# Council Work Session - December 3, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 3, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3180 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3180?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-12-03 - **Last revised**: December 3, 2013 - **Length**: 17,275 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 December 3, 2013, at 3:00 PM in the Council Chamber located at 200 E. Main St, Lexington, KY 40507. Mayor Gray presided over the session, which included eight agenda items and resulted in eight motions and votes. The meeting addressed a range of municipal business, including requested rezonings and docket approval, budget amendments, and the mayor's report. One public comment was heard during the meeting regarding issues on the agenda. The council approved multiple items including the rezoning docket, a summary, budget amendments, and new business, while also receiving informational presentations on continuing business and adjournment procedures. ## Attendance **Present:** Gorton, Ellinger, Kay, Ford, Akers, Beard, Farmer, Stinnett, Scutchfield, Myers, Mossotti, Henson, Clarke **Absent:** Lawless, Lane **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions The following motions were voted on and passed unanimously during the meeting: - **Approval of the docket for the November 21, 2013 council meeting** — Motion by Farmer, seconded by Ellinger. Passed unanimously. - **Place on the docket for the November 21, 2013 council meeting an ordinance adopting a schedule of meetings for the Council for the calendar year 2014** — Motion by Gorton, seconded by Akers. Passed unanimously. - **Approval of the November 12, 2013 work session summary** — Motion by Beard, seconded by Farmer. Passed unanimously. - **Approval of budget amendments** — Motion by Farmer, seconded by Clarke. Passed unanimously. - **Approval of new business** — Motion by Farmer, seconded by Ellinger. Passed unanimously. - **Approval of neighborhood development funds** — Motion by Stinnett, seconded by Mossotti. Passed unanimously. - **Approval of the Mayor's report** — Motion by Gorton, seconded by Clarke. Passed unanimously. - **Adjournment** — Motion by Ellinger, seconded by Gorton. Passed unanimously. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting approved the following financial actions: **Contracts and Agreements** * Agreement with the Fayette County Sheriff for property tax collection services (L1238-13): $350,000 * Lease Agreement with Council of Three Rivers American Indian Center, Inc. (L1246-13): $1,168.20 * Amendment to agreement with Greenhouse17 for services under the Arrest and Enforcement Project (L1254-13): $7,080 **Grants** * Agreement with The University of Kentucky Research Foundation for Stormwater Quality Projects Incentive Grant (L1241-13): $22,299 * Award from the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security for public safety dive team equipment (L1279-13): $30,000 * Award from the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security for water and dive operation boat (L1284-13): $48,000 * Award from the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security for the Hazardous Devices Unit (L1304-13): $86,000 **Purchases** * Purchase of a replacement Bryan Boiler from TMI Sales (L1242-13): $31,947 **Low-Interest Loans from Kentucky Infrastructure Authority** * Assistance Agreement for Bundle 1 - Trunk Sewer Replacement Projects (L1274-13): $10,194,421 * Assistance Agreement for Bundle 3 - Storm Water Improvement Projects (L1275-13): $4,657,640 * Assistance Agreement for Expansion Area 2A Pump Station and Force Main Project (L1277-13): $6,000,000 The infrastructure loans totaling $20,852,061 represent the largest financial commitments approved during the meeting, focused on sewer replacement and stormwater improvement projects. Combined grant awards from the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security totaled $164,000 for public safety equipment and operations. ## Public Comment Farrell Alford spoke during the public comment period regarding the proposed Downtown Lexington Management District. Alford expressed opposition to the proposal, citing concerns that the tax district would result in a 10% tax increase for property owners. ## Contested Items **Downtown Lexington Management District** The proposed Downtown Lexington Management District was the subject of significant community opposition during the meeting. The primary concern centered on the tax burden that would be imposed on property owners under the proposed tax district. Community members expressed concerns about the financial impact of the district on local property owners, though specific details about the structure of the proposed taxes or the projected costs were not documented in the available meeting materials. ## Public Comment - Issues on Agenda No public comments were made on issues on the agenda during this portion of the meeting. ## Requested Rezonings/ Docket Approval The docket for the November 21, 2013 council meeting was approved during this agenda item. Key speakers on this matter included Farmer and Ellinger. The item resulted in an approved outcome. ## Approval of Summary The summary of the November 12, 2013 work session was approved. Beard and Farmer participated in this agenda item. The summary was approved without noted objections or concerns. ## Budget Amendments Budget amendments were presented and approved during the meeting. The discussion involved key speakers Farmer and Clarke. The amendments were approved by the body. ## New Business New business items were presented and approved during this portion of the meeting. Key speakers Farmer and Ellinger participated in the discussion of these items. The specific details of the new business items discussed were not provided in the available meeting materials. However, the items that were brought forward were ultimately approved by the body. ## Continuing Business/ Presentations Various committee summaries and reports were presented during this portion of the meeting. The presentations were informational in nature and delivered by Stinnett and Mossotti. The specific details of the committee summaries and reports presented were not documented in the available meeting materials. No transcript timestamps were available to identify the precise timing of these presentations within the meeting record. ## Mayor's Report The Mayor's Report was presented to the council, with Gorton and Clarke serving as key speakers on this agenda item. The report was reviewed by the council members present at the meeting. The report was approved by the council without noted objections or amendments. ## Adjournment The meeting was adjourned following remarks from Ellinger and Gorton. The adjournment was approved. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the docket for the December 5, 2013 Council meeting - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the docket for the December 5, 2013 Council meeting under first reading of resolutions, a resolution endorsing increased parking fines for several offenses listed on the resolution - **Motion** — passed (0-0): amend the motion to place these fine levels in the Budget & Finance Committee for a full discussion - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the docket for the December 5, 2013 Council meeting a resolution: 1. Urging the Commonwealth of Kentucky to reconsider its decision to cut Child Care Assistance Funding; 2. Requesting that the Kentucky General Assembly authorize and direct the Legislative Research Commission to complete an Economic Ompact Study of the effect of these cuts; 3. Requesting that the General Assembly take appropriate measures to eliminate or reduce the impact of these cuts; and 4. Requesting that the General Assembly approve a waiver on the cuts to assistance for new applicants that have been a victim of domestic violence or abuse - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the docket for the December 5, 2013 Council meeting, a resolution authorizing and directing the Division of Traffic Engineering, pursuant to the cose of ordinances section 18-86, to install multiway stop controls at the intersection of Clyde Street and Texaco Road - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the docket for the December 5, 2013 Council meting, a resolution authorizing and directing the Division of Traffic Engineering, pursuant to code of ordinances section 18-51, to install traffic calming speed controls on Huston Alley - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the docket for the December 5, 2013 Council meeting, a resolution establishing a Residential Parking Permit Program for the 500 Block of Stratford Drive - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the November 19, 2013 work session summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve budget amendments - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve new business - **Motion** — passed (0-0): remove item cc from new business - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve Neighborhood Development Funds - **Motion** — passed (0-0): support the Division of Water Quality recommendation of the change order process - **Motion** — passed (0-0): authorize the Administration to use MAP funds to repair the Elm Tree Lane sidewalk - **Motion** — passed (0-0): refer the issue of HOA rights and laws pertaining to foreclosure of homes to the Planning Committee - **Motion** — passed (0-0): adjourn --- ## Full transcript Music guitar solo guitar solo Greetings and greetings to everybody who's joined us today, I'll call the meeting to order, convene, and I'll first ask Mr. Mundy if anyone has signed up, Mr. Mundy, for issues on the agenda. All right. No one signed up for issues on the agenda, so I'll move to... Can I get? All right. We can now move to item number two on our agenda, which is the docket approval. Is there a motion to approve the docket? I move. Second. Is that Jennifer? Was it a motion by Council Member Scotchville, second by Vice Mayor Gordon? Is there any discussion on the motion? Any discussion on the motion? Vice Mayor? I just had a legal question. Do we need to put these zone changes on with a motion, or are they? Did you all understand the question? There aren't any zone map amendments under first reading ordinances on this work docket. I believe there are two that are scheduled for next Tuesday's work docket, and those will require motions. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Meredith. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Council Members, as you recall, a few months ago we had Gary Means with the parking authority here, and he came in with some recommendations regarding violation fines. And I asked a few questions during that meeting specifically about handicap parking and a couple other ones and why they're not differentiated more than what some of the other fines are. And so they went back and worked on that. Their board has adopted that. And then he came back for another conversation with me, and we looked at changing the fee for parking in front of fire hydrants as well as parking in front of fire stations. And so I made a recommendation to him. He went back. His board adopted that. And so now we've circulated that information to everyone, And obviously we don't have to pass this as a resolution, but we want to do the resolution saying that we're endorsing the changes that they are making to the parking fee structure. And so I move to place on a docket for the December 5, 2013 council meeting, under first reading of resolutions, excuse me, a resolution endorsing increasing parking fines for several offenses listed in the resolution. So moved. Motion by Council Member Myers and a second by Council Member Lawless. Is there any discussion on the motion? Council Member Beard. Thank you. Council Member Myers, do you have specifically what those changes are? Because the disabilities group has also been working on this thing about handicapped parking for some span of time. I'd hate for it. Yes, sir. And Mr. Means is here to speak to that as well, but all the council members and their aides received a handout, an updated handout from what Mr. Means gave us originally in your mailboxes, both hard copy and e-mail, last Wednesday. And so... To answer Council Member Beard's question, that is still being worked on in the disability committee. I knew there was a meeting upcoming on that, and I didn't know whether that was going to clash with this, what we're doing, or what. We're waiting on that committee to come up with their recommendation. So this is other fines not related to the ADA violation. But not the disability question. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Beard. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. So I have a few questions about this. Council Member Myers, whose recommendations are these? Are these yours or are these the, Mr. Means, are these the parking authorities? As I stated before, part of this was a discussion between Mr. Means and I. He took this back to their board, and so their board has adopted these. And so what is before today is the proposed fee structure as set by his board. So is there a reason the council needs to weigh in on this? Has your board dealt with this? The difference in this compared to other things like meter rates, these are related to an ordinance that council set. parameters on the citations that we're listing is that a citation should be no less than 15 and no more than 100. There aren't any ordinances that dictate to the parking authority what meter rates might be or parking garage rates, so that's why this gets a little bit grayer. We're intertwined a bit in these ordinances because they're related to laws that council set up. Also, the police department writes some of these, so we felt it's just best to create the opportunity for an open discussion, while we're still staying within the parameters that council already established, it's still related to a law that council established at one point. So we felt it was best to bring this forward and ask for it to be endorsed or have an opportunity for a conversation. So your board has passed this. Yes. Is that correct? Yes. If the council doesn't pass it, then what does your board do? Go back and start over? Sure. So, Council hasn't had any explanation of why some of these, I noticed there's one on here that goes from $15 to $100, and Council has not, if in fact legally we have to approve these, we have not had any opportunity to discuss these. And I guess I would ask our law department their opinion on why it is we need to approve these. And if, in fact, legally we do, then I would prefer to see this go into a committee for a full discussion. Mayor, can I respond to that, please? If I could ask law to answer that question. Well, as the commission is coming forward, as we said before, we are not required to adopt this. And actually, this resolution doesn't adopt this. What it does is says that we're endorsing it. Because it's a fine, we would prefer that the council adopt it. The distinction is on the parking meters, you all have given them full authority. If going forward you would like to give them full authority, we would recommend that you amend the ordinance to clearly give them the full authority to establish the fines within those amounts that are laid out in the ordinance now. But because you haven't expressly done that, our preference would be that you go ahead and adopt something that would indicate what those fine rates are going to be going forward. Okay, I appreciate that clarification. Mr. Means, is there any hurry with this if Council wanted to have a full vetting of this in a committee? Not at all. No rush at all. Okay. I would go ahead then and move to amend the motion to place these fine levels in the Budget and Finance Committee for a full discussion. Second. Motion by Vice Mayor Borton, seconded by Council Member Beard. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right, Council Member Myers. Yeah, I guess I'm kind of puzzled by that because right now the ordinance gives the parking authority to raise these fines up to $100 without our approval at all. And so I guess I'm trying to understand why we need to put this into committee and fully vet it. All right. Does anyone else wish to speak to the motion? All right. If not, then we can take a vote. All in favor? Peggy, did you wish to speak to this motion? All right. We can take a vote. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. Motion carries. All right. Councilman Myers, do you have another? I do. Thank you, sir. I did want to comment on the last item. I agree with Vice Mayor. I think it would be a good idea to fully vet it out, but I appreciate you bringing that forward, Councilmember Myers. And I would like included in that discussion parking violations in the front and side yard. I noticed it wasn't on the list. All right. Thank you, Council Member Henson. Council Member Lawless? Excuse me, I just didn't hear what... Council Member Henson, could you repeat? I said that included in the discussion, I would like to have some about parking in the front and side yards because it wasn't included on the list in the ordinance, increasing the fines. That's a different division that enforces that. Maybe it could be two separate items. Well, and that's the discussion I'd like to have because $15 for parking when it's a constant thing. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Henson. Council Member Clark. Yes, thank you, Mayor. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Myers, what was the reason to start this discussion to begin with? Because I see a lot of these rates are raised. It's not just the $100 ones, but just kind of a bottom line. Why was this being discussed and what brought it about? I think Mr. Means can better answer that question because he actually came to the council in the beginning. That's what got the conversation started was looking at what rates they had and what changes they wanted to make. I looked at that fee schedule and realized that there were so many of them were all the same, $15. And I'll give you a classic example why we have requested to move parking in front of a fire station and parking in front of a fire hydrant up to $100 is because we've got an example at Maxwell Elementary School, and Council Member Lawless has been helping me with that, or I've been helping her with that. And you have a situation where you have a fire station right across from the school. And when the parents come to pick their kids up, oftentimes they park on not only a yellow curb, but there's a fire hydrant there, and there's also a sign that says towing zone. They park there. They go into school. The fire alarm goes off. The ladder truck tries to leave the building, and it's taking an extra five minutes to get where it's supposed to go because it has to back and forth five or six times to get out of the building when cars are parked there. And so the signings have been changed. Actually, I'm glad to put this in committee because we're going to be able to fully show you why this is a great thing to do. But in that situation, we worked with the school, the fire department, and our folks in engineering, traffic engineering, and the police department. They did selective enforcement for quite some time. There are people doing U-turns. The motorcyclist got hit by a parent doing a U-turn in the morning. All kinds of things going on. But the bottom line is the fire truck can't get out of the building. and with the fine of $15, people are paying the $15 and moving on. And so what we're trying to do is behavioral modification to get people to understand that if, you know, your mom is having a stroke or your child is having an asthma attack and the fire truck can't get out to save them because somebody parked in front of the fire station, we've got a real problem there. We've done some mechanical things to make it more difficult to park there, but you can only do so much because you still have to have room for the truck to be able to get out. But even with those changes we've made, it hasn't changed behavior. They're just parking out in front of that, which makes the problem worse. And so just looking at this pragmatically, there's things that have to be done to make situations safer. And we didn't think that there was going to be a big harm in raising the fine up to the limit that they legally have the ability to do by statute. And so why this needs to go into committee, I'm not sure. but I welcome it to go there. Okay, I understand that. But there are some others that have been raised as well, and there must be rationale for all of that. And I think probably some discussion in committee might be good. Well, I'll let Mr. Means speak to some of that, because when he originally came to us, it was to change some of these things. So I'll let him further. I think when you look at the long list of parking violations that exist in the ordinance, and they're all at $15, I think there's merit to say, well, you know, the same $15 for somebody that's 20 or 30 minutes over their parking meter, you know, they're going to get a ticket for $15 just like somebody that's blocking a fire hydrant or out in an intersection or near a crosswalk, which creates pedestrian safety issues. So I think what we inherited, what council had set up, and then at the request of Council Member Myers went out and did a survey of other cities, And similar cities like Louisville or even Chattanooga have a variety of rate structures based on sort of the severity or the safety-related issue, yellow curbs and parking too close to a stop sign, those kinds of things that we write. So we just took a look at what other cities did. We didn't raise any of them except for the fire-related to a point that was any higher than the national average. So everything that we recommended was kind of based on the fluctuations that we saw in sort of a national average. Yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman Massadi. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Means, so if I understand you correctly, we're basing this on comparable cities, not on numbers of violations. Correct. Many of these violations are not, there's not a large number of them per year written in our community. So it's just based on comparable cities. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Lawless. This is a particularly difficult issue in and around the older neighborhoods and around UK where there aren't curbs and people park right up to the stop sign and the fire hydrants and, you know, blocking the crosswalks, et cetera. And so I appreciate you all looking into this. And people that have disability stickers for parking who have those parking spaces in front of their house, people park there anyway, and so they still can't park there. So it is a dangerous issue as well as, you know. So thank you. have invited us to have a dialogue. Councilman Lane. Mr. Means, while we're talking about fines, I just wanted to bring another item to your attention, and that is I've had complaints from people who live near a U.K. campus who own their own property there, and they may work at home during the day and park their car on the street, and they're getting ticketed for parking on the street when it's right in front of their own home. I don't know. There needs to be some solution to that issue. I'm sure you've heard about some complaints on that, but I just wanted to mention that while we're reviewing these fines. Maybe that would be something, some kind of solution could be resolved on that also. Were they parking in a residential permit parking area, or was it an area where no parking on one side of the street? As far as I know, there was no restrictions like that. They were just during the day that you can't park on the street. I don't know how the signage was set up out there. I got a call on it, so I didn't really go out and do an inspection on it. Just send them our way, and we'll take a look at it. The residential permit parking program works great for keeping people out from in front of your home, but we'll have to look into this situation and see what's going on with this one. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Lane. All right. All right. If no one else wishes to speak to the motion, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. We did? It's amended. It's an amendment. We're voting on the amendment. All right. Let's do it again. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. All right, we're back to the original motion now. Oh, you got another? Okay. We're back to the original motion on the docket now, right? To approve the docket, right. Well, okay. Councilman Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Maybe we'll have some better luck with this one since I was asked to do this one. You know, Council Members, about a year ago, almost a year ago, when the Governor and the Legislature changed the funding mechanism for early childhood education and kinship care, we did a resolution asking them to reconsider that decision. And Council Member Ford, as the chair of the Social Services Committee, put that back into committee here a couple of weeks ago. And as a part of that committee, they asked me to bring back the original resolution, but update that to speak to sort of what's happened since they made that decision. And so we've done that. That's been circulated to everyone. We didn't get any questions about that. So I moved to place on the docket for the December 5, 2013 council meeting, the resolution urging the Commonwealth of Kentucky to reconsider its decision to cut child care assistance funding. Number two, requesting that the General Assembly authorize and direct the Legislative Research Commission to complete an economic impact study of the effect on these cuts. Number three, requesting that the General Assembly take appropriate measures to eliminate or reduce the impact of these cuts. And four, requesting the General Assembly to approve a waiver on the cuts to assistance for new applicants that have been a victim of domestic violence or abuse. So moved. Senator Yank. Motion back. Council Member Myers. And where was that second? Second by Council Member Clark. 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, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. All right. All right, now we're back to the original. Council Member Akers, do you want to speak to the original motion? for the docket? All right. Okay. Thank you. I move to place on the docket for Thursday a resolution authorizing and directing the Division of Traffic Engineering pursuant to Code of Ordinances Section 1886 to install multi-way stop controls at the intersection of Clyde Street and Texaco Road. So moved. Motion by Council Member Acres, second by Council Member Ford. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. If not, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. Thank you, Council Member Akers. All right. Now we're back to the original motion to approve the docket. All in favor of the motion, Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. I have a motion as well related to traffic engineering. I see that. I move the place on the docket for Thursday, December 5, 2013, a resolution authorizing and directing the Division of Traffic Engineering pursuant to Code of Ordinances Section 18-51 to install traffic calming speed controls on Huston Alley. So moved. Second. Motion by Council Member Ford. Second by Council Member Kaye. Is there any discussion on the motion? I just have a question. Question by Vice Mayor Gordon. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Ford, I just wanted to ask, normally those are shared expense with the neighborhood. Can you tell us a little bit about this? Yes, ma'am. Thanks, Vice Mayor. And Council Members, forgive me for not apprising that I was going to bring this motion forward, but the Division of Traffic Engineering has been very helpful with our office and our constituents in the 1st District in regards to this. It's passed the threshold requirements of the traffic study, and it has been communicated to the neighbors the cost share requirements. I think I'm correct and this is also unique is that I think that we're going to be using an innovative type of speed humps in this instance the ones that are removable or something of that sort I think they were scheduled to be installed in the other area of town but fortunately they're going to be placed here but the neighbors traffic engineering has done a stand-up job of communicating and engaging the neighbors in this impacted area All right. Thank you. Council Member Clark. Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on the docket for the December 5, 2013 Council meeting a resolution. Council Member Clark, I think we need to vote on the Council Member Ford's motion first. Right. Okay. Hold just a second. All right. Anybody else? Is there any other discussion on the motion by Council Member Ford? All right. Hearing none, then let's vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Okay. Council Member Clark. Thank you. I move to place on the docket for the December 5, 2013 Council meeting a resolution establishing a residential parking permit program for the 500 block of Stratford Drive. So move. Second. Motion by Council Member Clark. Second by Council Member Farmer. 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. Any other motions? I want to make sure here. All right. Now we can vote on the original motion to approve the docket. All in favor of the motion to approve the docket, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. We can move on now to the approval of the summary. Is there a motion? Motion by Council Member Beard. Is there a second? Second by Council Member Myers. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Allows us to move on to budget amendments. Move approval. Motion by Vice Mayor Gorton, second by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next is new business. Move approval. Motion by Council Member Beard, seconded by Council Member Farmer. Is there any discussion on the motion? Please sign on. Council Member Hanson. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question on item C regarding the Central Kentucky 911 network. All right. That's in the jurisdiction of Commissioner Mason? Yes. All right. Clay, thank you. Council Member Henson, can you give us a question? I was just curious because this is a sole source vendor, and I'm assuming there's no one else that provides this service. Is that correct? They were part of the original group that developed the system, and this is an extension of the contract, yes. So how long is the contract for? This extension will be for 2014. Okay. For the calendar year. And then I just noticed I was looking on page 51, and there were supposed to have been some additional attachments that we didn't get. Okay. description of the changes and the procurement certification, particularly, if you could get those to us. Will do. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Henson. Councilman Massadi. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question in number P, maybe Commissioner O'Mara. I'm not sure if I see him. There you are. Did you say P or T? Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Could you just tell me what our accounts receivable are? It says here that we hired someone to help us and recover some of our overdue accounts. I was just curious what the number was we are in accounts receivable that we're trying to collect. The total dollar amount I do not have. We do this for emergency EMS runs, and we're also looking at using this on the LexServe bills as well as the law department using it for various accounts that they have. So in the past do we have? It's various pockets. In the past, can you have any recollection of what this ran? I can get you that. I do not have that off the top of my head. Okay. No, ma'am. Thank you very much. But I'll be glad to give it to him. All right, thanks. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Bill. Thank you, Council Member Sadek. Council Member Sketchfield. Thank you, Mayor. I had a question about number N, and it might be very simple. This is the interlocal cooperation contract. Commissioner O'Meara, it may be used well or no? Okay. Mr. Slayton. I just haven't seen something like this before, and I wanted to make sure I understood exactly what it is. What it is, it's a cooperative purchasing agreement. There's several that we use. One of them is called U.S. Communities. One of them is called WSCA, which is Western Governors Association Purchasing Cooperative. But it's where another entity, another municipality or state has bid out a service or an item, and they've gotten supposedly the best deal that's available, and we can basically piggyback off of that contract. We're allowed to use state master agreements that the state of Kentucky has procured, but this gives us some other options. It's something that for this particular one we're interested in, the state of Kentucky used to have a contract with Lexmark where we could buy our toner cartridges. And for us to go out and do that on our own, we're not gaining any volume benefit. But to use this Texas contract, we're getting the benefit of all these other municipalities. So that's what this is. Makes sense. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Schutzefield. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Number CC. All right. That's, what is it? It has Atkins buying. All right. All right. I guess I know we had a discussion here a couple meetings ago about the program and they were going to come back with us when the numbers got to, and what are the numbers? I think you have to have, what, 33% and 51% to qualify according by a state statute? 51% of value and 33% of the number of property owners. And this one's put on, so does that mean now that we've hit the numbers that we requested? Yes, sir, you do, Council Member Ellinger. In fact, the reason that we had some discussion, as you know, I think it was Wednesday evening about this with the vice mayor and others. One of the property owners literally signed at 2.30 this afternoon. They've been considering it for a few weeks now. They decided it was an important thing for them to be a part of. So they signed on, which put the numbers at 52% of value and 38% of property owners, which they qualify on both KRS. Do you have a list for us that has all the different? Renee Jackson, who's the president of the DLC, is here, and she has that list. Okay, so then we can get to that. And I know I've been in contact by people who are opposed, and I think I saw Mr. Alford here. But I think I just saw you go back to sign in. Did you want to speak now or did you want to speak later? I'll wait. But if you wait later, we'll go ahead and vote on it. If you speak now, it would be before we vote. All right. Okay. I've got three minutes left of my time. Why don't you go ahead, and I'll allow you to speak now then. Okay. I don't have a response. Exactly. Excuse me. I'm Farrell Alford. My company's owned two of the major buildings in the downtown development district. and I'm very familiar with what has been put forth as far as this new tax district that we're talking about here today. I want you to know that we are very much opposed to this effort for numerous reasons. I can go by one by one if the other side would like to talk about why they want the district. But essentially, to a property owner, it's basically a 10% tax increase. for things that if we want to do, we can take care of ourselves. If we don't want to do, we don't have to do. And it's not done by a larger form of government with another government committee and another set of taxes. So I don't know. I haven't looked at it. I didn't know the meeting was coming until about 10 o'clock this morning where I would be better prepared and I would have counsel with me. I also have not seen a list of the signatures that the DLC thinks they've collected. I don't know the properties that they represent. I would have that thoroughly studied to see if it does, in fact, meet the 51% valuation of 33% property owners. So that's just everybody's information that I would get in it. And I don't think many people on my side of the table even know it's being discussed today. Thank you. Ms. Jackson, I think you were going to bring a list to us. Could you? Yes. We literally got the last signature at 2.30. I do have a list. I have all the petitions in the box here. We had submitted all the petitions except the last two that we've gotten in the last two days already electronically, and we'd be happy to send the last two over electronically, or we were prepared to leave all of our petitions with you today. I don't know. What do you mean by petitions? because all I'd like to see is who the individual ones are and what they represent of the percentages, I guess. Do you want to see that right this minute or later this week? I think now would be better before we voted, I think. So I have one copy of it. I guess you could put it on the overhead would probably be the best way. Don't we have to have a policy? My time is about up, so I'm sure there will be other council members who have questions, but I would like to see the list. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Council Member Ellinger. Council Member Beard. Well, a couple of things. I would like to weigh in on this one, too, but I want to go back to item P for a second. I'm not sure who I need to talk to about item P concerning. Wait a second. Let me ask you. Let's just make sure that we're on the same page here. Those who signed up, you're signed up for another issue. An earlier issue, yes. All right. Okay. Go ahead then. Yes, sir. Well, it is item P. It involves recovery services. And I guess Commissioner O'Mara might be able to. having seen this in operation for some period of time, and I won't even tell you what the period of time is. Companies of this sort do cherry picking, low-hanging fruit types of things. And what type of monitoring do we have set up to make sure that they're giving their full and all to the benefit of the city as opposed to the benefit of themselves. I was not part of the evaluation committee, but I do know that we're having electronic information and that they have programmatic letters and calls that they use as their protocols so that all of our accounts get worked. And there's a hierarchy of those contacts and reach-outs, so I do know that that is all committed to within the contractual arrangement that we have. Is it possible to get a copy of that, just take a scan at? I would love to see what that looks like. Sure. And it doesn't have to happen momentarily. Tomorrow morning is soon enough. Anything else? All right. Thank you, Mayor. All right. Thank you, Council Member Beer. Council Member Lawless, do you wish to speak on the item CC? Okay. Council Member Farmer, do you want to speak on CC? I think we're waiting on Council Member. Go right ahead. All right. Oh, wow. What you're looking at is in the first column, it's the property address. The second column is the assessed values, so you'll notice some that have zero dollar values, and those are the ones that we discussed before where they're a tax-exempt property, but they do get a vote, which the votes are on the very far right, showing how many votes they get. So, for example, you see the 126 LLC has a number of properties. They got one vote because they're one property owner, but they got all of their value. And I also listed what the name of the legal entity is in the third or middle section there, what their contribution to the management district would be, which is really for my purposes, not for it has no bearing legally. and then who signed it and the date they signed it, and then again the last column is the vote. And he's got them all up there. We can walk through it. We're happy to submit it. Can you see it? That's the last page that gets you down to the totals. As you can see, that Madison Capital just signed for an $11,500,000 property today at $230,000. And that put us over because we were $8.1 million short as of this morning. How many? I think it might be helpful. I think all of the council members are struggling to get something meaningful out of that slide. It's very difficult. I apologize for that. So I think, Council Member Ellinger, the question relates to whether or not the information is bona fide or what. Well, I just want to see the list, and I want to see how many people that signed up actually will owe nothing. I think it's easy to vote yes when you won't have to be taxed. So I want to see what percentage of, to make it go over the top, if it was going to take 50% or 33% and there were people on there that didn't have to pay, but they could say yes, I think it's a pretty easy yes. So I want to see what the list was. Council Member Ellinger, I might suggest since the limit was just hit today, literally before we walked up here. And I guess that actually makes me wonder why we're putting something on that we didn't even have a list to, but that goes to another question. Because it was the decision of law that we could go ahead and put it on your agenda as long as the limit was hit by the time you had to establish it for the docket at this meeting. What we can do is, if it's agreeable, the CAO is willing to make copies of it right now, or we can forward this to you electronically with the whole list. I know I'd like to have it before I voted, so if we could make a copy, that'd be great, because it's hard to read it, ear off this little thing. I can only squint so small. Well, what would we be voting? Okay, why don't somebody tell us what we're voting on? Remind us what would occur procedurally, David. Just let me finish the question, please. procedurally, would you please tell us what the vote represents and what steps would have to be taken if a vote is favorable or unfavorable? Yeah, it would be helpful to walk through the process. We're at the beginning of the process right now. What is driving this at this point in time is this tax district has to be legally created by January 1st in order for it to have any impact going forward next year. If you missed the January 1st deadline this year, you're talking about we haven't really gotten into this, potentially having to go through the entire petition process again. But there would be no tax district created as of January 1, 2014. So that's what's driving the urgency of this right now for this group. If I could have the overhead for a minute. I'll get there. The start of the process is laid out in this particular statute. And what I believe the mayor's office is indicating is they are comfortable that step one has been fulfilled as of earlier this afternoon. A petition has been given to them. They feel that it meets these requirements. The next step would be step two. if the mayor has an obligation on some level as the executive authority when the petition is received by him to forward it to you all to decide what to do with it. And your decision is discretionary. There's no mandate on you all that you create this district. But he has an obligation, once he feels that number one has been satisfied, to send it to you all to decide what to do. And that's what he's trying to do today is send it to you all to decide what further action, if any, you want to take with creating this ordinance. The next step would be in this process, if you all decide to move it forward after today, would be that an ordinance would be given first reading on Thursday night. What I'm upset about is the library votes. And then prior to the second reading, you all would have to have a public hearing. And the public hearing requirement is, I think it's further down on the statute. The public hearing requirement is laid out in number three. And in addition to that, all of the effective property owners would have to be mailed a copy of the ordinance so they know exactly what was being voted on. And so you would have to have a public hearing similar to what you would have for other issues issues where you create a tax district you'd have a public hearing it would be this it could be the same uh day or night that you consider giving second reading and prior to giving second reading you'd have this public hearing everyone would be able to come in and say their piece about it and then you all make a decision after the public hearing whether or not to give it second reading or not and then you'd vote on it at that point in time and so you have another issue because at the end of your council year, you're going to have an issue where I believe it's going to be the case because of the lag time of the newspaper and such. You're going to have to have this meeting sometime after you all recess on the 10th because there's no way to come into compliance legally with step number three without having a meeting sometime before the end of the calendar year. And I think the earliest that would possibly be is probably the 17th or 18th of December would be the earliest states you could probably do that on. Yeah, okay. Just confirm that. All right, wait just a minute. David, while you're looking for that, Council Member Ellinger has a question related to the procedure. I think in order to hit the time constraints you just mentioned that we have to schedule a meeting sometime later then for the whole council. We'd have to have a special meeting is what you're saying? I am saying that. You would have to have a special meeting probably no earlier than I – we'd have to verify the newspaper limit on – I mean, what do they normally require, three days, four days? It would be sometime the week of the 16th would be the earliest you could have that meeting because of the newspaper publication requirement. You're going to have to run two different newspaper ads two different days. and I think because of the newspaper lag time you're probably looking at probably the 18th December 18th as being the earliest date you might be able to do this on but you would have to do it prior to you would have to actually adopt an ordinance if you created the district prior to January 1st that's what's driving the whole thing thank you that's what I thought you said Council Member Farmer oh my thank you Mayor I have great respect for the Downtown Lexington Corporation and the people that have worked on this. I see a problem with the legislative critical path as it's been presented to us today. I guess I also have a, if I've listened correctly, 38% of the people have voted representing 51 or 52% of the value. and that meets the threshold and now it comes to us to do this and i know that we had a presentation on this and a video i believe probably a couple months ago maybe a little bit longer than that and i will just i'll be honest i haven't personally i have not been lobbied on this since that time either for it or against it and i really haven't heard that much about it until there was a flurry of emails last Wednesday once our packet came out. And I'm just, I'm wary to take on this taxing opportunity at this time. And I know that other municipalities have done it and will do it, and we may do it now or in the near future. I'm just not there with it today. and with that in mind i would make a motion to remove item cc from the docket all right thank you council member farmer there's a motion by council member farmer to remove the item from the docket and there's second council member myers all right floor is available for discussion on the motion. Now, we've got several people signed up. I assume that you all were signed up for this already, so we can now move into discussion on it. Council Member Lawless. I guess this is to the motion. I'm not clear where in the state statute it says that this this process would have to start over again January 1 as far as collecting the petitions and et cetera? I don't know that there's a clear answer to that. I mean, they could have brought this earlier this year. You could have been voting on this had they had the petitions in place back in July. There would be nothing to stop them from – I would have to look at the exact language of the petition to see if it was limiting with respect to what year they said it was going to go into place, that would be the driving issue. I think legally would be did the petition to get signed specify which year you're talking about, that the tax would start, and if it did, I think you definitely would have to start over again. Arguably, you would not, but what they're going to lose at a minimum would be I think you'd also probably create an argument with people that were not in favor of creating the district if you don't go through the petition process again, because I don't think it's going to be 100% legally clear because it's not directly addressed in the statute. But what you would end up having is essentially a year delay in the creation of this district. That's what would happen. Assuming they can get the petitions lined up appropriately to do this. So if the petition doesn't specify when it's going in? I think you can make that argument, but I think if you're going to have a contest on the other side, it creates another legal issue, and I think the appropriate thing to do would probably be to go through the petition process again. I would assume that if you've signed it the first time, you would probably be willing to sign it the second time. I was under the impression until very recently that there wasn't a deadline. Goodbye. So it seems that speaking to the motion, there isn't going to be a time for the public hearing by... Unless you all are willing to schedule a hearing before the end of the calendar year to give this public consideration, there's no sense in moving forward with this, in my opinion. You're going to lose this tax year anyway. And the second question is, I mean, if maybe Renee could answer, did the petition have a specific date on it? I'm Joe Terry. I'm with the DLC. My recollection is that the petition does have a date, and it started to talk about when the tax would apply in 2014. My thought is that with some discussion with the law department, the question is the application of the ordinance and whether or not we would be compelled. I think we could postpone the taxation in 2014. Clearly we couldn't tax in 2014 if it wasn't passed. Yeah, I understand that part. I just wondered if where in all the legal mumbo-jumbo does it say that you have to redo all the... Well, it doesn't. It's just the question then would be whether or not when the people signed the petition, they thought they were signing it to be taxed in 2014. And as long as you didn't tax them in 2014, I'm not sure there would be a problem. Okay, and the other question I had is, did I understand you to say that if someone owned multiple properties, they, even though all their properties would be taxed, they are only counted as one person. They're only counted as one person. So I think that is also significant in the numbers that we're looking at when we say 38%, because you have some here that, you know, have maybe 10 properties but only had one vote. That's true. Now, all their value was counted, but they only had one vote. That's correct. So it's kind of an artificial, I guess, percentage. That's why the legislature said it, so you would look at both value and numbers. Right. So when you look at value, then you look at the numbers as a separate test. Okay. But today's vote, if I understand, Mayor and Councilman, today's vote is merely to put this on the docket for Thursday night and have a first reading. Then there would be a public hearing, and then there would be a vote subsequently if you all were willing to come back to do the vote. And I don't, I mean, when you're talking about the 17th, I mean, most, I know I'll be in. That's the question, whether you're willing to come back and hear that on the 17th. I would be willing to if I weren't already going to be in. That's what I was. Tonight is not, or today is not a final vote. Right, I understand. It's about putting it on the docket. Thank you. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. Renee, can you answer a couple questions? We just got your list, and I just want to ask a couple questions and make sure I understand this right. This is the list of people who have actually signed the petition, right? Not all property owners, just who have signed only. Say that again, please. Is this list that we just got that you were trying to put on the overhead, the list of everyone who has signed the petition in favor? Yes. Okay. And so I think at our last meeting you said there would be no public entities asked to sign, Only private sector. No, I said I hoped that the private sector would drive the effort, and that was one of the reasons why we weren't asking you all to sign your petition. Yeah, but I see Lexington Center is on here. We own that building. Well, that's my mistake. I meant the property is listed under LFUCG, which there's a significant number of those. And then the library is on here as well. I believe it was, is it? Okay, it was under here. And by state statute, they are allowed to vote, but there are 14% or 12 tax-exempt properties that are on this list. So of these, I'm sorry, you said 14% of the 33 are tax-exempt? Yes, but they are allowed to opt in. Right, and I don't dispute that. I don't dispute your work on that, but I go back to what Councilman Ellinger said. here are people voting for something they don't have to pay a tax on. So 14% of 33, almost half of the people voting for it, aren't even going to have to pay it anyway, but they're going to get full benefit from it. And I think that's a real issue, especially, I mean, if you're at 50% or 60% of people, that'd be a different story, but we're at the minimum, according to the state statute. That's where my concern is. I mean, what conversations have you been having since you last spoke to council to all the property owners? We've reached out a significant number of times, But I would say that when they're initially created, they are typically not up in those high percentages. I've had individual discussions with you when they renew. They do renew in those percentages. But if you look historically at other cities, they don't come in the first time because it's new, it's changed. So it's not something that people are going to go rushing with their pen toward me. to sign. So, I mean, that's something you have to consider when you look at something like this that is new. And what percentage are you asking for, 1%? Well, I believe what Mr. Offord is referring to, that it would be... No, I'm not what he's referring to, but what did the petition ask for? It asked for one-tenth of a percent. Is that the max by law that we can ask for? It is. It is the max. So basically what it equates to is if you have a $300,000 property, it's $300 a year. And what's the total we anticipate will be generated from all the properties in the district itself? That's fluctuated throughout the year, but it's about $270,000 that would be guaranteed without any opt-ins. Okay, and remind me again what the board of directors, I assume, once it's created would dictate how that is spent. They do determine how that is spent. So we have no idea if it would all be for marketing, if it would all be for maintenance, if it would be for the planners? Well, until that board of directors is created, you can only offer a suggestion on how it would be used. But once that board is created, which is a majority of property owners within the district, they have to come back to all of the property owners with an economic improvement plan and say that they're planning to spend the money. Okay. I guess this is for David Barber. David, after the board dictates how they would spend the money, does the council, like we do in the library and other next-trend, vote on their budget and how they spend the money? Or would that be totally out of our hands at that point? I don't directly recall. I think there's some obligation that they provide you at the very least information regarding their budgetary expenses, but I don't recall without looking at another part of the statute whether or not you get to actually vote on that. I suspect the answer is no, but I do think they have an obligation to report to you all about what they've been doing. Could you double-check and make sure? Because I know we approve the LexTran budget and things like that. I think that would be a critical piece that we would like to see. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Myers. Thank you, Mayor. A lot of the questions I was going to ask have already been asked and answered. I guess I do have one for Renee. Can you speak a little bit about this board and how it's going to be made up and how the decisions at how the money will be spent are going to be handled, particularly if I'm on here and my money is going to be spent, but I don't like the way it's going to be spent. what opportunities do I have as a business owner to affect that. And all of that is outlined in, it's dictated by KRS and then in the ordinance. It's also in the draft ordinance. But it's a 15-person board. The mayor does appoint that board. And it has to be at least 10 of the total members of the board shall be property owners or their designees. and it gives kind of the makeup of the board, which is retail, residential, office buildings, property, facility owner, restaurant or food service person, and a tenant. And then the mayor or his designee, the executive director of the DLC or our successor, the third district council person, they're all officio members of the board. But the initial list of who would be on the board, it says, would be given by the DLC as a recommendation to the mayor. The mayor ultimately would pick the people that would serve on that board. And then it says the powers and duties of the board of directors shall include all powers and duties set forth in the act, including but not limited to recommending an annual economic improvement plan and budget to the Urban County Council, implementing the final annual economic improvement plan, make policy for the district, employing contract with persons to provide the service and manage the physical affairs of the district. Does that answer your question? Yes. So they have to present the recommendation to the council, but if the council doesn't adopt it, they can still do what they want to do, right? Well, I would defer to David on that because I believe that's kind of what Council Member Senate was asking. I think the board of directors of the management district are obligated to the property owners on how to spend the money. But I'm not sure once that budget comes to you all, if you all, my understanding is that you can't change it. I think that the council in your ordinance adopting the creation of the district, that you can amend that ordinance as presented to have the council have the last say on the budget. I think you could do that. I also think that under House Bill 1 that you have some obligations to oversee the districts, the taxing districts in your county. And so I think you would have a right to put some language in that ordinance to bring it back to the council to approve. Okay. A follow-up question is, when you talk about the board makeup, this list of petitioners that you have that signed it, 14% are people who don't have to pay the tax. So when you look at your board makeup, will there be a possibility of having board members that also don't pay the tax making the decision on how the money is going to be spent? Could be, yes. technically the mayor could appoint some people in the categories other than taxpayers. Okay. So the mayor is going to respond to a recommendation from the DLC. Is that correct? The way it's proposed is the DLC would make some recommendations of property owners and others, and the mayor would then be as a point. That's confirmed by the council, I assume. Is it? Yes. Okay. So could you speak to whether it's the position of the DLC? Is that the staff of the DLC? Who is it that makes that recommendation to the mayor for the board members? Well, that would come out of the DLC board of directors. Okay. Okay. So I guess if I ask the question, would you see it prudent to not recommend people who aren't paying the tax? That's probably outside of something you're going to ask right now or answer, I guess. Well, I would think that we're going to be looking to the property owners that have signed the petition and supported the creation of the district. would be the first people we'd look at, but we would be looking to property owners and not necessarily government entities to sit on the board. Okay. Council Member Mayer. Thank you, Pat. All right. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. When you really get down to it, this is just another tax that we're raising on the people that work in downtown the area. and the bad part about it is we don't need any more taxes. The economy is not that good. We need to be promoting a more vibrant economic environment and not raising taxes from my perspective. The other thing that I don't like about this is that a lot of the people that voted to put this in don't have to pay any taxes whatsoever because they're a nonprofit or a government agency. and I think that that's really not fair to the people that own property. A lot of the people that own property may be out of town. They're investors from other cities. And the bad part about it, they may not be representing themselves here at the meeting, but if this gets them passed, for example, I work in downtown in a building that's owned by a company out of Florida. They'll end up paying their tax on it, and then they will send a bill out to every tenant to pay their pro rata share. So you're raising taxes on every business in the downtown area. I think this is just not a good thing. And I like the downtown development folks. Y'all do a really good job. But I wouldn't say if all these people are willing that you signed up here to pay extra taxes, why don't you just get them to make a larger contribution to your organization, and then we don't have to raise the tax. To me, that would be a much more preferable way to approach it. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Lane. Councilman Akers. David, can we establish the tax district without imposing the tax? Create the district without a tax in place? I mean, let's say we create the district to exist by January 1st but don't approve the tax until later. I think the way that it's set up, you're going to have to have the tax rate included or the maximum tax rate included in the ordinance that you adopt, the way this statute is set up. So I don't know that that's really going to be an option for you all to do it that way. Okay. And Renee, as far as the board and their recommendations on how funds should be spent, how are other members' votes or wishes taken into consideration? I mean, is the 15-person board basically going to dictate how all expenses are expended? Or will other, I mean, is it like a neighborhood association, let's say, that has a board that makes recommendations and then the full membership votes on it? Or is it just those 15 have the vote? I do not believe that they have to come back for, you know, any kind of ratifying vote. but they do have to put forth that economic improvement plan out to all of the property owners prior to doing anything with the funds. So then what is the recourse for the property owners with that? Well, if you pick a board that's probably from this list of yes people, supporters, and then you have property owners who want something different, how is their voice heard or represented? Well, I mean, you would have to hope that as with any democracy that you would listen to your constituents. But at the same time, there is a safeguard built into the KRS that at any time the property owners can get together and dissolve the entity through a similar vote. So say it's created, if they're unhappy, they can come back with 33% of the owners and 50.1% of the value. So it's slightly less value, and that's per KRS. Interesting. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Rekers. Councilman Rekers. Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple of comments. I think the concept is a positive one. I think it's been effective in many communities. I think it could be effective here. But the question on the table is whether we ought to pull it at this time. And it seems to me that the most kind of overriding issue is the whole question of timing and public hearings. It would be very rushed. It would go right into the holiday season. I, for one, am not going to be here much after the council goes on break. I don't know about other folks. I think it would be very difficult to do. If that were the only issue, I still might be willing to support it. But it seems to me the level of support is, from my perspective, too close to the margin. This is an idea that needs more robust support than I think it's getting. And then there's been a significant number of questions raised about the way in which it would be administered, which I think it would be useful to have time to consider. So despite the fact that I support the intent, I'm going to support the motion to not keep it on the agenda. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Kaye. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Renee, for your hard work. But I concur with Council Member Kaye. I think we're at a minimum threshold here. We've got a small time period to be able to get this done. And without a public hearing, I can't support this. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Meyers. I believe Council Member Beard, Council Member Meyers has already spoken to this year, so we'll come back. Council Member Meyers. Thank you, Mayor. Renee, let me ask a curiosity question, I guess for no other reason. Who actually went out and talked to these folks? There were probably at least 60 different people who, not talking to every single person, but have been trying to talk to different property owners. A lot of my board of directors, but just other members of the community that believe in the effort. Luther Deaton has talked to several people. We've had several other business people who have seen it in other communities and believe in it who have gotten signatures. I was curious about page one, $3,241,458,000 First Security Bank of Lexington and signed by Barry Brock. Now, either Barry Brock doesn't know what bank he works for because First Security Bank of Lexington was sold seven and a half years ago. Well, we understand that, but we legally are obligated to use whatever PVA has on file. And PVA, Barry Brock still pays the property taxes for that under that name. So, I mean, we were using all of the names, the legal names that are on the property tax bills that are collected now. After seven and a half years, it's not off the rules yet? I mean, that's... Joe, do you have an answer to that? We're just using what the PVA had on file for that. I hear what you're saying, Renee, but now I'm worried about what's going on at the PVA. Well, I don't think it's the fault of the PVA, but I mean, it's just that's still the legal name. It can't be a legal name. I promise you it cannot be a legal name. The property is still titled in that name. That's what Joe said. Maybe I can draw a salary again. Thank you. Councilman Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Renee, you said that in a democratic process that we'd hopefully listen to our constituents. And I guess when you look at this, less than 25% of the people that would have to pay the tax have signed a petition saying that they would want to pay the tax. And so that being the basis, it doesn't seem to me that if we listen to our constituents that we would want this to go through. So for that reason, I'm going to support the motion to pull this. And if that passes, hopefully in the interim, you'll be able to get more support from this from the people who actually have to pay the tax if you bring it back next year. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Council Member Myers. Council Member Lawless? Just to clarify, obviously we're not going to get this done in a public hearing by January 1, so it's somewhat of a moot point. But to say that 14% of the people signed that don't have to pay the tax, that's why the property value, because there are people on here that own multiple properties worth millions of dollars that only had one vote. So in actuality, property value-wise, they went over 50% of property owners who would be taxed. I mean, they only got one vote, but they owned 10 properties. So, obviously, this is something that maybe needs to be referred to a committee or something, but thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lawless. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mayor. I think the bottom line here is that this is a really, this is a good idea in terms of what we need to accomplish. And I think that's kind of where we are here. It seems like to me, Renee, that the idea of this is to make downtown even more special. Is that not correct? I mean, am I looking at that right? That's what we're really doing here. I don't think under the circumstances this is going anywhere. But I don't want to leave this without everybody understanding. This is something that is really important. The objective is important. Maybe there's another way to get this done rather than in the way it's been proposed. But I think it's very important that we look at the point of this and make it happen in some way. Maybe it's simply a budget issue. Maybe we ought to increase the budget. I don't have any ideas, but I want to be on the record of saying that this is an effort of making downtown even more special. And I think the idea is to do that, and I want to leave it with that and make sure everybody understands that the intention is correct. And how we get there, I think, may be controversial, but we need to get there somehow. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Does anyone else wish to speak? So I'll – if the vice mayor is good with this, I'll just have a comment. Is that all right? I've been passing the gavel. All right. I think many have expressed it well today. We probably all learned the lesson that change is a function of timing and pacing. A lot of people have been supportive of this, and regrettably, it seems to have come up before and lost traction and currency. And, you know, traction in currency is real important, and demonstrating support is real important. And at the same time, problem solving is often inconvenient, and timing is inconvenient. So I think in support of the DLC's efforts, we should be commending them for the effort. And what so many have said today about the support for the vitality of the urban space in the downtown is relevant. We would not have some of the businesses here like Bingham McCutcheon had they not been impressed by the vitality of the city. And it's going to be real easy to walk away from that. And when we do that, we walk away from jobs because that's what today is illustrating competitiveness and a premium on quality of life and quality of place. So I agree with Council Member Clark and many of you who have said that while the timing and pacing may not be appropriate right now, continuing with the conversation may very well be appropriate. So I would urge that the Council do just that. Does anyone else wish to speak? All right, then we can take a vote. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. And oppose? No. The motion is to remove. Council Member Lane, I think you spoke in favor of it. All right. All right. The motion does pass. Joe, you wish to? I would like to just make one brief comment. You might want to pull the microphone up there. Yes, sir. I'd like to make one brief comment. Thank you for your consideration. I understand the timing issues, and this has been a long process. And some of us who've been on the Downtown Lexington Corporation Board for many years have tried this several times, and we've gotten the closest as we've ever come. We had the numbers, but we couldn't get timing-wise to you all in time to get this, I think, to get this done and to answer some of your other questions. I will assure you we'll be back in 2014, either directly, as Councilman Clark suggested, talking to you about some increase in budget, or whether or not we'll come back with another petition, or if we can legally come back with the same one, we'll be back in 2014. to talk to you again about this. He said with a smile. And you're the incoming president of the Downtown Lexington Corporation. All right. Mr. Alford? Thank you. I, too, want to commend the DLC. I'm for 99% of everything they do down there. I'm a member of the DLC. I haven't been a long time. Joe's a good friend. They all are good friends of mine. And there's ways to do things. I don't think this is the right way, but we'll figure out a way to do it. Great. Thank you, Farrah. Thanks very much. we all appreciate common purpose all right that allows us to do we have any other just any more discussion on new business we have a motion to approve so is there anybody else wish to speak to new business all right then we can take a vote all in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right, next on our agenda is continuing business presentations. Is there a motion regarding the NDFs? Move approval. Second. Motion by Vice Mayor Gorton, seconded by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right, hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member Henson, Do you have a report for us on the Public Safety Committee? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. This was a summary for the Public Safety Committee meeting held on November 5th. First item on the agenda was approval of the summary. Second item was the Division of Police's Home Fleet Policy. Chief Baston gave the presentation for this committee meeting. Identifying a savings is not a simple task because of all the variables that are constantly changing. The savings decreased during the summer months compared to the last update in May because the summer is busier time for police. Operational cost, fuel, and maintenance decreased between 2012 and 2013 by $28,000. Crime is comparable to the previous year, so the whole fleet has not increased crime. Current policy requires officers who live outside the county to reimburse the city based on mileage, which provided $101,000 in payment to the city. Officers can use their vehicles during an approved off-duty job for paying $50 per month, which totaled $65,000. The division measured real money, fuel, off-duty employment, maintenance cost savings of $93,000. The original total of projected savings was $831,950. Council Member Stinnett asked if the changes were made to the policy, how that would be handled with regards to the collective bargaining contract, and we would need to go back to the bargaining table. Mr. Gardner with the Law Department explained that the policy is in the contract, and in order to change it, we would have to go through formal bargaining or work through the union. Council Member Stinnett pointed out that 5,000 calls that were done by off-duty officers last year prior to the home fleet policy, and that value cannot be measured. CM Massadi broke down the $200,000 savings and the 5,000 off-duty calls to cost about $40 per call, and said that is worth having the home fleet. and she hopes that it will be looked at before two years from now when the contract is up. Finance Commissioner Bill O'Meara explained the estimated savings of $800,000 was based on 15% less miles driven, and the number shows about 12.5%, estimated to be $223,000. Now we're looking at $593,000 in estimated savings instead of $800,000. The overall measurement is very difficult because of the changing variables. The actual numbers presented today are correct when compared year to year, but when you consider adding those costs back in, the value must be considered. Council Member Lane mentioned a third way to consider cost and savings by using the rate per mile the IRS estimates. It costs to run a car. That includes depreciation, gas, tires, et cetera. Chief of Staff Jamie Emmons first clarified that officers are still allowed to take their vehicles home. They're just not allowed to drive them off duty. He explained that it is more about labor relations and respecting collective bargaining. The savings may not be what we estimated, but there was a savings and there will be a cost. We went back to the old system. The administration's position is to leave the agreement as is, but if the home fleet policy remains a priority, when it's time to renegotiate the contract, it will be reconsidered. The response time for police has not changed. Mike Sweeney, president of Fraternal Order of Police, explained that the home fleet was a great recruiting tool. pay raise should not justify the restricted home fleet because the pay raise only brought salaries to where they should be. He highlighted that only 76 off-duty calls had been made in 2013 compared to 5,000 the previous year. He finished by saying it only takes a letter of agreement to make the change. The administration thinks that the Lexington Fire Department might request to change their contract as well if the police contract is renegotiated, which is why they suggest respecting the contract until it's time to renegotiate. Gardner explained that there have been letters of agreement to only clarify certain items which Sweeney referred to, but never to the financial impact before. Councilmember Akers asked O'Meara to provide the perspective he spoke to early on paper so Council could refer to it. Gardner explained that the statute is clear, that the administration is responsible, and the council would have to provide direction to amend the contract. Mr. Emmons said that it wasn't a strong coalition between a spike in crime in the home fleet policy, and the savings were real. It made sense to continue with the policy as is, but they didn't look at it when having conversation with the FOP. Bill O'Mara said if you use the approach that Lane referred to, there would be a hard cost of $533,000. If you use 12% savings, that would come to $590,000. It does not include depreciation. appreciation. Stenet said each year collective bargaining is done to save more money but ask what is being done to realize these savings and how we will make up those savings if the projected is not realized each year. Council Member Stenet reconfirmed that administration would discuss this policy and come back to the committee. next on the agenda was fire stations and iso ratings assistant fire chief chief hoskins presented on fire stations and insurance service office ratings currently there are 23 fire stations lexington fire department is just over four minutes in both fire and ems incidents for first responders The location of a station is determined by the response time. We have fire stations in established areas of the city, but we fall a little short in the newly developed areas. In October 2012, ISO study rated Lake Sina Class II within two miles of a fire station and 1,000 feet of a hydrant. For the urban services area, Class IX property with the nearest hydrant beyond 1,000 feet for rural areas. Industrial and commercial insurance rates are affected by ISO ratings when the city is rated between 1 and 3. Residential doesn't seem to be affected. In order to achieve a Class I rating, ISO suggested Lakestan needs nine engine companies, which translates to nine more fire stations, in order to house the engines and crew, as well as an additional ladder company. Lakestan Fire Department proposes the next fire station be located in Masterson Station, then Polo Club, and Hayes Boulevard to keep pace with development. The training facility also had a loss on the ISO score because they did not have a four-story high training tower. Hoskin mentioned the last time the ISO visited the Laketon Fire Department was about 20 years ago, and they did not know the next time they would return. But it does cost the city for their evaluation. Historically, ISO makes an effort to evaluate a department every 10 years. Hoskins mentioned water supply is not the cities to manage, therefore they do not determine the flow of rate, though the Lexington Fire Department does have a good working relationship with Kentucky American Water. Council Member Clark asked if a report could be created identifying all the costs associated for the three additional fire stations as well as the next step. Council Member Massadi asked Hoskins to add possible locations, estimated timelines with acquisitions of property to report. This item will remain in committee. Last on the agenda was emergency management preparedness. Director Pat Drugger presented deem emergency preparedness. emergency preparedness, this never-ending circle made up of planning, preparedness, response, recovery, mitigation, then back to planning and so forth, which continues to go around as the division constantly improves. Planning includes all the stakeholders and agencies, which includes how we would respond to citizens, as well as how to continue daily operations. DEAM accesses the threat and vulnerability to determine the risk and impact of various emergencies. Risk in Fayette County range from tornadoes, earthquakes, hazardous material, the bluegrass chemicals stockpile, terroristic threats at public events, et cetera. DEAM's primary focus is the management and coordination of operations centers. They develop and maintain situational awareness to provide information to the mayor and council so priorities can be determined. There was very little time for discussion on this item due to the lengthy meeting. The meeting did adjourn at 3.01 p.m. with no motions. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Henson. Next up is Environmental Quality Committee, Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. We had a very efficient meeting back on November the 12th, and I'll be just as efficient giving my report today. The first item for business was the committee summary, and that was approved without dissent. The second item on the agenda was the energy investment fund. For Councilmembers wanting the budget and the review of the fund, we can provide that for you. Councilmember Farmer asked about the downtown streetlights, if they were available, the green lights as we call them, if they were available for purchase under that discussion and recommended the fund balance discussion but did not think it was originally part of purchasing those lights but stated that we should look at purchasing the downtown streetlights. Councilmember Akers asked about the Dunbar windows replacement as part of the energy investment fund. Mr. Bush said that Parks had requested the $150,000 from fund balance to replace the windows, and I believe, as you all recall, that was put into the fund balance discussion for approval. So that money would not come out of the Energy Investment Fund, but rather the fund balance discussion. And then Council Member Lane asked how we verify our energy savings to our government. There's basically four different methods. The first is a whole building approach, second is a prescriptive approach, third is a data logging, and fourth is building simulation. We ended that discussion with the monitoring by Mr. Bush of 84 monthly utility bills throughout government in order to analyze our energy investment savings. The next item on the agenda was a change order amendment to the CAO Policy 15R. It was recommended to the committee from the Division of Water Quality to change to a tiered system of change order approvals. The first tier would be any change order 5% cumulative of the contract awarded would be approved by the construction manager or the RMP. The second tier, which would be from 5.1% to 10% cumulative of the awarded contract, would either be from the RMP, construction manager, directors of division water quality and purchasing, and the third tier, which would be anything greater than 10% of the cumulative contract award or $1 million, would then be approved by the council. So basically, Council Members, this essentially would not require every change order during the remedial measures process to come to the Council for approval. And with that, I'll bring a motion to the committee today by Council Member Massadi to support the Division of Water Quality Recommendation on the change order process for remedial measures only. It was seconded by Council Member Scutchfield, and it did pass without dissent in the committee. So moved. Second. I have a motion by Councilmember Stennett, second by Councilmember Farmer, to pass on the change order process for remedial measures only. Does anyone wish to speak to the motion? I see no one. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Our next item for business was the climate adaptation follow-up. Scott Shapiro from the mayor's office provided an update, and the administration's response is that we have several departments in government that are already doing several of the things that were recommended be done on the climate adaptation and that we would not need to sign that agreement for that at this time. So we left that the way it is. The committee did not have any further discussions on that item. And the last item for discussion was the monthly financials. So in that discussion, we were updated on the KIA loan process, and I'll reference today's new business items. Those loans are actually on new business today, about $17 million worth of KIA loans for our sanitary sewer system. And we ended the meeting at 12, I'm sorry, yes, 1215. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Councilmember Stennett. Next up is Councilmember Farmer with the Planning and Public Works Committee. Thank you, Vice Mayor. These are the minutes from our November 12th meeting. We did approve our summary, and then we took up the issue of capital and maintenance of LFUCG major roadways. This is an issue that Council Member Stenet brought to us. It basically has to do with defining the major roadways that we need to fund the paving of separately than what goes on in the 12 individual districts. Through this discussion, we have defined what those are and had kind of the first beginning commentary about how much it would cost to do the maintenance on those on a per-year basis. We had that discussion. We need to kind of firm up what the numbers are going to be and how we're going to program that in the future so we did not take action on it, but we had a very good discussion. Our next item of business was the Elm Tree Lane sidewalk. This was an issue that had been brought to us by Council Member Ford, where originally we were asked as a council to close that. We had a very good discussion about replacing the sidewalk, trimming the trees, and adding proper lighting to the area. It was a very good discussion. What followed was a motion by Council Member Ford to authorize the administration to use MAP funds to repair the sidewalk. This was seconded by Council Member Ellinger and passed without dissent, and I would so move on behalf of the committee at this time. Okay, I have a motion by Councilmember Farmer, second by Councilmember Clark, to authorize the administration to use map funds to repair the sidewalk, and that's the Elm Tree Lane sidewalk. Any discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Next was our update on behalf of the Design Excellence Task Force. Council Member Kay brought that commentary to us. We had testimony from Bill Lear, Knox von Noggle, and others. There are several pages of notes on our discussion. Several Council Members had discussion points. Ultimately, we had decided to take this up in our December meeting. and we did not have a December meeting. But I would just say to you that the work of the task force has been well done. However, the discussion centered around the lack of so-called incentives to bring clarity to what would be the design excellence and how you would get people to be involved in it. So I've made a commitment to those involved to work with them to have at least some form of incentives as part of our next meeting in January so hopefully we could pass this on to the council at that time. It was a very good discussion. It did take a long time. It takes a lot of minutes in here, but there's a lot of thought process there, and we need to do the follow-up to get it complete. Our last item of business was the B1 ZODA. This is a legislative situation where this is an update to all parts of the B1 zone that had been begun by the planning staff, and parts of it had, well, the whole thing came to the planning committee. We referred a couple things back to the planning commission on separate times. This resulted in it coming back to us at separate times. And after our meeting on the 12th, I made a motion during our work session to ask law to combine the two into one so that both have been given separate first readings. We're trying to combine them and get a second reading on that, and I believe we'll have a motion to that end for Thursday night. I do not have it to tender at this time, but it is something that brings another long legislative discussion to fruition, literally. After that, we looked at items that were referred to committee, and then we adjourned. That would complete my report, Vice Mayor. Very nice. Thank you very much. Council members, did you have any questions about the three committee reports? All right. Seeing none. Oh, wait a minute. Council Member Stennett, are you on for council report? All right, let's hear it. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just to give a report, the mayor and I had the pleasure to attend Saturday the Rosenwald School reopening out in Cadentown, which is off Liberty Road in Caden Lane. For those of you who don't know about the Rosenwald School, it's the last remaining African-American single-room schoolhouse in Fayette County. Back in the early 1900s, 1920s to be exact, Booker T. Washington, when he was president of Tuskegee University, had a vision to create one-room schoolhouses throughout the South. He partnered with Julius Rosenwald. At the time, he was CEO of Sears and Roebuck. They partnered together to build over 4,000, think about that, 4,000 one-room schoolhouses across the country back in 1920. Mr. Rosenwald went against the grain of society and donated $500 per school. Local government had to put in $2,500 per school, and the African-American community had to raise $300 per school, essentially. After everything was said and done, after all the schools were built, $25 million was donated from Mr. Rosenwald. $4 million was donated from the African-American community back then, in the 1920s. What a message of how powerful education could be in our community. What a message of working together with the public and private partnerships. A lot of good things there. I hope you all have a chance to go visit the school. It's in its original state. It was redone. They were very careful not to overdo it. The company, and Betty Kerr needs to give a lot of credit for her work on this. This is what we do best, and that's restore something to its original shape without destroying the shape, if you know what I mean. We didn't fill in all the hoes and all the cracks. They were still there. And it's a really special site, and I encourage everyone here to take a visit out to that school. Stop by. They're going to try to have community hours so everyone out there can visit. And then I also want to give a special thanks to Alvin Seals, who is president of the Caden Town Neighborhood Association. His work was instrumental in getting this done. And we actually had eight individuals who attended that school in appearance on Saturday at the opening. So that was pretty special to hear some of their stories about how it was back then, playing ball against the wall at the schoolhouse. So just wanted to share that with everyone. We get to do a lot of cool things being on the council, and that was one of the cool things. I know we have a lot of hard parts of our job, but that was one of the good things that we've all contributed. Everyone in this room voted to approve that money, so thank you all. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Vice Mayor. They're a step-by-step program, which is a nonprofit that assists young mothers to keep them in school, employed, and help them reach their dreams is trying to raise $5,000 because they will be matched by another donor of $5,000 for a total of $10,000. There are multiple nonprofits all over town, but a lot of them are located in the 3rd District that are part of the Good Giving Guide. That's a great Christmas present for that person that has everything and needs nothing. Plus, you don't have to go anywhere to do it. and AVOL AIDS Volunteers of Lexington is having their dining out for life tomorrow and you can go to their website and they're on Facebook to find out the list of restaurants that are participating and I hope everybody can come down to the Christmas parade tonight at 6 o'clock I believe it is 6.30 So, ho, ho, ho. It's nice to you. It's good weather, so we're grateful for the good weather, and a good time will be had by all. Thank you. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Edwards, you have an overhead about leaf collection. As many who live in the 5th District know, ours is the most heavily canopied of the 12 districts in Lexington and Fayette County. In fact, of zones A, B, C, and D, the 5th touches three of the four zones, as you can see there. In anticipation of vacuum trucks making their pass through for leaf collection, many neighbors have raked their leaves to the curb and are now somewhat anxious to know when those trucks will arrive. Important to first note that while November 18th was the start date for leaf collection in the 5th District, that date was not meant to necessarily reflect that crews would arrive on your street on that day. According to our arborist, Rob Allen, this week crews continue vacuum leaf collection in Zone A and will work their way inward from the Manowar area, Manowar Boulevard, until the zone is completed. Beginning tomorrow, weather permitting, crews will move to subzones A6 and A2, which are bounded by Cooper on the north, Tate's Creek on the east, Manowar on the south, and Nicholson Road on the west. That gets a really heavily, heavily canopied area. Zone D is scheduled to start today, Tuesday. Zone B and C will follow. Alan stated that his crews lost an entire week to the holiday break and two days of snow removal, so it's safe to say they are running a week behind. Remember, if you can use your Lennie and Yard Waste Bags Relief, you can use your Lennie and Yard Waste Bags Relief Collection. Coupons for Yard Waste Bags can be procured by calling LexCall at 311 or 425-2255. Please remember not to rake your leaves into the street. If you have a sidewalk, rake your leaves between it and the street. If you do not have a sidewalk, be sure to rake only to the edge of your yard. And I think that's very important because leaves in the street or in the right-of-way can be very slick. All right, I have three more minutes. I will take you. Yes, ma'am. That was a wonderful report. And what did you say about the area south of Cooper and north of New Circle? Again, between Tate? Beginning tomorrow, weather permitting, crews will move to those zones bounded by Cooper on the north, Tate's Creek on the east, Manowar on the south, and Nicholsville Road to the west. Thank you. I've had several questions about that. Thank you. There have been a lot of questions on it. And really, the use of the bags is very good for those who are in need right now. But even if you use the bag, be sure to place it not in the street. I've seen those done and placed in the street, too, so it's important. Okay. I have time for one more mayoral minute, okay? As those of you know, we have changed our situation here in the council chambers. We've been able to add portraits of four mayors that we did not have before. Today I have the distinct pleasure of introducing you to Mayor T. Ward Havley. He was mayor from 1940 to 1943. He was a native of Synthiana, Kentucky. He came to Lexington as a young man and was employed as a clerk in the Southern Railway until his enlistment in the Army during World War II. During the war, he served as a second lieutenant with the Army Intelligence in France. After the war, he returned to Lexington and became secretary and business agent for the coal and feed business operated by Louis Deconia. He left that position in July 1929 to go into business for himself. Bruce Isaacs, he organized the Central Rock Company and later Lexington Concrete Products Company, serving as president of both firms. Having been active for many years in civic affairs, he was elected as mayor in 1939, the first time he'd ever been a candidate for public office and served until his death on March 22, 1943. It was during his administration that the new City County Airport on Versailles Pike was built. He was also instrumental in obtaining the Lexington Signal Depot at nearby Avon and helped consolidate the city and county health departments. Abley was married to Ms. Ethel Carr of Versailles in 1925. They had two children, Theodore Ward, Jr. and Martha. That concludes this mayoral moment. Thank you, Mr. Farmer. Council Member Akers. Thank you. I have several announcements, I guess, or reports. First of all, to follow up on Council Member Lawless's announcement about Dine Out for Life, I'll be hosting dinner at the Gray Goose tomorrow night. So if you are hungry, come join me for dinner. And they're also actually having breakfast, lunch, and dinner. So you can go to avalky.org to find a list of restaurants participating. But I will be at the Grey Goose at 5 tomorrow. Secondly, as a lot of you probably have seen or heard on the news, the Masters and Station Homeowners Association recently foreclosed on a resident's home without her knowledge. and then in further research I found a second home that they had foreclosed on as the sole plaintiffs in the cases with the master commissioner. So I would like to investigate this further and see what we might be able to do locally as far as legislation goes. And so I would like to make a motion to refer the issue of homeowners associations to the planning committee for further discussion and review. So moved. I have a motion by Councilmember Akers, a second by Councilmember Farmer. And can you say again specifically what about homeowner association? I guess that we can kind of. The rights or laws pertaining to foreclosure of homes by homeowners associations. Okay, thank you. Are there questions about the motion? Councilmember Massadi. You probably had this answer, Siobhan. I don't know. Is this not a state statute? That's what I don't know. And so I think it is. That's what we will discuss. And if there's not anything we can do locally, then we will probably just do a resolution. And then I'll work with state representatives to work on something in January. You might want to check. They may be helpful. Yes. Okay. Thanks. Are there other questions? Okay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. And lastly, I passed around the evaluation data for the mobile food unit vendor pilot project that was passed in June, as many of you may or may not recall, the food truck pilot. And so you will see we had 19 permits issued prior to the implementation of the program. Since the project was launched in June, there were five additional or five food trucks who obtained permits specifically for the pilot project. Three of those five were minority or women-owned food trucks. The health department also received five applications specific to the pilot project. The Division of Police issued zero citations. The CAO's office received zero complaints, zero permits revoked, zero calls to LexCol, and the Parking Authority did not issue any citations, nor did any food trucks operate in the food pilot project zones during the hours between 8 and 5 due to the two-hour limit implied. That's not the right word. imposed upon them by the parking authority. So all of this is to say that I think it was successful as far as raising awareness of the food trucks and offering them expanded access to public places. However, because of the limits from the parking authority, and I think that the Food Truck Association is working with them on revising those hours or extending them perhaps in certain areas. I would like to bring a motion on Thursday to walk on to just extend the pilot project as it is an additional year, another 12 months until the end of December on Thursday as it stands right now. So are there any questions about the actual evaluation data and what I passed around? Any questions? Council Member Myers? Thank you, Vice Mayor. Do you by chance have any economic impact data? We don't. That was part of the requested evaluation, but because taxes and how they're filed with revenue and those aren't due yet, they don't have that information. When it does come due, we can compile all of them together, obviously not individually, but we can compare last year versus this year and such. But we won't have that until after all of those filings are due. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Are there any other questions? That's it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Council Member Lawless. After the very thorough and informative leaf collection presentation, I wanted just to add very quickly that you can get the bags for free, and they pick those up every week when they pick up the lennie, and you can put them in your lennie and stress how critical it is. You can also, if you have a mulching mower, you can mow your leaves, which is a lot easier than raking, and they become fertilizer for your nice, pretty lawns. and thirdly, really stress how imperative it is, especially in parts of the 5th District and the 3rd District and the older neighborhoods, that people do not rake their leaves into the street where they clog up the stormwater. So please be careful about that, and thank you. Thank you. Council Member Clark. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'd like to report on an adventure that I had yesterday. I had the privilege, and it indeed was a privilege, of touring the town branch sewage treatment plant and several pump stations. And, you know, we see a lot of things come across our desks and the council about all this. But I just want to tell you, I just want to tell you, this is a marvelous operation. It is indeed a marvelous operation. It is so much more complex than I ever dreamed. And I would just like to thank Charlie Martin for setting that up for me and the people that showed me around. Mark and Steve and Rod did a great job trying to explain to me. But I would really suggest that you take advantage of this because you will be amazed if you haven't done this. Just wanted to report. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Are there other council reports? No, I see none. There's no mayor's report. Is there any public comment? No. No. Anything else? If not, I need a motion to adjourn. All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Anyone opposed? We are adjourned.