shevawn Akers, Kevin Stinnett. [timestamp: 0:00:00] **Amending to keep property tax flat and set franchise fee at 4%.** Motion by Linda Gorton, seconded by George Myers. **Passed 10-5 on roll call.** Voting in favor: Ed Lane, Peggy Henson, Jennifer Mossotti, George Myers, Jennifer Scutchfield, Diane Lawless, Steve Kay, Chris Ford, Chuck Ellinger, Linda Gorton. Voting against: Harry Clarke ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting approved five financial actions totaling $747,860: * **Ordinance 0811-13**: Purchase of Heil multipack garbage packers from Central Indiana Truck Equipment for $218,299. * **Ordinance 0834-13**: Contract with Time Warner Cable for connectivity for EDACS radio system and NetMotion internet access in the Division of Fire, valued at $14,280. * **Ordinance 0861-13**: Contract with Murphy + Graves Architects for renovation of the Emergency Operations Center at 115 Cisco Road, totaling $427,000. * **Ordinance 0867-13**: Contract with Columbia Gas of Kentucky for relocation of utilities for the Clays Mill Road Improvements Project - Section 2C, in the amount of $38,281. * **Ordinance 0870-13**: Contract with University of Kentucky and UK Arboretum for stormwater education and outreach workshops for the Division of Environmental Policy, valued at $50,000. ## Public Comment Seven speakers addressed the council on August 20, 2013, raising concerns about three primary topics: the Senior Citizen Center location, the salt barn location, and charter compliance. **Senior Citizen Center Location** Five speakers commented on the proposed Senior Citizen Center project. Gail Reese [timestamp: 0:12:28] expressed concern about placing the center near the Hope Center, citing risks associated with locating two vulnerable populations adjacent to each other. Laura Milligan [timestamp: 0:14:03] stressed the growing needs of seniors and urged the council to settle on a location and move forward with the project, emphasizing that seniors pay taxes and vote. Earl Payton [timestamp: 0:15:40] expressed support for the Idle Hour, Liberty, and Turfland Mall sites, but raised concerns about the YMCA site due to past unfulfilled promises. Tony Higdon [timestamp: 0:16:18] supported the Senior Center project and urged the council to honor its commitments, noting that attendance has grown significantly at the current location. Carolyn Payton [timestamp: 0:19:06] advocated for the first three sites and expressed concern about funding the YMCA option, noting that seniors already have access to programs like Silver Sneakers. **Salt Barn Location** Lois Mather [timestamp: 2:58:23] expressed strong opposition to placing the salt barn at the Continental property, describing it as a blight and a threat to the neighborhood's image. **Charter Compliance** Derek Wheeler [timestamp: 3:08:42] raised concerns about the legality of transferring funds to pay for street lighting via a utility franchise fee, citing a potential charter violation. ## Contested Items **Salt Barn Location at 801 East New Circle Road** Residents strongly opposed the proposed salt barn site at 801 East New Circle Road, citing the property's poor condition, environmental concerns, and negative impact on neighborhood aesthetics. The debate intensified when the administration issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for alternative sites following council action. This procedural move sparked disagreement over fairness and the proper scope of council authority in relation to administrative decisions. **Rescission of Resolution 373-2013** Council members disputed whether the council possessed the authority to rescind a previously passed resolution. The disagreement centered on parliamentary procedure and the appropriate role of the administration in initiating an RFP after the council had voted on the matter. This procedural question raised concerns about the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches. **Itinerant Merchant Ordinance** The Itinerant Merchant Ordinance passed with a 9-4 vote following amendments to regulations governing door-to-door sales hours. The split vote reflected division among council members regarding business regulation and the weight given to community input on the issue. ## Public Comment – Issues on Agenda [timestamp: 00:10:22] During the public comment period on agenda items, residents addressed two primary topics of concern: the Senior Citizen Center location and the salt barn site. **Key Speakers and Concerns** Five residents provided comments: Gail Reese, Laura Milligan, Earl Payton, Tony Higdon, and Carolyn Payton. Their remarks focused on the potential neighborhood impact and accessibility issues related to both proposed projects. Residents expressed concerns about how the Senior Citizen Center location would affect their community, including questions about neighborhood compatibility and access for seniors and visitors. Similarly, comments regarding the salt barn site centered on its potential impact on the surrounding area and related access considerations. **Outcome** This agenda item was informational in nature, allowing residents to voice their concerns and perspectives on these two projects without formal action or decision being taken during this portion of the meeting. ## Requested Rezonings/Docket Approval [timestamp: 00:21:47] Several ordinances and resolutions were placed on the docket for future consideration during this agenda item. The matters included the Fayette County Sheriff's Settlement and the Itinerant Merchant Ordinance. This item was presented as informational in nature, with the ordinances and resolutions being added to the docket for subsequent review and action rather than being decided at this meeting. ## Approval of Summary The summary of the previous meeting was presented for approval. [timestamp: 00:21:47] The summary was approved without dissent. ## Budget Amendments Budget amendments were presented as Agenda Item IV at approximately 22 minutes and 24 seconds into the meeting. The amendments were approved without discussion. No speakers were identified during this agenda item, and no specific details regarding the content of the amendments, amounts involved, or affected budget categories were provided in the meeting record. No concerns or questions from attendees were documented. **Outcome:** The budget amendments were approved. ## New Business [timestamp: 22:24] Several new business items were brought before the meeting for discussion and consideration. **Items Discussed** The agenda included three main topics: - Agreements for garbage packers - Connectivity matters - Stormwater workshops **Key Participants** Bill Farmer, Ed Lane, and Steve Kay were the primary speakers during this portion of the meeting. **Outcome** The new business items presented were approved. ## Continuing Business/Presentations During this agenda item, the board received presentations on two topics of interest to the municipality. **Senior Citizen Center Property Inventory and Review** Sally Hamilton and Beth Mills presented information regarding the Senior Citizen Center property inventory and review. The specific details of the property assessment and findings were discussed during this portion of the meeting. [timestamp: 0:29:35] **Economic Development Committee Summary** Julian Beard provided a summary of activities and updates from the Economic Development Committee. This presentation covered the committee's work and initiatives during the relevant period. **Outcome** Both presentations were informational in nature, providing the board with updates on these important municipal matters without requiring formal action or decisions at this time. ## Council Reports Council members provided updates on several municipal matters during this informational segment of the meeting. [timestamp: 1:47:15] **Key Issues Discussed** The reports covered three primary topics: - **Fire truck availability** – Council members addressed concerns and updates related to the fire department's equipment and operational readiness. - **Food truck permits** – Discussion included matters pertaining to the regulation and permitting of food truck operations within the municipality. - **Salt barn controversy** – Council members reported on an ongoing issue involving the salt storage facility. **Speakers** Bill Farmer, Shevawn Akers, and Linda Gorton provided the council reports during this agenda item. **Outcome** This agenda item was informational in nature, with council members sharing updates rather than taking formal action on the matters discussed. ## Mayor's Report The Mayor's Report was presented as agenda item VIII during the meeting on August 20, 2013. The report was approved without dissent. No specific details regarding the content of the Mayor's Report were documented in the meeting record. ## Public Comment – Issues Not on Agenda [timestamp: 2:58:23] During this portion of the meeting, residents addressed topics not included on the formal agenda. Two speakers raised concerns about municipal operations and planning procedures. **Key Issues Raised** Lois Mather and Derek Wheeler spoke to the board about the salt barn location and related charter compliance matters. The speakers expressed concerns regarding the neighborhood impact of the proposed salt barn and questioned whether proper legal procedures had been followed in the decision-making process. **Outcome** This agenda item was designated as informational, meaning the comments were received and noted by the board without formal action or resolution during the meeting. ## Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by motion of Vice Mayor Linda Gorton. [timestamp: 00:00:00] --- ## Decisions - **Ordinance 0845-13** — passed (0-0): Approval of the Fayette County Sheriff's Settlement - 2012 Taxes, and granting the Sheriff a Quietus - **Resolution 0846-13** — passed (0-0): Reimbursement resolution for the FY2014 Bond projects - **Ordinance 0845-13** — passed (0-0): Ordinance 0845-13 without a public hearing - **Resolution 0849-13** — passed (0-0): Authorization to execute an agreement with Lazy Eight Stock Farm for fresh produce, meat, and other related items at the Government Center - **Ordinance 0839-13** — passed (9-4): First reading of Ordinance 0839-13 without a public hearing - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the docket - **Ordinance 0846-13** — passed (0-0): First reading of Ordinance 0846-13 without a public hearing - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Authorization to install multi-way stop controls at Clearwater Way and Ridgewater Drive - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of budget amendments - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of new business items, except item ee - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Correction of numerical error in item DD, changing from $144,145.95 to $1,444,145.95 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Tabling of item hh 0853-13 (authorization to accept award of funds for the Local Food Coordinator) to provide additional time to resolve grant funding issues - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of NDF - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Setting general services fund tax rates at option 1 (same as current rate) - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Setting health tax rate at 0.028 (same as current rate) - **Motion** — passed (9-5): Setting conservation and soil rate at 0.0005 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Setting extension real property rate at 0.0034 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Setting extension personal property rate at 0.0038 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Setting refuse collection rate to option 1 (prior rate with no increase) - **Motion** — passed (8-6): Setting street cleaning rate at option 1 (amended to option 4) - **Motion** — passed (8-6): Amending street cleaning rate to 0.0097 (option 4) - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Setting insurance rate at 0.092 - **Motion** — passed (8-7): Amending the suggested approach to fund streetlights by eliminating property tax and adopting as general fund obligation, changing franchise fee to 5% total (amended to set property tax at 0.0210 and franchise fee at 4%) - **Motion** — failed (5-10): Amending to set rate at 0.0319 per $100 of assessed value - **Motion** — passed (10-5): Amending to keep property tax flat and set franchise fee at 4% - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Scheduling public hearings on proposed ad valorem tax rates for FY2014 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of Mayor's report - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Adjournment - **Ordinance 0861-13** — passed (0-0): Authorization to execute agreement with Murphy + Graves Architects for design and engineering services for renovation of the Emergency Operations Center at 115 Cisco Road - **Ordinance 0867-13** — passed (0-0): Authorization to execute agreement with Columbia Gas of Kentucky for relocation of utilities for the Clays Mill Road Improvements Project - Section 2C - **Ordinance 0870-13** — passed (0-0): Authorization to execute a Purchase of Service Agreement (PSA) with the University of Kentucky and UK Arboretum for stormwater education and outreach workshops - **Ordinance 0886-13** — passed (0-0): Authorization to approve 2013 Schedule for Urban Services Changes - **Ordinance 0849-13** — passed (0-0): Authorization to submit application to the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet for continuation of the Litter Abatement Grant Funding Program in Fayette County-FY 2014 - **Ordinance 0834-13** — passed (0-0): Authorization to execute agreements with Time Warner Cable to provide connectivity for the EDACS radio system and NetMotion internet access in the Division of Fire - **Ordinance 0811-13** — passed (0-0): Authorization to execute agreement with Central Indiana Truck Equipment for purchase of Heil multipack garbage packers - **Ordinance 0860-13** — passed (0-0): Authorization to amend Section 22-5 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one (1) position of Senior Advisor (Grade 212E) in the Office of the Mayor for a term of twelve (12) months - **Ordinance 0849-13** — passed (0-0): Approval of the Itinerant Merchant Ordinance - **Ordinance 0849-13** — passed (0-0): Motion to place the Itinerant Merchant Ordinance on the docket for the full council - **Resolution 373-2013** — withdrawn (0-0): Motion to rescind the resolution approving the salt barn site at 801 East New Circle Road - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to place the Senior Citizen Center at Idle Hour Park - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to place domestic partner benefits discussion into the General Government Committee - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to place the reorganization of traffic engineering and streets and roads into a new division of transportation into the Planning and Public Works Committee --- ## Full transcript She was born in the wagon of a traveling show Her mama had to dance for the money they'd throw Grandpa'd do whatever he could Preach a little gospel Sell a couple bottles of Dr. Good G.M.C. is Translant Thieves We hear it from the people of the town they call G.M.C. is Translant Thieves But every night all the men would come around And lay their money down Deals, thieves, tramps and thieves We hear it from the people of the town They call us deals, thieves, tramps and thieves But every night all the men would come around And lay their money down Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome, everyone, to a meeting of the work session of the Council for August the 20th. And the first thing on our agenda is public comment for issues on the agenda. Mr. Mundy? Okay. All right. Yeah, we might as well sit back and relax. Yeah. All right. We know that there were several folks signed up to speak for issues on the agenda. Now, are these on the agenda? Senior citizens, I don't know if that doesn't look like that. Gail, Gail Reese. I know Gail's here. You're here for the Senior Citizen Center, right, Gail? Mr. Payton for the Senior Citizen Center? Yes. All right. And Lois Mather, Sonia Mather, what are you all here? Lois? Is Lois here? On the agenda. Okay, not on the agenda. Okay, so that would be later. Tony Higdon? Tony? Oh, Tony. Oh, okay. You're here for Senior Citizen. All right. Okay. All right, then those who are here to speak about the Senior Citizen Center, we'll do that now since it's on the agenda. Okay? Carolyn? Yes, ma'am. You're right here. You didn't say me. I'm sorry. We were getting right there. And I can understand the anxiety then. Yes, ma'am. We're getting right there. All righty. Okay, let's start with Gail Reese. And then Mr. Payton. And then I'm having trouble reading this. Is it Laura? Yeah. Laura, where are you? All right, of course. Okay. And you're right close to the microphone. Jump right up there, right after Gail. Okay, now you all know the rules, right? Three minutes. Name and address. Gail Reese, 608 Lakeshore, Lexington, 40502. And I'm going to take even less than three minutes. I'll be fast. I am speaking as a private citizen. I have been involved with senior services for eight years in Lexington now. But I wanted to comment on two of the locations that are under consideration today. The one on Loudoun Avenue I have a severe concern about since it's not mentioned in the documents, but everybody knows that it would be in the same neighborhood of the Hope Center. And to me, that would be putting one vulnerable population next to another vulnerable population. and I think our city citizens, both populations, need more consideration than that. The second location that I have an issue with, personal issue, and I think a lot of people do, is I cannot find my way around Hamburg. All I do is just drive through parking lots until I see what I want and then I leave. So thank you very much. I appreciate it, your consideration. Thank you. Thank you, Gail. All right. Laura, go right ahead. Yes, ma'am. Okay, Laura Milligan, 3901 Wyndham Bridge, and I'm in District 914. Endless time and countless money has been spent the last 10 years on surveys and studies. This one from 03 being one of them. Many pages. Promises have been made and needs. The needs need to be kept growing. The seniors' needs, though, seem to have been pushed aside as other projects are pushed ahead. If you feel we will just pass on and go away, you're mistaken. Those needs will continue to grow, and our efforts will continue as well. We need to settle on a location and get the project done. Remember, seniors pay taxes, and we do vote. As Councilman Meyer said several months ago, we need to poop or get off the pot. Did you say that? You have all been invited to come to the Senior Center on September 4th. We hope to see you there, and we hope that we can get her done. Thank you. Thank you, Laura. Thank you, ma'am. All right. And next, Mr. Payton. My name is Earl Payton. I live at 902 Edgewater Drive in Lexington. I'm in Bill Farmer's district. All three of these, Idle Hour, Liberty, and Turfland Mall, all look suitable to me. I'm really leery about the YMCA. It's been told to me that the YMCA has not kept previous promises. And I would hate to see the city give a bunch of money to the YMCA and get nothing for it. Thanks, Mr. Payton. Tony, Mr. Higdon. My name is Tony Higdon. I live at 1649 Harrogate here in Lexington, and I'm with the Senior Center. I'm the president of the Participants Council have been on three terms I want to thank you all for what you have done so far the meeting we had where you said we're going to get a building is greatly appreciated but don't let it be like the guy that built his house on the sand that is going to collapse and you forget about what was accomplished during that one meeting I want to thank you for the presentations you made of the locations, I personally feel that perhaps the one on Adler, since you all owned a property, you would save money in trying to find a location, even though all three, and I think that whatever you all decide, that the senior center people would go where it's located because I know when we first started, my wife and I first started at the one on Nicklausville Road, people said it's too far out, there's too much congestion. But now we've just about quadrupled the amount of attendance that we get. And every day there's either five, six, seven new people that come to that center that want to see what we offer. and like Laura said I think you all got an invitation to come see us on September the 4th I know you all are on break but we would love to see you come out see what we do and how we're overcrowded and hopefully we can go forward that you will honor your decisions to provide a senior center for us thank you Mayor Thank you, Mr. Higlin. Pauline Handy. Pauline. Pauline was to speak. Is she here? Ms. Handy? No? Okay, Carolyn. You're up then. I want to relieve that anxiety. Hello, my name is Carolyn Payton. There you go. Pull it down. There you go. Yes, ma'am. I'm not used to talking in front of a bunch of people. That's a lie. I taught school for years. I'm plenty used to. Anyway, my name is Carolyn Payton, and I live at 902 Edgewater Drive, and that is in Mr. Farmer's District. I was going to give up my time but they were so brief I hate to waste the time so I needed to talk a little bit first of all I do appreciate everything you've done even though I'm kind of mean sometimes I do appreciate everything that you all have done for us and I do think that this time it's going to go I really do I really believe in you all having said that I choose to mention a couple things. First of all, it's the YMCA sites. That's at Hamburg and Loudoun. Again, I thought we'd already taken care of not even being close to the YMCA. I talked to one of the council members earlier, and they said that it would not be on their property. It would be beside their property. and I said, do they get any of our money, any of the money that's supposed to go to the seniors? And no other than maybe if we wanted to do some programs with them. This is not what we're looking for, folks. Without meaning sounding cruel, we don't want to do programs with them. We don't need to pay them. Everyone, probably 90% of the seniors in here are either a member of Silver Sneakers, which is free through our insurance. You can go anywhere and do anything except what we do at the center. So I would personally ask you to look at the first three sites, choose one of those today, and let's move on with it. Now, the last thing I do want to say is we really want you to come out and visit us. We've sent everybody an invitation. We really would love for you all to be there. I promise I won't be hateful. I promise I won't say anything bad to anybody. You won't even know I'm on the spot. Well, maybe you'll know I'm on the spot. But anyway, please come out if you can and visit us on September the 4th. Thank you so much. Thanks, Carolyn. That was a big promise, big commitment there now. It's going to be nice. All righty. Okie dokie. Thank you all. Thanks so much. All right. So that's everyone who signed up to speak to issues on the agenda, which then allows us to move on to item number two, Roman numeral two on the agenda. There's no docket this week. There's no council meeting, so there's no docket approved this week, which allows us to move on to item number three, which is a summary, approval of the summary. Move approval. Second. It's a motion by Vice Mayor Gorton, second by, who was that, Council Member Myers. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next on the agenda is budget amendments. There are no budget amendments today required to be considered, which allows us to move to new business. Is there a motion to approve? There is a motion by Council Member Beard to approve, second by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Mayor. I move that item D under new business be removed. Second. It's a motion by Council Member K to remove item D, second by Vice Member Gordon. Is there any discussion on the motion? No discussion? All right, then we can vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. Mine is on new business item A, the authorization to execute agreement with Central Indiana Truck Equipment, a sole source provider for the purchase of Heil multi-pack garbage packers. And I just want to know, once we have received these, will these go on to truck bodies that are powered by compressed natural gas? That is correct. That's the best word you've given. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. All right. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. Council Member Lane. Okay, I have a follow-up question on that. How many of these are we going to buy? We already placed the order for eight. This current one is going to be three immediate. The order is going to be placed in for this specific body. And so we plan on purchasing so many every year as we move forward with replacing the old and aging fleet there. So will you actually take old bodies off of existing vehicles, or these will be all new? No, these will be all new, the chassis as well as the body. And all the chassis at this point are meant to be CNG. The letter that came with this indicated that there would be substantial savings in personnel because this is more efficient. but have we actually run an analysis to determine what savings would be in personnel and how they would offset the cost? That probably would be Steve Feast can probably answer that better because that's his internal operation, and he drafted that. Have you actually seen that report at all? Have you seen that report? Not that specific report. Okay, all right. Is Mr. Feast here? I think Commissioner Maloney might. Did you follow the question on that? The letter indicated that there would be some savings in personnel and operational expenses by putting in the new multi-packer bodies on there. Have you actually run the numbers and do you know how much savings will be and all that? A considerable amount. Right now we've sent an RFP out to look at an outsource to come in to see if they can build a plant for us or we can buy the gas from them. And they've given us some numbers, and the numbers have gone down to around anywhere from $4 down to $2.50. We are now looking to see what we can do in-house, which we think we can get it around $2 to $1.80 if we do it in-house, which will save us $4 on the diesel. We're looking around somewhere close to between $1.50 to $2. Are you talking about natural gas versus diesel? I was talking about the bodies. I thought the idea of the bodies would have to make less runs, you'd need less personnel, because you can pack different items on one truck. It will be more efficient. You're asking how it's going to work. Let me give you one example, like the slow fill. instead of we have to go fill up the thing twice a day on our trucks would be more if we do the slow fill we only have to fill it up one time that'd be more efficiency there all right savings there and those are the kind of examples that we're going to be able to do a lot of things the efficiencies come from this truck can be used on all routes where right now we have trucks that are dedicated for certain types of routes. When we have vehicles down, we end up having to use the wrong type of vehicle. It means that a lot of times we'll have to take and the trucks will be late going out because we have to wait until we can get temporary help in. If we've got an automated truck down, then we have to use a rear loader to replace it with. And that's the main. Well, do you, or have you all prepared any kind of a little analysis? I would like to see a copy of that, maybe request that you send a copy to the other Council members as to the savings. I'll check on it. Steve would have that. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Council Member Lane. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Mayor. Same issue. I have a question for one or more of the gentlemen who are now talking amongst themselves. This has to do with the size of the trucks. There's kind of a recurring issue within infill and redevelopment about areas that have either begin with narrow streets or they want to be redeveloped with narrower streets. There's some question about some of these trucks being able to service the narrower areas. And there's been some conversation at one time about having some smaller trucks. Can you, are these new trucks going to be able to service all areas and other alternatives for those places where they may be too large to navigate the streets? The new trucks are all the larger trucks that are coming in. There are, I believe, right now four of the smaller trucks that are in the fleet, and I know two of those are being retrofitted to make them easier to use on smaller neighborhoods. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Kay. All right. No one else has signed up to speak, so we have a motion. We have a second. With no further discussion, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. That allows us to move on to continuing business and presentations. First is I need a motion to approve the NDFs. Is there a motion? Move approval. Second. Council Member, motion by Council Member Myers, second by Council Member Scotchfield. 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. Next on the agenda is the Economic Development Committee summary from July. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. I'm tired of the string around my finger from the past week. As chair, I called the meeting to order at 1.02 p.m. All members except Vice Mayor Gordon were present. We covered to an extent the April 23, 2013 committee summary on a motion by Lane, second by Farmer. The summary of the 4-23-13 meeting was approved unanimously. The itinerant merchant ordinance. Councilmember Hanson introduced the issue. She stated she had met with David Barbary. After the committee packet was distributed, she then requested that Barbary amend the draft, removing sections pertaining to mobile food units, as that was what was dealt with the food truck ordinance. Barbary summarized the revised draft ordinance, dated 7-8-13. The summary included definition, hours of operation, locations, and exceptions, including an exemption for charitable organizations. The motion was made by Councilmember Akers, seconded by Councilmember Hansen, to approve the itinerant merchant ordinance. The motion was made by Councilmember Lawless, seconded by Councilmember Farmer, to amend the door-to-door sales hours to 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. from 9 originally was 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Clark spoke of Council Member Clark I'm sorry spoke against the amendment and some were lawless withdrew the amendment motion was made by Council Member Lawless seconded by Council member Farmer to amend the door-to-door sales hours to 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. from the original 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. The amendment passed on the 10 to 2 vote. Farmer spoke against the motion as the community had not yet had an opportunity to review and comment on its revised ordinance. Council Member Lane spoke against the motion as it infringed on business activities. Council Member Henson stated that she was in favor of the ordinance because the transient businesses should be subject to increased regulation. The original motion as amended passed on a 9-4 vote. Commerce Lexington then was invited to the podium to report on the Commerce Lexington Economic Development Quarter activity report. Jenna Greathouse presented the quarterly report. She discussed marketing trips to Dallas, Texas, Charleston, South Carolina, Anaheim, California, Chicago, Illinois, and San Francisco, California, as well as a trade mission to Canada. Greathouse also discussed an effort to grow the information technology, software, and gaming market. She introduced John Mester with RunJump Development. RunJump Development sent a team to the PAX Expo in Boston with support from Commerce Lexington. He showed a video of the Expo and discussed merits of this niche economy. Bob Quick, who is the president of Commerce Lexington, actually, discussed a Canadian trade mission. The Great House discussed the recent business expansion announcements, including Tiffany & Company, Toyota, which is actually in Scott County, but we get some bleed-off benefit to that, obviously. The move of Bingham McCutcheon, YS Precision Stamping, also in Georgetown, Transposagan, did I get that right there? Farmdow Pharmaceuticals and Bert Lee Processing. She also reported on launch of the Minority Business Accelerator meant to strengthen and expand the regional minority community. Council Member Myers voiced his support for the efforts of Commerce Lexington. In response to a question from Council Member Akers, the Great House stated that while YS Precision Stamping wanted to locate in Lexington, the building and site in Georgetown was ideal for their needs. Lawless commented on the importance of economic development activities. Councilmember Clark commented on the importance of the IT niche, economic development expense, and performance reporting. Jonathan Hollinger, who is Councilmember Clark's aide, presented information on the 2013-14 performance reporting mechanism. He stated he worked with Kevin Atkins in the mayor's office and staff with Commerce Lexington. Myers asked that the economic impact analysis be included in future reports. Beard, that's me, suggested including both initial job data as well as the future employment added to the data. Akers wanted to know if the reporting system would be used by other agencies. In response, Hollinger stated that all the economic development partner agencies would be required to submit similar information. We're almost through, folks. Collaborative economic development activities. Kevin Atkins reported that his office will be hosting quarterly meetings with the economic development partner agencies so that the group can work more collaboratively. I didn't? Okay. Council Member Clark spoke in favor of the collaboration efforts, and there is a motion. Okie dokie. Where is it? The original motion is here, but then it's amended to where they changed the hours and all that. So it's in the packet, though, with the amendment. Okay. We need to vote on this changing of the hours on the attenement merchants. It is in the packet somewhere. I'm not sure exactly where. but all of you all or most of you all were there for the vote when it was amended amended a couple of times in fact and would like the opportunity to go ahead and make a motion to accept that. All right there's a motion by Council Member Beard seconded by Council Council Member Ellinger, is there any discussion on the motion? Any discussion on the motion? Council Member Akers. Thanks, Mayor. I'm not sure if I should just give the minutes back to the staff that drafted them, but it says at the top that all members were present except Gordon, and then later in one of the motions it says that there were three council members absent, And so I just wanted to bring that up, and I can forward it back to staff for correction. Okay. Just not in the room at the moment, I think. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? Any further discussion on the motion? Okay. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. Motion passes. Is there? All right. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Beard. And next on our agenda is the presentation on Senior Citizen Property Inventory and Review by Chief Administrative Officer Sally Hamilton and Commissioner Beth Mills. Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk today. And I'm going to start out, and then Commissioner Mills is going to join me in this report. We have talked with each other, Commissioner Mills and I have said, and said we should really call this how we spent our summer break. When we left the council at the last time in talking about this, you all asked us to do a couple of things, and I just want to go back over those. One of those things was you said review the property that we own. If there's any other private property that comes up, look at that also. Meet with the Y on property and potential for collaboration. Now, when we met with the Y, we made it very clear what the council had voted on, that we were doing a freestanding facility, and we only talked to the Y about property that they may own, not being a part of their building. We did 16 site visits. Now, that was in addition to the nine that the consultants did, and we did 16. And the way we approached this is we literally visited everything that somebody mentioned to us. And that way we would really give you a good flavor all across town. Now, we weren't consultants, so there's a lot of things we can't answer, but we have seen a great deal of property. We also talked to the YMCA. We had a really good meeting with the YMCA. We discussed what kind of property they had available. We discussed for future satellite locations and potential for service partnerships. The Y was a, we had a wonderful meeting with the Y, and they would collaborate with us in any shape, fashion, or form, now or in the future. And, of course, they made it clear that anything we would do would need to be beneficial to both parties. but we made it clear to them that we were building our own freestanding site. We also talked to the Fayette County Schools, and Commissioner Mills called them just to double-check that they had any property that was available. And, of course, they suggested that they had the Meadowbrook golf course, and Beth hung up the phone. I've been through that battle before. I think I have to go back. Okay, I'd like to just sort of go through with you for just a minute some of these sites that we looked at. Some of them you'll say, oh, my heavens, I can't believe you even looked at that. But what we did here is, and let me compliment, Jerry Hancock. I called Jerry and I said, Jerry, I would like to look at some of the park sites that you have that just might be feasible for a senior citizen center. And Jerry gave me numerous sites. We went and looked at all these sites. And let me sort of talk about, I think Harrods Hill is a wonderful example. Harrods Hill is a beautiful park. It is being used extensively, and it is way back in that neighborhood. And that happens on several of these. They're not easy to get to. They're literally neighborhood parks, and you have to drive quite a distance back to get them. He also mentioned to me Jacobson Park. If Jacobson Park were in closer, Jacobson Park was a gorgeous site, but it is far out. We also looked at the King property, which is out off of Hamburg. We looked at Pleasant Ridge, which is Andover, and we looked at Coal Stream. Then that's the site that we own. And that Coldstream site is, again, very attractive. I think there's a couple of questions there. It's far out. And is that really the best use for that site? The Shellitoe Park area is a good example of what happened in this process. The PVA, David O'Neill, would call us. He did a query himself, and he would call if he found some acreage that was four acres or more. And he called me about the Shiltoe Park area. And he said that this was four acres right close to the fire station on that side of the road, close to our fire station. And it ran along the railroad tracks, and it was a fairly big parcel, and it was owned by the Fayette Mall. And he said to me, I think if you were interested in this, we could certainly talk. We went out and looked at it. That is a very, very busy, I did not realize that, that's a very busy road cutting back over to Manowar, and that didn't work out. The Winchester Road site is right across from Patch and Wilkes. That was mentioned to us. That is land that has not been developed back there, but it certainly was a good location. After we looked at all these properties, and we sat around and we talked, and who was in that conversation was Beth, her people with senior citizens, John Sheed, Craig Bentz. We talked about what we thought, and this is only our opinion, what we thought merited further consideration and things that the council may want to consider further. And one of those sites was the Idle Hour Park. The Idle Hour Park is right off of Richmond Road. It is behind the new church. It is the field that we looked at. The site where we looked was up on the right when you come in, and it is a facility where there is football practice right now. There is football practice up there. If we looked at this site, we would need to certainly make other arrangements for that particular practice. We also looked at Liberty Park. Liberty Park is 69 acres off of Liberty Road. And it has trails on the outside, but it's not developed inside the park. Part of it is in floodplain. We then went and met, Kevin Atkins and I, met with Ron Schweitzer and the Turflin Mall people. And at Turflin Mall, we talked again about the acreage that I talked to you in closed session about. And then they also mentioned that they had planned on perhaps tearing down the Dillard's Building, but now were thinking they wouldn't. The Dillard's building itself has 80,000 square feet a floor, and it has two floors. They talked to us about the possibility of taking part of that. Nobody made any promises as to, and I think, Council Member Clark, you had always been concerned, who would be your neighbors. They do not know that. They have a lot of interest in the building, but they cannot at this time tell us who our neighbors are. We did not talk to them about square footage to finish that space, because we wanted to talk here first to see whether you all were even interested in us pursuing anything like this. So there was really two conversations at Turflin Mall. The one we had before on the acreage and building a new site there, or the second one was taking part of the first floor at the Dillard's Building. The fourth thing that we looked at and has been commented on in several of the comment sections was Hamburg at Rosebud. This is the site of the new Y that will eventually be there. There is additional property to the side of that. The North Y at Loudoun has property. If you're facing the Y, it is to the right of that, backs into Lexmore and is right there at the head of the Legacy Trail. Then I think that there are some other. I have had certainly conversations and have looked at some other sites. I think after we finish that we may want to, Council Member Lane and I looked at a couple of sites, you may want to talk about those. But right now, I'll turn this over to Beth to talk about these sites in particular. It's this one to go forward. All righty. Good afternoon. So we decided on these four sites. And what I'd like to say before we start, if you all remember when Lifespan Design Studios were here, they were the consultants we hired. We didn't have access to their services, but we thought that we would use the five critical elements that they had to kind of cursory look at these four sites. Some of the things you might want to remember, they recommended 46,000 square feet and 200 parking spaces. They looked at traffic, crime, amenities in the area. Would the footprint fit everything in an accessible manner for seniors, pretty much? So we didn't do like they did. We didn't drive during the morning and during lunch and during rush hour. We took like one or two visits to each site. But we tried to apply those as best we could to try to be objective in looking at the four sites. Jomshi was kind enough to kind of draw a building on each of the sites for us. We hope we're not going to have a block for you guys, senior citizens. This is just to show how much land it takes up. So Adelauer Park is the first one. There are two entrances to this that seem to be easy for seniors to use. One would be up behind the old Dillards in the mall. They can come in off of Richmond Road and go in up that way. Another one would be off of New Circle and Young Drive through the back. There were mature trees there. It's very pastoral. It's a nice-looking place. It has enough space up on that hill to put the building and the parking. So the parking will be, as the gallows recommended, you want the front of the building where you want the accessible parking because it's best for seniors. This site could accommodate that. The amenities that we particularly liked about the site when we visited, there's still tennis courts there. There's plenty of room for walking tracks. in the Livable Communities discussion in the Senior Services Commission. They also have a thing that's like an outdoor playground for seniors. That's a bad name for it, but it's a gym apparatus for outside for exercise. We would certainly have room for that out there. So it's a pretty site. It's a little off the beaten path. You've got to wander back to get there, but we really thought it was a pretty site. We liked it. All right. Turf and Mall Option 1, this is the old dealer's building. I think in everybody's head you can picture that. And so the developer there said that he would develop the building and lease us as much as we wanted in there. And we would certainly have access to parking. That's just a big blank slate over there. He didn't say how much or what would be next door, which Sally mentioned would be a problem unless we had control over what was next door. The thing that Christy and Craig and I found attractive to a lease is, is when we outgrow this one, or we have a hard time grabbing hold of the demographics, when the lease is in, you're forced to do something. So you're not in it for life. And I also think that some of the council members ask lease versus purchase. So to us, that was the beauty of a lease, because if we outgrow that one or we've built in the wrong place, at the end of the day, you can figure out where to go from there. You can say, hey, we need a new lease or we need to build another one. So that's what we liked about the lease option. Option two is building in the back of the Turflam Mall. And also the developer has said he's going to redo the front of Turflam Mall so that the access is easier off of Harrodsburg Road. You also have an entrance off the back there at Gardenside, so ease of access is good. We would be able to build whatever we wanted if we built on that footprint. We haven't negotiated cost yet because this site hasn't been chosen. The option that we like about this one is its proximity to pools. You could drive people to Beaumont. You could drive people to Cardinal Hill to the warm water pool. There's a library close by. There's a lot of restaurants. So just as the Adelauer site has a lot of very nice outdoor and green space, this one doesn't have so much green space, but it has a lot of amenities that the seniors might use. So we like that about that site. The Liberty Park site, which is, if you can picture it, it's at Liberty Road near Liberty School. It's beyond New Circle, but it's a huge piece of land, very beautiful property. There's Liberty Ridge assisted living out that way. There's an elementary school nearby. It's a big site. We like this one because it is attractive and it's near some of those amenities. The downside to this one, it is outside New Circle Road. And so that was our big drawback to Liberty Park. Again, we have this is an LFUCG park. Both Liberty Road and Idle are properties that we own, so those are big bonuses. YMCA North Loudoun. And we didn't do YMCA Rosebud because it's not built yet, and it's still on the books. Again, it is way out. You get there from Sir Barton Lane, and it's out at the far end of Hamburg. So the Rosebud side is pretty far out. I want to reassure the seniors that these two sites will not be owned or operated by the YMCA. These are our senior sites. They will be adjacent to the YMCA. This council asked, since we have things in common with the Y, what do they have available? And the other Ys didn't have property available. So here's the site on North Loudoun. Easy access. If you think about it, here is the YMCA proper, and it's to the right of that near the Legacy Trail. The one drawback to this one, that parking lot will not hold 200 spaces. I think when we looked at it, that's about 80 spaces, so they would have to use some of the parking across the road at Loudoun Avenue if we built there. So those were the four sites that we thought this council might want to look at and consider when you're picking a site. And we'll leave it up to you all if you want to do one, two, or three. We did crime and crash data, which we did in great detail. And I think the backup to those slides may be in the back of your packet. We asked that Lieutenant Lyons gave us our data from the Fayette County Police Department. So this is more up-to-date and accurate than that Raids Online data that a lot of people go to. He couldn't be here today because he's training at the academy, but we did call him. And Craig Benz, if you all have specifics on what the crime and crash data look like, Craig's prepared to answer some of those. one of the things we asked was about what time of day do you run these reports you know car people are going to be there eight to five and he said we don't run them that way he said we just run them for the you know period of time we don't pull them out as far as what time of day but anecdotally he feels like most of the crime would be happening after dark duh and most of the crashes and things would be between the work hours eight to five he said that's just common sense So this is the sum total of the reported crime and reported crashes. Now, the reported crime is property crimes and violent crimes. So it's, you know, there's crime and there's crime. The crashes include a crash that's just property damage to a vehicle, crashes that bring injury, and crashes that bring fatalities. And that's more in detail if you want to get into that. And we didn't do that on all these slides or want to waste your time doing all that because we don't even know if you want to go into that detail until you get from the four sites to fewer sites. Okay, we go round and around about where senior citizens live and where they're going to live. We can tell you where they live. What's going to happen 10 or 15 years down the road is just a great big old guess, you know. So, you know, if that is a real issue to you, then you might want to think about leasing. The other thing you might want to think about, if something that's centrally located, and one of the seniors said earlier, if it's centrally located, we get there. And I do want to tell you that every zip code comes to Nicholasville Road. So you can do what you want to with the census data, but it may not be as critical as you think it is. These tables are a little confusing. If you want to look up a particular zip code in your district, that's on the left-hand column. and it tells by number how many seniors, and we use 60 plus because Title III of the Old Americans Act uses 60 plus. This is the number of seniors in your district and the percentage of the population in your district. So the total doesn't add up to 100%. That number at the bottom, we have 45,385 Fayette Countyans over 60 that the census counted, which is 15% of our population today. But we know that population is growing. If you go to the right side, I don't think the percentages are as meaningful. They're the same percentages, the percentages of your district. They have been ranked in order of the sheer number of seniors that live in these zip codes. So 502, 03, and 05 have the largest number of senior citizens per count, per head count, in Fayette County. So that's the way you can look at these two tables for census if it's of interest to you. We keep asking for data. We've got lots of data, but we don't want too much. So that's pretty the way it is in a nutshell. We think that these four sites are probably the best options at this point. There may be something we hadn't considered, but I'm going to tell you, we have looked at nine properties initially, and what was it this time? It was 16, so that's 25 properties we've looked at. So this is the best we could do, and we try to be mindful of what we could afford as well. We didn't go after Center Point. We thought the Shriners' property was absolutely gorgeous, but they don't want to subdivide it, and it's very expensive. So if money wasn't an object, we could look at lots of other sites. But within our price range, we think this is what you want to look at. And Sally, John Sheed, myself, Craig, we're all available for questions if you have anything. Thanks, Beth. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Commissioner. I want to throw a stick in the fan here with one more option. And if it's shot down real quick, that's okay with me. But I was just thinking, if we looked at Piccadome Golf Course, let me tell you what I want to say about Piccadome first. So if we look at Piccadome Golf Course, and if we – there's a picture I want to put up of that. But can you first put the other one up of the pool? One of the state parks has an indoor outdoor pool. I think it's Lake Cumberland, I think, Park. So what if we looked at Picadome because we own it already, so the money that we'd be using for property, we could do something like this over the top of the pool and then put a causeway over to the new building, build the Senior Citizen Center on that property. And then if you want to bring Meadowbrook Golf Course back into the discussion, because seniors, every time we talk about Meadowbrook, the seniors are taking their grandkids there a lot of times to teach them how to play golf. So what if we redid Picadome and made it a par 3 like Meadowbrook, which would allow us to get rid of Meadowbrook, and we've got sort of a senior oasis there, senior citizens oasis. We've got the indoor pool, indoor-outdoor pool, actually, because the top opens up on that. You've got the new building there. You have the par 3 golf course there. And I don't know how big that golf course is compared to Meadowbrook, but if it's possible, you may be able to take some of that land out there and put walking trails in. So we'd have indoor outdoor pool, walking trails, a new senior citizen center, the Par 3 golf course, all there right on our already owned LFUCG property, and it's a pretty decent centrally located property. So I don't want to hold the process up. I just was thinking about this, and it seems like I don't know what the cost would be for any of this, but if we could at least take a little bit of time to look at that option, And as we're deciding which one we want to do, that might work. Other than that, you guys have done great work. I just wanted to kind of throw this in there as something to look at. If I might, I'll tell you a little bit about our analysis of Picadome. This was on the table when we had the consultants here, and this is beautiful. Our big problems with Picadome, the access and egress knocked it out of the park. If you go out on Harrodsburg Road, anybody that's been in that little drive, imagine turning left onto Harrodsburg Road. If you go out the back part of the property, you're getting into clinic traffic across the way. And the gallows went all times a day and felt like that the traffic there was just not navigable because we did look at that one first time out. The other problem is the back of the property has got some flood issues and flood drainage issues. And so they didn't know how we could fit the four acres in and avoid the flood problems. It is a beautiful piece of property, but because of those two issues. As a matter of fact, we do use that pool for outdoor swimming with our seniors now. But it's just the traffic, and I'm not even sure if those roads are ours or if they're state roads. I don't know what Broadway is and what that one is down the other way. Y'all may know that. Mason Healy. But the access is horrible, and the storm floodwater thing in the back was an issue. So that's why the gallows suggested that we not go with that. Well, and I don't want to belabor this, but when you guys looked at it before, you weren't looking at it in the context of this type of setup. So if you change the configuration of the golf course, then the floodplain might not be an issue. I'm not sure. We don't want to spend a lot of time on that, but if you could just ponder it, maybe that would be something to consider. All right. Thank you, Council Member Myers. Thank you very much. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Mayor, Commissioner, and CAO Hamilton. And thank you all so much for going back and looking at the whole city in a comprehensive manner. This is well thought out, and it's an excellent way to take an approach to finding a site today. Hopefully we can leave this meeting with some type of resolution as to a site so we can continue to move forward on the process. I had a couple of questions, though. On the Adelire site itself, and I know Jerry Hancock can answer this probably better maybe, but maybe you have this answer. Is the youth football league, it's been there for decades, still operating there? There's about 250 kids play there every fall that come from Woodhill, which is very important to the kids in Woodhill, as Jerry knows, and then Battle Hour kids all play there. Do they still operate? Yes. Contrary to what CAO Hamilton said, they not only practice there, they play their games there as well. Do you know how many kids signed up this year, by chance, since it's starting this week? Sign-ups are going on right now, but I'm guessing there's a couple hundred. Okay. And then what about the men's softball league? Is it still playing on that softball field adjacent to the field? Yes, but I don't think the plan here would necessarily take away the softball fields. But one of the things we've made clear, and I think they all know this, is that should that idle hour site be appropriate for whatever reasons, there would be a need to relocate that football program someplace else. So I don't believe the question here is to eliminate it. It would be an additional cost to the site development. As you know, and as I know from personal experience, I even played there 40 years ago. So, you know, those kids walk to that park primarily. They walk from Woodhill, which we all know the situation there, and also Adelaide. There's no other parks necessarily to offer that type of program. So have you looked at other parks in that area that they can walk to? As possible, substitute location. No, sir, I have not. Okay, because that's something I think would be fair. You know, in this year's budget, we put money in the budget to create four more football-type fields because we know how short they are in our city. We have a huge shortage of multipurpose fields, and I would just want to find a location for them before we would move on that. So whatever you can come up with between now and our discussions, Jerry, is an alternative location. I think that would be very important to those kids. Otherwise, it's an excellent site. Kerfland Mall, and I don't necessarily have to answer this question, C.L. Hamilton, unless we need to go into closed session, but did we talk price tag yet? Have we got to that point? And if we need to go into closed session, I'll wait, and we can do that later after my colleagues have had the opportunity. I just didn't know if we got there yet and we could talk about it today. The only price that we talked about was the one that I talked to you about per acreage cost in closed session. Okay, so that's still there. Yes, and that was a firm price. Okay. We did not talk about any kind of fit-up for lease. Okay, fair enough. And then on the last site, are you talking either-or? Is that an either-or proposition on the number four that YMCA cites next to the Ys? It's not both. It's either-or. It's either-or. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Mayor. And if I could just say one thing in conclusion, I think that our conversations with the Y certainly led you to believe that if we did a center someplace, not on Y property but just someplace else, we have a great opportunity in the future to do a satellite with them. I mean, they've got space. If we ever decide to head down that road, we certainly have a wonderful opportunity. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Scotchfield. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I love the idea of us using current government land. The cost saving that could be involved there and the ability to build the facility to a 20- or 30-year plan rather than for right now. I think that – thank you all for taking a look at that. And I know a lot of the time we keep on getting the list of the population, senior population by zip code. And I have to say that we have to think about building this building not just for the population right now but for the future population. And so to me, the zip code doesn't matter as long as being able to get to it is easy enough. It's not going to make, I mean, we have too many zip codes. We're not going to be able to make everybody happy. So we need to find the right land, the right spot, and build the right building there. So, you know, I think looking at the zip codes, we just can't do that anymore. Is it possible? because, I mean, at the end of the day, all of us want to get the building right. What has been the feedback from the senior citizens at the Senior Citizen Center now about their preferences? Good afternoon. Sean, why don't you introduce yourself, sir? Sean Wright, I'm the manager of the senior center, and I'm very nervous. It's all right, Sean. Jerry, are you nervous, Sean? So my question is, what has been the communications you've had from the seniors at the senior center? What would be their preference that you've heard? Well, it varies. It depends on who you talk to. And, of course, I really couldn't say any particular one. In fact, I think it would be unfair if I would say one particular center or a zip code. But as of right now, again, I can ask anyone in here right now, and of course quite naturally they're going to say the one that's closest to me. At the end of the day, obviously it's the constituents. It's not the council's senior citizen center, although we can use it. It is the citizens. some of us are old enough to use it now but some of us will be old enough to use it, God willing is it possible that we can do an informal or even a formal survey of the participants that come down just because I think it would be a good we do have, I think, in my opinion three very good options on the table I like the idea of government owned property being used for this And I think we have obviously paid a consultant to tell us that the Harrodsburg Road site would possibly be good. I think it would be good for us to hear from the participants. And so I would ask that we try to do something along those lines. Obviously, we're not going to make everybody happy. Correct. Correct. And quite naturally, inside New Circle Road would be ideal, only because when we talk about transportation and providing transportation to and from the center, when you have different activities. If the activities start at a particular time, say 9 o'clock for aerobics or 10 o'clock, and if you go outside on a little circle road, more than likely you won't get there in time for the activity so that we have to keep in consideration as well. All right. I just asked you if you could do kind of an informal survey or a formal survey, whichever. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Scottsville. Councilman Beard. Thank you, Mayor. The 28 acres or so at Adelaire, is that the whole park or is that just the portion you're talking about? That is the whole park. Okay. How much is estimated where the senior center would go? We're talking three and a half to four. Four? Okay. On turfland, has there been any discussion over and above price about other terms, options, and such? No, sir, we have not, and that was a discussion that we would have with them if the council so desired, but we did not have that at that time. And is it a, you know, I saw two different things on the screen. One was subdividing what was Dillard's, and another looked like a stand-alone option. That's exactly right. There were two options. One was the purchase of the acreage, which I discussed with you in closed session that night, and building a stand-alone senior citizen center. And the other was using probably the first floor of Dillard's, a portion of that being upfitted for us. So there were two options there. Okay, I think that's all I need. I do have a comment to make about Meadowbrook, though. The school board would like to sell it, not buy it. Right. A. B. if anybody wants a war with anybody, there are the passion of the Meadowbrook users is deep and long. Well, it essentially stopped some other movements that took place, and that's been going on now for forever. But it's a problem. You can't just flick a switch and say, go away, Meadowbrook, because folks like these folks right here are going to go to war. Everybody needs to understand that because it's not a pretty sight, I'll tell you that. I remember that. Well, I remember iteration number two and three. You just got here on five. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Beard. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mayor. I do want to say that I do believe there is some significance in where our seniors live. I thought that was part of what we were looking at. And so we put together a quick chart. and I'm not pushing for any of you. I should say this is a really good report, and I think you all have done a terrific job in identifying these locations. But I thought it might be useful on one side of your sheet. If we could put it up on the chart, we can put it up. That's by census tract. And the darkest shade is the census tract where most of our seniors live. and then the next dense color would be the next most dense population, and then, of course, the white is the least. And on the other side is by zip code, and you can see the reason I did this because I was having a hard time figuring out where each zip code was and what the population was and so forth. So you can kind of use this as if population density of our seniors is a factor at all, and maybe it's not, then this shows where our seniors are and might have something to do with our decision. That's really all I needed to say. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I was wondering, Sally, about the Idola Park. It sounds like a really good choice. I'm sure there would be a savings with not having to purchase the land. But the access to the park years ago when my husband was able to play ball, and you would go behind them all to get into the park. But really, is that a public road, or is it private? I am assuming, I'm not going to equivocally say, but we will check that out, that that is public. That is the way we went in, and also went in off of Young, but I think that's the way most people have gone in. Right. And also, I think that in talking about Idle Hour, I do think we have not had any conversations with, when I had talked with Council Member Farmer about this going on the list, we had not talked to any of the neighbors, so we were not familiar yet with what the neighborhood thought, and any of our communities that we would need to improve or relocate, as Council Member said. Yeah, I would be really concerned about relocating those football players. Well, I think that's an excellent point because, and I don't mean to sound Pollyanna, but if we do this, we want everybody to be happy, not somebody to think that they've really gotten shoved aside. So we need to make everybody feel good. I just wanted to point that out, you know, the access. I think, you know, the chart and everything looks good as far as crime or whatever, and the location I think is good. But the access and all of the football players that utilize that park, and, you know, so I really think any of the sites, you know, I wouldn't be crazy like Gail Weiss said. I wouldn't be crazy about the North Y location, but I appreciate all the work that's gone into this, and we'll hopefully make a decision soon. Thanks. Council Member Sadi. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Sally, and all those who worked so tirelessly being a realtor for a couple of weeks trying to find the perfect property, which I will tell you does not exist. Like you said, if it's not traffic, it's another type of issue. However, I do support what Council Member Scutchfield said, that I think we need to be mindful of the cost, and having something on government property would be my first choice. and also looking at what Council Member Clark is also saying about the demographics and the population. It looks like most of it is in the 40502 location. I would support what Council Myers has said about Piccadone Park. You've got a couple of amenity packages already there. You've got your pool. You've got your golf course. The access is not the best, but, again, access and those type of things as far as traffic and some of those other issues are going to be in a lot of the different locations. But adjacent to that, you don't have any issues with neighborhoods. Same thing with Shiltoe. I know there was a concern about the traffic there, but a lot of people go to Fayette Mall, and a lot of seniors walk there every day, and that doesn't seem to deter anybody going to Fayette Mall. So, again, that's kind of not too far from Nicholasville Road, which is 56,000 cars a day. So if they're used to driving in traffic, that type of traffic, I would think coming off to Shelatoe Park, that can't be too much of a huge traffic concern as compared to Nicholsville Road. But, again, I would be supportive of something that would use a government-owned property. And thank you again for your work. Do you wish to speak to that? No? No, sir, I'm fine. All right. Council Member Farmer. I do. Thank you, Mayor. In the illustration that you're using for the Ilar Park piece, it shows the square is the size of the building footprint then? Yes. When Jomsheed dropped in. Put that up if you would. Yes, that's it. Go ahead. It's up. You're good. Okay. When Jomsheed dropped these in on each site, I think you dropped in a 35,000 square foot. Where is he? 36. 36,000 square foot. You know, we have talked in those terms of 35, 40, 44, and I sort of figured that would be the next topic. That's fine. I was trying to cite this first and making sure that we were okay with a normal-sized building on there. And we would need to do some more work to make sure that we are correct there. If we were to choose this site and build this building there, would there be room for the 200 parking spaces you all have talked about? Yes, that's what you've got. Yeah, that is correct. You've got about 3.6 acres, the whole area that we've highlighted for the building. So there won't be any problem with the 200 spaces. Would this affect or potentially update the current parking lot that's there? No, we were looking at that sort of as an overflow if it's needed, considering that primarily this building is going to be used on Monday through Friday. We even thought that probably the parking, the new parking, is also going to provide some additional parking for the weekend and after-hour uses, so multipurpose. In a separate conversation, though, that parking lot is in very poor shape. Yes. With big holes in it where you pull in and park, it's just... Well, part of the project expense also includes improvements to the parking lot and access and so forth. Yes. All right. That's correct. The park itself. And you're all's listing in this packet, one, two, three, four. Does that have any significance? Is it alphabetical order? I love it. Thank you. You want an opinion? Say again. I said, would you like an opinion? Love it. Bring it. Do you have one? Okay, Beth and I probably will not have the same opinion here, but we've come a long way from where we were. I like Eidelauer, and I like Eidelauer. I like it on an owned property. I think that is so, so crucial to us. That's a $2 million. Excuse me. That is a major savings. So I really think it makes a lot of difference to us. I think we could design something here that would bring in all the nature around us. We could do all kinds of things to this park. that it could be one of those things where generations, two generations sort of do things at the same setting. I just think it's in a great location. Now, it would be wonderful if it were sitting right there on the front of the area at Nottingham. Yeah, go ahead. I like both of them. I like Adelauer and I like Turf Le Mans. I like them for different reasons. Adelauer's got a lot of green space. And if you've got a population that likes to go out and play tennis or have a walking path, it's beautiful. And then I like Turflin because if you've got a population that wants to go to restaurants or go to the library or be easily driven to a Y pool, that one's closer there. So I like both of them for different reasons. And so it might come down to the price tag. It might come down to what we find out in an RFP. because the next step is whether we choose one or two, we do have money in there to do design work and exploration. Like, are there environmental hazards in these places? Are there reasons we can't build somewhere because of easements or they find rock or toxic waste or whatever? So it would cost more to do an RFP with two sites than one. And I'm not going to presume to say which one. You could have the seniors vote on these two sites or all four sites, whatever you want to do. I didn't think that was a bad idea. Thank you. Okay. Mayor, are we desirous of a decision and moving on today? Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Well said. Then for the purposes of discussion and the purposes of leadership and the purposes of serving the senior community of Lexington, Kentucky, I would make a motion that we place our senior citizen center at the aforementioned location in Idle Hour Park. Second. A motion and a second. A bunch of them. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Who wishes? We have a motion and we have a second. Vice Mayor Gordon. All right. We have a motion and we have a second. So we're now in discussion on the motion. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner and Madam CAO, thank you so much. I feel like we've been working on this for years. And that's why I think some of us up here, when Councilmember Farmer said, Are we desirous of making a decision? Yes, we're ready. You've done really good work. I'm actually encouraged about this motion because I see on your list of properties the four. Well, actually, it's including two Y sites. It would be five. The possibility of our main center and our satellites. And I think that's some really good news that came out of this list. I also support putting this on property that we own because it will save us a big chunk of money. And we still have a lot of work to do, but I am very supportive of your motion, Mr. Farmer. I appreciate the Council Member Meyer's comments about Picadome. The reason we bought Picadome was because of the stormwater problems, and so that would need a lot of vetting stormwater-wise. But I appreciate your motion. I'm going to support it, and I look forward to continuing working with you folks to get this going. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Henson? Well, I'm on the... Thank you. Well, were you... Does this speak to the motion? Thank you, Mayor. Okay, I thought you were up for this. Council Member Farmer, can you restate your motion? Okay, I'll get to you. Let's place the Senior Citizen Center as it will be newly located and built in the Idalara Park location listed as number one in the packet today. So it is to place the Senior Citizen Center there, not to research it further? Well, I mean, whatever needs to be done, let's do it. I guess I don't want to support it unless we have a plan in place for those kids. Now, wait a minute, y'all. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm entitled to my opinion. There are 200 kids that play ball there, and we have got to find a location for them. But I do think it's an excellent location. But other than that, we have to have a plan. We can't just say you're out of here. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Henson. All right. Everybody who signed up, have you signed up to speak to the motion? Okay. All right. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Mayor. First, I would like to commend CAO Hamilton and Commissioner Mills, as usual, going above and beyond and researching all of these properties after we already hired consultants to do the same, and I think that we've done due diligence for sure. and it seems to me I will support Council Member Farmer's motion. It seems that if we're using only 3 1⁄2 to 4 acres at the Idle Hour property and it is a park of nearly 24 acres, that that would leave about 20 acres that we could still use for football leagues or relocating fields or that sort of thing. And it's not like we're going to do this next week or next month and terminate football. So I think that we will use care and consideration in relocating the youth football leagues and nobody wants to just kick them out. So I will support the motion. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Rutgers. Councilman Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank you all for your due diligence, and this has been a lot of hard work, but I think we're coming to a solution here in the near future, hopefully. When I looked at this packet, there were two options I thought that looked viable, and one of them I thought was off the table but seems like it's come back as the turf of mall one. I thought that the dealer's property was not available and that we only had to use the one that was in the back parking lot because I thought it already had been leased out or that the new owners already were going to use that for something else. So that was kind of news to me today that when I got the packet that was available. Can you comment on that, please? In my conversation with Mr. Schweitzer, we had originally talked, which you're correct, the back corner, four acres in the back corner, and that is the area that is close to the Emerson Center. He was not willing to sell that particular property because in the meantime, his plans are to keep the Dillard building and not demolish it, and he needed that parking. So at that time, he had four acres anywhere else in the back. The Dillard building was a new idea, the leasing of that building that came out of that meeting. I don't think I have ever talked to you about that before. Well, way back when, when that came open, I thought, boy, that might be a great opportunity for the senior sitter to go in that. What did you say? It's 80,000 square feet? 80,000 per floor. We would do the first floor. It would be 40,000? No, it's 160,000. Oh, it's 160? But Mr. Schweitzer made it clear that he would work with us on whatever amount we wanted there. But you're correct in the fact that his first plans were not to have that building remaining, and now he is looking at it as... I guess one thing I want to look at is time factors, because we can move in that a lot quicker than building a new building, I have to think. A lot quicker. When I asked him of the time factor, as he said, he certainly was not making me any promises about neighbors, about anything else, but just a broad brush of timing would be a year. And if we looked at the Idle Hour, do you have a time frame on that? Jamshi didn't, I think, 18 months. So it's not that big a difference, okay. Or two years, I think. And would it be, we've talked about a satellite, would that the turfland mall be, could we take a smaller chunk of that then possibly as a satellite possibly? I think he left that all open. We do have the parking that would be available and we could do a lease. So I think the cost would be a lot less up front if we did the turfland. Now I do like having our own land. have we talked about sharing parking with the church in the back so we don't have to build a whole new 200 space parking we have not talked to the church at all and and the reason why we were trying to get that parking there is just up a little hill so we were trying to put that parking where the building would be up on that up on that but we have not spoken with the church sir i'm just trying to save some area there we could and try to share some things because They're going to need it mostly on Sundays and Wednesdays, but the rest of the time we need it during the day. So I just thought that might be an option. But I do think that the idler, it would certainly help the neighborhood. I think it would be good for the neighborhood. So those are my two options, and I'm not sure yet if I'm ready to vote right this minute because I think there are some issues. Are we planning on going to closed session and talk about some costs and that kind of thing? No, sir. Okay. I had, Albert had told me, Miller had told me that it's a private easement. I think, Council Member Henson, you had asked, that's by the Dillard's building, by the church building in. On the ingress and egress? Yes, Albert. Because I played there in ball many times, many years ago, and it's not the best on getting in and getting out. That is a private access easement. It actually goes around the property. And Lexington Mall, I'm sorry, they maintained it, and we had a hard time getting them to maintain it. And that's where the deterioration of the surface and stuff came about. Okay. Is that something we need to address then? I'm not sure how you would do that. It would be for somebody else to answer, but we do have private access easements that we use, which I guess probably is through some type of agreement or something. I don't know for sure. Okay, thank you very much. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank CAO Hamilton, Commissioner Mills. I'll support the motion brought forth by Council Member Farmer. I do stand in concert, as everybody else. I've coached football on that field. And so I think that there is ample space, as Councilmember Akers talked about, if we were to pursue this project, which would allow, Jerry, perhaps for a slight modest redesign and spruce up a vital out part. And I think we'll be able to afford it now with the cost savings that we would have from acquisition of land. One thing I will say is that I visit that area often. My barbershop is just across the street in Woodhill. And what we've seen in years past with the old mall site, vacant, people would just use that private access in that parking lot. You just cut across as a cut through. But what you have now is you have some uniformity over there in regards to what the church has done with their parking lot. And so you can't just cut across their parking lot anymore. They're very convenient, almost street-like accesses, both coming from Richmond Road and then also from New Circle. So I'll support this, and I think that the addition will even more amplify a good example of infield redevelopment, public and private. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I guess I'll just be brief. It seems like we're building consensus for the idle hour spot. I was hoping, though, we could go into closed session and ask some pointed questions. I like the option, the new option at Turfland to do the front of the building there. But there's some things that I thought that we might be able to ask and get answered in closed session before we just took this vote. And so I would feel a lot more comfortable if we could at least do that today and still come out today and make a decision. but I'm a little apprehensive about just voting on this now without having an opportunity to ask some questions in closed session. So I don't know if the motion for the second would. Janet? I just want to remind folks, it's proper to go into closed session if you think that what you're going to be discussing will affect the value of whatever property you might be buying or selling. Right. So if you think that's what it is, I can provide a motion for closed session. Yeah, that's not because it sounds like for the most part if there is a section option, the second option that people are looking at is turfland, so that would be whether or not we're buying or selling, I'm not sure, but if we're leasing, that would be the same as buying, right? Sorry. Can we go into closed session and discuss a lease in the same way that you discussed purchasing because that would still modify the price if you talked out? No, I don't believe so. The statute is kind of clear that it has to be acquisition or sale. I don't think a lease would constitute that. Okay, so then we can't go, there's probably not a way to. If you're going to be talking about something involving the acquisition or sale where you think that by talking about it in the open, the urban county government will be paying more, you can do that, so that would be fine. Okay, thank you. And if you need a motion, I can give you one. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Marrish. Councillor Lawless. Thank you. I just want to clarify, the motion on the table is to issue an RFP for design and whatever. I mean, we're going to have to issue that where that would be part of this motion. Is that correct? I think that would be implied in the motion. Okay. I just wanted to make sure. And I appreciate Council Member Akers talking about the Akers. And just real quickly, the one thing I think is really great is that it also gives us an opportunity to maybe do things in phases, such as put in a pool there at some point when it starts raining money in Lexington and that the children playing football will maybe be used in the center by the time it's finished. So I support this motion. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Council Member Lawless. Council Member Mossad. Thank you, Mayor. Jerry, would you mind coming to the podium, please? You had indicated that you thought there might be an issue because of the football at Eidel Hour. Is that a big deal, or can you speak to that about that issue? It would be a big deal if the football field went away and wasn't replaced, or if we couldn't find a way to shuffle the amenities in the park to allow for football. The program is big and important. We think it needs to be continued. The study team agrees. If we save money by not buying property, there should be some money left over to redevelop a football field and a restroom building someplace else or there on the site. So in your opinion, because of your parks background, do you think that the idle hour location would be amenable to the Senior Citizen Center or not because of the football issue? I think it lends itself well to the Senior Citizen Center. I think the access off of New Circle Road and Richmond Road lend themselves well to casual senior drivers. I think it would work, and I think we can find a space to replace football. I think it's a good idea. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Clark. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to say for the record, I was never particularly interested in the renovated Dillard scene at all. I don't think that's a good idea. And once the property that was available to us behind it became over behind Staples or wherever that is, I found that a whole lot less attractive. So I'm just, it seems like to me that the Eidel Hour location is probably our best bet. and it has the things that I think we need, and I think I would discount turf land if it was my vote, and so I just wanted to support the motion. Thank you. Council Member O'Key. Thank you, Mayor. I'm also going to support the motion. As I understand it, it does not preclude either soon or in the near future looking at satellite locations. I started in my thinking about this believing that the adjacency to a Y would be an asset, and my guess is that for some seniors it would be, for some it would not. But if this is to be the primary location, I hope that we can continue to look at the possibility of satellite locations adjacent to other kinds of services that would also be attractive to some of our senior population. And I would add my voice to all of those who expressed their appreciation for the CAO and Commissioner and others who kind of looked at this in a different way and came up with what looks like to me a really good solution. So thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilor Beard. Thank you, Madam. Actually, this is not a question. It's a suggestion. If we are to do the Adelaire location, I've seen this be a very positive type of thing to do, what I'm going to suggest, and that is to stub in the heating, the air conditioning, piping of one form or another, electrical, so that if none of us know exactly what it's going to be like 15 years from now, we aren't running around town looking for another place. could very inexpensively add to it. That's all I have. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. CEO Hamilton, if we pass this motion today, give us a time frame so everybody can understand the expectations the next couple steps so we can know, the community can know how fast we'll be moving, or maybe not. It's all right. Let's hope we are. I'm just sort of thinking. My head's curling. You know, we haven't built a building since the jail. And I said, does somebody know how to do this in case we do it? So I just sort of, okay, here's what I think we would do. And I'm going to just. And we won't hold it to you. It's just on TV and tape. That's all right. I'm going to go with John Sheet's thing of 18 months to build this. Tomorrow morning I'm getting all these people in a room, and we're starting. Very good. And so, I mean, we are going to start to do this, because if I run into some problems on that site, I need to come back to you, because I may. I've got to make sure that church is going to let us in over this. I promise you we will start talking about this football, because we will start tomorrow. So I'm saying that in two years, hopefully we'll be in there. Very good. And don't leave out the neighborhood meeting as soon as possible. That's right. Council Member Farmer will be in attendance. I'm going to work with Council Member Farmer on all this. And so I'm ready to go. Yeah, I just didn't want to sit on the shelf. We're ready to move. So thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Stanton. Council Member Marish. Thank you, Mayor. Sally, could you come up just one second? As you put this going on. It says John Sheet if he can build this building. Okay. I like the fact that you said you're going to get folks in a room tomorrow and get started. Can you, as a part of this, look at sort of an overall development plan? I know we're focused on the Senior Students' Center, but can you also look at the overall master plan of the park and how we can revitalize the entire park? I think that needs to be a crucial part of this. Yes. And that was one of the things when we talked to Jerry, we were going to save quite a bit of money, and then we needed to look at this park. Yeah, let's do something big. The park should be fit in with this nice building. Right. I think it will be quite good. As a part of that, initially you were talking about building parking, right, for this building, creating parking. Yes, sir. Can you also look in that conversation with the church about a way that the building can be situated where we can utilize their parking instead of taking more land out of the park for parking? We'll look at all those issues. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Council Member Myers. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to speak again because I really think, of course, our senior population is very, very important, and I'm going to be right there with them soon. But all of our citizens are important. So when we look at things, Sally, and I know that you certainly understand and Beth does, we've had all this violence in our parks and things, and we do not want kids idle. We want to keep our kids busy. We don't want to make one decision and have unintended consequences in another. But I think it is exciting. I am going to support the motion since Jerry came up and said that he will find a place for these football players. But I just wanted to reiterate that. I think your point is extremely important. And I do trust that you will work and do everything you can. So thank you. Thank you all very much. I appreciate it. I can't believe if we finally get one, it will be a miracle. Thank you. You know what, Beth? Imparting comment. You know what Beth called me over the summer? Mustang sailing. Ride, ride, ride. All right. Call the question. All right. We've got a motion to call the question in a second unless there's an objection. Unless there's an objection, I'll call the question. Now, y'all see, let me just, before we take this vote, everybody in here, y'all see Mr. Mundy? Over there. He's not an insignificant fellow, is he? See, he's here to control all sorts of demonstrations and outrages. So we know that probably, very likely, possibly, perhaps, when we take this vote, there may be some possible demonstration. For just a few seconds, Mr. Mundy, is it okay? All right, for just a little while, there can be a demonstration. All right. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by voting electronically and saying aye. Opposed? No. The motion carries. And Idle Hour carries the day. Thank you all very much. See, the democratic process does work. All right. All right, now we can move on to the next on our agenda, which is Council Reports. And the floor is available for Council Reports. And first is Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Mustang Sally. It's come to my attention that I guess we are borrowing a fire truck from Scott County because we have some issues with ours. Either they're in maintenance or some kind of mechanical failures. Can someone from the fire department, is someone here that can address that? Commissioner Mason, please. Where's our fire chief? It must be here. Yes, ma'am. I guess I know our fleet is aging and so forth, but we've got a truck that we're borrowing from Scott County. I understand. Is that correct? That's correct. It's routine in the fire service to assist other departments when there's a mechanical issue with a truck. We've loaned ours out in the past. last night one of our trucks experienced a maintenance issue and was taken out of service and so instead of having a crew without a truck to drive and use today we brought one from scott county expected to be out of service for a couple of days to a week and we met this morning we're meeting again tomorrow with general services folks to talk about fleet and and options and trying to keep up with this. But, yeah, that's the case right now. What kind of situation is the fleet in? I mean, how bad are we as far as the shape mechanically, our trucks? We have several older trucks that typically would be in a reserve status that are filling in for other trucks that are in need of some type of repair. We've got a couple of our front-line engines that are out for an electrical issue or a part that, you know, fire trucks are not like owning a regular car where there's an abundance of parts sometimes, so it takes a while to get some in. So we do have a couple of our reserves that are running as front line. I think there are three that are running that way right now. We do have an aging fleet. We've been looking at this. We have money that was in this year's budget to replace a ladder, an ambulance, and then we're using some insurance proceeds and I think another pot of money to replace an engine. So this year we are in the process of purchasing some new apparatus. So you anticipate that we're going to also have to buy some trucks as well? I think that's what we're looking at discussing here again tomorrow. Okay. Thank you for the update. Thank you, Council Member Soddy. Council Member Hanson. Thank you, Mayor. As you all know, we have been working on itinerant merchants and food trucks for a number of years. And I feel like that we have finally gotten through all this. the food truck, thanks to Councilmember Akers and others, are finally coming to light. The original itinerant merchant ordinance was in the Economic Development Committee, and it is in your packet, a copy of the final draft. I move to place the itinerant merchant on the docket, move it to the full council. It's a motion by Council Member Hanson. Second. 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. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Hanson. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I just wanted to thank the Mayor and the Vice Mayor, Commissioner Mason, Deputy Director Brown, and all of our police staff that came, and Council Member Ford, that came to our meeting last night in Douglas Park to discuss the issues in the park and in the neighborhood. And I think that it was a really good meeting, substantive meeting, and we came away with some action items that I'm looking forward to working with everybody on. So I just wanted to thank everybody for your participation and concern for our neighborhood. And secondly, Chris, if you'll post a picture. Since we're talking about senior citizens and our Department of Social Services, I wanted to bless and thank Christy Stambaugh and Commissioner Mills and the Department of Social Services. I was contacted by a caseworker at Community Action Council about a resident in my district on Wilton Avenue, Mr. Larry Goodlett, and I believe he's in the center in this photo. And he had been cited by Division of Code Enforcement for some peeling paint on the front of his property and did not have the resources or means to make the repairs and bring it in to correct the issues cited by Code Enforcement. So Christy found volunteers and had several volunteers. These are pictures of the volunteers that came out, and they actually painted his entire house, not just the front that was sited. Mr. Goodlett's son participated. The volunteers were Tim Cantrell, John Davis, and Jerry Carr. And so, again, this is just another example that our Department of Social Services is not in the business or funded to paint houses. But this is another example of how they go above and beyond in our community and for our seniors. So thank you, Christy, and thank you, Commissioner Mills, and all the staff and volunteers that helped with this. That's it. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Rivers. That's a great story. Congratulations. Great story. All right. Councilman Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. CEO Hamilton, I want to ask you an update. We passed the food truck ordinance a couple months ago. How many permits have we issued on food trucks, seeing that we have one out front? Do you know how many we've actually issued to date? I'm going to double check. It was two at last panel. No, but I think it's three. Oh, he's going to clarify. This means there's trouble. We think it's three? Well, we have a pilot that requires a separate registration and application. Three people have applied for the pilot to use public property. We have many more of that that are itinerant merchants as food trucks. the example you gave across the street would be on private property and would not be part of the public property pilot. Did I get that out straight? Yep. Okay. So I'm just trying to understand. So the public process, three total. Three years of work and we get three. So far. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Mayor. However, well, there was another amendment to, I'm sorry, zoning ordinance that has just gone into effect. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. I had placed to each of the Council members' places an outline of a possible reorganization of traffic engineering and streets and roads proposal. It would be to merge the division of streets and roads and traffic engineering into a new division of transportation. I think it's an issue that would add some efficiency and bring some focus to our transportation issues, but something I think we should look at in committee, so I'd like the council's consent to place it into the Planning and Public Works Committee for us to take it up. So moved. Second. Motion by Councilman Farmer, second by Councilman Lane. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Although I haven't been able to stop, and I know many people drive by, the beginning of the Tays Creek Road sidewalk, and it's five feet. It is indeed five feet. The vice mayor and I had a discussion about how wide it was for sure. And as of today, I think about 240 feet of it have been poured. I'm looking forward to the continuing, just following that all the way out the road and back. And then I've given something to Mr. Edwards to put up, which this Saturday, and Council Member Lawless will probably want to add into this too, but our street fair will be taking place in the 800 block of Euclid Avenue on Saturday afternoon, which provides an opportunity for shopping and entertaining and eating and libation and libation and libation. So if the opportunity strikes on Saturday afternoon, please come down to Chevy Chase. You'll enjoy a very multicultural experience and a great time. It's always a good time. right away. And Parks and Recreation has been, they're very creative because we never give them enough resources. But they have, and I'm not being critical, I'm just asking. If you drive down part of Taste Creek Road, you can see where they took some sort of a wall of death and just cut everything out. And you can also see that on old Mount Tabor, and you can also see it on old Paris Pike. And I'm appreciative of the fact that it pushes the foliage back, but it's just, I know what they did on Richmond Road, they're near Shriners, and it just looks so ill-efficient, I don't know, or it looks like something landed there and grabbed something and walked away, I don't know what it is, but if there were a way for us to address that in a little more, in a cleaner fashion, I think it would not only service the need, but look better for the constituency or the visitors who drive by any of these locations because it just looks so denuded. It's troublesome sometimes. So I'm just bringing that for conversation purposes. I don't really have a motion. I'm not really critical. I just think it's something that we have the opportunity to do better. So other than that, and other than that, happy birthday, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Farmer. post facto, after the fact. Oh, Lordy. Happy birthday. Happy birthday, dear Greg. Oh, my goodness. Happy birthday to you and many more. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you all very much. Yes, it feels great. um council member farmer what's the location of that that uh you were talking about on richmond road on at the inner part on richmond on part on richmond road there uh along in front of Shriners, part on old Paris Pike, just before you turn and go under, part on old Mount Tabor, and certainly the part there where the four lane narrows down to two lanes on Tate's Creek. And on Sunday, I was driving in there from church, and where there's no sidewalk, and where all this stuff comes out, and not going against the traffic, was a woman with a stroller on Tate's Creek Road. It scared me, and I know that that will not be the case once the sidewalk is constructed, but one of the reasons, besides the fact there wasn't a sidewalk, there was no room because everything has grown up along through there, and even though they've trimmed some of it back, it still comes out to the road edge. It's a telltale thing that we've done, but we could do better. Yeah, let's powwow and work on that, put a strategery together. All right. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. In 2003, and there were a few of us on this current council who were on the council in 2003, we, well, just to put it gently, were surprised by a budget which contained, as far as I know, without any of our input, domestic partner benefits. And I think that at the time, council members were so surprised that they took it out and did nothing with it. And I think the time has come for us to discuss for the first time providing domestic partner benefits to our employees who desire it. There are, as I recall, and I haven't looked at my file lately, but there are several things that need to be considered and talked about in committee. Any extra cost, rules that employees would need to follow, just the parameters of it. But most large corporations and businesses, our size bigger, some smaller, provide this for their employees. And so with that, I'd like to go ahead and move to place into the General Government Committee the discussion of domestic partner benefits. I second. Motion by Council Member, by Vice Mayor Gordon, second by Council Member Massadi, Is there any discussion on the motion? Any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. I would like to say one thing, Vice Mayor, if I may, to thank you for your leadership on this issue. You said, and I think appropriately, the time is right to examine this. Many also believe, including myself, that it is the right thing to do. and, as you said, as our best companies, including Toyota and Lexmark right here in Lexington, and institutions like the University of Kentucky and dozens of others also believe. So I'm glad that the Council is examining this. Jobs are so important. We saw that just last night in our conversation. Jobs are so important, and it's essential that we leverage every competitive advantage we have in our city. And providing the right benefits to attract talent to our city is part of that. Thank you, Vice Mayor, very much. Thank you for those comments, Mayor. And we'll have a full vetting and full discussion in our committee. And the other thing is I know that there are citizens here who have concerns about the salt barn. And so I wanted to ask our CAO if she would give us an update. You are still Mustang Sally, right? Chief Administrative Officer, Mrs. Hamilton. Our salt farm. We have issued and we sent out to everybody and got several comments back that we have issued an RFP to look for the possibility of another site, except the continental site, for this salt barn. And I think on the, and I'm just going to go on and freely speak here, I think that several people have told me that they were very surprised that we had done that and that that had usurped the council's authority and had not been appropriate. And for that, I truly apologize. The idea behind this was never to usurp the council's authority or counteract your approval. The reasoning behind this was to see if, because we do know that neighborhoods and their concerns are so important to you and to all of us, to see if there was any way that we could find another site for this salt barn that would be appropriate for the salt barn and would also solve the neighborhood concerns. And perhaps, or as you've told me, several of you, we did not do that right. And we knew that we had to come back to you with an RFP. I mean, we don't have the authority to just move this site. And I think our reasoning was that, I'm not thinking, I know our reasoning was, that we would issue the RFP, and if we found anything, we would come back to you with that particular site. So I do apologize. The reasoning had, the issuing of the RFP had no malice behind it and no usurping of your authority. And I can see why you took it that way. And again, I do apologize. Mayor, my time's up, but if I might just a quick comment. Thank you very much for that, Commissioner C.A.O. Hamilton. I did meet with Commissioner Paulson, and I think that the first thing we need to be doing, because the Council did vote on this issue, is, and I told him this, is to talk with the neighbors about their concerns. I don't know if everyone got the email. I did receive an email from Eleanor Leonard, who is an esteemed former council member and lives in the neighborhood, and she had two very specific concerns. And after talking with Commissioner Poulsen, I think those concerns can be addressed. So my personal opinion is that first we need to address whether we can mitigate the concerns of the neighborhood on the current property. And, you know, I understand. I don't know how the RFP was initiated. I understand. I think the first thing that we need to do is talk with the neighbors about the traffic, which was one of Ms. Leonard's concerns, and the creeks, and get some input from Charlie Martin about the creeks, and to address any other kinds of mitigation on that continental end property, since the Council has already spoken about it, and perhaps put a hold on the RFP until we're satisfied whether we can or cannot mitigate the concerns of the neighborhood. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Silence. Do you want me to make an option? Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. I do have a council report, but since we're on the topic of the salt barn, I would like to respond to some of the comments that the Vice Mayor has made and CEO Hamilton. I voted against the resolution to place the salt barn there. I addressed the concerns that were raised by the neighborhood. But I want to not focus particularly on that so much, because hopefully we may have some conversation from the neighbors that are here to share with us today for issues not on the agenda. But the concern and heartburn that I have is policy-related, as Vice Mayor Gordon says. We have Resolution 373-2013, which authorized the execution of a lease for the salt barn there. And I don't see how it's possible that we can have a RFP at the same time. So the question really from a policy standpoint is, well, I don't have a question. I think that's a conflicting policy. I was not on the prevailing side. But if it is our intent to go forward with the RFP to not pursue this site, I think we need to address the resolution that we have now. Because if we have a resolution, and it's apparent that the administration does not intend to go forward with that resolution, and I support that, but I don't support how it was brought forward. So I think basically what I'm saying is that from a policy standpoint, we may need some reconciliation in the interim before we go forward. and CAO Hamilton I do accept and understand things happen, but that's kind of where I stand, Mayor. I think we need to clean up the policy, and then I do support the neighborhood. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Mayor. I know this is the second time I'm speaking during a council report, but since the Vice Mayor brought it up, and it is my district, I have not heard from any other council member in regards to, except for one or two today, in regards to this situation. So it would have been nice to hear over the weekend after that email from the administration sent out. But having said that, I would invite any council member to go visit the site, because half of you or the majority of you have not even been out there to look at the site, to see exactly where it's going to be. And we had asked for a tabling on the neighborhood's behalf back in our last council meeting. That was failed or defeated. And since that failed, we had discussion publicly. And that discussion, for the first time, an environmental issue was brought up. Now, in an email that the council received, we've been talking about this salt barn location for over two years. But this location, we haven't been. We've been talking for a couple months. But that was the first time an environmental issue was brought up. First time. We hadn't talked about an environmental issue a year ago when we talked about the salt barn or the previous year. So I think it's appropriate to, one, visit the site. Look at the conditions of the site. Does it match the neighborhood? Would you want it in Beaumont when you drive into your neighborhood? Would we want it in Idolar when we drive in Idolar? Who wants a salt barn at the entrance to their neighborhood? How many people in here would raise their hand if their neighborhoods would support that? I guarantee you they would. So it's time to write. Like the vice said, let's listen to the neighborhood. I think a motion to reconsider from someone on the prevailing side would be appropriate to give the same administration that brought it to us in the first place to go back. They're asking for more due diligence. That's all they're asking for. It is a policy issue, perhaps, but they're just asking for more due diligence. That's all they're asking. It may ultimately go there, but let's give the consideration to the administration and reconsider it. I know I can't bring that motion up because I was on the non-prevailing side. I think it would be in order, and this is not inappropriate to be able to do so. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Stenet. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Mayor. I'm not sure that it is necessarily a policy issue. I think it's more of a parliamentary issue and that we would be setting bad precedents, in my opinion, to circumvent the vote of the council and the discussion that we had on the night that we did discuss it and we did debate it and we did hear from Commissioner Maloney and we heard from the neighbors and the council voted and made a decision. The mayor had an opportunity to veto it at that meeting and he did not. You had an opportunity to move it to a committee and you didn't. I do drive by that property every day, so when you invited me to the site, that's why I didn't take you up on it. I drive that way every day to take my son to school. So I just don't think that we need to be in the habit of, after we've made votes and taken votes and council has made decisions, later we come back. I mean, Kroger was an example. There were neighbors who were very unhappy at the end of that zoning decision. Are we now to say, well, there's still neighbors complaining, so we're not going to go forward with that right now. We can't start doing that. Same with the Foodtrap pilot project. Restaurants weren't happy. If we were, after we voted, and then to go back and say, well, the restaurants are still not happy, are we going to just negate the vote that we took? I think that that is dangerous territory and I'm sorry, but I think that the Vice Mayor has a great solution and that we try to mitigate the neighborhood's concerns as best that we can. But the Council has already made our decision. Thank you. Council Member Lawless? I've been to that site many times, and I can understand why the neighbors think something needs to be done there. And if there are things that the vice mayor has talked to neighbors about how something can be done to mitigate that site, I, for one, don't know how a salt barn could make it look any worse. And, I mean, it's been a problem property for a very long time, as we all know. So I feel like we need just to move forward, and I'm quite sure that the administration or CAO Hamilton wasn't being whatever it was somebody thought she was being. But anyway, I do think that it would be great if we could do something to make that site more pleasant, and I have invited many of the council members, including you, Council Member Stenet, to visit some of the neighborhoods in the 3rd District where droves of people, young people, go up and down the street until 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning cussing and screaming and throwing bottles and no gutters, no sidewalks. So I've been to your site. Let's make a date to go to mine. Thank you. Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question maybe for the CAO. Why don't we start with you? I want to make sure that I understand where we are with this. Since the council has already passed a resolution, is it fair to say, and maybe law needs to answer this too, it's fair to say that what can happen now is that there can be a discussion with the neighbors about mitigation. There can be some analysis of the site in terms of environmental quality and so on. but the decision that the council has made stands. We're not in a conversation with the neighbors about not having it on that site. Is that correct? I don't know if this will help clarify, but what the council passed, nothing has affected what you all passed. The issuance of the RFP doesn't affect the validity of the resolution that was passed because, as you are probably aware, some RFPs are awarded. Some never get awarded. So, you know, your all's resolution is still valid. And as far as that goes, there's nothing that the RFP has done to affect the validity of that. Does that help? I'm not sure. The RFP? The issuance of an RFP is not a final action, I guess is the best way to put it. a lot of RFPs that are issued may or may not be awarded. For example, if somebody came back with the RFP and said, or some of the responses came in and there was a site in there that some may think the council might want to hear about that might be a better site, might be better for the neighbors, at that point it would come back to you all, you could resend your prior resolution and pass another resolution. Does that help? So in other words, just the pure issuance of an RFP, it might affect the comedy between the branches of government, but legally there's no effect on y'all's resolution of that. So you can explore neighborhood concerns, do whatever, but until the council were to decide that there was a better site and decided to rescind the prior resolution, the current one is in place. I see. I believe I was on the prevailing side on that issue. And I would move to reconsider so that we can have this conversation in a way that leaves all possibilities open. There's just too many questions as far as I'm concerned in my mind. So I don't know if there's support for that. I don't know if people want to do that, but I would move. I think you're at a point where you'd have to rescind the resolution. It happened before break. So in order to undo it, you'd have to rescind it. I think you're fine proceeding with what's going on now with the understanding, from a legal standpoint at least, with the understanding that before any kind of decision was made to do anything else, it has to come back to you all to be approved. And they can't, they're not going to locate it somewhere else without, they may not locate it somewhere else anyway, but it's not going to be located somewhere else without coming back to you all and saying we found a better spot to put it. What do you all think? So I don't think you need to do anything with respect to what you've already done. If you did, it would have to be a rescission of the resolution that you already adopted. Does that make sense? Can I ask a question, Mayor? I'm not. Well, I think what Council Member Kaye was approaching it, my interpretation would be that you're approaching it as the method that Council Member Stinnett suggested. Is that right? So, and what David just indicated was that that... If this had happened after the immediate meeting after this took place, that would be appropriate. But due to the timing of it, you now have a situation where the resolution has been in place, I think, for six weeks or seven weeks or so. So the appropriate thing to do would be to rescind it. But if you all didn't want to take that step, I guess what they're saying is they're not going to act on what you all have done yet until they come back and do some further study. If they have something to present to you all, they'll be back and tell you all, hey, we found a better spot to put it. We'd like to rescind this other one and put this other one in place instead. So it may be that what I really want to do and what Kevin was suggesting was to rescind the motion. What I'm uncomfortable with is having the council having stated an intention, and now we're kind of working around it. I mean, I think it's confusing. So I will withdraw my original motion to reconsider, and I will move to rescind the motion to approve that site for the salt barn. Okay, so there's a motion by Council Member Kaye, second by Council Member Stennett. to rescind the resolution? Mayor, that resolution for reference is 373-2013. So the motion is to rescind and reconsider, right? Do we have a motion? We have a second. All right, I'm going to call on count. Yes. You may want to know that I believe it takes two-thirds vote to rescind a resolution. A vote of two. Oh, wait. Say that again, Janet. It requires a two-thirds vote to rescind a resolution. Councilman, stand it. Mayor, I know there's a great deal of people from the neighborhood. I know people have asked to hear from the neighborhood. Well, they're here. I think at this time, or we can wait to public comment to hear from them, but I think we need to hear from them before we take. One other thing to consider, too, which we're back here kind of looking through the rules, This is a work session rather than a general council meeting. It may be more appropriate to do this at the council meeting on Thursday than at the work session today. All right. So then with that council. Having heard that additional information, I'm going to get in the habit of moving and then taking it back, but I would, yes. All right. I will withdraw my motion. It moves the conversation forward regardless sometimes. So there's a motion to withdraw the motion, and you're good with that, Council Member Stenet? All right. All right. Now, we do have some citizens here to speak to this issue. Is that what you said, Council Member Stenet? Yeah, we were both. All right. Okay. All right. Wait to public comment. All right. All right. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Mayor. I guess I'd like to ask the administration, when they vetted this location, why did not any of these issues come to light, the environmental and, I guess, the traffic and the concerns of the neighborhood? Was there not meetings with the neighborhoods and these discussions were brought forward? I'm sorry. Dr. Lewis, not quite yet. Shortly, not too old. As you all know, before we had the vote, there was a questionnaire sent out by the Neighborhood Association a week before you all took your vote. A lot of those questions were traffic, the environmental, and all those were answered. I'd be glad to have George answer the question on the environmental and also to talk about the traffic issue, which we looked into before we did this. When we looked at this site, and this was not our primary site to put the part on this location, one of the things we were very concerned about was the traffic off of Eastland Parkway. To enter this site off of Eastland Parkway, you would have to come down a private drive that is owned by Spencerian College. We talked to Spencerian. They were comfortable with having the barn located where it is. They were not comfortable with using that driveway. For that reason, when the lease was prepared, in addition to the land that we are leasing, We wrote into the lease that we have an easement coming off of the property from the entrance on Winchester Road to come down in front of, I believe it's a redhead, Fastville gasoline station, come across the property that way so that the traffic would not be on Eastland Parkway. This is how we address that. The environmental issue is this piece of property and the portion of it where it is, when you look at it on a topo map, it is basically flat. The creek in question is a fairly decent distance away from it. There is a lot of pervious soil in between there. The reason this is a salt barn is the fact that the salt is covered in it, unlike where it is now on a canine on Manchester Street. So there is very minimal, if any, salt contamination in that area. And I can show you geographically if you'd like to see this, where these are. Mayor, do I still have the floor? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. So then why are we looking at an alternative site if this is okay? He doesn't know. I'm not the one looking. Commissioner? I mean, if the traffic's not an issue, and because we've got an easement with Spence here in college, and the environmental is not an issue, then I'd like to know what the issues are. I can't answer it. Our department is not the ones who instituted the RFP. Well, Richard, can you? I get clouding to be able to answer that. Council Member Mazzotti, I think the interest of issuing the RFP was to make sure that we did not have, or to look for rather, another site which may be equally suitable and not disturb the neighborhood. because there was so much neighborhood opposition and concerns that we felt were pretty justified. I understand what you're saying, but I'm assuming that someone had discussions with the neighborhood associations. I know Council Member Stenet did, and these issues must have come to light during those meetings, I would assume. Well, let me intervene for just a second. And I think what you're seeing is that the chief administrative officer examined the issue and it was her belief that given the objections, the strong objections by the neighbors, which we typically listen to like we did last night at Douglas Park. We spent quite a bit of time listening to the neighbors. And it was her judgment that out of respect for the neighbors, for the neighborhood, that the appropriate thing to do was to make sure that adequate due diligence had been done. And she believed more could be done. Is that a fair way of putting it? Yes, sir. I don't disagree with your intent. I just wish we would have had all this information prior to the situation we're in now, where we have to potentially rescind the resolution. We've got neighbors that are unhappy. I just was wondering if there was a way that we could have mitigated this prior to this all happening. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, ma'am. I don't know who to actually. Maybe you. you all can sit down. When we have a snow... Councilman Beard, is this question for... Who's the question for? Who is the question for? Rich. For Mr. Maloney. Yes, sir. When we spread salt and brine, and then subsequently snow melts or rain... Where does the brine go? It goes into the sewer system. I mean, it goes into stormwater. The stormwater sewer system. Where does that go? Stormwater. I'm sorry. Stormwater. Yes. And that ends up in one or more creeks, does it not? So we've got an environmental situation no matter what we do, just by laying out the brine and the salt anyway. And we've been doing it now for how long? God knows how long, but it's a long time. Let me ask our CAO, have we signed a lease? Yes, sir, we have signed a lease. Do we have an out? I haven't looked back at that lease, but I do think we have a lease. Sixty days. Yes, sir, we do. We do have a lot. We have a 60-day lease. Okay. Because it would be a shame to have to pay for two salt barns. Yes, sir. And only get one. Okay, that's all I need to know. Thank you, Mayor. Okie dokie. Council Member Akers. I guess to follow on what Council Member Masati was asking and what I asked in my e-mail when I received the e-mail from the administration this weekend, is I thought also that other properties were looked at and that we considered other properties. We talked about the fire station property. And so I guess my question, too, is why are we, again, looking at properties, and why didn't we do it previously, or why wasn't that information provided to us when we made the decision on the first round? Just to give you a heads-up, we have looked at other properties. We looked over there at a treatment plant right off of Winchester Road. It's in the flood plan. We couldn't put it there. We went out to Athens, the park out there where originally we were going to put a salt barn. We couldn't get the state approval, so we went and looked at the park. The problem was it would have the same problem in utility lines to get the trucks in. We wouldn't have been able to do it. Our goal is to put it on the east side of town. It's more of an efficiency. It's to be sure we can cut the cost down. It's for areas that never has gotten salt before, and this was just an opportunity for two years that we're trying to get it. Charlie, we worked with Charlie today. The salt barn we hope to have at Blue Sky will be in about two years, and we were able to move this over there. So it's not like we have looked at a lot of places. And that's what I remember. I mean, I don't want to cut you off, but that's what I do remember, is that we did discuss multiple sites, and you did talk about mitigating the environmental impact and all of those things. So I think that we had the information at the time. I think that we made our decision based on valid information and your all's due diligence of research and various sites offered to us. And so I guess my question is, with the RFP being issued, how will that impact the implementation or moving forward of the resolution that we did pass? and will that delay that? Timing-wise, it's my understanding, the next council meeting will be a week from this Thursday. From talking with Todd Slayton, he says the bids on the RFP will come in Wednesday. There may or may not be any bids at all. So there should be more information for you all before the next council meeting so you all can decide from that if you so want to consider that. So it's not a lengthy RFP time? No. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Ford. Thank you. Council Member Ford. Is everybody, I believe you're second round, Council Member Ford. Everybody is. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. One of my favorite sayings is that councils have erases for a reason. Nothing's absolute. And at times we do reconsider. I can recall instances just this calendar year where this council has reconsidered. Does Code for America mean anything to anybody? Fund balance, does that mean anything to anybody? Those were issues where we reconsidered, and I was on various sides of the fence at times. We had that opportunity. I'm looking at the resolution. Commissioner Graham, please. Thank you, Council Member Beer, for raising the question of the hour. And that question was, has the lease been executed? And the answer we got was yes. The resolution authorized the mayor on behalf of this government to execute the lease. That's all the resolution did. And so, therefore, the mayor has actually carried forth the will of the council. Now the administration is coming back, and they're saying they may want to do something different. And that's fine in itself, too. So with that fact being that the lease has been executed, there's really nothing else legislatively dealing with Resolution 373. That's correct at this point, unless you all decide later you'd like to do something with it, upon further information. Well, and I take that also to mean that if the administration wants to do something else, the administration will bring forth what their plan is. And so right now the administration is the one technically who is in reconsideration phase. Yes, and I think if they get a bid in or something that looks like something that they want to inform the council about, that the council would like to know about, then I'm assuming they will bring that forward and let you all consider that. So yes. I think that's very important. and I think, again, CAO Hamilton has indicated, you know, as it stands right now, here's the other question to piggyback on Councilman Beard's question. We passed a resolution to execute a lease. I voted against it with a few others. But as we stand right now, does the administration intend to build a temporary salt barn at that location at 801 East New Circle Road. As of right now, I think the resolution empowers the administration to do that. You've got a lease you can go ahead and build. The question is, as of right now, does the administration intend to do that? The administration intends to build a salt barn. If there is nothing that changes in this bid, in this RFP that we have now got out on the street, if there is no other site that comes from this RFP, we are going to then have to say that we do not have another alternative for this salt barn. except the one that was here but the i think you're hitting on the question the real question was when we had to look at the neighborhood and say did you literally exhaust when the neighborhood said did you literally exhaust every step you could to find an alternative site that's when I couldn't answer that question. I didn't advertise. Well, thank you, Sally. So where I'll end, Mayor, in the last 60 seconds is I'll move away from the resolution that we passed, and I'll support the administration in their desires to work with the neighborhood to look for an alternative site. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Ford. Councilman Lawless. Just quickly, I want to say that to the people that live in that neighborhood, that site has been a travesty, an eyesore. The trailer's parked there forever. It looks awful, and I don't blame you one bit for not wanting that to be the entrance. to your neighborhood. I guess my point in it is that if there's something we can do to piggyback on leasing that from that property owner to mitigate some of those problems, the salt barn may be an improvement. I mean, and I do go by there a lot because I live close to and just erode. But it's not that I have a lack of sympathy for you all because it has been a mess for years you all have lived with, and I do recognize that. So thank you. We're back to Council Member Stennett. This is the second round. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to go back and give some history because I don't think it's been accurately portrayed by any stretch of the imagination what's really occurred here. First of all, Spenserian did not give an easement. They cannot use the back entrance to Spenserian College. They have to go in front of the college, in front of every business down through there. We're going to drive salt trucks. Now, given, it will probably be inclement weather when we do it, and they may or may not be open. But we're going to go all day long and drive in front of those businesses. Again, how many businesses in your district want to see that every day? Second of all, we had one meeting with the neighborhood that was a scheduled neighborhood meeting. I, Councilman of Stenet, invited Commissioner Maloney. The administration didn't come on their own. I invited him to field questions because I didn't know 100% of the details. We fielded questions. That's it. Period. That's all the communication. We received a letter from the neighborhood president representing the neighborhood's issues that was responded to by Commissioner Maloney. But that's it. That's the only meeting we had. I had to go back to the meeting by myself on July 23rd after we had already passed it and explain to the neighborhood what happened. So there has not been a full line of communication, and that's why the administration, the same administration that brought the resolution to begin with, is asking for a second look. We did this on the Senior Citizen Center. We've done on numerous things in the past. This is no different than that. I appreciate some of the sentiments that have been made about legalese and the process, but let's not get process in a way of common sense. Period. This neighborhood deserves the right to be heard, and they're here today to speak their piece. We can all argue whether it's late or early or they should have been here 10 months ago or two years ago. But that salt bile, how long has that salt bile been at K9? How long has it been out there? Does anybody know? How long has it been leaking into the stream, apparently? Nobody can tell us approximately how long it's been out there. And it may or may not be an issue at this point. But the new pump station will be available to be built January 3, 2015. That's when they can start construction on it. That's the earliest. We know because of the EPA consent decree. All we're asking for is a second look. And the sites that we went and looked at, Councilman Akers, you asked about, I mentioned those sites. I mentioned the pump station 2A that we're building. I mentioned the fire station location. I asked them to go look at Athens because I went out and looked at all three thinking there has to be a better site. That's all that was looked at, though. That's it. Private sites weren't looked at. Jacobson Park, which would be the perfect site, wasn't even looked at. It's right by the Blue Sky Parkway where it's going to be ultimately. We have all that land, and we just talked about city-owned land at Idolar Park. We own that land. Why are we paying someone else money when we have land ourselves? We could build a pad that could stay there for basketball court or for more parking or whatever it may be. So let's understand what's really happened here, and that's why the neighborhood's here today. They're asking for us to reconsider, and that's all the administration's asking. And so I appreciate your indulgence in trying to do that. This is not to try to circumvent the system or go against the will of the council. And the mayor can speak on his behalf for the administration if they've visited with the neighborhood since then, but that's the truth. Not to throw anyone under the bus. There's good intentions here, and we need a second location. But that's all the communication that's been had for the neighborhood from the administration side. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Stennig. All right, y'all, I've had to give the warning before, so let's be careful. You know, Mr. Mundy, he didn't like to get up much. All right. I mean, he likes where he is. He's in good shape. He gets up when he has to, doesn't he? Yeah. All right. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. What kind of time constraint are we on to have this salt barn ready for, I assume we want it ready for this year, do we not? We have extended the contract with Detroit Salt, and so we need to have it so that we can fill it by October 1st. I'm sorry, what day? October 1st. October 1st? It has to be erected and be able to receive salt by October 1st. Okay. I've got a couple issues. And we have signed a lease. We have a 60-day out clause, as my understanding you said. That's correct. When is that executed and when is that 60 days? When do we need to meet that requirement? The lease was effective July 1st. our out clause is the fact we have to give them 60 days notice. So September 1st. So we'd have to give a second reading on that by next Thursday to make that requirement. It's 60 days in advance. You don't have 60 days after date of, you can't rescind the lease. We have leased the property since July 1st. The out clause is moving forward. In other words, if we decide that we no longer want it, we have to tell them 60 days in advance of the time that we want it. So we've already started paying on it then? We owe them money at this time. Okay. That even makes this even more of a dangerous ground that we are attempting to look at. And this kind of irritates me, I'll be honest, because we were brought information from the administration. We vote on it. We passed a resolution. It was signed by the mayor and it was an executed lease. and now we're reconsidered by an RFP. I think this is completely, and probably the first time that I've been on this council for 11 years that we're looking at something that we've already asked that, and now we're bringing an RFP. I think the proper procedure would have been, and I think it's completely inappropriate for us to be doing this. You should come back to us. We should have reconsidered. I don't think you go have two separate tracks. I think we're really confusing, and I think it's dangerous ground when the council, I know we said we want to respect the neighbors, and we do. It's important for the neighbors because they have to live with it. But I think you have to respect this council. And from this council member's perspective, I don't think that the right parliamentary procedure has been followed. And when we vote on something and we execute something, I expect it to be followed through with. I don't expect it to come back and say, now, well, we don't really think that that's right, so we're just going to do our own thing. This council has to have the respect from this administration that if we pass something and it's executed that you follow through with that. And this one council member is not very happy with the procedure that's followed through with this. Now, I would have rather had it come back to us and said, look, we have some issues that we need to address. We would like you all to reconsider this, and we'd like to do an RFP. And then this council member would say, yes, I think that's the right procedure and we can go forward. The way it's going right now is on two parallel courses that really look like they're going to be an intersection. It is really causing a lot of confusion, a lot of heartache, and really a lot of angst for this council member. Thank you, Council Member Ellinger. Council Member Scotchfield. I agree that it looks like we have some issues going on with the salt barn placement. I am going to agree with Council Member Ellinger because I have a severe problem because I feel like we haven't done it the right way. And I'm disappointed. And I'm not going to continue on because I think Council Member Ellinger said what I would have said. And I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Council Member Scotchfield. Vice Mayor Gordon. I'd just like to say that I think Councilmember Ellinger expressed very well my consternation with the way the process has gone. and one of the reasons I think for council members to be upset with this is that we need the reassurance that every time we pass something after discussion and vetting what we know are the facts of the matter we pass it there's no mayoral veto and it goes on We need the reassurance that what we've said through legislation stands. And I think this has certainly put some doubt into the process. I agree with you, Councilman Rellinger. I would have been quite fine with going back had we been brought something and told there are some discussions that need to happen. We want to issue an RFP. Can you consider holding off or whatever? With that said, what's done is done. And my question would be, can we hold the RFP? I know it's already been advertised. I saw it in the paper, which came as a surprise to council members. and so i want to hear from purchasing mr slayton that when you get those you're just going to hold them and do nothing with them until the council chooses to speak on this issue and the second thing is i think the neighborhood deserves to have several folks from the administration come i said this in my email over the weekend, so this is not new information, and address their concerns because it's my understanding that several of them can be medicated. And we owe that to the neighborhood on this Continental Insight. That's no problem. We're under no, there's no requirement that we make a decision within a certain amount of time. We can hold them until we feel we've made the right decision. so there's no requirement that we have to resolve it within a day. We open the bids next Wednesday, so we will know right away whether we have any viable alternatives. I don't think it's going to be too hard to discern that from the way the spec is written. And it's actually, just to clarify, this is a competitive bid. It's not a RFP, which is a request for proposal. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. I was going to ask the Commissioner of Law a follow-up question. I think you indicated earlier of the Commissioner of Law. Todd, yeah. We can do an RFP for that, too. So, parliamentally, you're saying that unless 10 of us agree with it, if this motion fails because it doesn't get 10 votes out of the 11 of us who are here at this time, where does that leave us? Well, I think one of the things we determined by looking at the rules is the vote should really be taken at a council meeting. Council meeting. Not at a work session. Since it was a substantive vote and you're looking at whether to rescind the substantive vote, that probably needs to occur at a council meeting. So does that help? No. Now, the rules, and I believe it's four, I don't have it in front of me, four point, okay. If you look at the section on rescissions, it talks about a two-thirds vote being needed if there was not prior notice at a meeting. Now, the question we haven't looked at is now that we've had this discussion, I think the issue would be everyone's got notice that this might pop up at next Thursday's council meeting. So then Glenda and I were looking at this. It looks like to us then it would be a simple majority at that point because now there has been notice that something might be coming up related to this. But we have not thoroughly researched that, so I'd like to take another look at that if the council's okay. Well, what effect would the motion on the floor have then? Pardon? What effect would the motion that we're debating have? Is there currently a motion on the floor? Did he withdraw that? Yes. He went through the motion. Yes. Good night. So there's no motion on the floor right now. Councilman Rakers. I'm sorry, Mayor. I know this is my third time. Just a really quick question for George or Richard. How long do you all expect it would take to actually construct the salt barn? If it has to be ready by October 1st, that gives us about 45 days or less. And if we wait until next week to get the RFP and then we... At the present time, I can't do it. I'm going to be late. At the time that the decision was made to issue the RFP, the contractor who is building the structure was told to put it on hold. So it is, once it's released, and I was told to release it yesterday in a meeting, because we're going to have to put it someplace at some point in time. I have two weeks to have engineering drawings, and then they estimate four to five weeks to manufacture it and bring it in here and erect it. And so what does that, you said that we have to be ready to accept salt by October 1st. Where does that salt go or does that cause, what are the ramifications of us not being able to accept the salt on October 1st? It'll still stay in Louisville at the Detroit Salt Facility. Okay. It, you know, who knows when we're going to get the first snow. Sure, sure. And, of course, we still have salt in our old Frankfort Pike facility. So there's no financial changes to it at all? No, there's no financials. Okay. Thank you. Okay, George, while you're up there, Council Member Bellinger has a question. What day did they tell you to stop when the RFP came out? What day would that have been as you're moving forward? I was on vacation. Two weeks ago. Could you just get that back with me, if you would, please? You don't know off the top of your head? I don't know off the top of your head. Todd, you know, it would have been last week. Last week. So if you hadn't stopped, we would have been within the time frame of? We'd be close. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Lane. You haven't spoken yet. Mr. Maloney. Yes, sir. This is getting a little bit more complex, and I just want to do a follow-up question. Basically, getting other opportunities maybe to remediate the problems with the current site by substituting that is probably not a bad idea, but it appears that the total process was stopped. So I was trying to figure out, is that your decision to stop all the construction, hold the contractor back, and do all that? How did that decision get made? Well, I think the decision was made because, and I have to support CAO, we had the outcry from the Neighborhood Association, and she brought it to us, and they recommend let's try to see if we can look at all the options, and that's when they requested the RFP. And when they requested that, we wanted to put a halt on anything because we don't want to design something. It may not fit over, say, if we go to, well, he wants to take it from Park. It may not be that kind of style we can put there. You may have to do a different style. So we don't want to be spending money and find out we're not going to be able to use it in that location. Well, the theory behind having a temporary facility while we're waiting for the one out in Athens is that it will save us money and speed up the service of desalting the roads. But have we actually run the numbers? Are we actually going to save money? Yes, sir. Because by the time we rent the ground, build the building. In your district especially. It takes to get, like Fox Jackson, down near Grimes Mill Road. It takes them an hour and 55 minutes to get back. And then they get salt again. By being on that side of town, we'll cut it way in half. We have the facility for the filling station, which is right next to where we were going to put the salt barn. So everything like that will cut in half. Money will be cut in half. I mean, I won't be cutting it, but it would be a lot more not as spent. But remember, it's efficiency. It's what we're after, and that's why we push for that location. So you guys on the east end finally can get service that you haven't had in a long time. See, I initially supported the motion that was passed because I felt like this was a temporary situation and, you know, it was a viable approach. And, you know, we can't make everybody happy all the time. That's tough. We have to do what's best, hopefully, for the overall community. And I think it's what the council voted to go ahead and approve that. But I was just trying to figure out how, I mean, did everybody recommend it was like a group decision from your department, from the CAO, from the mayor? Everybody said, let's put it on hold until we can see if there's a viable other thing. And she tried to look out, and I think she did what she thought was right, and we all agreed with it, that we could try to thin an RFP out to if something better comes back. And doing what we did was wrong, and we understand what should have been done right, and this time we learned. And I think being a former council member, I can understand where you all are coming from, but I also see the situation with the neighborhood association. It's hard to balance out, but I don't feel like we might have gone a little bit out of the box, but overall I think we try to do what's best for the community. Okay. Well, you know, the only other thought that I had is, of course, the council was on break for five or six weeks, and I guess this happened during that period of time. There wasn't any way to bring it before council for discussion. But, yeah, it's unfortunate the way that it got handled. But, you know, mistakes are going to be made in a song, but this one got a little bit more broad spread. You know, now that we stopped the construction, pull the contractor off the job and all that, I mean, it's went a little bit too far from my perspective, too. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Lane. All right, looks like that's all the council members have signed up. I want to hear from the neighbors who have signed up to speak now. Since we're on the subject, it would probably be appropriate. All right, it looks like, Professor, you're up first. Thank you, Mayor. I'm Lois Mather, 1544 Cantrell Drive. I'm a resident of Eastland. And thank goodness we finally have your attention. And it's not that this is the first time you've heard from us. I first learned about this project back in the spring. I received a phone call from the vice mayor. She's a very fine person. I have a lot of respect for her. But I expressed at the time, I was in shock that you would even consider doing something like that in a neighborhood site like that. And in fact, I could apologize now. I almost called her back to see if my tone of voice had gone over the edge. But it was not a happy call, but I do appreciate you at least called. This issue has been like a steamroller that won't stop. Because we saw that it kept on rolling, so we sent all of you about a page and a half letter. that came from council members, from our board members, many of whom are here as well as a number of other neighbors. And, you know, it just kept rolling on. So, you know, finally today a lot of us are here in person. I want to walk you through a little bit on that site. This is where you will be placing it, right dead center in the continental property. To us, it is like a natural disaster area where the FEMA funds didn't completely get spent for cleanup. I think we've been extremely patient with city government in terms of your handling of this property because we have to see it on a day-to-day basis. There's no way that you can enter or leave our neighborhood without seeing this property. There's rebar in various places, tons of graffiti wherever you look, quite a lot of graffiti on various buildings. Now, what I find kind of curious, I had property management for a piece of property downtown. I had shared responsibility for it several years ago. We had some graffiti that appeared. We had a letter from the city right after. You've got to get that removed. They were on our case like bees on honey, and they followed through until we had it done. We had a short window. Folks, we've been putting up with this for months, and nothing's happened. Now, what particularly distresses me is that by you all putting a city facility there, you are endorsing this kind of behavior in response to city regulations. And if that's the case, then why should anybody else take city regulations seriously? Me, Mexico, recently spent a huge investment in coming up with a new restaurant, 240 seats. 80 of them are on the patio. That patio is going to look directly across at that salt barn. I don't think that's what the owner had in mind when he put his facility there. A little bit about us. we don't think we're just any other neighborhood we have invested substantially in ourselves in neighborhood improvements we are home to two elementary schools one is a blue ribbon school a magnet school and it's bringing children from all across town these people as they enter and leave they're seeing what our neighborhood is like and that salt barn that continental property Yes, sir. Excuse me a second. You know, we've got this three-minute group. Have you got somebody that's going to yield time to you? Yes. Okay. This is historic. My wife. Sonja. I thought Sonja. Yes. Yes, ma'am. Yeah. Gotcha. Well, hurry up then. Yes, sir. We're home to junior high, the Carter-Woodson Academy, Spencerian College. I don't think there's any other neighborhood in town can make that kind of claim in terms of educational infrastructure. We're one of the first neighborhoods in Lexington, but you wouldn't know it by driving through. It's a neighborhood with renewed energy, and it's the Neighborhood Association largely that's taking the lead in trying to keep the neighborhood looking attractive and looking well-improved. and I'll just kind of take you through. We have a wide variety of homes there, different kinds of architecture, lots of well-landscaped yards. In addition, in our work, we restored the entrance walls. I'll try to be as quick as I can. Put new lighting there. We replaced one of these piers that had disappeared years ago. We planted 65 street trees, and in some of the neighborhood parks. We have two parks in the neighborhood. We had five different projects of cleaning honeysuckle and other undesirable species out of the creeks. When WEG came about, you said, let's spruce up Lexington. We jumped in there with both feet, and we signed on with Lexington Beautiful. We have over half the intersections now that have shrubs, flowering shrubs at them, and we're still adding more. We added a plaza, a memorial plaza. The city came to us with the idea. We took the ball and ran. They were hoping we would pick up half the cost. We've covered for about 65% of it. It's provided a nice place for meditation, for reading, for walkers, and whatever. But it comes down to this. This is the front door to our neighborhood, folks. This is what people see when they come. I'd like to ask if you'd follow up on, Mr. Stennett must have seen my notes. How many of you, in all honesty, would like to have this at the entrance to your neighborhood? That's what I thought. We don't either. As a convenience for the city for you to perhaps save a few dollars on gasoline on these trucks, you want us to put up with this for two years. I saw the lease even longer than two years. So we really want you to reconsider that. My father taught me as a kid the golden rule. I want to tell you, to put this in our neighborhood when you don't want it in your neighborhood, that's not golden rule behavior, and I'm sorry. And we are asking you, we are pleading with you out of respect to our neighbors, out of respect for our concerns, find another site. for the salt barn. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Lois. Alright. I don't have anybody else signed up to speak. Is Lois going to represent everybody? That's it. Alright. Okay. Alright. Is there a... Do I hear a motion? Wait a minute. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Is there anyone else? Oh, Mr. Wheeler is here for public comment. And Siobhan, were you on the? Oh, for council report. No? All right, okay. Go ahead. I agree with. No, wait just a second. Go ahead. Yes, I was going to say that I agree with Mr. Mather that I think that the conditions of the current property are deplorable and unacceptable. And so my question would be to our Office of Code Enforcement and Public Safety and Planning, is why hasn't this property been cited for the graffiti, for the rebar, for the dangerous conditions on the property, and have they been cited, and where do we stand with those citations? Anybody here? Pardon? Apparently not. Hold on. We've got to take it. Oh, Mr. Mason. We can check and get back on that about the code enforcement citations. I mean, I'm guessing this is not, I mean, that this violates a lot of. They have had code enforcement look at it. It has been. It has not been neglected. And I hope that, I mean, if there's any positives for the neighborhood, that the salt barn would at least improve that to some extent. Thank you. Derek says that he's visited the site, so I think all of the remedies available to the city are being exhausted, to some extent have been. But I think what this does, and we've all seen this, you know, that when an issue like this emerges, it gets dialed up, it becomes more visible, and then occasionally, even in the awkward, sometimes cumbersome democratic process, things will get done. All right. So we can now move up. We can go on and we're in public comment now, so Mr. Wheeler is here for public comment. Hello, Mayor. Hello, Council. What's left of you? I was here, as you recall, Thursday night. Could not complete all that I wanted to say. I'm not going to complete that here. I did that in the email messages that I sent. I hope each of you will read those two documents. They will remind you of some important parts of the charter that you need to know. Maybe you did know, and this will be a good reminder. But after I did conclude Thursday, I was surprised that my comments about the charter violation were summarily dismissed without any need or any call for investigating what I said or analyzing what I said. And therefore, I am somewhat disturbed about the response that I got. I have read, I have studied the charter. The charter is non-negotiable. And you should believe that. The charter means what it says. And if it doesn't, then it means nothing. And I have to tell you that it's going to be wrong for you to force all citizens in the county to pay for street lighting through a utility franchise fee. So people who already are paying street light tax will be paying again. And I can't understand why you would allow that to happen. By the way, the mayor indicated Thursday that the lawyers are seeing to it that the government complies with the charter. So I am asking for a written document showing what the Law Department has declared as an opinion about what you're doing with transfers among funds. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wheeler. All right. That's all I have signed on for public comment. Is there a motion? Move the adjourn. Motion by Vice Mayor Gordon, second by Council Member Akers. Unless there's objection, we are adjourned. All right.