The Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Hello, everyone. Hello, I will, and greetings. I'll call the meeting to order. This is a work session of the council. And first on our agenda. Thank you. Thank you. First on our agenda is public comment. Mr. Mundy, anybody signed up for public comment for issues on the agenda? Mr. Mundy says no. That allows us to move on to rezoning requests and docket approval. Are there any rezoning? I'm not aware of any. There's no docket approval required. This week. That allows us to move on to the summary, approval of the summary. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. Motion by Council Member Farmer and second by Council Member Henson. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next is budget amendments. There are no budget amendments this week. Just a second. And that allows us to move on to new business. Is there a motion to approve and then discussion? Second. Motion by Council Member Scotchfield, second by Council Member Farmer. Is there any discussion on the motion? Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I saw on item D. That was item D as in? And David. D as in David. All right. Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Holmes. Commissioner Holmes, can you help us with this one? Designee. Or your designee, yes. Thank you, Chester. I'm standing in for Commissioner Holmes, I guess. Okay, that'll work. I'm standing next to him now. Chester's the one that knows everything. Oh, gosh. Oh, wow. The big setup. I was just hoping because I didn't know anything about this right away for Devonshire and Pike, if maybe we could sit down and you could explain what exactly this is before it gets to the council meeting docket. Sure. Next Thursday is fine. I can tell you in brief this is a portion of right of way that is currently not being used. Our process when it comes to right of way closure is to allow for local utilities as well as city departments and divisions within city government to review a request for closure before it makes it to the council work session and so that all departments involved at least have an opportunity to review and see whether or not there's any infrastructure or easements that might need to be retained prior to the closure or whether or not they object to the closure at all. Okay. And I know it had, there was a lot of document in the packet that, but I thought to give me a better understanding and going forward into the future as far as maintaining this right away and responsibilities. Well, once the right-of-way has been closed, those petitioned to close the right-of-way are also petitioning to retain ownership of it. And the ownership of that area, they also would be responsible for maintenance as well. Okay. However, if you want to meet privately, we'd be glad to meet with you at any time. Or maybe we can just chat over the phone, but I just want to make sure that 20 years from now that there's not some kind of mix-up and nobody knows who it belongs to. Thank you. Thank you. Sure. Thank you, Council Member Hanson. I believe Mr. Council Member Farmer has a question for Chester as well. Council Member Farmer. Mr. Fix, thank you. On page 9, this is the new business item on page 9, you have titled your memorandum Rejection of the Dedication. I just, I was interested in that verbiage there since we're going ahead with it. I believe it's a term of art, either a rejection of dedication or a closure of. Okay. Then let me ask you on page 12, which is the top-down view, would this, if Devonshire went straight, is this that area in the trees kind of right straight ahead there, right here? I can't see, and as we speak, I'm trying to struggle to get to the page here. I have seen the map, and the right-of-way that we're talking about, Devonshire tends to kind of curve into Pike. Okay. And then that right-of-way is basically where Devonshire was supposed to continue. Straight on. Right. And right there is where it is not being utilized. Who's making the ask for this? It's an organization that called themselves Flying Dutchman LLC, I believe. And so do they own the house that's to the right or the larger plot that's to the left? They own 509 Pike Road. So that probably is the piece next. Which is the house to the right. Okay. as as luck would have it i've driven up this way recently and i'm familiar with it it's it's tucked in below the lip of the this side of uh section right over there that's the section right there and there'd be onus to the to the right of it that is it it's likely done in and wasn't there one of our people who said we needed to make sure and keep something for later There was a need to retain, I think water quality had a need to retain an eight-foot easement. Okay. But I think my assumption would be they would get this and combine it with the property that's there and probably build something denser if I were just thinking off the top of my head. But you wouldn't know. I wouldn't know what their intention is with that. You're very kind. Thank you for your time, sir. Sure. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilmember Farmer and Mr. Hicks. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. I'm bringing attention to Item E. At the request of the administration, I will bring forth a motion to remove Item E from the new business. It's been indicated that the administration has been apprised of the unlikeliness that this grant will be funded. So it's being asked to remove the application. So move. Second. Motion by Council Member Ford. Second by Council Member Farmer. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then we can vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member Stendent. Thank you, Mayor. I had a question on item G, as in George, on the wet weather storage tanks. This total that we're borrowing, $31 million, is that in addition to the $100 million we talked about at the environmental quality meeting, or is that part of that $100 million we anticipate borrowing from under this grant? There's a whole collection of KIA loans. The total amount of loans and grants that we've obtained over the last decade totals $164 million. This is one of those that we count in that total of $164 million because we've gotten KIA board approval for that amount. This is the actual formal loan papers now, the assistance agreement that formally sets in motion how debt service payment will be paid for this. So of that $164,000, how much have we actually spent? You know, I'd have to get that. I've got a summary sheet here, and I'd have to get back into my Excel spreadsheet and reorganize it in such a way. I mean, just to give you in context, some of these go back to 2005 for the North Elkhorn pump station. So many of them are long in our rearview mirror. But, you know, just giving you a generalized view of things, I'd say we've probably got about $60 million worth of loans that are somewhere in process. Okay, because we had talked about it briefly at the last meeting, and we can talk about it more to our next environmental quality. But the 164 is what I was looking for. Yeah, I knew that one of the tasks I had from the Environmental Quality Committee was to bring forward more information regarding where we kind of stand with KIA. Okay, that's fair. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Stent. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mr. Martin. I had just a follow-up on item number F, which is the request to approve the first material modification to the consent decree by amending paragraph 15G so that the final deadline for all remedial measures capital construction projects is no later than December 31, 2026. I wondered if you could just generally brief our public here. I know you've briefed the council summit on this so the general public would get an overview of where we are on this and what the reason for this final modification, I guess, on the deadline, and also maybe give us a little indication of the cost to, you know, complete the project. The original consent decree required us to complete all remedial measures within 11 to 13 years from the entry date of the consent decree, which the entry date was January 3, 2011. The problem was is that we had drafted that document, we, EPA, the state, back in 2006, 2007. And so there was a little bit of uncertainty even when that document was finished about how many projects there would be and really how long it would take. And so there was the estimation that they felt like that 11 to 13 years would be an adequate amount of time finished by 2024, worst case scenario. Well, as we got into this, we realized there were many more projects than anyone anticipated. So as we were finalizing the list of capital projects that would eliminate sanitary sewer overflows for the design storm that we had agreed to, that we recognized we needed more time. We went back to EPA after some negotiation. This is what they are willing to accept and then present to the federal courts, who then ultimately decide whether or not an amendment to the consent decree can happen or not. The scope of it is over 100 projects. The total estimated cost of that, as far as what we have sent to EPA, is in the neighborhood of $594 million over the course of that 11-year period. Okay, the other question I might have is as far as paying for these improvements, most of the money we're using right now is coming from the sanitary serve fees that we collect from the people that are benefiting from the system. Well, we have, I think, adequate cash flows with some, I mean, There have to be some increases in the fees over the next 10 years because of inflation and all that, but do you feel like we're going to be in pretty good shape for funding all this work? Well, first of all, all of these improvements are paid for by the Sanitary Sewer Fund. These are not general obligation. They are not general fund expenditures. They are for the operation and maintenance of the Sanitary Sewer System, which is Fund 4002, the Sanitary Sewer User Fee. to this point i think we've been able to operate things responsibly by being efficient value engineering has saved us a lot of money on many projects because if you'll recall back in 2011 ryan barrow stood at this podium and talked about a rate increase in 2012 we didn't have a rate increase in 2012 dialing further back in 2008 don council member former council member Don Blevins stood at this podium and said that we would have a rate increase in 2012. We haven't. Will we have future rate increases? My prediction is yes, we will. When and how much is still to be determined. But a $594 million estimated project greatly exceeds what the current revenue is of the Sanitary Sewer Fund. And I think that, at least in my estimation, that that was pretty well understood from the very get-go. Our challenge is to make sure that we do this efficiently and as cost-effectively as possible. And as I look at the mayor, who I meet with every two weeks, that reminds me of our necessity of doing this correctly and efficiently from a cost standpoint and also from a project management standpoint. Do you feel that it maybe would be appropriate for the council to consider some type of a rate increase of a small amount each year so that you have a built-in increase over a 10-year period rather than going for several years and having a big increase? Do you have a thought on that at all? I don't because I think that's really the council's decision. I mean, my job is to make sure that you understand what the projects are and what the estimated cost of them are. Commissioner O'Mara can help you understand what the financial implications of various decisions are, but ultimately I think that's a decision that rests with the elected officials. Okay. Well, thank you very much, Charlie. I would like to say that I think it's a general consensus you're doing a great job and efficiently, cost-effectively, you know, value engineering-wise building what we've built to date so far. And I guess we should give the mayor a lot of credit for keeping you in line. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Council Member Lane. Thank you, Charlie. that allows us to move on to Council Member Maloney yeah I'd like to ask some questions on D2 the same looking at page 15 where we're giving that vacant lot are we giving it to number 6 lot 6 to it or who are we giving it to I'm sorry are we giving it property to lot 6 whoever is at lot if you can look on there you see lot 6 Are we giving that property to them? I mean, do people have property in the area? That particular lot will... It's stated in their letter that if it's not... If the council rejects the dedication or rejects or accepts the continuation of the right-of-way, then both parties on either side of that lot will retain ownership. Or if the right-of-way is closed, then the petition of Flying Dutchman LLC, which is lot five, will have ownership of that particular right-of-way. Does that answer your question? I'm not sure if I'm answering your question. My question is, who are you giving the property to? Is it going to be one of these two properties beside each other, or is it going to be a buy-it-sell? Who's this property going to go to? Lots 6 and 5 on that sheet of paper. Do what? Lots 5 and 6 on that sheet of paper, which is now 506 Pike Road, Flying Dutchman, LLC. So there is nothing on lots 6 right now is what you're telling me. Is there a house? Is lots 6 vacant? because I'm looking at a house right here. Yes, there is a house there. The right-of-way is vacant. Well, the reason why I'm asking this question is because what is it zoned for? I just don't want to go in there and throw something in there without a restriction. Now, if you look at these neighborhoods, they're all single residential. The last thing I want to do is throw some piece of property in there that's going to go against totally what that neighborhood is. So do we have restrictions? on what we put in that lot, what you can use it for, or what they can build for? Have you all talked to planning, or can they just build anything that wants it? Well, currently it's zoned R1C. And as far as our coordination with planning, planning is often a part of our internal review process. So where planning, as well as other city departments, when they are looking at this particular petition, they are determining whether or not this is something that is appropriate or inappropriate for a potential right-of-way closure. So we receive input from the Department of Planning. I don't have a problem if they put a house there. I don't want to see an apartment complex or something that doesn't match with that neighborhood. Is that an opportunity, planning? Is there somebody from planning that can ask that question that would be able to answer that? Planning is here. They would have to seek a zone change. They would have to get a zone change. They'd have to get his own change. This property will go over his R1C. If they want to change it to something else, they will have to seek his own change and follow the same procedures as everyone else. Well, I want to hear. Okay. All right. Council Member Hanson. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to state for just as a future reference that when something like this is occurring, I think it would be good to get with the district council person to avoid any of the confusion. So just going forward, thought I'd throw that out there. Thank you. Thank you for that good advice, Council Member Henson. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. I have a follow-up question for Commissioner Holmes. Sorry, sir. The question I have, just for clarification, this easement is about 50 feet wide. So if we release the easement back to the property owners, The two adjacent property owners each would get 25 feet. It would be split down the middle and be added to their property boundary. Is that how that works? I mean, isn't there some kind of a state law regarding the release of easements from roadways that were taken? It doesn't go to each of the property owners. They're combining them, right? When it comes to the easement itself, the property owner, part of our process determines who consents to the closure, which means that the adjoining property owner is therefore notified and aware of this potential closure. And at that point, if they want to retain ownership of one half of it or not, that is determined by the owner. And it's my understanding that the law department also confirms of whether or not that that is something that the adjoining property owners agreed to prior to the city wanting to close the right of way. Okay. You know what would be helpful? I don't want to take up too much more time on this. but maybe you could provide us with a copy of the ordinance, whether it's state law or local ordinance, of how we take back or give back an easement that we've taken previously to the property owner with their rights. I think it would just be helpful information for all council members to know that. Sure. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Lung. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Mayor. I just had a quick question on letter item A, Patrick Johnston. I've just never seen it before, so I'm sure that it's standard. But do we pay for this performance bond for all of the constables of Fayette County? Yes, we do. And do they, I guess, are they rotating? They don't all do or expire at the same time? I'm not for sure about that. But normally we pay for all of them when they submit their premium to us for payment. And that's about every four years. Like the county clerk, his is every four years. And last week I think we did it for $2,800. And then I've got a couple other constables. Once they present me with their premiums, we reimburse them and go through the process. And this is part of the ordinance to go ahead and reimburse. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Akers. All right. If there's no further discussion, then we can vote on the motion. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. It allows us to move on to continuing business and presentations. No presentations, but I believe there is a motion for NDF. Is there a motion? Move it for a vote. Motion by Council Member. Second. Who is the motion? Council Member Scutchfield. Motion by Council Member Scutchfield, second by Vice Mayor Kay. 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. All right. And allows us to move on to council reports. If council members, please sign in for council reports. Be great. Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Mayor. Council received an email about this. we have the responsibility to forward to the mayor two recommendations for appointment to the internal audit board. It's a little bit unusual because that recommendation will come back to us with all the other recommendations, but we have the responsibility to identify two people. Council Member Brown was on the audit board as a citizen member and has requested to change to the council representative, and we need one of those. And we've also been forwarded the name of Daniel King, and I believe you received some information about him. And I am now moving that the council recommend to the mayor that Fred Brown and Daniel King be appointed to the internal audit board. So move. Second. Motion by Vice Mayor Kaye, second by Council Member Henson. 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 Bledsoe. Thank you, Mayor. I just have two items for review. The Southland Association is having their annual meeting on February 24th at the Olika Temple at 6 p.m. I'd like to invite, obviously, Mayor Gray and all of our council members. It's a great association. It's not only a merchant, but it also has neighborhoods and individuals on it. There will be some light refreshments. They're getting ready to have their big May celebration on Southland Drive. So if you'd like an update, this would be a great time to come. The second is the Chinese New Year's having their celebration February 14th, great Valentine's Day night. It's at the Lexington Opera House and it starts at 4 o'clock and then the celebration's at 7. And I want to say thank you for all your support for the NDF fund. They're very excited and I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Bledsoe. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. And follow up from some conversation we had from the public, Thursday night council meeting in regards to small area plans. I'd like to put into the Planning Committee an update on our small area plans, how many we've done, how many we've actually funded, and how many are in process. So that this council can get an idea before the budget as to how many we should fund and what we can afford to do and how many are actually active now. So I'll make that motion and put into the Planning Committee an update on small area plans. Second. Motion by Council Member Stenet, second by Council Member Ford. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right, if not then we can vote all in favor. Please say aye Opposed no motion carries. Thank you mayor. Thank you council members Senate council member Sadi Thank you mayor. I just passed out some information to the council members and I hope everyone was able to get one if If not, I thought we were maybe three or four pages short Have you all gotten that done at that end? Okay We had a retreat last week. I guess it was last Friday. Thank you. Vice mayor Kay went pretty well I think we all had some fun got to know each other and we all kind of discussed some issues that we thought that may be of interest As council members and one of mine is to talk about the minimum wage and I provided some information here just I was surprised about some of the information when I received it when my Legislative aide and I have been trying to get some information just on some stats in Fayette County and Just bear with me here It talks about, you know, when the minimum wage, I guess since 1968, it really hasn't kept current with the pace of inflation in today's value. It's been seven and a quarter since 2009, and if it would have kept with inflation and in today's value, it would have been $10.10 in 2016 terms. And what I found most interesting was, Chris, you've got it on there. It was this little box, and I got this from Travis Lane, Director of Research at Commerce Lexington, and I just wanted to know basically what was going on in Fayette County. There's a lot of information about the state, but there wasn't anything specific, and he sent me this information, and I was really surprised when you add up the first two columns, $1 to $14,999 and the second $15,000 to $24,999. It comprises, when you add up the last column, it comprises about 24% of the population that make up to $24,999 in Fayette County. I was shocked when I saw that. So what I'd like to do is place this in budget. As I said in the first paragraph, I think it's incumbent upon us as legislators to discuss this, explore it, and just debate this issue of minimum wage. You know, Fayette County has always been at the forefront of a lot of things when we did the smoking brand ban. We started out little, and then it went statewide. Same thing with the fairness ordinance. And sometimes you have to start on a smaller scale and move to a larger scale. And I know that Louisville's done this. And I believe in July they'll have, I guess they'll have an initiative. Well, I guess we're there. So that's all. We've got a motion and a second, Mayor. Council Member Massadi and a second by Council Member Maloney. All right. All right. Is there any discussion on the motion? I have something. Council Member Maloney. I want to thank Jennifer for bringing this because when I was running for office, this was one of the biggest issues that were brought everywhere you went. And one thing that concerns me, and if we're going to start setting an example like Lova did, I think we now start in our own government. And I've asked, and I was told that we do start pretty good, but for seasonal workers, we're still at this minimum wage, guys. And I just think we need to set an example. If we're going to start doing something like this, like Lova did, I like the budget next year, Mary. I know it's tough, but we need to get the seasonal workers up to a decent raise, and it's better than what the minimum wage. So we need to set an example, not just for the whole city, but just for the city itself. Urban County government needs to send a message. We're going to do the same thing. So I support what Jennifer's doing, and I thank her. Thank you, Council Member Maloney. Who else wishes to speak to the motion? I've got the sign-ons here, I think, are for council reports. So if you'll just hold your hand for discussion. Council Member Lane. Pardon? For the motion. All right. All right. Well, then, let's go with according to the sign-on. Council Member Evans. Just briefly, again, thanking Council Member Massadi for bringing this to our attention. I did have a wonderful meeting with Bill Farmer from the United Way. And we're talking in numbers that if we are apparently the 10th smartest city in the country, yet we have 54% of our public school children that need funding assistance with school lunch. So those numbers don't add up to me. So although I believe we have made some improvements with our city workers, but we need to think about the entire city and what that does mean. And if we're thinking about what kind of city we want to be, we have to discuss that. I mean, it's just amazing that if we are so smart, why there is such a disparity in our income for the entire city. So I thank you for bringing this to our attention and keep that stat in mind that it really does trickle down to our children in the school system. And that certainly impacts the city as a whole and what they are able to achieve and what disparities there are in our city, even though we are a great city. But we need to certainly look at it from all aspects. And I'm going to try and get a presentation. it's sometime in the near future so Mr. Farmer can come talk to council members to address what his plan is with the United Way to see how we can help them and how the city can work together with other agencies that are trying to adjust that discrepancy that we have so thank you for bringing that Thank you Councilmember Evans. Councilmember Lane. I was just going to comment on Councilmember Maloney's comment about the urban county government paying minimum wage to all of its employees. And it seemed to me that we had a recent report that said nobody that worked for the urban county government was making less than minimum wage. I think that full-time. Well, that's on the living wage. Excuse me. I haven't spoke on that. So maybe you could address that, Mayor. Maybe you're more up to date on it than I am. Sally's coming to the podium. In this conversation, I had just sent a text to John Maxwell about that issue because it was my understanding, and I'll have John correct me if I'm misstating something. We have some employees in that seasonal that are at minimum. We do, if I'm understanding, but we do not have, it's not on our full time. Am I saying that correctly, John? Now, that doesn't mean that that salary doesn't need to be raised, but as a, what we're doing, that's where we are. If I said it correctly. Yeah, that's correct. We have, I think we have seven employees currently that are part-time seasonal right now that are at the minimum wage, if I remember right. Now, over the summer, when we employ summer youth workers, they get paid the minimum wage. But we have no full-time classified or unclassified employees. As a matter of fact, we have a minimum of $11.15 an hour for all full-time. Thank you, Jim. Sure. Did that answer your question? Good. That's very good. I like to hear that. That's excellent. The only other thoughts that I have is I think we have to be careful if we elect to put in some type of minimum wage because it would affect every single employer in our city, and it may cause some people to lose jobs because whatever job they're doing is very basic and maybe the higher rate couldn't be justified by an employer. And the other thing you have to be careful about, I don't know if you saw this story or not, but McDonald's has got a new system now where you can go to one of their restaurants and go to a computer and you can say, I want sesame seed bun, mustard, ketchup, pickle, onions, lessened tomato, whatever. And you put it in and then there's a robot back there that will actually make the hamburger because if they have to pay $20 an hour or $25 an hour or some minimum wage in New York or San Francisco, they can't operate their business there and make a profit. So if you price, we need to keep the free market system in mind. I think we can maybe give some guidelines and do some improvements in where we are, but I think we have to be very careful about what we're doing when it comes to setting wages for private employers. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Lane. Council Member Scotchfield. Thank you, Mayor. And, you know, I have a—Angela, one of the comments—or Council Member, one of the comments you made was free and reduced lunch. And I just—I kind of dispute the results that we have for the current statistics for free and reduced lunch, because in order to apply for free and reduced lunch, you provide no documentation. Anyone can apply and say that they would qualify. and we provide no backup data in order to, and I know of people that very much abuse the system. So I don't trust those numbers, and I just want to clear that up. And that's what I had to say. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Council Member Scotchfield. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor and Council Members. I want to begin by thanking Council Member Mossade for bringing this motion forward. I do think it's a topic that merits our discussion as a council, as a city, and as a community. I am in support of it. But to speak to the motion on the floor is to refer this item to the Budget and Finance and Economic Development Committee. And I believe that's an appropriate request of Council Member Mossade and that our council should do that. and this is why. We understand how complex this issue will be. Committee work allows us to be informed, to be educated, allows us on both sides to advocate and influence, and hopefully after a series of meetings, hopefully to debate and vote. And I say all that to say is that we're not asking the council, and I don't believe at all, to make a decision right now. But I do think at this time of the year, it's appropriate for us to begin this work. And I'll support the motion to refer to committee. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Ford. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Massadi, for bringing this up. And it is more than just a Fayette County discussion. You know, what we do here does impact regionally and has implications and what happens in Louisville and what they're doing in the different discussions. And I just have a question if you'd be willing to amend your motion to include right to work, which is also an issue that's being talked about in counties surrounding not just Fayette but other places in the state. I didn't know if it was appropriate. I don't think I'll accept that motion to amend. Okay. All right. Thank you, Council Member Bledsoe. Council Member Lamb. I want to thank Councilmember Mazzotti for bringing this forward as well I think that it does merit a lot of discussion and I think there are some good statistics out there that I think that we need to make sure that we hear and That that can explain and express some of the concerns that mr Councilmember Lane has and I'm glad that we're going to take this forward to further discussion. Thank you Thank you council member Lamb council member Gibbs Thank you, Mayor. I missed your moat. Did you accept her amendment as a friendly amendment? No. Okay. I just wasn't clear on that. Thank you. And thank you for not accepting it. All right. Anything else? Council Member Gibbs. No. All right. All right. It looks like that's all who signed on for discussion. Council Member Farmer. I guess my question would be of the Parliamentarian. Is it hers to accept or deny? If a motion is made and seconded and we have discussion on it, it could be added whether she likes it or not would be my thought. I'm asking you as the parliamentarian. I believe that it would, if it was an amendment to the motion for lack of a second, that it would die. I don't think it was given that. She asked if she would, but that she never asked for a second. It's kind of back to my point in the conversation. I took it to be a friendly amendment. somebody can make a motion to amend right i agree i guess if council member bledsoe wanted to make an emotion to amend as opposed to a friendly motion a friendly amendment then that would be the difference council member bledsoe do you you haven't signed on but i don't want to I encourage you to do something. You have signed off. All right. Well, only because you asked me to sign off. I guess I would make a formal motion to amend it. Second. All right. The motion to amend is, why don't we clarify the motion to amend? The motion to amend is to also refer to committee right to work. A discussion relevant of right to work. Right to work. Right. All right. All right. So there's a motion and there's a second. Is there any discussion on the motion to amend? Council member. All right. Thank you, Mayor. Council member Henson. I see this in my view. This is a totally separate issue. so I would have preferred that it be placed in committee as a separate item that's just my preference so thank you all right councilmember stent it thank you mayor as chair of the budget and finance and economic development committee I was just going to ask what councilmember Henson alluded to is your intention to amend to hear this at the same time that we hear minimum wage we're going to talk about right to work or is it to keep them two separate issues. And if that's the intent, then to keep them separate, then maybe a second motion just to put it into committee as well would be more in order and make our life a little easier for discussion purposes. Excellent. Thank you. Dearly. So I need to formally withdraw my motion and make a new motion after we vote on this motion. Lord have mercy. The motion to amend. All right. Well, the motion to amend has been withdrawn. So we need to then, we're back to the original motion related to minimum wage. Is there any further discussion on the motion? All right. If not, then the motion that's on the floor is to refer to budget and economic development, the issue of minimum wage. All right. So now we're voting on that motion. All in favor, please say aye and vote electronically. Opposed, no. All right. The motion carries. All right. All right. Now we'll go to Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to make a motion to put into Budget, Economic, and Development Finance Committee a discussion of a right to work. So moved. All right. Motion by Council Member Bledsoe, second by Council Member Scotchfield. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Is this signed on electronically? Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to say I'm a union member, and in union circles, this right to work is a euphemism, or a dissimism in my opinion. It's a right to work for less wages, and I don't think we should even consider it in our community. I'd like to see us be a labor favorable community. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Council Member Gibbs. Council Member Vice Mayor Gay. Craig Kay? Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to follow on with Council Member Gibbs' comment. I believe right to work is even more controversial, I would say, than raising the minimum wage. And in fact, some people would say it has exactly the opposite effect that affects the people who are working at lower wages and reduces their wages and reduces their purchasing power. I think at this point I would be against the motion. I don't think it's appropriate for the council to be considering that at this time. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. The Kentucky Chamber of Commerce has endorsed the right to work legislation for the General Assembly, and the rationale for that is that we are competing in Kentucky with states that are on our borders that do have a right to work, and therefore our cities are not competitive when it comes to recruiting new businesses to move to Kentucky. So I think that's something we need to take a look at. And who knows, maybe that would be the great compromise. We get a guaranteed minimum wage with the right to work. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Lane. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. and thank you, Councilor Bledsoe, for separating that out and putting it into committee. I think our role as legislators, for one, are to hear the issues. And any time we say we don't want to hear them, I think that's a flag, a red flag out there. I think our role, whether you're for minimum wage or against it, for right to work or against it, or for pigs and goats, for all that matters, we should have the right to hear it and the community should have a right to come to that podium and talk to us about it and have a full and fair discussion about it. So I welcome any type of discussion like that in any committee, regardless of the issue. So thank you all for doing it. All right. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Scutchfield. Thank you, Mayor. I guess I'm disappointed that some people don't want to have a public discussion. It's just a discussion. Just like anything else, we should be allowed to be able to discuss in an open forum and hear the issues. And so thank you, Amanda, for bringing this. Thank you, Council Member Scotchfield. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Bledsoe, for bringing this forward. My thought, in concert with what Council Member Stenet just said, is basically to have an open mind, to have a willingness to debate issues, to hear information, although I'm not in favor of the motion. And I'll explain why. It's not that I don't seek, I want to participate in the debate for information, but I also know as part-time legislators for this city, we have to be very judicious with our time. And I believe that this is an issue that stands outside of the purview of local government. I believe that this is an issue that is the purview of state government as dictated by federal law, which is slightly different in the minimum wage discussion. I think that minimum wage has been proven across the nation that localities can raise the minimum wage above that of the federal and state government. And so my question would be, I make an amendment to the motion, Mayor, is to amend the motion to ask a legal opinion, an advisory opinion of our Department of Law prior to sending this issue to committee for the purpose to determine if we have the jurisdiction to act. So move. Motion by Council Member Ford to amend and a second by Council Member Akers. Is there any discussion on the motion to amend? Yes, sir. Council Member Lane. All right. several counties have already passed right to work in Kentucky. I think six or eight of them have. And there may be some pending litigation already as to whether they have the legal right to do that or not. So to get an opinion from our legal department when this matter is pending in state court seems to be not really very valuable. I think we need to wait until the state court makes a ruling. Thank you. All right. Council Member Maloney. All right. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. Not to be argumentative, but to Council Member Lane, the first words that he spoke in support of this was that Kentucky is one of many states that does not have right-to-work laws. That basically is attesting to the fact that it's a state issue. It's a state issue. And I say that to say, again, if it goes to committee, I will report to the Budget and Finance Committee, Council Member Senate, and participate in the debate. But I contend that if, in fact, which I believe will be likely, that superior courts will strike down the actions of local governments across this state already, it will prove that they have wasted their time and not spent it wisely in discussing. That's why I bring forth just the amendment to ask a legal opinion before it goes to committee. But if the council doesn't accept that, that would be very fine as well. Thank you, Mayor. All right. Thank you, Councilman Ford. I want to ask the parliamentarian a question here, a little help, Susan. A motion to amend that materially changes the original motion, is that still an acceptable motion to amend? Because this would essentially negate the original motion. I believe that you would take the vote on the motion to amend. All right. And then if that were to be to move forward in the positive, then you would move back to the first original motion. Okay. That's what I was, that's kind of the direction I was going in. I just wanted to confirm. All right. Does anyone else wish to speak then to the motion to amend? Councilman Massadi. Mayor, would it be appropriate to seek some legal advice right now or to give us a... Well, we have a... I'd like to look at both of these issues or whatever the council wants me to look at in depth. I've been reading some of the legal debate going on, but I think we haven't really formally been asked to look at it. That's fine. Just thought maybe you might have some experience in this. Not in this area. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. All right, we're back to Councilmember Ford. Thank you, Mayor. With Commissioner Graham's intention to further look into this matter and for my intention not to obstruct the original motion, I will withdraw my amendment, but I take kind that my concerns have been raised to the attention of the council. Thank you, Mayor. So withdrawn. Motion. Council Member Ford has made a motion to withdraw. So who is the second on? All right. This is good with you. Okay. All right. Or he's moved to withdraw. I don't think we have to vote on that, do we? We don't have to vote on that. Do we? So we're back to the original motion. Right. And I believe Council Member Maloney was speaking to the original motion. He wants to speak to the original motion. Right. All right. All right. publicly I mean and I'm willing to be open-minded to hear both sides of the story on on right to work I'm I have not been for it and I have not seen any reason why I should be for it but I go back to what Councilman Ford said I think this is a state issue but I'm willing to listen and I know and my question goes to the other cities that passed them was it a resolution to send a message to Frankfurt that our city wants to do the right to work? Or what did they pass it that they're going to start doing in their own city? I mean, that's what my, is that the question I have? I know Louisville passed the minimum wage, increased it. Did these other cities pass the right to work that they're going to start doing that immediately? Or did they just pass the resolution that sent it to Frankfurt to let them know that those cities support this, so we want the state to support it. Well, I believe that what Commissioner Graham has said is that she'd research it, but do you want to speak to Bowling Green, what you know about it so far? The one I know about is Hardin County, I think, passed right-to-work legislation locally, and I believe there's a suit pending in federal court on that right now. So it's in federal court right now. So to go on record, I am opposed to the right to work, but I am willing to listen, so I would support the motion not to say I'm for it. But I know there's people here not for the minimum wage, and I saw those votes yes go up, and I about said whoa. So y'all may go whoa when you see me say I vote for the right to work, but really it's the same way you are voting for, you want to hear both sides. All right. Thank you, Council Member Maloney. Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you, Mayor. So I'm a little bit conflicted because, in general, I am in favor of full and open debate on almost any question. But I believe if my belief is that this would be a destructive conversation with no likely positive outcome, pro or con, that we're not going to be able to pass this legislation, if we pass it, the courts are going to throw it out. I don't want to spend my time, I don't want to spend Council's time debating an issue that is simply going to be divisive with no likely positive outcome. And so I don't think I've ever so far in my four years on Council voted no in putting something into committee. I am going to vote no on this issue. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Mayor. I really feel badly about being perceived as close-minded. I'm not generally a very close-minded person, but on this I am very much. A proposal for the so-called right to work would be detrimental to working people, and I can't support anything in any way that would reduce wages for people. It would also enrich corporate interests in the long run. As we've seen over and over, if you read any major newspaper in this country, listen to the president of the United States one of the major problems we have in this country is inequality of wealth and something like this only increases in quality of wealth and I don't I can't even bring myself to discuss it so thank you and I apologize for being so close-minded it'll probably be the only issue ever thank you council member Gibbs council member Akers thank you mayor I also am all for open discussion and full discussion and being open-minded and considering things that we might not otherwise agree with but I I agree with Vice Mayor Kay in that if this is going to eventually end up in federal court, I just don't see the point, I guess, of wasting the council's time and discussing it and having our staff research it and what I'm sure will be a year or two lengthy debate and discussion. So for that reason, I will vote against the motion. Thank you. All right. Does anyone else wish to speak to the motion? All right. If not, then we can vote on the motion. All in favor of the motion, please vote electronically and indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. All right. The vote reflects passage of the motion to refer to committee. All right. That allows us to move. Council Member Stanton. Thank you. Commissioner Graham, are you researching both issues? You alluded to the minimum wage and the right to work. Because I think the minimum wage, no one spoke about that. But I know Louisville is going to get challenged when it goes active in July. There's a couple of lawsuits ready to be filed. So it's also going to be going litigated and going through courts. So are you going to research both that and find out the facts or fiction on all that for us? I'll be happy to do that if the council would like. I would request that for the council on both issues, not just the right to work, but also the minimum wage on how that legally may play out. Okay. I'd be glad to do that. Thank you. All right. Council Member Maloney? Is this for a – It's the same thing. Kevin. All right. Okay. I have, Kevin asked a good question, and to me and the council as a whole, it goes back to what Council Member Kaye said and probably Council Member Lane and you all saying both. I want to wait until these courts make these decisions, because I hate to see us burn a bunch of calories in these committees if they don't, if they're both in court. Even though I support the minimum wage, I think it's good, and you all are right to work. I think it's great to have each discussion. But until, if they're already out there in the court, I just don't want to see us all burn calories and something that we may be wasting our time when we've got important other issues. And the last thing I want to do is all of us getting going this way, separating, when it really doesn't mean anything until the court makes that decision. And when the court makes that decision, then we'll come back and see if we have to. because we've got a budget coming up. We've got a lot of important issues. The last thing we need to do is just, we had a great meeting retreat the other day. I don't want to see our retreat go to waste. So hopefully we all sit back and think, especially the chairman of each one of those committees, well, you're the chairman of all the committees there, so that you think about before you put it on, if we make a discussion, I would appreciate waiting until the court makes those decisions. Thank you. All right. I have several council members that are signed on, and I'm assuming that this is for council reports now. Council Member Massadi. Actually, Mayor, I wanted us to get some clarification in reference to Council Member Stennett. I understand what you're trying to say, Council Member Stennett, but this is important, and I don't want to wait until July 1st to look at this, and that's when the Louisville decision will be made. So I would hope, Commissioner Graham, that you would move expeditiously as possible. So we could, even though July may make some changes, but I certainly would. And I think there's some other members of the council would like to move as quickly as we can on this. Thank you. All right, Council Member Stenet. I just want to be clear on what I said. I said the Louisville law goes into effect July 1st, and there may be opposition in a court to that. Not that a lawsuit will be or may not be, but I understand there may be opposition. It goes into effect July 1. there is no budget and finance committee meetings while we're in budget. So unless we're going to hear it in March, and we can be prepared to hear it in March, there won't be any more budget and finance meetings to roll with the budget. I'm just trying to give you our calendar. Well, can we hear it in March? If we have all the material ready, yeah, I'd be glad to put it on there. That would be great. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Is this a council report? Yes, sir. All right, thank you. It's going to be a filibuster, Mayor. We've already had it. That's routine. No, I just have two points I think that are significant. We were talking about the right to work and the minimum wage. Those are important issues too. But important issues for our taxpayers should be on our top priority list also. And I think the fact that we have $590 million allocated over the next 12 years for our sanitary sewer system, That is a lot of money. That's about $50 million a year. And I think that, you know, we need to be planning into the future a little bit. I think it would be very helpful. I know that some of this work has already been done, but I'd like to see us look at our projected debt service and our projected revenues and what our cash flows are going to be over the next 12 years and see how we're going to be able to meet our financial obligations to complete this project. That's one item. The other item, which I have been sort of a fiscal hawk on, I guess, is more efficiency in government and better cost accounting. And I know I've talked to top management of the government. I know that you're working on that. But we're spending about a half a billion dollars a year in our enterprise funds and our general fund. And if we could save 1% a year, that would be $5 million. If we could save 2% a year, that would be $10 million. So we're talking about major savings that we could reinvest in something for our community if we could get better efficiency in there. And I was talking to one of my constituents, and they asked me, you know, what is the biggest thing you worry about? And I said, well, I'm worried about the cost effectiveness and the efficiency of our government because I think we could do better. And he said, you know, that's the thing about government. I think all government is grossly efficient. He said, I just hope that the Lexington Fayette urban county government is one of the least inefficient governments around. So I think that could be our goal, to be even more efficient and maybe be the least inefficient government in Kentucky. So I would just ask everybody to be thinking about tightening up our financial controls, our cost accounting, and so we know what it costs to pick up a barrel of garbage, to send an EMS truck out per mile to go pick up somebody that's injured, or to recycle a ton of garbage or recycle materials. We do not have good controls on these costs, and I think it would be very valuable. So this could be something we could look into as we're doing our budget for the coming year. And I've spoken to the mayor on both of these issues, and he's been very responsive, and so have the administrative members of the government. So this is not attacking anybody. I'm just saying these should be two goals that we should, as a group, the legislative branch and the executive branch of government, work to make the government more efficient. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Lane. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Mayor. I have a few motions to make. First of all, I moved to place on the docket for Thursday, February 5, 2015, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Sandersville Elementary PTA in the amount of $250 to support their Sharks on the Run 5K for the Office of the Urban County Council at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. So moved. Oh, not this Thursday. Sorry. Make it for the 12th. 12th, February 12th. So you adjusted it to the 12th. All right. So we have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. You got a second? All right. Motion by Councilman Raker, second by Councilman Henson. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can vote. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. I have two committee referrals as well. The first, I move to refer the inclusion of veterans into the disadvantaged business entrepreneur program to the general government committee and social services committee. So moved. All right. Motion by Councilman Rakers, second by Vice Mayor Kaye. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. And last one is I move to refer an update to the Masters and Station Park comprehensive plan to the General Government and Social Services Committee as well. So moved. Motion by Council Member Kay and second by Council Member Hanson. Is there any discussion? All right. Hearing none, then we can vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. Council Member Brown. Yes, I want to thank Council for allowing me to serve on the independent, the internal audit board. I think it's a very important board that Council Member Farmer was responsible for back 10, 12 years ago. And I think it's been a very good board. It lends to be transparency to this government. and I hope all the council members, especially the new members, will get an idea as to what the internal audit board does. And it is something that we can be proud of that they're out there independently looking at some of the divisions of this government and reporting on them. So thank you again. All right. Thank you, Council Member Brown. All right. That's all the council members signed up for council reports. No, it looks like we had an addition here. Council Member Lane. Thank you. I'd just like to thank Council Member Brown for agreeing to serve on the internal audit board. I serve on that board, too, and, you know, we served together for a couple of years when he was an independent CPA representing the general public, and now he's representing the legislative branch of the government. But thank you for signing back up, and we're happy to have you back on there. All right. All right, thank you, Council Member Lane. All right, next is Mayor's Report. There's no Mayor's Report today. That allows us to move on to public comment for issues not on the agenda. Has anyone signed on, Mr. Mundy? All right, no one signed on for issues not on the agenda today, which allows me to ask for a motion to adjourn. Motion by Vice Mayor Kaye, second by Council Member Farmer. Unless there's objection, we are adjourned. Thank you.