# Urban County Council Work Session - October 8, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 8, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3135 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3135?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-10-08 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 13,698 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 Urban County Council met on October 8, 2013, at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the Government Center. Vice Mayor Linda Gorton presided over the meeting, which included 10 agenda items and 20 motions and votes. The council heard 2 public comments during the meeting. The council approved several items of business, including requested rezonings and docket approval, a summary, budget amendments, new business items, and continuing business and presentations. The Mayor's Report was also approved. In addition to these action items, the council received informational reports during public comment periods on both agenda and non-agenda issues, as well as council reports. The meeting concluded with adjournment. ## Attendance **Present:** Linda Gorton, Chuck Ellinger, Steve Kay, Chris Ford, Shevawn Akers, Julian Beard, Bill Farmer, Jennifer Scutchfield, George Myers, Jennifer Mossotti, Harry Clarke, Peggy Henson, Ed Lane, and Jim Gray. **Absent:** Diane Lawless. **Late:** None. ## Votes and Decisions **Procedural Motions (Unanimous)** The meeting began with a motion to move the Junior Fire Chief presentation to the beginning of the meeting, moved by Linda Gorton and seconded by Ed Lane [timestamp: 0:00:00]. The summary was approved on motion by Julian Beard, seconded by Chuck Ellinger [timestamp: 0:03:00]. Budget amendments were approved on motion by Bill Farmer, seconded by Linda Gorton [timestamp: 0:03:33]. New business items were approved on motion by Linda Gorton, seconded by Steve Kay [timestamp: 0:04:38]. **Bond Funds and Trail Allocation** A motion to allocate bond funds specifically for the Town Branch Trail as originally intended, moved by Linda Stinnett and seconded by Linda Gorton, passed 9-4 on roll call vote [timestamp: 0:04:38]. Voting in favor were Linda Gorton, Shevawn Akers, Diane Lawless, Julian Beard, Bill Farmer, Jennifer Scutchfield, Harry Clarke, Chris Ford, and Steve Kay. Voting against were Jennifer Mossotti, George Myers, Julian Beard, and Peggy Henson. An amendment to allocate $500,000 for a flood plain study and remaining bond funds for trail construction, moved by Shevawn Akers and seconded by Chuck Ellinger, passed 8-7 on roll call vote [timestamp: 0:04:38]. Voting in favor were Linda Gorton, Shevawn Akers, Diane Lawless, Julian Beard, Bill Farmer, Steve Kay, Chuck Ellinger, and Harry Clarke. Voting against were Jennifer Mossotti, George Myers, Jennifer Scutchfield, Linda Stinnett, Julian Beard, Chris Ford, and Peggy Henson. **Affordable Housing Strategy (Tabled)** A motion to approve an agreement with czb, LLC for a Comprehensive Affordable Housing Strategy, moved by Jennifer Scutchfield and seconded by Jennifer Masati, was tabled 9-4 on roll call vote to be brought back on November 21, 2013, after review of consultant spending data [timestamp: 0:57:37]. A subsequent motion to bring back consultant spending data by November 5, 2013, moved by Jennifer Masati and seconded by George Myers, passed 12-2 [timestamp: 1:19:59]. **Additional Approvals (Unanimous)** Neighborhood Development Funds were approved on motion by George Myers, seconded by Chuck Ellinger [timestamp: 1:22:49]. The definition of Adult Day Care Centers was adopted on motion by Peggy Henson, seconded by Harry Clarke [timestamp: 1:23:21]. A motion to keep Elm Tree Lane and Rand Avenue sidewalk open and remove from docket, moved by Chris Ford and seconded by Julian Beard, passed [timestamp: 1:24:57]. A request for sidewalk redesign for improved pedestrian and bicycle access, moved by Chris Ford and seconded by Shevawn Akers, passed [timestamp: 1:25:30]. Ethics Commission nominees were removed from the docket on motion by Linda Stinnett, seconded by Steve Kay [timestamp: 1:28:46]. Rezoning of 16.16 net acres at 920 Citation Boulevard was placed on docket on motion by Shevawn Akers, seconded by Chuck Ellinger [timestamp: 1:37:53]. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed multiple financial actions and contractual agreements: **Contracts and Renewals** - NetMotion Wireless, Inc. software maintenance agreement renewal for the Division of Police: $26,015 (L1036-13) - Oracle Elevator Change Order No. 2 for Phoenix/Police HQ Elevator Renovation Project: $1,667.60 (L1068-13) - T-Mobile site lease agreement for cell tower on Government Center rooftop: $24,000 per year (L1077-13) - FRM Lawson LLC lease agreement for Division of Water Quality Maintenance Operations relocation: $170,318.40 per year (L1090-13) - czb, LLC agreement for development of Comprehensive Affordable Housing Strategy: $49,698 (L1095-13) **Amendments and Modifications** - Kentucky Infrastructure Authority agreement amendment to redirect funds from Leesway area to Unsewered Areas Phase II Project: $283,184.92 (L1063-13) - Planning Commissioner's Office code amendment to abolish one Administrative Officer and create one Administrative Officer Senior: $5,333.71 (L1071-13) - Kentucky Department of Military Affairs CSEPP agreement modifications for extended performance period (L1084-13) **Grants and Funding Applications** - Blue Grass Community Foundation memorandum of agreement for Kentucky Theatre improvements: $250,000 (L1087-13) - Lumina Foundation application for Latina education support project at Family Care Center: $34,100 (L1088-13) - Kentucky Transportation Cabinet TAP application for trail and sidewalk projects: $3,713,514 (L1089-13) - Kentucky Transportation Cabinet CMAQ Program application for infrastructure projects: $6,901,524 (L1091-13) - Kentucky Justice Cabinet Violence Against Women Act Program application for S.A.N.E. program: $45,123 (L1092-13) **Additional Agreements** - Memoranda of agreement were established with Military Police Company Alpha for rapid armed response unit (L1067-13), Lexington Humane Society and Lexington Fayette Animal Care and Control for disaster animal care (L1069-13), and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet and Lexington Community Land Trust for Newtown Pike Extension Phase I Mitigation property transfer (L1093-13) - Statement of Affiliation designating Division of Fire and Emergency Services Special Operations Technical Rescue Team as the only recognized rescue squad (L1070-13) - Humana health plan renewals for City Employees Pension Fund (L1072-13) and Police and Fire Retirees (L1073-13) - Donation acceptance of two Canine Protective Vests from Citizen Police Academy Alumni Association valued at $1,700 (L1085-13) ## Public Comment Two speakers were scheduled during the public comment period. **Steve Brown** addressed the body regarding restoration of the Kentucky Theater's Mighty Wurlitzer organ [timestamp: 1:29:48]. Brown, president of Kentucky's Mighty Wurlitzer, requested $360,000 to restore the original Wurlitzer organ at the Kentucky Theater. He emphasized the cultural significance of the instrument and stressed the importance of completing the installation in a timely manner to coincide with the theater's ongoing renovations. **Barbara Norton** was scheduled to speak but was not present at the meeting [timestamp: 1:36:18]. ## Appointments The meeting included action on the following appointment: * **Ethics Commission nominees** were **reappointed** to the Ethics Commission. ## Contested Items **Affordable Housing Strategy Contract** A proposal to approve a $49,698 contract with czb, LLC for an Affordable Housing Strategy resulted in a split vote. The motion to approve the contract was tabled 9–4, indicating significant disagreement among the voting members. The primary concern raised during discussion centered on consultant spending and return on investment. Members questioning the contract were concerned about the value and outcomes that would result from this expenditure. An alternative motion to delay the item until November 21 was also defeated, with a vote of 8–7. This narrow margin suggests that while some members wanted additional time to consider the proposal, the majority preferred to address it in the current meeting rather than postpone it. The tabling of the motion meant the contract was not approved at this meeting. ## Public Comment – Issues on Agenda [timestamp: 00:02:00] No public comments were received on issues on the agenda. ## Requested Rezonings / Docket Approval [timestamp: 00:02:30] No zone changes were included on the docket for first reading at this meeting. The body proceeded to vote on approval of the docket as presented. The motion to approve the docket passed without dissent. ## Approval of Summary The summary for pages 1–2 was presented for approval during this agenda item. [timestamp: 00:03:00] Julian Beard moved to approve the summary, and Chuck Ellinger seconded the motion. The summary was approved unanimously. ## Budget Amendments Budget amendments for pages 10–12 were presented for consideration. [timestamp: 00:03:33] Bill Farmer moved to approve the amendments, and Linda Gorton seconded the motion. The amendments were approved unanimously. ## New Business New business items from pages 13–50 were presented for consideration. [timestamp: 00:04:38] Julian Beard moved to approve the new business items, and Chuck Ellinger seconded the motion. The items were approved unanimously. ## Continuing Business / Presentations [timestamp: 00:04:38] This agenda item included three presentations to the council. **Neighborhood Development Funds** The Neighborhood Development Funds presentation was brought before the council by the key speakers listed for this item. The proposal received unanimous approval from the council. **Environmental Quality Committee Summary** An Environmental Quality Committee Summary was presented during this portion of the meeting. **Planning & Public Works Committee Summary** A Planning & Public Works Committee Summary was also presented to the council. **Key Speakers** The presentations were delivered by Linda Stinnett, Chuck Ellinger, Peggy Henson, and Harry Clarke. **Outcome** The Neighborhood Development Funds were approved unanimously by the council. ## Council Reports Council members provided informational reports on various topics during this agenda item. **Speakers and Topics** Shevawn Akers, Jennifer Masati, and Bill Farmer presented reports to the council [timestamp: 1:26:37]. **Content Discussed** The reports covered two primary areas: - An informational session on the Affordable Care Act - A review of the greenway master plan **Outcome** This agenda item was informational in nature, with council members sharing updates rather than taking formal action on the matters presented. ## Mayor's Report The Mayor's Report was presented as agenda item VIII and was approved following a procedural amendment. **Key Speakers** Linda Stinnett and Steve Kay were the primary speakers during this agenda item. **Action Taken** An amendment was made to the Mayor's Report before approval. The amendment removed Ethics Commission nominees from the docket, with the intent to address these nominations separately after confirmation hearings are held. **Outcome** The Mayor's Report was approved with the amendment in place [timestamp: 1:28:46]. ## Public Comment – Issues Not on Agenda [timestamp: 1:29:48] During this portion of the meeting, the public was invited to address the body on matters not included on the agenda. Steve Brown spoke regarding the restoration of the Kentucky Theater's Wurlitzer organ. Barbara Norton was scheduled to provide public comment but did not attend the meeting. The agenda item was informational in nature. ## Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at approximately 1:38:25 following a motion by George Myers and a second by Julian Beard. The motion to adjourn was approved. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the docket - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the budget amendments - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the new business items - **Motion** — passed (0-0): table item t (1095-13), authorization to execute an agreement with czb, LLC for the purpose of developing a Comprehensive Affordable Housing Strategy - **Motion** — passed (0-0): bring item t back onto the docket and a report of all consulting fees (General Fund) for the past three (3) years back to Work Session on November 5, 2013 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the Neighborhood Development Funds (NDFs) - **Motion** — passed (0-0): adopt the definition of Adult Day Care as follows: Any adult care facility which provides part-time care, day or night, but less than twenty-four (24) hours, to at least four (4) adults, who are not related to the operator, by blood, marriage, or adoption. The operator must be certified or licensed by a state public agency and may include personal care assistance, administering and/or assistance with medication, and social recreational activities - **Motion** — passed (0-0): keep the sidewalk that connects Elm Tree Lane and Rand Avenue open and remove the item from the Council docket - **Motion** — passed (0-0): request that the Administration proceed with the redesign of the sidewalk that will improve pedestrian and bicycle assess as well as safety, and return to the Planning and Public Works Committee with the redesign - **Motion** — passed (0-0): refer the review of the Greenway Masterplan and the Greenway manual that was under development and due to be completed this fall into the Planning and Public Works Committee - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the Mayor’s Report - **Motion** — passed (0-0): extend the time of the speaker by two minutes - **Motion** — passed (0-0): enter into a closed session pursuant to KRS 61.810 (1)(g) in order to discuss an economic development matter involving real property. An open discussion would likely jeopardize the site, retention, expansion or upgrading of a business - **Motion** — passed (0-0): come back into open session - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the docket a resolution initiating the Planning Commission to review and recommend the rezoning of approximately 16.16 acres of property located at 920 Citation Boulevard from a Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) zone to an Office Industry Research Park (P-2) zone - **Motion** — passed (0-0): adjourn --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. And today is October the 10th. No, it's not. It's the 8th. Just seeing if y'all are awake. October the 8th, and we are here for the council work session. So we will go ahead and start our work session. Let's see here. And the first item on our agenda is public comment on issues on the agenda. And I see we have none. Thank you, Mr. Mundy. And the second issue is we have a docket approval. Moved it. Second. I heard a motion from Council Member Ellinger and a second from Council Member Scutchfield. Let's see. I don't know. Are there any questions or any motions regarding the docket? It looks like we do not have any zone changes on the docket for first reading. All right. Seeing no questions or comments, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Now, we have a summary. Second. Council Member Beard moves approval. Council Member Ellinger seconded for the summary on pages 1 and 2. Are there any questions or discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Budget amendments are on pages 10 through 12 of the packet. Do I hear a motion? Council Member Farmer moved approval. Council Member Stenet seconded. Now, are there questions about budget amendments? I see none. All those in favor? Oh, hold on. Just have a comment on page 11, journal number 72760. This is the budget amendment for the Eidler Fields. I hope my colleagues would take that in consideration Thursday night. If we're going to pass this forward that Thursday night, we would remove it from our fund balance list. So if we approve it, then we... And thank you, CAO, for getting this to us that quick. We appreciate it. Very good. Thank you for pointing that out. Are there any other questions or comments about the budget amendments? I see none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. New business, 13 to 50 in our packet. Second. Council Member Beard moves approval. Council Member Ellinger seconds. Now, are there questions about new business? If so, please log in. Council Member Masati. Thank you, Vice Mayor Gorton. It is on item number T, in reference to the authorization to execute an agreement with CZB LLC for the purpose of developing a comprehensive affordable housing strategy. Someone could come to the microphone and tell us what this group is going to do, in reference to affordable housing. Ms. Shea Raybould. Welcome. Hi. Thank you. As you may recall, we've had this discussion, I think, I can't remember which committee it was, but this is in conjunction with the new Office of Homeless Prevention and Intervention, and the first step of the office was to conduct a new report that will make suggestions on how we can effectively increase our affordable housing for low-income residents. So what this basically is is an implementation plan for how we can go about increasing affordable housing, which has been identified by the Homeless Commission and recently by the Social Services Needs Assessment. So what this organization will do is come in and evaluate what we already have been doing. And I want to be very clear here. This is not about what we've been doing as it relates to homeless services. This is about what we have been doing as it relates to building or supporting affordable housing, which is a little bit different. CDBG dollars, home dollars, other mainly federal sources. They'll review what we've been doing, make suggestions on what, if anything, needs to be tweaked, suggest other funding mechanisms, other models, other techniques to incentivize the private sector. to build more affordable housing or preserve existing, and then will give us action steps. The deliverable will be action steps of what needs to happen when. So I guess my question would be there are no other resources here available in town that we could use to help implement this program? I'm sorry, could you say that? There are no other resources here in town that we could use to implement this program. I mean, there's some resources like the Lexington Board of Association of Realtors. I know that they have a component that deals with affordable housing. I'm just wondering if there was some other way that we wouldn't have to do this expenditure. Right. I think that we could always utilize their expertise along with anybody else that we might have. But what this organization brings is a national perspective, and they've worked in other communities where they've helped develop affordable housing strategies and implementation plans. They bring, if you have a chance to, well, you don't have it, but I can get you the proposal that they offer. They have a very impressive advisory board that they work with that has a lot of experience nationally building affordable housing. I guess I would ask, what kind of strategies do they implement? Do you have any examples? Well, you put me on the spot. I don't mean to. This was out of curiosity. I just didn't know what we were going to spend this money on in reference to affordable housing strategy. Well, the bottom line. If you want to get back with me, that would be fine. I'd be more than happy to do that. And that way I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I just would like to know some specifics if you don't mind. Sure. Happy to. All right. Thank you. Council Member Scutchfield. Thank you, Vice Mayor. It took me a second. I had a question on C and I believe F. Do we have? I guess for these two, I just wanted to get some information about what the intention is for the rapid response And then also, I guess for F, how that's going to work. Welcome, Commissioner. For C, I think this is obtaining a vehicle to replace one that the police have had for their special response team. So it is a vehicle? I think it's a vehicle. Is that right? I think that's what they were talking about, but let me check and get back to you on that. And the question on F. Okay. What's the? F is the Statement of Affiliation for the Fire and Emergency Services for the Technical Rescue Team. And I guess so we only have one technical rescue team, or is this something that we've used other people? Is this a new thing? It is not a new thing. It's a designation that has been promoted throughout the state, and what they're working on at the state level is to come up with some regional teams that can go respond to other places in times of emergency with some state reimbursement built in. Are we, is it possible, you know, it says as the only recognized rescue squad, is this possible to have more than one, or is this, the intention is to only have one that's recognized in Fayette County? No, this would be the only one, and I don't think there would be possible, given the makeup of our fire department. This would enable us to be able to get grants and things like that if you're a special designation. So it's more along those lines. Okay. And then as far as C, if you could follow up, because I don't think any of us quite understand exactly what that is. By at least the wording in there, I realize there's no budgetary impact, but I think we would just, I know I would like to have a little bit more clarification about an armed response unit for security. I looked on page 19. I think what this is is for the facility at Bluegrass Station, for us to be able to respond in a certain amount of time out there in case of some crisis. But we'll get back to you on specifics with that. But that's, I believe, what that is. Thank you. Vice Mayor, I did have another question. I wanted to reiterate what Council Member Masotti said. regarding the consultant that we were spending on T. I keep on seeing consultant fees come up over and over again, and I don't think we're seeing a lot of things come out of it yet. And maybe we will, but I'm concerned going forward that we're not necessarily. And then I had a question about M. And I know we have a lot of people here today that are very interested in the memorandum of agreement with the Kentucky Theater. But I did have a question about how much, if we have an idea of how much city funds have gone into the Kentucky Theater over the last couple of years. Do we have anybody here that can answer that? I cannot answer that, but I can get an answer for you. Okay, again, I'm interested more so because we're talking about it is a government-owned building, but it's a business that is not our business running out of it. So that was my concern. Well, we have a memorandum of understanding with the business, with a shared cost and shared revenues definitions in there, but we can get the detail for you and let you know how that's set up. Okay. You're welcome. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Back to this affordable housing discussion. And I've lost Shay somewhere. There she is. You know, we had an affordable housing task force that functioned for two years, monthly. and I didn't hear anything about their recommendations. Has that been wiped off the books and sent to purgatory or wherever and we're going in a different direction? No, sir. The Affordable Housing Task Force, I guess it was called, my understanding was that it came after the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Commission and it was made up primarily, if not entirely, of council members. No. Okay, but it looked specifically at the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Is that correct? Anybody who was on it? I'm pretty sure that's what it was. So it only focused on one mechanism, which was the trust fund, and that trust fund issue is still in front of you all in the Budget and Finance Committee, and it has not been voted on, but it has not been taken off the table. What the new report will do is take into consideration the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and make new comments on that. But what we are saying as an administration is we know whether or not an Affordable Housing Trust Fund is passed, we want to know if that's all we need to do or if there are more things that need to be done on a comprehensive basis as it relates to affordable housing. So it is certainly going to be a component of this evaluation, but it's not the only one. Oh, it just seems like it wasn't anything from what you described the first time. It just, as I say, went off into purgatory and didn't. No, sir. In fact, specifically in the request for proposals, we listed out all of the reports and studies that we wanted them to evaluate and include in their work, and the task force and the commission work were both included on that list. Well, 24 meetings in two years, and again, it was not, in fact, I only think there were three or four council people involved, and the rest were others that were involved as advocates of affordable housing issues. and money was spent for a consultant. It makes a very interesting reading if anybody in the administration has read it. I don't know that they have. The Commonwealth Economics Report? Yes. Yes. And, again, that was speaking specifically to the trust fund. Well, ultimately, somewhere along the line, we had to figure out that we weren't going to build it with Tinker Toys. We were going to have to come up with some money. Correct. Yeah. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Councilmember Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mine is on item G, which is on page 27. This is the Abolish and Create a Position in the Department of Planning, Preservation, and Development. I just wanted a little information about it, please. I don't believe Commissioner Paulson is here. Madam CAO is here. CAO Hamilton. Yes, thank you. Commissioner Paulson had pursued the administrative officer position and could not get to the salary level that he felt that he needed for that particular position. At what level, I'm sorry? The salary level that he needed for that particular position. He went back. We had conversations with personnel, sort of went back through, again, the duties and activities that he thought this person should be able to do and therefore ask for this position to be at the senior level rather than just the administrative officer. And that's what this one is, sir. And then what will this person do? This is the administrative officer to assist, to do projects for Commissioner Paulson. And I think that in order to really set, it's like, I remember when I was up in general services, I had, I think, two administrative officers, and various people have one or two, and he really has no one to help him. That's what we were just talking about here. He has no one. Yes, he really is no one. This will help take care of that. Yes. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I wanted to ask about items number O and Q. Or items lettered? Director Frazier is here. Emphasize the C. That's an important thing. Welcome. I'll try my best to answer your question. I'll be specific to hopefully make your answer a little easier. On both of these, there is this mention of funding for Town Branch Trail Phase 4. Yes, ma'am. And so I just wonder, did you apply for two different grants for the same phase? Is it different components of the same construction? It's the same project. What we're doing is just trying to get a good scatter effect. If we can't get it in the TAP, hopefully we can go ahead and get it in the CMAQ. Hopefully one of those will come forward. Okay, so they could not, though, we could not be funded twice. No, that's not. We'll get either one. and I'll look to see if no. It is not. So just trying our best to go ahead and look at different sources so we can give us the best bet of getting that through. Well, thank you very much. I do appreciate it. And I also wanted to commend everyone involved in the CMAQ applications for the turn lane on Mercer Road, the Manchester Street and Forbes Road intersection turn lane, and the Town Branch Trail applications work. So thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thanks, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Councilmember Lawless. Thank you. I, too, would like a lot more information on item C. before actually I think that until we know more about, is this like private military? It's page 19. It's what? Page 19 gives some of the detail. Page 19, we're trying to find more specifics, but it appears to be just an agreement between us and the Army Reserve Center as to who responds and how on that. It's pretty typical for MOAs to be done between agencies, so we'll get that and get the full agreement for you. But it's simply that. There's a 10-minute parameter for us to respond. If they have a breach in their alarm system, something like that. So this is us responding to them? Yes, to their facility. Okay, rather than it's... Right. And on F, we've had the Division of Fire and Emergency Services has had special operation technical rescue team for years, and this is training more people to be on that team. I think the last time I was aware there were about 15 on that who could respond to some regional, national disaster. So this is free training for them, and then the agreement is that they'll be available if there's a catastrophic event in the region. Thank you. Oh, and one other thing, item S. This has to do with the Lexington Community Land Trust doing a transfer of property for that Davis Bottom area that's moving along. And so I just want to say I'm really glad to see it on here, and I hope everybody will support this. And we do have folks from the state here if there are questions. Thank you. Thank you to our state folks for being here. Yes, thank you. Council Member Masati. I've already spoken. I think Council Member Hanson hasn't, so I'll wait until she finishes. Thank you. Okay, Councilmember Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Shea, I noticed you didn't go far. I do have some questions about the affordable housing strategy because, I guess, if I thought this council approved a position, for an office for an affordable housing. Am I wrong on that? I think it's just semantics. We did create a new office of what the working title is, Homeless Prevention and Intervention, but part of the charge was affordable housing. Right. And I guess I would think that after all the studies that have been done and with the commission and then the task force and then the homeless commission, that we would be well on our way to knowing what we have. So I'm like, if we found a person that is an expert in this field, couldn't they do the same thing as this consultant company? I guess I would just like to know what was the thinking. That's a good question and one that we asked and one that the council link that had the mayor's office asked as well. And ultimately, it is possible, it's feasible that we could find one individual that could help us do this. But it is also possible that we need a different skill set or a different set of skills than the person we might hire based on the information that we get from the new assessment. And so what we wanted to do was do the assessment first and the recommendations first and then hire an individual based on which direction we need to go. Does the individual need to have finance skills to put together complicated developments, or do they need to be more collaborative, you know, community building, that sort of thing? And as it relates to the Homeless Commission and Affordable Housing, they made two recommendations. One was we need to increase affordable housing, And the second one was we need to pass an affordable housing trust fund, and it listed certain things that the trust fund would offer. But it did not get into specifics about the operational changes or additions that would need to be made to put us in a position to actually do it. So if we as a community decide we do need more affordable housing, especially for low-income citizens, what we don't have a really good idea of is how do we do that with the limited resources we have locally and with the federal dollars diminishing. So communities around the nation are having to be very creative or make policy decisions about how they're going to address the issue. So the previous studies have all identified affordable housing as a need, but other than saying the trust fund, which is a local source of revenue, which could be something that we pass. But other than that level of detail, we haven't gotten into a lot of the operational details, and that will help us know who to hire. Okay. And I guess when I think about we, I think there's different aspects of the affordable housing. There's, to me, a definite need. Our commissions and our trust funds have shown that. But there is also reasons that people do not fit into affordable housing. So I don't know if that would that be something they would look at as well. Like, for instance, they don't qualify for affordable housing. They may need affordable housing, but they don't qualify for it. And when we're talking about affordable housing right now, you and I think we're talking about housing that's been subsidized in some way. Correct. Correct. Sometimes the housing can be subsidized, as the housing authority does, through a voucher or through an actual development. But in other types of development, like Holly Wiedemann's Parkside, that is the developer receives the subsidy. So she has the incentive to build the apartments. the people who rent there just have to fit into a certain income level, which is typically below 80% AMI. So they might not qualify for a Section 8 voucher, and I don't know all the details of what the criteria is, but the idea is we need to have units built for those individuals. That do qualify. That do qualify, and in that manner, there were federal low-income tax credits given to Holly Wiedemann to incentivize her to build apartments with lower rent. Exactly. So it would be like a clearinghouse for everything that's out there, looking at that and see how it would best fit to. Lexington-specific needs. Yes. You know, but I was just curious if it would also look at the population. Like I do, you know, that qualifying criteria. So when you say there's a need for affordable housing, yes, there is a need. But there are people that need affordable housing, like I said earlier, that do not qualify. Are they included in that need? And will they be? I think the point you're making is exactly what we want them to look at. Okay. We don't want to move too quickly, even though some would say we're not moving fast enough. We don't want to move too quickly making assumptions about how to go about building more affordable housing in new ways other than how we've done it thus far before we look at those types of details so that if the council were to pass a local funding stream, that we have a really good idea of how it will be spent and what type of populations will be targeted and so forth. And what's the time frame? My time is up. The report will be issued in January, including a presentation to the council. Thank you. Council Member Masati, Council Member Kay hasn't spoken yet on new business. Do you mind if he goes next? Thank you. Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to follow up on the comments that have made about affordable housing and try and maybe clarify what it looks like from my perspective, having been the chair of the Homeless Commission. My understanding of what we're doing now is working on a set of questions that have not been addressed and that both Council and the Mayor seem to believe would be important to address. So the first part of that is that affordable housing, first of all, what we're talking about is a term of art. This is not generally what's affordable, what's not affordable. Our definition is affordable housing is people spend no more than 30 percent of their gross annual income on housing. If they have to spend more than that, they're considered to be stressed, and it creates difficulties. They have trouble maintaining their homes. They can become homeless. So affordable, in this case, is a specific targeted population that we're talking about. So the effort now is to get more information and better information about how to proceed, starting with how does the question of providing that kind of affordable housing in our community fit in the larger housing question? What does the whole picture look like? And if we want to move forward on affordable housing, how does it affect other sectors? How does the general condition in our community affect the ability to provide that housing? Secondly, once we figure that out, how can affordable housing best be developed? These are the details of implementation which people asked for when we brought the Homeless Commission recommendations forward. And thirdly, how should government be structured in order to implement that most effectively? And that's about this office, how it will be structured, where it fits in the governmental hierarchy, and the kind of person or persons that we want to hire to implement what we would like to see happen. And finally, how is it going to be funded? And that's been a big issue. So those are the things that I look for this consultant to help us define and answer more definitively than we have been able to do in the past. I think this is what was put before the council when the funds were asked for originally. We're moving forward on that. I had hoped it would be, frankly, a little faster, but I understand how these things work. We look forward to having something to come back to council by the end of January, and hopefully that will be in time to then take up the questions, which still are before Council in the Planning Committee, or in the Budget and Finance Committee, which is two proposals, one that would include affordable housing and homeless services and one that would just address the question of affordable housing itself. And so I believe we're moving forward, and I hope that Council will support this recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Stennett, you've not spoken yet. Would you like to go ahead? Yes, Vice Mayor, thank you. Just quickly, Shay, quick question for you. $49,000, given what Council Member Kaye just said and some of the work that actually voluminous amount of work that went into the Affordable Housing Task Force, when I read the proposal attached, it says just new programs. Will this person also not analyze existing programs and other agencies out there that are doing this same thing? If it says that, that's a mistake, and I'll make sure it gets clarified. Absolutely. That's exactly what they're going to do. Like the housing authority. We're going to analyze that. We're going to analyze what? And I failed to mention something that's very important. We negotiated with CZB and have agreed to a not-to-exceed contract. And so it's not a flat fee of $49,000 regardless of what they do or produce. What we wanted to do was because so much work has been done, once they get all of that information and have a chance to go through it, they'll know how much more they need to look at. And hopefully it's not going to be a whole lot more than what we already have. They won't have to redo that work, which hopefully will reduce the hours that are spent, and therefore it is a not to exceed, and maybe we won't get up to that $49,000 amount. That was my second part of what I was going to say is I think all of our consultant contractors, going forward need to be written. I know Councilman Arkay works in that area and he's an expert on it, but need to be not to exceed versus a lump sum. I think sometimes we paint ourselves again in the corner saying we have to pay that when the total of that service is really not needed. But $49,000, where did you get that estimate? This was their proposal. That fee was their proposal based on the scope of work that they outlined. It just seems very low. When you're going to look at all of our community, what we're currently doing And then throw in there new things we could do. That's a pretty low number. I don't have anything to compare it to other than the other proposal. And you said what other cities have they done work in when they created their – have they done like Louisville created one, but they didn't use this consultant? They created a trust fund. Right. Not a housing strategy. A little bit different. A little bit different. But what other cities have used – do we know? Let's see. They have – And you can get back to this. I'm not trying to put you on the spot. North Carolina, Utah, New York, Connecticut. I mean, the list is. The states used them as a state or as a city? Both states, regions, local governments, and nonprofits. I would just like to see their resume. Sure. It's very impressive. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Masati. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Slayton, would you mind coming to the podium, please? Thank you. Since we've had all this discussion today about consultants, I was wondering if you could provide the council possibly the last three years of consultants that were approved and paid for by the council from the general fund and the amount spent. Would that be a possibility, just the general fund in the last three years? Not off the top of my head, but I can look that up. Yeah. Could you do that? Could you provide that to us? because I think there's a lot of concern about the amount of money that's been spent on consultants and what they've been for, and you could do that. I think that would be a – Do we want to define consultant? Because that's the gray area that we face. No, I don't think so. Just if you can provide that list, that would be great. Just general fund. Okay, we can do that. Thank you very much. Mr. Slayton, there was a question up here about what did you say the gray area was. Can you state that again? The definition of what a consultant is is the gray area. Are we restricting it to engineers? Are there any restrictions on that? And basically how we would categorize things from a people's self perspective is by whether or not it's professional services or not. If it's professional services, I'll pull all that information and we can take a look at it. Council Member Massadi. I think that's fine. As long as it comes out of the general fund and professional services would be inclusive, that's fine. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Let's see how we will approach this. I got a listing, Council Member Masotti, from Connie, asking her, and this includes professional in addition to consultant, how much we spent in the past 12 months. And, of course, we've got a professional that is helping us with the EPA situation. I mean, it's pretty heavy duty in that relationship. But the total is $54 million. Yeah. And is everybody shocked? I'm sorry that you are shocked. because I screamed loud myself. Embedded in that, of course, are some consultants, and that's part of what we were talking about earlier was the fact that consultants are a little different breed than the professional group. I don't see how we're going to get much of anything for $48,000 or $49,000, to tell you the truth. And I also think that it doesn't necessarily have to be embedded in government. There are entities out there that are doing this right now. And we could ride piggyback on them as far as affordable housing is concerned. The homeless situation is a lot more complex, I see, as opposed to the affordable housing issue. Although this is kind of a tough situation to get your arms around, obviously. That's why it's taken as long as it has. and hopefully we can get something, Council Member Kay, in January where we can at least get our hands on something and start making something happen anyway. Thank you. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Members, I apologize for my tardiness and I've missed some of the original comments. I want to thank Shea for taking time to meet with me, I guess a few weeks ago, in regards to this issue, and we discussed it in great detail. I do have, my initial reaction was concern about consultants, hiring consultants again, and I'm perhaps repeating what's been said prior to me arriving today. There are times where we perhaps need consultants. They've been very helpful. So pension reform, health insurance, the consent decree, those type things. But I'll leave that there. The one thing that I'm truly not clear on, even to this point, is dating back to 2008, we have the issue of the housing trust fund. And that's still there. And I think this is somewhat separate from the housing trust fund. I think I'll accept that. but how this plays in regards to the creation of the Office of Homelessness. I may be mistaken, but when that office was proposed and we put $150,000 in the budget, it was not foreseen, or at least I wasn't aware, that we were going to spend $50,000 of it for a consultant. Had I known that or envisioned that, that may have impacted my vote. I support affordable housing and what we need to do to get there. Here's my question for CAO Hamilton or for Shea. The issue, and I'll use it in relation to the issue of the Senior Citizen Center. What happened to just plain, good old fashioned public administration? And like we had in the case of the Senior Center. Sally and Beth and members of the administration rolled up their sleeves. They laid all the facts out on the table, all the studies and the works that the consultants had done heretofore, and they brought us what I think would be a pretty solid recommendation. Is that an option now? I just throw that out food for thought because there has been study after study after study that can be dusted off and reviewed to help us come up with a strategy. And so that's my commentary, Vice Mayor. The only question I have is, how does this consultant play truly in the fact of creating a new office? We created a new position, for example, with Commissioner Paulson. We created it. We didn't need a consultant to start it. Is there a possibility or why is it not that the administration could use the example that we took on the Senior Citizen Center? Just my thoughts, Vice Mayor. Thanks. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Slayton, could you come down for just a second? Mr. Slayton. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. As you're putting together that information on how many consultants we've had, could you also, I don't want to delay that original request, so do that in a timely fashion, But at the same time, can you also put together the information that resulted from the hiring of those consultants, whether they released a report to us or whatever it was that deliverable was? That's probably going to be really tough. We were talking about over the last three years? Yeah, that's what I said. I don't want to hold up the original request for this. I think that's going to be pretty tough. at least for i mean i'm gonna probably need a lot of help from all other divisions that we hired the consultants for well who maybe i'm asking the wrong person is there someone else that follows that i mean it seems like if we hire a consultant there should be a report that's issued or something as a deliverable and then somebody in the government should have that i think it's going to be on but it's going to be on the divisional level i don't think there's a central clearing house for that information now if it's if it's if you want me to take a look at you know we create about 50 RFPs in a year, typically. Those are nine times out of ten going to be consultants, engineers, professional service types of arrangements. That's fairly easy. I can look at the RFP and tell you, we got a design package out of this. We got a recommendation from a consultant. They helped us implement software, something like that. But if you're just saying consultants in general, I think that works. Do we want to put a dollar threshold on it then because that makes all the difference in the world too. We could hire a consultant for $2,000 from parks and to figure out what it was that they did is going to be tough. Just general fund. I'm hearing from my colleagues. Just general fund. Just general fund. I can take a stab at it. And then just call one of us and we'll talk about it. If it's too laborious then we can narrow it down or whatever we need to do. But I think it would help us to figure out But there's always a lot of conversation about the government always hires consultants. I think Councilman Ford made a great point. It seems like we've got several years worth of studying on this issue, several different task forces, reports, and it almost seems like we can just bring somebody in here. We talked in the link about someone being on loan from the U.K. or from any number of places that's a high-level enough person that they can bring the right people around the table when we get ready to move forward. but just bring the information we already have together and get somebody in that seat that can at least start to look at where we should go. So if you could do that for us, that would be fantastic. Okay. I'll take a shot. And then what I would ask from our colleagues after we get that information is to really look at and begin to maybe even put into a committee, what are the outcomes when we hire consultants? What are our expectations, and are they being met? Is there a way we can do better with it? Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Councilmember Ford. Thanks Vice Mayor for the opportunity to speak twice. I think Shea did want to respond and I will kindly ask for a response to that question. I'm not, I think it's a fair question that I would want to know has the administration really thought about whether or not, why perhaps it can't. Welcome back. You're asking why we don't hire somebody first or why do we not do it with the information we already have? That's correct. The latter is pretty much the question of why. Okay. I think, now this is my opinion, I think we could always try. But I think if you look back at the reports that have been issued and you really read them, They are not specific to how to actually make it happen. And perhaps that's the point you're making. One of the recommendations that's been made in the past has not been brought by the administration necessarily, but was the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. And it had recommendations on how it would be administered and so forth. And as Council Member Kay said, at that time, council members weren't comfortable with the level of information that had been provided. And so this whole desire to have another, one more look at what we're doing and what we're going to do grew out of this question, do we need an affordable housing trust fund and what will it look like? And once you start looking at that and how you might make that happen, it opens up all these other questions that have been raised by Peggy and others about the complexities of housing and using it as a prevention for homelessness and exiting for homelessness and people that aren't even homeless. I know I'm probably confusing. But there's so much that we could do. We could go in multiple directions. And before we move forward, and it could involve at some point reorganizing divisions we have right now, but at some point we will move forward. We feel like this is our first step moving forward in terms of the actual operational plan of how we not just pass an affordable housing trust fund if that's what is ultimately decided, but what else do we need to do? because, I mean, it's the council's prerogative whether or not it wants to vote on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund issue that's currently in front of it. Right. Well, let me ask this, and Vice Mayor, I don't mean to belabor, but at the end of the day, I'm not clear as to what product this consultant is going to provide for us. The trust fund has been on the council's table since 2008. It's a separate issue, I understand, in regards to the Homelessness Commission report. Council Member K. can probably speak in just a second. But the trust fund is a mechanism of how we fund it. That's to be decided by this council at a later date. But we have before us now the creation of an office of homelessness, the creation of an office. So is the consultant's work going to help us establish that office? or to create a strategy, and I don't see why we can't do that in-house. My answer would be it is going to help us create the office because it's going to give us the additional information we need to know specifically what type of person or persons we need for this office. The example I've used in the past, and I probably shouldn't use names, but just as examples is Jeff Fugate, the director of the DDA, has very specific skills in terms of complex development, financing, et cetera. On the other hand, Laura Hatfield does an excellent job with Partners for Youth by bringing together existing partners, organizations, neighborhood associations, volunteers. So if you look at the commission report, there are so many recommendations. And many of them can be done by a Laura Hatfield skill set with the existing organizations. But once you get to the affordable housing side of how do you put together those complex deals, where do you get the funding from when the funding doesn't exist, et cetera, et cetera, that's where we might need more of a Jeff Fugate skill set. And so the concern is, is which one do you hire first, or can you develop a strategy where certain departments that already exist take on a component of it? I'm probably getting into way too much detail for work session, even though it's work session. But my point being, it's going to give us information that will help us make sure the office that is ultimately created, which this will help us do, is correctly structured. and has the right resources and works with the other divisions the way it needs to so it's not a silo sitting somewhere far away. Shea, thanks so much. Vice Mayor, I know my time is up. What I can end with is this is what I would hope the consultant does not do, is to come to town, read all the reports that are already existing, interview all the housing professionals who are on the ground doing the work, type it up, and tell us what they think is best for Lexington. Thanks, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Kay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just just maybe just a couple more points to follow up on most of what has already been said. But when we were going through the RFP process, and I was part of the group that was involved with that, I asked the question, first, do we have the capacity in-house to get this information? And what I got back was no on two levels. One, these are folks who have worked in many different places nationally, and although we have some people locally on staff and related organizations who have had some experience with affordable housing and housing development, they don't have this kind of range of expertise. And secondly, we don't have the staff to commit to the time that would it take to do this study. So it seemed to me a reasonable answer to why we needed to spend this money. Although I have to say, frankly, I've been not fully in support of taking this route, but I've become convinced that it makes sense. secondly in that conversation I was one of the voices that encouraged us to negotiate a not to exceed contract so this is not spending that money it's not saying here's what you get and whatever you give us you get your I don't have the money in front of me $46,000 whatever it is it's a not to exceed contract with some specifications of what we believe they need to deliver and that I believe this process will be closely monitored, specifically by Shea and perhaps by others, so that we get what we need, not simply what they have. I think we've all, if we've had experience with consultants, and I own up to being one, at times people give us what they've got. They don't give us what we need. And my thought was this needs to be very carefully managed because it's a complex issue. We have a range of questions that we need to have answered. We want these people to provide us with the expertise that they have, and we want to limit the cost. I think that's the agreement we have. That's what was negotiated. They're willing to do a not-to-exceed contract. They're willing to take our guidance on who they talk to, what they talk about, what we hope they will discover, what we then have as an outcome. So, as I said, I've been not fully in support of this at the beginning, but I believe it's a necessary next step, so that when we get to the end of January, some of the questions that people have had about how it would be implemented, how it would be structured in government, what the options are for funding, we can finally then take that information and make an up-or-down decision. Do we want to fund this or not? That remains a question before Council. So I hope that we don't kind of lose sight of that and that we don't kind of stop backtracking on the kind of progress we've made. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Scutchfield. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Shea, I know you feel like you're being picked on by the group today, and trust me when I say that I don't think it's any of our intentions to not take the issue that's in front of us seriously. But I think it is, I know, my intention to make sure when the government is spending taxpayer money that we do it as correctly as possible with a return on the investment. Can you go ahead and put that sheet that I gave you up? I don't know if you all can see this. I just pulled it real quick. And this is more general than some of the information that we are requesting. This is very general. This is professional services and what has been spent on professional services over the last couple of years. And if you notice, between 2012, 2011, 2010, we have increased the spending to $53 million. In 2012, it was $32 million. This is professional services. I think we need to, as stewards of our taxpayers, take a closer look at where we're spending our money and protect their interest. If it is not a return on investment that is going to be beneficial, it's not acceptable. With that, I am going to make a motion to table item number T. Second. I have a motion to table item number T by Councilmember Scutchfield, second by Councilmember Massadi. That is a non-debatable issue. So all those in favor of tabling item T, please say aye. Aye. And if you'll log in. All those opposed? No. No. Okay, that motion passes 9 to 4, so that item will be tabled. Point of order? Yes, sir. Typically there's a time frame for tabling. Could we have an indication of what the time frame might be? I think we want to get the information regarding what we've spent on the consultants for this and other items before we move forward. How long would that take to get us? Do our Mr. Slayton and Mr. O'Mara, how long do you think that will take to get that information? We can get the information requested fairly quickly. What I would like to make is a point that it's not pure vanilla. This is professional services. This is not consulting services. Let me give you a definition of... Pardon me? I said that, but I said this was professional services, not... Right. So this is including items where we have asked people to do things on behalf of the government. An example was we used a third-party billing service to bill all of our EMS billings. That's a professional service. We hire Kentucky American Water and Cincinnati Water in order to produce bills and calculate bills for our LexServe. That's professional services. I don't think those are the dollars you're wanting to concentrate on. I think you're actually wanting to look at consulting services. That is not an account all by itself in PeopleSoft and will take more filtering if that is really the answer you're wanting to get through this analysis. Ken, will you be more specific? Are you wanting the professional services or the pure consulting? No, I mean, I think Council Member Masati's request for the consultant in the general services budget. The general fund. General fund. That will require a review and a discretionary judgment as to what is in the services category versus the consulting. And we will work on that and get it to you as soon as possible. A month, six weeks, two weeks. We'll do it quicker than that. They're looking for a date to bring this back. Quicker than a month? A month. In order to give him time, I think a month we can bring it back. So today is October the 8th. Do you want to make that motion to bring it back November 5th? Motion to bring the item back onto the docket. Well, November 5th, that's the Tuesday. Work session, yes. Okay, did I hear a second? All right. So that's four weeks. Does everyone understand the motion? Yes. Okay. Is it three weeks? Four weeks, three years. Three years. The motion is to allow our admin folks to bring back the consulting for the past three years and for them to have it on November 5th. And then the tabled motion will come back. You wanted that to come with the tabled motion. Okay. Is there any discussion on the motion? and just put your hand up if you have something. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Will we have a little bit of time to examine and talk about the data when we get it back so that the motion doesn't immediately follow us getting the data? I think that's a given to discuss it. Is there any other discussion of the motion? Council Member Kay. So now I'm not clear. Are we saying that when this information comes back that the item that has been tabled will be then placed back on the docket? Or are we saying that we will review the information and then make a determination of what the disposition is? We're on a voting screen. We need a key screen. I think Councilmember Myers' point was to bring it back and then have it for discussion, the information. But there is a docket that day that will come forward. Can I speak? Yes, Councilmember Myers. Do you have an answer? Yes. That's what my question was. Are we going to get a chance to analyze that data, or is this going to come on the docket at the same time we get the information? I would think that we'd want to wait and push off untabling this until after we get a chance to look at the data. Council Member Scotchfield, it's your motion. Is that what you intended? Obviously, the intent is we need to look at the information before we move forward. Use your microphone, please. Sorry. Usually I talk loud enough. It's not a problem. The intention, obviously, is for us to be able to review the data, and this data is more, I think we need to have a clearer picture of where funds have been going. And it's not determinative necessarily for this particular issue, but I think we have questions. So can we separate when this comes off the table so there's a little bit of time to look at the data? Yeah. So what date are you saying if we get provided the information in the next month? Then is another month out too far? No. So if the information comes back on the 5th, which is a Tuesday, there is a council meeting on the 7th and then on the 21st of November. Can I amend her motion to make it November 21st? For the table item. For the table item, yes. Back onto the docket. And that will give us sufficient time to review the information Mr. Slayton is going to give us and then be able to determine how we want to move forward. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Council Member Masati has moved. Council Member Myers has seconded to amend the motion to bring the table item back on the 21st of November. And the information then would be looked at by the 5th. To the amendment. Yes, I'd like to speak to the amendment. Me too. Thank you. I need to take a deep breath because the question of when this question will be handled, when Council will actually make a decision on this, in various and sundry ways has been before this Council for five years. We have been in the position of saying to the people who have been interested, especially in affordable housing, they've been working on it for a long time, and the people who've been interested in the question of homelessness, wait. We're not ready. We don't have enough information. Now we have a proposal to get more information, and we want to postpone it. The simple mathematics of this, or the simple calendarizing of this, are that if we wait on this issue until November, We will not have a consultant's report if it goes forward until March or April. And if we wanted to then move the issue forward, we could not instigate any additional revenue because there would not be time to do it before the next fiscal year begins. So there's a drop-dead date. If we want to change any of the funding, we need to do it 90 days before the end of the fiscal year. So what this does effectively is it postpones the decision about whether this government is going to fund affordable housing and homeless services probably for another year. I think that's unconscionable. The people that I've been talking to expected something to happen this fall, And I said, I know you expect something to happen this fall, but we're going to get more information, and then we're going to be able to move forward. The council wants more information. The mayor wants more information. We're setting a process in motion to get more information. So this fall is out of the question. It's not going to be until January that we're going to report, but I believe that's still what will allow us to move forward in this fiscal year. So now I have to say to them, that's also gone. So I'm obviously speaking against the amendment, and if we don't put that date on, we still have a motion that was approved that was, I would say, we need advice from our parliamentarian. Since it didn't have a date certain when it was moved, I believe we need to reconsider that motion. But in any event, I don't think we've got a legitimate motion on the table. But I would speak against this amendment and hope that Council members will support me. Thank you. Does our parliamentarian wish to weigh in on that question? Okay. He says no. Council Member Farmer, then Council Member Akers to the amendment. I would echo many of the comments of Council Member Kay in that how is it after $53, almost $54 million of outside services that the tripwire for a problem has to do with the homeless initiative, which doesn't have enough staff people in-house to take care of, doesn't have enough volunteers outside to take care of, and needs our attention. I'm against tabling this to begin with, and certainly I'm against delaying it until November, and I would urge council members to vote likewise. Thank you. Are all the folks on the list to speak to the amendment? Okay. So I've got Council Member Akers here on to speak to the amendment. Okay. Okay. All right. Council Member Lawless and then Council Member Akers and then Council Member Ford. I think one thing that we need to look at is that since 2011, 2012, We've had to get professional, increase the cost for billing for LexServe. We've had, what was the other additional thing that wasn't there prior to? Oh, the pension, the negotiations on the different labor unions. And also, it's, you know, we voted to put this out for an RFP. They didn't just do it without us voting on that. And consultants can be, I mean, when you look at professional services and consultants, we're talking about outside litigation, which there's been a lot more of that spent on professional services in the last couple of years due to many of them lingering, long lingering issues. So I'm not, I hate to see this get stalled. I too am curious about why this particular, you know, situation is the trigger. I know we do have consultants that the council hires consultants, but I know we have consultants that issue reports, and that's different than the consultants that have to assess the engineering for a road project. So it's really apples, oranges, bananas, lemons, limes, and a few avocados in the same bag. But we've had extra expenses that we didn't have before, like the labor union negotiations that worked out well, the pension reform, and the health care that was a complete and total train wreck. and the extra billing for the LexServe bills since the water company no longer does that for us. So that's just my $54 million worth. You're welcome. I have Councilmember Akers, then Ford, then Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I do not disagree with Council Member Sketchfield in that we should maybe look into how much we spend on consultants and are we using our funds wisely for the best interest of citizens and government. However, I think that it's inappropriate to table this specific issue in the interest of looking deeper into what we spend on consultants. Do we spend too much? Is the return on investment equal? Are we getting our money's worth? I hate to see an issue such as this homelessness issue that has been worked on, talked about, discussed for years. It's obviously an issue because we see it every day, and then the mayor appointed a commission to study it. We have had the Affordable Housing Task Force years ago, so I would like to see them separated in some way and that we certainly continue with the request to look at our spending over the past three years. But to table this $49,000 in the scheme of a $300 million city budget seems short-sighted. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to, for those folks speaking to the amendment, the issue is the date. We're not permitted to discuss tabling. The issue is the date. Okay? Motions to table are non-debatable. We're talking about the date here. Thank you. I'm sorry, Vice Mayor, but another point of order. It seems to me the motion that was passed to table did not have a date on it. It did not, and so we're discussing the date. I question whether the original motion was valid. And our... The motion on the table is about the date. The motion we're discussing is about the date, not whether or not to table. Well, I've asked our parliamentarian or law, can law weigh in on whether the motion to table was valid? Because all of our motions to table do not have dates attached to them. That's the only question you can answer. Yeah, that's the question. Vice Mayor, I'm looking at Rule 4.406 of your all's rules, and it doesn't seem to indicate that a date is required. And we have had many motions to table without a date. Yes. Did you want to speak, Mr. Parliamentary? Well, I think the point where I understand is the motion passed already. Yes. But right after it was passed, it was amended with a date. Right. So that's an emotion. Is it appropriate to amend a motion? that's been passed after it's been passed? That's the issue. The issue that was just read is not, I mean, you don't have to have a date. So if the original motion stands, then it won't ever come back up. Yes, that's correct. It's my understanding the motion on the floor is to bring back information by November 5th, and then the amendment is to bring back the tabled item on November 21st. Vice Mayor, I can just withdraw my motion. Which one? I made the motion to amend with the date. So I'll just withdraw. The November 5th date. November 21st date was the date that we were to bring back the item. Is the seconder withdraw? George was the second. All right. So there's no amendment on the floor. So the motion on the floor then is to bring back information to the council on the consultants by November 5th. Does everybody understand the motion on the floor? Okay. Now, Council Member Ford, do you wish to speak to the motion that's on the floor? Yes, Vice Mayor. Thanks to speak. I think it's a reasonable motion for a week's time that's been requested by members of this council. So I want, and this is why I think we need this time, is because I'm hearing conflicting issues. I think it's very unfair to an extent and perhaps not proper to convolute everything in one basket. The issue is whether or not we need to and whether or not we want to pay for a consultant for this scope of work. And since that is, I think, a fair trigger for us to question consultant spending and professional services across the board. It just so happens that that's how it's going today. Let me throw some dates out. 2007, social service needs assessment. 2008, management audit. 2008, affordable housing trust fund commission. 2009, council task force on trust fund until now. economic impact study 2011. The Division of Grants and Special Programs produces a 10-year plan on homelessness. And we need a consultant to come in here and read these reports for us. I'm not convinced of that right now. And again, my understanding is, and this is where my heartburn is, is whether or not this consultant is going to help us start an office of homelessness, which is separate unto itself, or is this consultant going to come in and tell us whether or not we need a trust fund, whether or not we need to do this or do that? I support the motion to amend to allow us more time. Vice Mayor, thanks. Thank you. Council Member Farmer. So at the time we dispose of this motion in a month's time, will the item come off the table automatically? No. I believe, and I'm looking to law, that a tabled item without a date does not automatically come back. Someone would have to bring it off. On the prevailing side. Well, I think today, Commissioner, can you help us out here? I think today the only thing that could happen is someone could move to reconsider, and they have to be on the prevailing side, correct? Yes, that's correct. Or someone at a subsequent point could move to take it from the table and put it back before you all. Yes. I just, if we want to have a discussion about the use of outside counsel, I believe it's properly couched within the committee structure and not holding up this legislation. Thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to speak to the motion to bring the information about our consultants on November 5th? I see no one. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? No. Okay, we have one nay. Council Member Farmer. We have two nays. Will you all log in your votes, please? All right. That motion passes 12 to 2, so we will joyfully look forward to November 5th, Mr. Slayton and Mr. O'Meara. Thank you. Okie dokie. We are still on new business, and is there anyone else who wishes to speak to new business? Council Member Lawless. May I ask on the old new business we just discussed that we get a copy of the RFQ or RFP and the proposal that was chosen so that we can review that? That might help us all better understand what it is they're doing and why. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other question about new business? We have a motion to approve new business absent item T, which has been tabled. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? That motion passes. And Commissioner O'Mara. Yes, I have the information that Councilmember Scutchfield asked about the Kentucky Theater. So as a follow-up to your... The last two years, the operating agreement has generated $62,000 to LFUCG in 2013 and $68,000 in 2012. In addition to that, we have spent some monies on the upkeep of the building, which we own. a sprinkler system on about $60,000, about $20,000 in roof repairs, and $5,000 on compressor. So if you take those, that's about $85,000 from the $125,000 we've made, so we're still on a net gain for the last two years. Could you put that in a report to Council members, please? That would be very helpful. Thank you. Just by e-mail would work. All right. Now we're into continuing business. And first I need a motion on neighborhood development funds. I have a motion by Council Member Myers, second by Council Member Ellinger, to approve any question or comment. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. Item B was done last week, I believe. The Environmental Quality Committee report was last week. And so we're now to Planning and Public Works Committee summary. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. These are the minutes and summary and motions from our September 17th meeting. We have placed at everybody's spot a little background on the Zota work that comes up in the very first item of business, which is about the adult daycares. We had a motion by Council Member Henson to adopt the definition of adult daycare centers as follows. Any adult daycare facility which provides part-time care, day or night, but less than 24 hours, to at least four adults who are not related to the operator by blood, marriage, or adoption. The operator must be certified or licensed by a state public agency and may include personal care assistance, administering and or assistance with medication and social recreational activities. This motion was seconded by Council Member Clark and passed without dissent from the committee, and I so move now on behalf of the committee this adoption. Do I hear a second? Second. Is Council Member Acres seconded? And is there any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes, and thank you for all the hard work on that issue. Council Member Henson and Council Member Ford, did yeoman's work. Thank you, ma'am. Next on our agenda was the item titled Elm Tree Lane Sidewalk Closure. This had been a new business item that we had actually tabled and removed to committee to talk about whether or not to close this portion of sidewalk. We had a lengthy discussion, a lot of input from the public, and that culminated in two motions. First, a motion by Ford to keep the sidewalk that connects Elm Tree Lane and Rand Avenue open and remove the item from the council docket. This was seconded by Council Member Clark and passed without dissent, and I would now so move on behalf of the committee. Thank you, Mr. Farmer. Do I hear a second? Council Member Beard seconds. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. And finally, in this area, a motion by Ford, Council Member Ford, to request that the administration proceed with the redesign of the sidewalk that will improve pedestrian and bicycle access as well as safety and return to the Planning and Public Works Committee with the redesign. This was seconded by Council Member Massadi and passed without dissent. And I so move on behalf of the committee. Second. Council Member Akers seconds that motion. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, Please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Item four on our agenda for that day was private street enforcement maintenance and specifications. We had a beginning discussion about that that was actually followed up in our meeting today. And we had one motion after that to remove one item from committee. And that would complete my report, Vice Mayor. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Farmer. Now we have council reports. So if you'll please log in for your council report. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to let the public know that I will be hosting an informational session tomorrow evening at BCTC on Newtown Pike. The new auditorium there, we will host an informational session on the Affordable Care Act. So anyone interested in signing up, registering, we have a speaker from the State Health Exchange coming to do a presentation and answer questions for the public. Thank you very much. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to do a council report? And we are happy our former Vice Mayor, Isabel Yates, was here. Thank you for your work on the Kentucky Theater. And Bill Fortune, thank you for being here. Thank you. Council Member Massadi. Yes, ma'am. I'd like to put into the planning committee the discussion of greenways. I believe that we were supposed to have a manual that was due to be completed by the fall, so I'd like to put that into the planning committee so we can review that, please. I hear a motion. Do I hear a second? And would you, Council Member Scutchfield seconded, would you please repeat your motion? Yes. I'd like to put into the planning committee a review of the greenway master plan and the Greenway Manual that was under development and was due to be completed this fall. All right. Okay. And we have a second. Is there any discussion? I see none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. Council Member Massadi, did you have more for your report? Okay. Is there any other council report? I see none. Speak now or forever hold your peace. Okay, we'll move right along to the mayor's report. And, first of all, is there a motion to approve this? Do I hear a second? Second. Okay, motion by Council Member Stennett, second by Council Member Kaye, and then Council Member Kaye has a motion to amend. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I move to remove the two names of the Ethics Commission nominees. We will hold confirmation hearings of these individuals on October 24 and would like them to go on the docket for that night. So move. Second. Okay. Council Member Henson seconded. Is there any discussion of the amendment? All those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed? All right. So the amendment has been passed to remove the Ethics Commission nominees and bring them back after their confirmation hearings. Is there more discussion about the amended motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Now, there is public comment for issues not on the agenda. And first we have Steve Brown. If you'll come to the podium. And each person we ask to give their name, address, and you'll have three minutes. Welcome. My name is Steve Brown. I live at 360 Hampton Court and have been there since 1978. I'm president of Kentucky's Mighty Wurlitzer. We are in the process with the coalition consisting of the urban county government, the Kentucky Theater Group, and the University of Kentucky, and we are sort of the managing partner of that organization. I put this on your, had this dispersed to you guys and ladies. It was a program that we did for the 90th anniversary last year, and we had a spectacular program. I'm curious, did anybody go see it on the council? I know the mayor was there to speak, but anyway, What I'm here to talk about is what the importance of the Kentucky Theater is in relationship to the region, the state, and to Lexington specifically. It is the only surviving movie palace in Lexington and one of the few in the state of Kentucky. What we have is a unique opportunity to bring the original Wurlitzer back, and we need your help to make that happen. We are well on a way to raising the funds for the organ portion of the project. project. We've raised approximately $300,000, which includes some in-kind services and those type of things. The lion's share of that fund has gone to administration of newsletters. We've mailed over process and mailed 90,000-plus newsletters since 1998. And it's interesting to see where the money goes, and I can give you pie charts that will show. Right now we have an issue with treasurer whose computer had collapsed on us, and we were in the process of reconstruction the last two years of that. So as soon as that's done, I can give you a financial statement. What I'd like to do is very briefly run through what is in this document. We will not stop at every page, but I think we'll find out the reason why this is important. The Friends of the Kentucky is another organization that is working concurrently with us to do theater work. improvements there we are outside of that group we were excluded by the friends at the point time in August of 2012 I think that was not necessarily a good thing from the standpoint of the sequencing that has to occur we are moving forward and we're having good opportunities that will be coming probably at the end of this year with fundraising because we have an interest from several donors outside of the Commonwealth of Kentucky who possibly could write enough money to fund the organ portion of the project. As you know, the console was at the Kentucky, or the State Theater, last October for the month. Project exhibit was there. And we had that program with Clark Wilson, who provided the same program with wings, to the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences in Hollywood on an electronic instrument. We have one in the theater right now. It's a three-manual Kahn Theater organ. and it performs down there every Wednesday night at the Summer Series, generally, and on Friday. So my purpose of this bit is to talk in terms of what is required for that $360,000 that we are requesting. Mr. Brown, your three minutes is over. Can I have another minute or two? Well, okay. Okay, there's a motion and a second to extend your time by two minutes. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? All right, you have two minutes. All right. That's the console that was at the theater, the state, and there's a large amount of the manual. What I want to do is flip to this page, which is the budget, which has the scope of work that's required. This has to run concurrently with what's going on with the theater, because we're going to be doing things that will require coordination with the modernization of the systems that are in the theater and also with lighting and sound and control. You can see that there's $360,000 worth of interior. You can read these things. I mean, there's no point in regurgitating all of them. But it basically has to do with new construction in the theater. The original pipe chambers were filled with speakers and stuff like that, and the instrument will not go back in where it was. There will be a lift. This console will go out of sight. You will not see it. And the instrument has a relay that will allow it to be played through the projection booth by activating a playlist of songs. So it can be demonstrated on Saturdays and stuff. There are theater tours and stuff like that. There is a little bit of contingency in this, but again, as this process moves forward, we'll work through those deals or items. But what is important here is I don't want to go outside of the closed period when they shut down the theater, which is going to take approximately six weeks to do the work, and we'll need about the same amount of time to do the construction. Otherwise, we'll have the instrument ready and no place to install the organ. So if we don't do it when the theater work is being done, then we're going to have to come back and close the theater for six weeks again. So there's a time as of the essence on this. The funds are being specifically for an improvement to the theater to make the Wurlitzer installation work. It will be a significant improvement to the interior. And I think from the standpoint of the importance of this project, it will put Lexington on the map nationally. Then we can bring regional conventions here. We'll do a subscription concert series and an October anniversary silent film festival will be part of the goal of what's going on here. And we will be the only new thing that's coming to the theater, which will be an economic development portion. Everything there that is being maintained, since they've lost troubadour concerts and they've also lost songs all-time, radio hours. So we've got to put things in the theater to make it happen. So I specifically and hopefully hope that we all will consider this request. It's not a lot of money, but it's a critical component for this project to be a reality. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown. We appreciate it. I also have Barbara Norton, perhaps, who signed up to speak. Is Barbara still here? She's gone. Okie doke. All right. Now, Council Member Ellinger has a motion for closed session, and just so the audience knows you do not need to relocate and clear the chamber, we're leaving. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I move that we go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.810, parentheses 1, parentheses G, in order to discuss an economic development matter involving real property. And open discussion would likely jeopardize the site retention, expansion, or upgrading of a business. Thank you. Second. I have a motion and a second by Ellinger, second by Myers. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? We are going back into closed session. Five, six, seven, eight, nine. Do I hear a motion to come back into open session? I'm moved. Council Member Kay moved. Council Member Clark seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? We are back in open session. And I believe Council Member Akers has a motion. Yes, thank you, Vice Mayor. I move to place on the docket a resolution initiating for Planning Commission to review and recommend the rezoning of approximately 16.16 net acres of property located at 920 Citation Boulevard from a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone to an office, industry, and research park P2 zone. So moved. Second. Council Member Akers moved and Council Member Ellinger seconded. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Now, that completes our work session business. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? I have a motion by Myers, second by Beard. All those in favor of adjourning, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? We stand adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you.