# Council Work Session - January 28, 2020 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · January 28, 2020 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4936 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4936?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2020-01-28 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: February 7, 2026 - **Length**: 7,857 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Council Work Session convened on January 28, 2020, with the Mayor presiding. The meeting focused on informational discussions across three main agenda items: Public Comment, Budget Finance and Economic Development, and Council Reports. During the session, the Council conducted six motions and votes while addressing various municipal matters. No public comments were received during the designated public comment period. The meeting served as a working session for council members to review budget and economic development matters and share reports on ongoing city business, with all agenda items being informational in nature rather than requiring formal action items. ## Attendance All eleven council members were present for the meeting. **Present:** • Council Member Plowman • Council Member Farmer • Council Member Ellinger • Council Member Misati • Council Member Bledsoe • Council Member Maloney • Council Member Lamb • Council Member Worley • Council Member Evans • Council Member Reynolds • Council Member Massabi **Absent:** None **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions The Council conducted six votes during the meeting, all of which passed by voice vote [timestamp: 00:00]. **Procedural Approvals** • Council Member Plowman motioned to approve the table of motions for the Work Session January 21st, seconded by Council Member Farmer. The motion passed by voice vote. • Council Member Farmer motioned to approve the amended table of motions for the January 14th Council Work Session, seconded by Council Member Ellinger. The motion passed by voice vote. • Council Member Plowman motioned to approve new business items, seconded by Council Member Farmer. The motion passed by voice vote. **Policy and Program Matters** • Council Member Ellinger motioned on Council Capital Projects, seconded by Council Member Misati. The motion passed by voice vote. • Council Member Maloney motioned for examination or creation of an Employee Organ and Bone Marrow Donor Leave Program, seconded by Council Member Lamb. The motion passed by voice vote. **Planning Commission Referral** • Council Member Plowman motioned to refer the definition of tenant home to the Planning Commission, seconded by Vice Mayor Kaye. The motion passed by voice vote with one abstention. All votes were conducted by voice vote rather than roll call, so individual member positions were not recorded for most items. The only exception was the final motion regarding the tenant home definition referral, which noted one abstention among the members present. ## Budget and Financial Actions The Council addressed one financial item during this meeting. • **Grant Funding**: The Council considered a $9,000 grant for the Bicycle and Bikeway Commission. This grant funding would support the commission's activities and initiatives related to bicycle infrastructure and bikeway development in the city. *Note: Specific resolution numbers and transcript timestamps were not available in the provided meeting materials for this financial action.* ## Contested Items The Council meeting featured one significant point of contention regarding the Town Branch Commons Project contract award. **Resolution Accepting Pace Contracting Bid** A heated discussion arose over the resolution to accept the bid from Pace Contracting for the Town Branch Commons Project. Councilmember Maloney raised concerns about the resolution, specifically citing his responsibility to represent his constituents' interests in the matter. The disagreement escalated into a broader discussion about the role of council members in representing their constituents versus serving the interests of the entire community. This fundamental question of representation appeared to be at the heart of Maloney's objections to moving forward with the Pace Contracting bid. The specific nature of Maloney's concerns about the contracting decision was not detailed in the available information, nor was the final outcome of the vote on this resolution clearly documented. The discussion highlighted tensions between district-specific representation and city-wide governance responsibilities that council members must navigate when making decisions on municipal projects. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available for this contested item discussion.* ## Public Comment [timestamp: 00:00] The Council meeting opened with the standard public comment period, providing an opportunity for community members to address the Council on any agenda items scheduled for discussion. However, no members of the public had signed up to speak during this portion of the meeting. The public comment period is a regular feature of Council meetings that allows residents and stakeholders to share their perspectives, concerns, or support for items on the agenda before the Council begins its formal deliberations. This ensures that public input is heard and considered as part of the decision-making process. With no speakers registered, the Council proceeded directly to the next portion of the meeting agenda without any public testimony or community input on the scheduled items. ## Budget Finance and Economic Development [timestamp: 00:00] Councilmember Bledsoe presented a financial update to the Council, providing information on the city's fiscal status and economic development initiatives. The presentation included a report on the surplus from fiscal year 2019, though specific dollar amounts were not detailed in the available materials. Councilmember Bledsoe discussed how this surplus impacts the city's overall financial position. Additionally, Councilmember Bledsoe addressed an economic development funding proposal, outlining potential opportunities for investment in local economic growth initiatives. The presentation served as an informational briefing to keep Council members updated on the city's financial health and development prospects. This was an informational presentation with no formal action taken by the Council. The update provided members with current financial data and economic development considerations for future planning and decision-making purposes. ## Council Reports Council members provided updates on various community events and initiatives during this informational segment of the meeting [timestamp: 00:00]. **Key Participants:** - Council Member Maloney - Council Member Plowman - Council Member Reynolds The council reports section served as an opportunity for elected officials to share information about ongoing community activities and municipal initiatives with both fellow council members and the public in attendance. **Outcome:** This was an informational item with no formal action required. The reports allowed council members to keep the community informed about various developments and upcoming events within their respective areas of focus. *Note: Specific details about the content of individual council member reports were not available in the provided meeting materials. Citizens interested in the full details of these reports are encouraged to view the complete meeting recording or contact the respective council members directly.* --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of table of motions for the Work Session January 21st - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of amended table of motions for the January 14th Council Work Session - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of new business items - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion on Council Capital Projects - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Examination or creation of an Employee Organ and Bone Marrow Donor Leave Program - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Refer the definition of tenant home to the Planning Commission --- ## Full transcript Yeah, baby, I'm crying over you Don't you know promises were never meant to keep? Just let the night dissolve on its feet I'll be your savior, steadfast and true I'll come to your emotional rescue I'll come to your emotional rescue Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh Yeah, baby, I'm crying, crying Yeah, baby, I'm crying, crying You think you're one of a special breed You think that you're a speck in the crease I'll be your savior, steadfast and true I'll come to your emotional rescue I'll come to your emotional rescue Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh Yeah, I was dreaming last night Crying, laughing It could be mine, mine, mine, mine, mine Oh, mine It could be mine, it could be mine It could be mine, oh, mine Yes, you could be mine Tonight and every night I will be your knight in shining armor Coming to your emotional rescue You will be mine, you will be mine, oh, mine You will be mine, you will be mine, oh, mine I will be your knight in shining armor Riding across the desert On a fine Arab charger Thank you for watching! I'm a man who lives in the city I'm a man who lives in the street From Eberle up to Frisco And everywhere in the creek Coast to coast there's a question Everybody's always asking me I'm a man who lives in the city I'm a man who lives in the street From Eberle up to Frisco And everywhere in the creek Coast to coast there's a question Everybody's always asking me I'm a man who lives in the city I'm a man who lives in the street From Eberle up to Frisco And everywhere in the creek Coast to coast there's a question Everybody's always asking me I'm a man who lives in the city From Eberle up to Frisco And everywhere in the creek Coast to coast there's a question I'm a man who lives in the city I'm a man who lives in the street From Eberle up to Frisco And everywhere in the creek Coast to coast there's a question Everybody's always asking me I'm a man who lives in the city I'm a man who lives in the street From Eberle up to Frisco From Eberle up to Frisco And everywhere in the creek Coast to coast there's a question Everybody's always asking me I'm a man who lives in the city From Eberle up to Frisco And everywhere in the creek Coast to coast there's a question Everybody's always asking me I'm a man who lives in the city I'm a man who lives in the street From Eberle up to Frisco From Eberle up to Frisco And everywhere in the creek Coast to coast there's a question Everybody's always asking me I'm a man who lives in the city I'm a man who lives in the street I'm a man who lives in the street © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 ...and call to order the Council Work Session for January 28th 2020. We're almost February. So, we'll get right into our business. And first up on the agenda is to have public comment for issues on the agenda. Is there anyone signed up to speak? No? Alright. Thank you. We have no docket today. And so next is our table of motions for the Work Session January 21st. Do I hear a motion? Council Member Plowman made a motion. Council Member Farmer seconded. Are there any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Is anyone opposed? Alright. That motion passes. We also have an amended table of motions for the January 14th Council Work Session. Okay. Council Member Farmer moves approval. Council Member Ellinger seconds. Are there any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Anyone opposed? Alright. That motion passes. There are no budget amendments today. And so moving right along, new business starts on page 5 with the short version on page 2. Do I hear a motion to approve? Second. Council Member Plowman moved and Council Member Farmer seconded. Now, please log in with your questions about new business. Oh, Council Member, don't feel obligated. I mean, it's a voluntary thing. I appreciate that. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Since no one did, I will ask the question on number C. I just want to get a little update. I was glad to see this grant that we're getting for the bicycle and bikeway commission. So I'm not sure who's going to speak on this. That might be Commissioner Albright. Could you tell me what we're getting with our $9,000 here? Yes, sir. We intend to use that money to develop the messaging around Safe Street campaign and then be able to implement the messaging with additional funds as they become available. And what are we planning on doing? Are we going to have signs? Are we doing a media campaign or how we do it? Both. We intend to develop the broad strategy and the overall message and how we intend to roll it out and then hope to use some of the other revenues that would become available for Safe Streets to be able to actually install signs or buy advertising. The content is a harder lift a little bit, so we're going to do that first and then be ready to use the message as we can. And we got the money through the Share the Road program. Is that how we got it? Yes, it's the Paul and I grant. Okay. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Very good. Thank you. Is there any other question about new business? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? That motion passes. Next up is continuing business and I'd like a motion, please, on Council Capital Projects. They're on page 22. Second. We have a motion by Councilmember Ellinger, second by Councilmember Misati. Are there any questions? All right. Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. And next up is Budget Finance and Economic Development from December 3rd. Councilmember Bledsoe. Thank you, Mayor. The meeting was called to order at 1.03 p.m. We had first the approval of the October 29th committee summary. Secondly, we had the financial update. The finance team reported the city's financials through October of 2019. Both revenues and expenses were reported with positive variances, largely due to employee withholding and personnel, which resulted in an $8.8 million change in fund balance. The committee discussed the surplus from fiscal year 19 and how the operating is trending in fiscal year 20, as well as revenue from the jail and debt service. No action was taken on this item. The third thing we discussed was the potential budget review process. I reported this item to the full council on December 3rd, which included action items related to the council's budget calendar, the linked questions and descriptions, quarterly financial reports, and the creation of a division and program review process subcommittee. All items that required action by the full council were approved in December. We then heard from the economic development partner, including the new funding proposal for economic development. Kevin Atkins presented a new process to allocate economic development funding that would operate on a two-year cycle, utilizing an RFP process to disperse the funds to partner agencies based on the city's economic development priorities. The proposal was well received by the committee, and the item will return this spring for an update. Lastly, the committee heard from two of its economic development partners in December. Bob Quick presented an overview of Commerce Lexington's effort to grow our city. They discussed the entrepreneurship and the partnership with the UK, and highlighted major growth in the client companies and the business education network. PG Peoples and Mr. Franklin talked about all that Urban League is doing to help people in Lexington, including their work through affordable housing, college and career readiness classes, the LIFT conference that serves first-generation college students, and their record expungement program. No action was taken on these items. The meeting adjourned at 3 p.m. Very good. Thank you. Are there questions for Council Member Bledsoe? Council Member Plowman, did you have a question? Okay. Does anyone? Okay. Thank you very much for that. Now, Council Members, if you'll log in for Council Reports. Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Mayor. I want to first of all thank CEO Hamilton, Sally Hamilton, for helping me. About four months ago, I met with her. As you all know, I walk around the building. There was a gentleman that stopped me that got on, who happened to be on the list for bone marrow transplant, and he was eligible to help someone that he didn't know, and he asked me about the sick leave and the time and all that. We don't have sick leave at the time, and I asked CEO Hamilton to look into it, and she worked with the Law Department. Since that, Louisville has now come in and put an ordinance together to do the sick leave, I mean, for help with organ donors and bone marrows, and so the State of Kentucky, they're doing that now in their legislation. So what I'd like to do, and I talked to Council Member Lamb to put it in her committee, and she agreed. I move to place in the General Government and Social Service Committee examination or creation of an Employee Organ and Bone Marrow Donor Leave Program. So moved. Second. I heard Council Member over here. Well, all right, Council Member Lamb seconded that. Is there any discussion? All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. Thank you. Did you have anything else? Okay. Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Mayor. I've been speaking with the Rural Land Management Board and about the definition of a tenant home as described in Article 1 of our Zoning Ordinance. What I'd like to do with the remainder of my Council comments is to allow the Chair of our Rural Land Management Board, Ms. Gloria Martin, to come forward and give us some background on the tenant home definition. So, Gloria, if you'd come forward. Thank you. Thanks. Council Members, I ask, Kathy, Eve has put a packet in front of you all that will help with this. As you all know, when I was asked a year ago right now, last January, to chair this, our charge was to look at the internal audit and get everything both in the plan and in the board back in order, and we've done that, worked hard at that, and this is one of the last loopholes, loose ends that I think we need to do, and we need to do it as soon as possible, the reason being the new farm bill is out and we are working on the new template for our easements, and this will need to be cleared up because of the new easement, the new farm bill. When I took over last January, I appointed a committee to look at the long-range planning and the ordinance review, be it good or bad, it was all attorneys. Dede Delaney used to be the law commissioner, and Margaret Graves, who was the chair of, a former chair of the Rural Land Management Board, Don Todd, who was a former 12th District Council person, Knox Van Ogle, who was the former director of Fayette Alliance, and Christine Stanley, who's an attorney who's currently on our board, all came to look at all these things, and of course Tracy Jones is our attorney who also helped write the ordinance a long time ago. It came to my attention soon after I was there, in June or July, the first easement we had to sign, that it was written in there that family members and farm managers that looked like could not, if they had this easement, could not live there. And I thought, well maybe that easement holder just wanted that. So that was when I started looking at the definition. If you look at your packet, on the first page, this is what's straight out of the zoning ordinance, and you will see that both mobile homes and tenant houses, tenant homes, are accessory uses in the AR zone, and so they're allowed, both are allowed. If you look at the next page, KRS, your Kentucky revised statutes, which were revised in June of 2017, you can see there it's highlighted that it's allowed to have family members. If you look on the next page, straight out of the zoning ordinance article one, the definition, it tells you the agricultural use. It also includes a provision for dwellings for persons and their families who are engaged in the above agricultural use on the farm, so they allow it. And if you will go to, not the next page about mobile homes, but the very next one, it's the second reading from July of 1999 that we did that established the rural land management board and plan, provided we got the funding, which we all know now we did, and I will say that at this second reading on the page you have, at that meeting who voted on this was Linda Gorton, who was a council member at the time, Fred Brown, Bill Farmer, Richard Maloney, Jennifer Massotti, and yours truly, so we had a whole lot of the people sitting there now when we actually passed this that I have highlighted, and what it said at the time that we passed was that in conjunction with passing the plan, we would clarify the provisions related to tenant homes and mobile homes in the agricultural zone. And at the bottom, they made it clear also that mobile homes would be considered tenant homes. At a later date, after they worked on this, if you go back one page to this one, you will see that that happened about mobile homes, and it's very clear how many you can have per acre on a farm. And at the bottom, it tells you that one or more of the occupants of all mobile homes must be employed full time in agricultural activity on the farm on which such mobile home is located, or, being a key word here, the mobile home must be used as an accessory dwelling for parents or, key word, natural or adopted children. So what we adopted back then and what's in part of the ordinance is there. What I'm asking you all to do is, as a result of that, I think there's some folks up here who want to give you more time since your time is over. So moved. Second. There was a rush. How much time do you need? There's not much more. You just have a few pages. I wanted to point out to you I motion for five minutes. All those in favor, say aye for five minutes. Anyone opposed? All right. There you go. Thank you. I just wanted to point out on the 2002 donation easements, you can see that it was clear that we allowed members of the owner, operators, family, or persons employed on the property to do it. It's already in place. The easements that we purchased on the next page, same thing. And it was not until it came to my attention, and I've pointed out the person's name on the next page, the property owner. It's not that these are not public knowledge once they've been purchased or adopted or we filed them in the courthouse. It's just I wanted to use this for a point of reference. This language was exactly the same. But when the person went to on these next two, when the person went to building inspection, the next page is the tenant home definition, which says an accessory residence located in the agricultural zone, occupied by a person other than the owner's family or the farm manager, engaged full-time in an agricultural use. And I realized when one of those people went to get, through their easement, a building permit to do something on their farm for a tenant home, the next page is the affidavit they have to sign that says they can have this, but it can't be for a family member or a farm manager. So after the committee of the Rural Land Management Board looked at it all, we decided, and Margaret Graves and I, she is the chair of that committee, drafted the letter and sent to law, and if you will look at that next to the last page, asking to please clarify that could a farm manager live in a tenant house on the farm? Could their family live there with them? Could the immediate family members of the owner live there? And they sent back an email to me saying that we needed to have our attorney, Tracy, and our committee look at it because they thought it was pretty clear. As a result of that, I think that obviously there is a discrepancy that needs to be looked at if the ag use and the zoning ordinance allows it, if KRS allows it, if they can do it in a mobile home that is used as a tenant home and they allow it, either parents or a child, then it stands I think to reason that the definition of the tenant home needs to be reviewed and the accessory or associated uses and regulations that have to do with that should be reviewed by the planning commission. So on the last page, what I was asking and I think Kathy has a motion to that effect is that I would really like for the tenant home definition and their associated regulations, which includes who can live in a tenant home on a farm should be reviewed by the planning commission and gotten back to you all in a timely manner. And the reason I need it done is because of the new template and because we've already started taking applications for the PDR program and that is open through the end of February and the template is being revised and updated now as we are here. So that's my explanation and I'm here and Beth is here and if you have a question, I'll do my best to answer it. Thank you very much, Gloria. Does anyone have a question for Gloria? Councilmember Farmer does. Good to hear your voice. Thank you. So you've done your usual great homework and... Well, I have about two inches here if you really want the whole packet. No, I've been surprised by boxes full of stuff from you before. I'm okay. I think... I just have a question about the motion that she's going to tender because it doesn't really make verbal sense and it doesn't really ask what you ask for. This says, I move to refer thee for consideration and a recommendation to the council. This is not what you asked us for just now. I wanted it to go to the planning commission. That's who really needs to be reviewing it because they're the ones who are going to look at any changes that the ordinance or the zoning ordinance would require and then they would get that back to you all. I think this motion needs to be tailored in that respect then. Thank you. Yes. Does anyone else have a comment? Councilmember Worley. Thank you, Mayor and thank you, Chairman Martin for all of this. So I'm kind of following along here that it looks like what we consider to be agriculture uses envision the definition that you think should be expanded but the actual definition of tenant homes is not quite that expansive. Am I understanding the problem? I think it should be revised to include what is really happening. Sure. I mean, I think most people know as Councilmember Ellinger said earlier, farm managers are living on these farms. They have been for a long time and we understand that especially on the large farms where people are absentee landowners, they have full-time farm managers. So they're already there. I just want to make it legal and clarify it. Sure. And the actual definition itself would seem to prohibit that. However, when you look at the planning and zoning uses that we would call agriculture uses, that definition seems broad enough to include what's actually going on. I just think it's in conflict and it needs to be consistent. I think I understand that. Thank you. I guess this would be a little bit more for law because we understand that there's maybe a timing issue here but for the law department, I think we need to figure out exactly how we phrase this because if we move and resolve that this be addressed, then have we created a council-initiated ZOTA that will be a 60-day time frame? Is that going to be enough time for the Planning Commission? Do we actually need to direct what we want them to do or can it go to them in this generality of go fix it? I think we need to figure out how to make sure we're sending this the right direction and the right way. Mayor, may I make a comment? Tracy, I'm sorry. I didn't see you coming up there. The motion I'm making is different than the one that's in front of you. A couple of things. First, I think on the motion that you all have, if you just add to the Planning Commission at the end, it'll accomplish what you want it to. Secondly, a referral does not invoke the 60-day time limit as initiating a text amendment would, but typically when you initiate a text amendment, you have text with the initiation to go forward. Referring it to them is just asking them to look at this definition, review it, clarify these issues about who can live there, and then make a recommendation back to the council. So this is really more asking the Planning Commission to take it up. If we direct the Planning Commission to take this action, then I think we would need to send them text because we are initiating a text amendment. Well, no. There's a difference between referring something to them and initiating a text amendment. You can refer something to them for review in their zoning ordinance, and they will put it in their process for review, and they will take their normal steps like they do with other text amendments to the zoning ordinance that different people bring to them in the community or that they might do on their own. But if you initiate it, it would need to have text with it, and it would utilize the 60-day time frame. I think I understand then that this would not give them the 60-day time frame, but then I guess we've kind of got to look at it whichever way is most effective for the Rural Land Management Board, because I see the issue here, and I generally am supportive in what Chairman Martin is trying to do. Then is it better, is the Planning Commission going to be able to turn this around fast enough? I mean, we don't want to put the constraint on the Planning Commission, but at the same time we want to make sure that they are doing it fast enough. Would this be better to go to the Planning and Public Safety Committee and then be referred to the Planning Commission with that language, or is this better the way that we're trying to do it here? I'm trying to figure out the exact process and procedure that's most effective. Well, let me say that, and your Chairman of your Planning and Public Safety Committee can probably speak to that, but I understand that agenda is pretty booked up until... We move it around a lot. The other possibility there too is that if you put the 60-day time limit on it, you know, I'm not sure what other things may come up in the context of the zoning ordinance, but it might prohibit some of the discussions that might need to take place, and we don't have a text today. So if you want to move it on today, there's no text to go with it, and we would probably recommend against moving it forward as an initiation of a text amendment with no text. So that's why it's come to us, and I know my time is up, Mayor, I just finished my last question. So that's why it's come to us in this more generalized referral to allow the Planning Commission then to have time, but, you know, they will still have that time and opportunity. Right. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Who else wants to speak? Council Member Misati. Thank you, Mayor. I sit on the Rural Land Management Board, and I believe we want to try to do this as expeditiously as possible because this does affect the application process. Putting it in the Planning and Public Safety Committee, I don't know where we are with that, Kendra. If we have room to put it in next month, we do. Well, I would say that it's up to Council Member Plowman, since she initiated the motion. We need to get this done as quickly as we can. If we have it next February 21st, is that when we have the planning? Right. But then we can read it out. If it comes out of the Planning Committee, it can be read out and given to Council. It does not have to go to the Planning Commission. Am I correct, Tracy? It has to go to the Planning Commission, correct? Why would it have to? Because it's part of the zoning ordinance. You would still have to refer it to the Planning Commission for their review because it's amending the zoning ordinance. Okay. Well, then let's do a zone text amendment, as far as my opinion. Did you have a comment? Does anyone else want to comment? I do have a comment. I think what you had written before you says Council, and it should say Planning Commission. The motion that I have does talk about going to the Planning Commission. Yes. Okay. So is there any other you know, I don't know that Council members have that in front of them, the other motion that you're going to make. So Vice Mayor Kaye has a comment. Thank you, Mayor. I think the simplest thing to do what we have in front of us is not, that's the correct text. But as our attorney has informed us, if you simply insert, at the beginning it says I move to refer, if you insert to the Planning Commission for consideration, I think that's the intent. And from what I've heard, moving this way is the most expeditious way to get it done. This will put it in the Planning Commission. Okay. So we have others who want to make comments. So if, you know, please continue and then we'll move to other Council members. Well, so I think if we take that text, if Council Member Plowman has a motion, I believe it would be helpful to have the motion on the table and then we can discuss the motion itself. Thank you. Council Member Evans. Thank you, Mayor. I don't know the full process for the Planning Commission, but I'm just curious, is there not a committee that this could have gone to at the Planning Commission that wouldn't trigger the timeframe that they could then draft the language in the subcommittee and then take it that way? Council Member Evans, there is not a committee of the Planning Commission that would do something like this. So once this comes to the Planning Commission, the full commission would consider the text amendment. Mr. Duncan, Council Member Ellinger has a question for you. Thank you, Mayor. Somebody had mentioned about the quickest path and you shook your head back there and you wanted to stand up. Would you please answer that question, please? The most expeditious path is for the Council to offer a text to the Planning Commission and initiate the text amendment. The Planning Commission has 60 days to return that to the Council and then the Council can take action from there. That's the most expeditious way to get a text amendment through. All right, folks. Raise your hand if you have a... Did you get to finish, Council Member Evans? Yes. Council Member Maloney. I need to ask Law to come up and clarify. Didn't you say if you had a text you wouldn't be approving this? Did I hear that right? He just got through saying we need to have a text amendment. I thought you said if you did have a text amendment you would be against it. No, no. What I said was we wouldn't be in favor of initiating a text amendment today for which you have no text. But if you have a text prepared, say, next week, then you can initiate it and that would send it to the Planning Commission with 60 days locked in when it goes. The route that this is proposing is that it just be sent as a referral to the Planning Commission and it'll go through their process, be reviewed by the Planning Commission and come back to you all as a recommendation. I'm clear, but the text amendment will be done by the Planning Commission, right? Is that where you're coming from? I want to make it clear because I'm for this, but you just... I got confused when the Law Department... Council Member Maloney, if you all proceed with the text with the motion that you have before you which sends this issue to the Planning Commission, then the staff will likely make a recommendation to the Planning Commission which they will discuss and then they will in turn vote on that and send that recommendation to the Council. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Okay. Will you please... You've had your hand up a long time, Council Member Lamb. Or a few times. Basically, in a nutshell, somebody has to do the homework of what the text says, the content of what it says, whether it is us in our Planning Committee or whether it is Planning staff, but somebody has to do that homework prior to the Planning Commission initiating. So if Council Member Mazzotti is saying that she could get this in her committee next month, I think this is a simple... to me it appears to be very simple and I think that we could vet it that way. I know earlier I didn't talk about it this way, but now that I'm listening to it from all ends, I think that the... I see the obvious path to take is if Council Member Mazzotti can have this in committee in February, then we vet it and we do our homework before that February meeting and I'll be glad to work on that with whoever will be working on it. And so then in February we send it out and send it to the Planning Commission and then they have 60 days to report on it. And that way... In my professional opinion, that's the route I think we need to go. Thank you. Who else? I know Council Member Worley wants to speak. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. So you can see the nature of my questions was if it wasn't for, you know, say, the law and the ordinances and... It's like that. And then things would be a lot easier. So... So what I was trying to get to, and so I think it's most direct here, because we can figure out what we think we want to do with it, but I think we all generally agree with what's going on here and we need it to move. So what is the preference of our Rural Land Management Board, our Director of Planning, our legal team? These are the folks that are going to work on it. They're going to do that homework that Council Member Lamb's talking about. So what's their preference? What's the best way to make this happen? Because if we send it, Chairman Martin, as requested, it could potentially languish, though I imagine that you'll be beating on their door and making them work on it. Or we could do some homework for you and send it to them with a time frame. And so knowing that there were different legal angles and hurdles that had to be crossed, I just wanted to make sure we did this the way that helps our folks the most. The only reason that the committee, the Ordinance Long-Range Planning Committee said send it to the Planning Commission, you'll notice on the very back page that I gave you, we had talked about that and the chair of that committee, Margaret Graves, thought that we also needed to add in that and associated regulations because within that definition, since you have the mobile homes and the other definitions, they needed to look to see, the Planning Commission needed to look to see is there anything else while they're doing that that this is going to conflict with or needs to be straightened out or made sure that the interpretation is what was intended when we passed that back in 99. So that was the only reason it says and associated regulations, which is why they suggested the Planning Commission so they could look at the whole thing and then come back to you with whatever needed to be done. Thank you. And if I recall, I think law, I think Tracy, maybe you said you could have something next week in terms of text or someone said if the council wanted to initiate a text amendment to go to the Planning Commission. I did say that, but what I meant was if someone said if someone wanted to draft the text they wanted you all to consider, I don't know exactly what all is being included and what might need to be considered. But in order for you all to initiate a text amendment, there does have to be a text with it. So either it would have to come back to you all as a motion to initiate with the text or one of these other methods that we're discussing would have to go forward if there's more time that needs to be or more discussion that needs to take place before the text is drafted. I mean, really that's kind of the difference here is that, you know, a referral allows for more discussion and more of the other things to be explored. A text amendment is going to send forward whatever this council initiates as that text that we don't have right now. Of course, it could be once it gets through that process at the Planning Commission, they might recommend something different, but I don't know. I've heard various council members ask what would be the quickest path to do this, and I think that's what a lot of these questions are about is would it be quicker for law to be asked to bring forward text and next week they initiate a text amendment to the Planning Commission or put it in committee for February and then come back to council and go to Planning Commission is what I think I've heard. If that's what is asked, the law department will do their best to do that, but we will have to have conversations with some of the folks involved here today as to what exactly they want that text to say. Of course. And then if the motion is made to initiate it next week, then it would go on back to the Planning Commission with the 60 day time limits. Yes, Council Member Mazzotti. Chair Martin, the group that you have as your subcommittee has pretty much gone through this definition and you provided us with all this information. Could they not forward some verbiage to the law department? We talked about that, and even though they're all attorneys and they are all agree about this, they wanted the Planning Commission to be the one to look at it. I understand that is the ultimate, but I'm saying as far as initiating the text amendment, could those two parties not work together? I'm sure they'd be happy to work with the group and we can call a special meeting, but the Planning Commission Chairman Owens, Mike Owens already knows. I mean, we've been talking about this with the Planning Commission members since October. In October, when Beth and I had to do our annual update before the Planning Commission, they actually asked us about this. It came up, we discussed it then, and they said something needs to be done. So they have been encouraging my group to move forward with this so they could get on to it. And that's my point. Your group along with our Department of Law could put this together for next week in order to have a text amendment initiated. And I would suggest that you have some of your Planning Commission members who do that. If you would want that group to do it, I'm sure they'll be happy to. I mean, Tracy works with them all the time. I mean, Tracy, Margaret Graves, and Dede basically wrote the original thing. And that's what I'm saying. Could those three not get together? I'm sure they'd be happy to work together. They do now, but I think what's been lacking are the Planning Commission members and their input. And that's what they deal with. Well, they'll ultimately make the decision if it's forwarded to them. Council Member Evans. I'm going to perhaps try and be a little more direct going off Council Member Lamb's comment. Whether it's Council Member Plowman, since this was your original motion, I suspect you have some language. You know what the changes are. Or what the committee wants. So I would suggest that you do what Council Member Gibbs has done. Bring language to the Council in its full form. That way you can bring in whoever else you would like to from the different groups. And you can work with the Law Department. And then we can actually have text. I think that's the most expeditious way since we've heard and we can talk about that language or whatever. Like Council Member Lamb said, someone has to do the work. Or whether it's Ms. Martin just giving you language. They just say exactly what they want and write it down. But someone has to write it down. That's what I'm hearing. I'm not sure it matters where it comes from. But someone needs to write down the language to say exactly what you want. I just wanted to add a comment. The motion I was bringing to you today was recommended from the Rural Land Management Board. They wanted it to go to the Planning Commission. I think this motion right here was not what I was going to be reading. I have a motion that I was going to be reading. It's about clarifying and making necessary recommendations and associated regulation. And the desire was to go to the Planning Commission. We recognize that the text amendment would be faster. But we also have been talking to the Planning Commission and we know how they would like to see that also be more expeditious. So do you have a motion to make? Yes. Now might be the time. Unless someone objects. With all of that said, I will now make a motion. I move to refer the consideration and a recommendation to the Planning Commission. The definition of tenant home contained in Article 1-11 of the zoning ordinance. Specifically reviewing, clarifying, and making any necessary recommendations and associated regulations regarding who can live in a single family tenant home on a farm. So moved. I have a second from Vice Mayor Kaye. Is there any discussion? So you've re-read this motion but you've left the word the or for out. I couldn't tell. I move to refer the or for as one or the other. I think you said to the Planning Commission. And you did add Planning Commission in. A recommendation to the Planning Commission. For consideration. The definition of tenant home contained in Article 1-11. Specifically reviewing, clarifying, and making any necessary recommendations and associated regulations regarding who can live in a single family tenant home on a farm. I hate to appear critical. But after all the work that they have done, this motion does do justice to that work. And to then rephrase it here after it's given to us in an incomprehensible form doesn't help either. I may have plenty of votes but it just needs proper verbiage. Thank you. Is there any other discussion on the motion? I see none. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? Okay. We have one abstention. That motion passes. Council Member Plowman, will you please email Council Members a copy of the motion? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Now, we are still on Council Reports and we have Council Member Reynolds up. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to mention a few things next week. On February 3rd, the Greater Gardenside Association will be meeting at the Century 21 building at 1818 Versailles Road at 6.30pm. That organization seeks to improve the Alexandria Drive-Lane Allen-Versailles Road area in safety, businesses, and help support the businesses and encourage community events. Everyone's welcome. And they're also looking for more board members. Then on Tuesday, February 4th, there will be a very important meeting at Gardenside Christian Church at 6.30pm discussing the sanitary sewer plans for Gardenside Park and Wolf Run Park with the Wolf Run watershed there. So we're going to have people from the city, friends of Wolf Run will be there, and then residents of the area. So that will be an important conversation as to what's going to be happening in those parks. So I want to get the word out. Thank you so much, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Mayor. Just a few items. First, this Thursday is the very first Dementia-Friendly Lexington kickoff event. It's at the Senior Center from 6.30pm to 8.30pm. This is hosted by Dementia-Friendly Lexington, Age-Friendly Lexington, our Senior Center, which is a great event. It's a kickoff to making Lexington more safe for our senior citizens. Second, this Sunday, the Heritage Hill Neighborhood Association is meeting at 2 o'clock at the Beaumont Library. That's Sunday the 2nd. And then on Monday the 3rd, I'll be back at the Beaumont Branch Library for the Public Safety Forum from 6 to 7.30. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Massabi. Thank you, Mayor. Chris. This is the new website by VisitLex. They have launched a special page on their VisitLex.com entitled Women's 100th Celebration. The page was created to help celebrate the 100th anniversary of the women's suffrage for website visitors to learn more about powerful women with Lexington connections who made an impact on our community and our nation. The URL is www.visitlex.com slash about slash women's 100th celebration. Special sections of interest include Women Who Ruled Racetracks, Lexington Women in Education and the Arts, Extraordinary Women in History, and Lexington's Women Who Fought for Equality. And I thank Mary Quinn Raymer and VisitLex for engaging this new addition to the VisitLex.com website. I hope everybody will take a minute to check it out and also www.breakingthebronzeceiling.com to learn more about the upcoming unveiling and official dedication of Lexington's monument to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment. 2020 is going to be a very special year for women, Mayor. And also tonight, if you have a chance, at 6.30 at the Lyric Theater, there is a presentation program by Lexington's League of Women Voters, Dreamers and Doers, that will showcase women throughout Kentucky who have provided historical contributions. And that's at 6.30. The artist from Arizona, I believe, is being picked up now as we speak at the airport, and she will be here at the event this evening to display the updated monument. They will have being installed in August, and she'll be here tomorrow to visit with the Mayor, and hopefully we're on our way. We're pretty close, and it's been a great ride so far. So, that's all, Mayor. Very good. Thank you. Councilmember Farmer. Councilmember Mazzotti, Councilmember Blumen, great work on that. We're there. We're getting there. You've got money in many pockets. Congratulations. Is this a donation that you're suggesting? Yes, ma'am. Understood. Councilmembers, I need to take up an issue from last Thursday night that revolved around the resolutions for first reading, and specifically number 37, this resolution accepting the bid of Pace Contracting for the Town Branch Commons Project. During the course of discussion on that, or when discussion began, Councilmember Maloney took great excess in wanting to discuss what this meant, or what it was for, or what it did or didn't do. I didn't like the tone of the comments. Still don't. But what I really take umbrage to was the use of the term my constituents. That term was used three or four or five times. My constituents this. My constituents that. My constituents. And I submit to you, sir, and to all. These are our constituents. We represent them all. But in that tone, in that tenor at that time, it did not sound that way. And it did not play very well. And it still doesn't set well because obviously I'm still thinking about it on Tuesday after the Thursday night meeting. So I'd like for us all to take the moment that we need to take to represent all rather than some and to express that in our commentary. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Does anyone else have a council report? Seeing none, there is no mayor's report. And so is there any public comment for issues not on the agenda? No. No one has signed up. All right. Council members, it's time for a motion to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. Thank you very much.