Music Thank you. Thank you. three o'clock so i'll go ahead and call to order the lexington fayette urban county council work session of November 19th, 2024. Welcome everyone. And the first item on our agenda is public comment for issues on the agenda. And we actually have two people who would like to speak for an item on the agenda. And so the way this works is when I call your name, I'll ask you to come to the podium right here, and you'll need to restate your name and your council district for the record. And then you'll have three minutes. So first is Nick Nicholson, followed by Walter Gaffield. Welcome. Good afternoon, Mayor, members of the council. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Subtext Acquisitions. I'm simply just part of District 1, by the way. Apologies. Thank you. But we are just here to formally request a zone change hearing, a public hearing for the, I guess, the recommended disapproval from the Planning Commission for the properties on South Limestone in between Prawl Street and Mount Mullen. The staff report was actually recommending approval, and it was very much a split vote. I believe there was a motion to actually approve the zone change that died from a, I believe the vote was four to five, and then the disapproval went through at six to three. Since that time, in response to what the community said and the planning commission members said, we have actually tried to revise our request to remove six parcels from the area that we are requesting for a zone change in order to make sure that the development is not intruding into the neighborhood and it is basically reduced in size and scale. And so we would just like the opportunity to speak to you all about this request and just have a public hearing in order for you all to hear from all of us. All right. Thank you very much. When the council has that on the docket, and so I presume if someone wants to take that under consideration, you'll do that when we discuss the docket. All right. Thank you. Next is Walter Gaffield. Welcome. I'm Walt Gaffield, 2001 Bamboo Drive. I'm president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. Only want to say that the Neighborhood Council supports the Prawl Town neighborhood, and maybe they'll work something out. Maybe they won't, but that's all I have to say. Thank you. Okay, thank you. All right, that moves us on to docket approval. If I could have a motion, please. Motion approved. Council Member Ellinger moves. Council Member Grace seconds. And if you have an item for the docket, if you'll log in, please. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to make a motion to place ordinance 114424 an ordinance changing the zone from a single family residential R1E zone to a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone and a neighborhood business B1 zone to a corridor node zone for 2.13 acres, 2.80 acres for property located at 545 through 549 553 and 563 south limestone uh 121 through 123 127 and 129 131 and 133 crawl street and 118 120 124 128 134 138 140 142 146 140 150 and 154 for Montmillan Street on the docket without a public hearing. So moved. Is there a second? Council Member Fogle seconded that. Is there any discussion? Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Mayor. Would it be appropriate for me to ask Mr. Nicholson a question about this? I think that's I think that's okay. Does anyone want to? Yeah, I think that's fine. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. First, I want to know if the ordinance as moved by Council Member James Brown reflects the changes to your, you mentioned changes in your public comment. It does not at this time, but we would be asking to basically remove certain properties at the public hearing from the zone change request. Okay, and then in the time frame between the Planning Commission public hearing and today, have you engaged the neighborhood on these changes? Are they aware of the changes? Not yet. We truly have just kind of finalized what we were actually allowed to do based on the kind of new rules of the corridor zone as far as the acreage and the floor area minimums. And so we will be having a neighborhood meeting in order to propose what we're kind of removing from the original request. Okay. And that, the new plan, would be a reduction? It would be a substantial reduction, almost by a quarter. Okay. That's all I have for now. Thank you, Mayor. All right. Thank you. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. Can I get either Tracy Wade or Tracy Jones to ask a few questions about the previous hearing? Bring up all the Tracys. Welcome, Tracys. I just wanted to get a little bit of clarification on the original hearing as presented at Planning Commission. Planning staff recommended approval of the development, is that correct? Yes, sir. And then I've heard two different numbers, and if you can clarify for me, there was a 5-4 vote and a 6-3 vote. Can you clarify what those two were? Yes, as Mr. Nicholson mentioned, the Planning Commission made a motion first to recommend to the council approval of the zone change. That motion failed by a 4-5 vote. Then the second motion, an alternative motion, was made to disapprove the zone change and recommend that to the council, and that passed by a 6-3 vote. Okay. Someone flip-flopped. Gotcha. Thank you for that clarity. It has been my position on hearing zone changes before this body. I think our role here is to kind of adjudicate when things are a little bit more up in the air or in conflict or if Planning Commission disagrees with Planning Staff or if Planning Commission has a split vote. and in my mind a 5-4 and a 6-3 are definitely split votes. So I am of the opinion that this is something that we should hear before council. So thank you. Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question for you all as well. If the applicant is planning to make changes and doing some other neighborhood engagement, I know there's a timeline for when we would have to have a hearing. If there were compromises made, what are the processes would we have to then kind of evaluate this? If they're trying to work with the neighborhood now and are still in that process, if we say we're not going to have a hearing, then the Planning Commission vote would stand without any of these changes. So could you talk to us a little bit about what the options are here, or is there an option to postpone or pause or something with the current clock going? So the council's clock, as I think I mentioned in all the emails I send about final reports, is a 90-day clock from the date the Planning Commission acts. And so there is not a way to stop that clock. There's no postponement that can happen. you or the applicant can continue to meet with the neighborhood if you schedule a public hearing. Obviously, if you don't schedule a public hearing, that seems like it would be a hard stop for the applicant to work with the existing neighborhood. But we do have almost two months, so 60 days for the applicant to meet with the neighbors and also refine whatever they want to present to the council. I did have a conversation with Mr. Nicholson and he asked if the staff would need to review his plan and I indicated no Because at this point the Planning Commission has already made a recommendation to the Urban County Council And so the process would be for the staff to present the Planning Commission's recommendation and then any changes would be At the behest of the applicant at the hearing and so we would have to address those there with any development plan It's an exhibit during the hearing if by chance the Planning Commission disapproves something they Indefinitely postpone the development plan and then if the council approves it overturns the Planning Commission We read off at the development plan for review again by the Planning Commission and the ordinance says that has to occur within 60 days so it's fairly quick so with the information in mind that the applicant is wanting to work with the neighborhood and have some continued conversation. I would like to allow for that conversation to happen and for us to be able to evaluate if they get to a place where they can find some compromise. So in my mind, that means I would not want to make a vote on this zone change without a hearing because I feel like that would not allow us to continue those conversations. So that's where I'm falling at this point. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to ask the folks in the back who are not staffed to please, we have plenty of seats so that we have the door open for free access. Please, if you can sit down, please. Mr. Gaffield She's speaking to you That's kind of a fire marshal thing Alright, thank you Councilmember James Brown Thank you, Mayor And I was going to ask the planning staff some of the same questions So there is no point in the process now to back up the application since it's been such a significant change to the development plan to start the process over and allow neighborhood engagement, staff recommendation, and then the planning commission to review it again? The only way that would happen is if the applicant withdrew their application and started over. And the bylaws that the planning commission has adopted say that when they recommend or decide disapproval on an application, the applicant must wait a year to reapply. Okay, okay. So, yeah, and that's, you know, I'm afraid that's how it goes and that's what I understand. But, you know, I see this as a time or money issue and I think it's unfortunate. But, you know, I think we got a lot of zone changes that are going to come to us in the next few months, next couple of years that are going to have pretty much the same type of feel and impact. I think it's, you know, it's, I think when we're talking about historical situations and race-based situations, I think there's opportunities for developers to meet with neighbors and to talk them through. And even if they don't get to a point where they agree, I think the due diligence of that helps us get to a point, or at least me anyway, to decide on these plans and these projects as they come forward. So I'm going to support my decision not to have a public hearing just to force the hand for the time for the developer to go back and to have these conversations because maybe there may be a different outcome with the neighborhood. And the other thing, too, and to the motion is, you know, we're hearing from folks that live in the neighborhood, but then we're hearing from folks across the city. So I think the fact that you have so many people that feel passionately about this and how we're going to develop in Lexington, I think when it comes down to time and money, I'm going to support creating opportunities to have more time to flush out these decisions. So I'm going to support it. And then I guess I'm going to say, to kind of wrap up. But I think if we vote to support to put this on without a public hearing, before the public hearing actually takes place, we can, I mean, if there's time left, we can change that motion and put it on with a public hearing if we still have time on the clock to do so. If the developer does do a neighborhood engagement piece. Is that not correct? I mean, if something happens in 30 days, then we still have 30 days to do that. You do, but the problem is, are you going to be here on December 19th? I would. That's just me. But the collective won't, right? So you all will be on break starting after the meeting on December 5th. So December 5th is really your last opportunity to schedule that meeting. that would still afford the requisite time for notice because really the only time um is in january when you when the council as a whole does return from the winter recess does that make sense yeah it does and i think that's unfortunate but i i just that's where i'm at on this issue so thank you thank you mayor thank you council member savigny thank you mayor and and my follow-up question to you is, and I know that's the Planning Commission's practice, is it this particular property cannot come back up for a year or this particular property with the particular use that they requested could not come back for a year? It's adopted as part of their bylaws and the applicant would have to show to the commission, so we have a separate hearing about called an early rehearing request so the applicant the onus is on them to show to the planning commission that something in their application has changed and it is of a substantial yeah change because we don't really we don't want no one wants to have the same hearings over and over with the same outcomes right right so that would be then that would be if they actually did meet with the neighbors, they did do some changes. If we did continue down the path that we're doing, they could technically reapply before the year with a significant change and try to convince the planning commission and staff that it is significant and there's agreement. Yeah, it's a separate hearing. So during that year period, they would have to come back and convince the Planning Commission that there's a different change, and then refile the zone change as well. Okay. And it's just a significant change. It's not, because I would think that someone would go for maybe a B1 somewhere, and then maybe later on they would say, oh, no, I want to do this instead. Yeah. That doesn't happen. The bylaws don't say what those changes have to be. It's very subjective for the Commission to decide what that change might be. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Laguerre. Thank you, Mayor. I had a clarifying question about when do we need to make this decision in terms of scheduling a hearing or not. Does it need to happen today at this work session, or does it need to happen before the second vote in the first week of December? The standard protocol is for the council to schedule public hearings during their work session. But yes, it would have to happen before there's a second reading of the ordinance. So first reading would be this Thursday, and then your second reading would be, I don't know, December 3rd? Right. Without editorializing too much, I find myself in a bit of a challenging situation. There's a split vote. This is a corridor node project, so a density project. We have five new council members coming in in order to determine quorum for whenever, a hearing were to be held. And we have neighbors requesting that we don't have a hearing and we have potentially a major change with this development and a request for a hearing as a result. So to me, this is a very difficult decision and I know it's simply a decision about are we having a hearing or not so i appreciate the the conversation and the fact that people are asking questions because it helps us understand the process and where we are within it so thank you thank you councilmember focal so first of all my mother reared three children in in Prawl Town, so there is a personal connection right now coming from me. My question, and thank God the new council member will get this if it goes further, and I can be on that side with them, and that's the side you really don't want me on. My question is, how many meetings did you have with the community prior to losing the vote? We've had at least three or four meetings with the Praudown Neighborhood Association and with different members that were interested in this property. Okay, and if the vote had went the other way, would you still be presenting these changes that you want to present now and have another conversation with them? I wouldn't be surprised if we would because it was a very contentious vote and we are trying to do everything we possibly can in order to address Lexington's needs as well as this neighborhood's needs. So I want to deal with the impact, and I'm going to try to talk really fast because I'm always talking about ancestries. I'm talking about the loss of history, the erasing of the black families, and the potential residency that has been there since I know, and I'm 64 years old. And so this is a great impact, and I am so proud of these communities who are now showing up and showing out to say, no, we're not going to stand for our communities to be erased. And right now, I'm very confused about what Council Brown said, but I hope he's still saying we're not going to have a public hearing is what he's supporting because that's what I'm supporting. The planning, they spoke. I was sitting here when the residents showed up. They didn't want the soccer field. They didn't want the expansion. and I lived through all of that, and now I'm sitting here watching my black community down here saying, we don't want this, and we want the council to support us as the community and stand by the vote without a public hearing. Because if you met with them, I'm pretty sure they probably welcomed you, but I hope you got that pushback that we're seeing right now, and you heard them. So now you want us to change the vote of the planning zoning and go against what our residents in our community is saying. It's going to be hard for me to vote yes. Sure. We just want an opportunity to be heard about a revised request that directly goes at the concerns that the community raised. And it's just an opportunity to be heard. It's nothing more. And that's all we are asking for. And I think I'm having that. That's my problem of the revised request. Yes. And if that was the intent, you would have the original request. But because the vote went a different way, I'm just having a hard time because I do not want Praudown erased. I can't even recognize South Limestone right now because I remember all the little mom and pop stores that used to be there and the community that came down off of Prowl and Mount Mullen and what used to happen there. So I'm just having a hard time. And my council members that I sit beside, I will talk to them. But I want you to know about how deep this history runs. Absolutely. And I'm a graduate of the University of Kentucky. And so I know that that whole south side of town that has been erased because UK keeps expanding. And I expect them to expand, but I don't expect them to lose their homes in the history. And I very much understand that. I do believe we would be asking for the same revision based on how that conversation went, regardless of how the vote would have gone. because we are trying to be responsive to what we are hearing and what the community is saying. And we're just looking for a chance to present that possibility. Yes, sir. And if this vote doesn't go the way my heart wants it to go, I'll be sitting in that seat and I'll be at that meeting. Yes, ma'am. And our new first district will be up here and he'll listen to us. Next up is Council Member Gray. Thank you, Mayor. Council member, well, first of all, I would like to state that Prawl Town, of course, is close to my heart. It's deep within the family that I belong in. And it was mentioned that you have met with the residents of three times, but at the same time, I did see residents say no. So, at those meetings, of those meetings that you did have with the residents, those three meetings, do you recall the number of individuals present? 15 to 20. Mr. Simpson was there for at least two of the meetings. One of the meetings. We have sat down. We've had coffee with folks. We have had meetings inside the neighborhood. We've met as many times as we possibly can and are willing to also continue those discussions. I have not had, you all know me, I've represented a lot of developers before you all. I have not seen a developer that has been willing to talk more and change more than what Subtax has already offered and what continues to offer even today. We are happy to continue these conversations as soon as this meeting ends, tomorrow, the next day, the next day. We're not trying to improve. We're trying to be in addition. And I do understand growth is necessary. I mean, I believe in a big proponent of working on our infill. However, as a proponent of my history, my own personal history, and the history of my ancestors, it's just concerning to me about the topics that my own colleague, Council Member Lynch, has brought up. Not Lynch, excuse me. There I did it, Council Member Lynch. Council Member Fogle. We get it all the time, don't we? And I did it myself. So forgive me. But it's just concerning to me. I'm thankful that you all went back to the drawing board and came up with these decisions after the fact or after listening to the residents. However, I'm just going to state bluntly that I will always stand with the residents and how our decisions will impact them and the history that is possible to be erased. So I will always stand ten toes down there for the residents. So I just wanted to just clarification on the meetings. Thank you so much. Absolutely. So just to remind everybody where we are, we are discussing the motion to put this on without a public hearing, and we have four council members left to speak. Next is Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor, if I could just as a matter of, there's actually a motion and a second, so there's something on the floor. So while we've kind of let a little back and forth go here, and I think it's comfortable that we all make ourselves aware of what's going on, this is meant to be our discussion, not a continued public debate. So if we could just try to keep that within reason, you know, if we have questions, of course, but there is a motion on the floor. Yeah, thank you. Mayor, with all due respect, I appreciate Preston Worley's comment. This is a due process issue. We're engaged in conversations way beyond the subject of a notice. Bruce, you need to stop just for a second. The council has a motion and a second. And the discussion on the floor is among council members. One council member called Mr. Nicholson to the podium. That's it. We are discussing whether to have a public hearing or not. Mayor, I understand that. But the subject of this discussion has gone far beyond what due process allows. You've got into the substance of a new zone change. Bruce, this is not. I'm entitled to speak. No, I am so sorry. This application is tainted already by the fact that this government's been offered a million and a half dollars to vote for this zone change. This is not to discuss whether we are going to change the zone or not. It is to discuss whether the council wants to put this on the DACA without a public hearing. That's the only motion and second on the floor. So there will be another opportunity, if there is a hearing, to do the back and forth about the zone change and whether people approve it or disapprove it. So let's keep this in order. Thank you. Next up is Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you Mayor. Thank you Councilmember Worley for kind of getting us back on track in terms of our process. When I came on to this council almost two years ago, we kind of encountered zone change hearings kind of right off the bat. And for me as a new council member, I wasn't sure what our approach was in terms of seeing them. In some years we have very few and in some years we have more. As I understand it, our process is that a developer goes to the planning commission with a zone change request. There is very often opposition from neighborhoods and neighborhood associations. Planning staff makes a recommendation for or against the zone change, and then planning commission takes a vote for or against that zone change. In any scenario, no matter what the ruling was, the party that, let's just say, didn't get what they wanted can approach the council member, usually the council member in that district, but any council member, and say, we would like a hearing before you all. I think of ourselves, this is not a legal term, I think of ourselves as the second piece of that approval process or the appeals process. There are plenty of zone change hearings that go through without our involvement. There are plenty of zone change hearings that get approved or disapproved that don't come before us at all. The ones that do come before us, we have to make a determination of whether or not we're going to hear it. And as Council Member Worley and the Mayor said, right now at this moment we're not determining whether or not we're going to approve this zone change. just talking about are we going to hear it in front of this body. So for me, I had to figure out kind of how to think about it because we didn't really have a real strict way of thinking about whether or not we have hearings. And what I came down to was that there in the original hearing there's the planning staff and the planning commission. Those are the two working and deliberative bodies that determine this. I created kind of a rule of thumb for myself and myself only and my colleagues can agree or disagree with it, that if the planning staff and the planning commission agree on either disapproval or disapproval and that vote on planning commission is unanimous or close to unanimous, it is my opinion that we do not need to have a second hearing on it. If however, Planning Commission and Planning Staff disagree, or if the Planning Commission's vote is a split vote like 5-4, like 6-3, and not unanimous or close to unanimous, it is my opinion that it is the duty of this body to have that second look at this proposal. That is all. That is what informed my solo no vote on the St. Martin's Village public hearing. It was not a comfortable position for me to be the solo no vote to appear as though I was saying we do not want to hear from a historically black neighborhood. That was not the case whatsoever, just as it is not the case for me to disagree this time. It is not about the case. It is not about this development plan. It is not about this neighborhood. It's not about this district. It's not about the neighbors that have come out to speak for or against this. It is a principle built around process. So with that in mind, I'm going to vote no on Council Member Brown's motion because I would like to see a hearing for this project. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Nicholson, I have another question along the lines of what my colleagues were asking. When we talk about having a hearing, it's often because we feel like a side or both sides haven't been heard. And when there was a hearing for the Planning Commission, there was a big outcry about this project. You said that you met several times with the neighborhood ahead of time. And so what I don't understand is I would think in those meetings you would have heard the same line of reasoning and the same opposition. Why were those changes not made ahead of time until after the planning commission hearing? Why didn't you change your approach initially? So we did. We took an entire floor off this building. We took an entire additional story off the property that was on Mullen and also pulled it 30 feet back. We made what we thought was a substantial change to the structure itself in order to help address those concerns. We now heard that that was not enough of a change, and that's why we want to be heard on another, basically, culling of this project, which does result in a 25% decrease in the amount of area that we're talking about. Okay. We did make those changes initially. It just was not enough changes, and now we're trying to make even more. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Mayor. So more than an attempt to persuade my colleagues any one way or another, because if you decide to hold a public hearing, I won't be here. So more just to give some thoughts that, you know, while I have been here, most every controversial zone change that a public hearing was requested one way or another, we have done it, particularly even in cases that there's been a unanimous recommendation come from the Planning Commission. So I understand Vice Mayor Wu's position that perhaps we as the ultimate decision makers either way may give hearing when there is some dispute that seems like it wasn't resolved at the Planning Commission stage. That being said, we can always feel like the Planning Commission is there to handle those disputes, and maybe they've done enough. I would just say this is the first time that a new zone has been discussed and brought forward for us, or close to the first time that a core node zone has been requested. That's a new zone we created with our urban growth management ZOTA just this past year. And so I think that in and of itself gives rise to question and more hearing. In a public hearing, the neighborhood also has an opportunity to speak directly with us. It's not like their voices at previous statements and previous hearings have not been heard. And generally, neighborhood voices are very strong in front of this council, usually even more than at the administrative level, the planning commission. And this body has the ability that no other public body has when it relates to zone changes called conditional zoning restrictions. And so ultimately this body at a public hearing can impose any restrictions that seem necessary even beyond what the applicant or the staff put forward. So again, as the ultimate decision makers, if we have a public hearing, we still have all the options available to us that you may or may not choose to exercise. But, because I won't be here, I'm not strongly advocating for some public hearing that I can somehow influence. These are just my general thoughts. I would also say as a procedural matter, you come back on the 14th, this needs two readings by this council before the 22nd, so there's ample time for a public hearing. There's ample time to not have a public hearing and make that decision when you come back. So you have a lot at your disposal. And keep in mind, too, even if you ran out of time, for those of you who don't want a public hearing simply because you don't want to vote yes, if you don't get one in, the Planning Commission's recommendation stands. So I think that there's time to consider it. There's time to let the developer and the neighbors talk. Maybe we come up with something that then keeps a project moving without starting over, without delaying a year for an infill and redevelopment project. That being said, I won't be here. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Mayor. As a council member who has hosted or held a public hearing on his own change where an exorbitant amount of compromise was had between a neighborhood and a developer, I know what can happen. So I will not be voting to support the motion to go on without a hearing. I think it's really important to allow both parties the opportunity to further negotiate for compromise. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. This one's a difficult one for me, but I always want to look at if it had been a 5-4 the other way, we would certainly be asking for a public hearing here. It was a very close vote. All we're doing is putting this on as a hearing to give us a chance. The St. Martins was 7-1 to approve. We heard it, and we disapproved it. That doesn't mean by us putting on a hearing that we're going to approve it. It just means that we give an opportunity, and hopefully in the interim, we might be able to come up with some. We did that in Palomar. We actually had a disapproval on Palomar, and by the time we got here, when they asked who all was for it, everybody in the audience stood up and was supportive of it. and it was unanimous against and it was unanimous for. So in the interim, I think we have an opportunity to maybe come up with some solutions that work for everybody. But if we stop it now, then I don't think we have done really what we as elected officials are supposed to do. We're supposed to make the tough decisions. And the Planning Commission does their job, but they're appointed. We're elected. We're supposed to hear it. I'm not saying I'm supporting the zone change. I haven't heard it. We sit as a quasi-judicial body. We hear the testimony at the time, but I think we owe it to the public as elect officials to hear the testimony. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Mayor. I am also very mixed on this. I am very supportive of protecting our black neighborhoods, as I've mentioned before. But if you're listening to my colleagues, I do feel like I would want, and I'm not going to be here, But I do think it needs to be flushed out a little bit more so everybody can hear what they need to hear. And so because of that, I will support a hearing. And again, if tonight it does go through without a hearing, then that would happen while I'm here. But I do think this deserves a hearing. And that's not saying I support it. It's just that I think we ought to flush it out and hear what it might be. because I have no idea what those alterations were like. So thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Mayor. And I'm going to try to be a little more clear this time. I know I might have said some things that were confusing. I don't mind, and I was elected and don't have a problem making the hard decisions. I mean, I think you're right. I think that's what we get elected to do. I think our process isn't always the most clear process. The folks, we understand it, most of us understand it, but I think the folks in the community don't understand it. So it looks like government is imposing things on them, not creating an opportunity and giving neighbors the opportunity to speak and they don't feel heard. So I think if we do have another public hearing, I think it continues to keep pressure on the neighborhood. They still feel like they're not being heard, even though they won at the Planning Commission, but now they got to continue to come down here and fight this battle. I think it creates a sense of mistrust in the neighborhood. The reason I ask for not a public hearing is to give the developer more time to work with the neighborhood because I think there is a solution to this development. It sounds like the developer is willing to make changes, willing to make concessions. I don't think the concessions need to be to the government. I think they need to be to the neighborhood to address some of the issues in the neighborhood. And I think they can get to that point. I think it just takes time, in which time costs money. And that's what I was saying before. It's unfortunate that it's going to cost money, but I think it's going to take time. So I think when you're dealing with issues like this with bad history, bad race relations, neglect from the city, I think we have to be intentional and we have to be focused about how we get to a development that the neighborhood can support or if they can't support it, at least they can understand it because we are growing. I mean, Prawn Town is going to be redeveloped, but it needs to be developed in a way that benefits our future and it needs to be developed in a way that protects and respects the history of the area. So that's the reason that I'm not supportive of giving it a public hearing and it's just to reset the clock to give it more time to get to a point where we can move forward together. Because this isn't the last zone change. And these folks, this ain't the last time we're going to see these folks in this community. So I just want to give this development the best opportunity to be successful. And in my opinion, that takes time. So thank you. Thank you. Does any other council member wish to speak to the motion? All right. The motion is to place number 10 on the docket without a public hearing, and I'm going to ask to use the electronic voting, please. So all those in favor, please log yes. All those opposed, please log no. You have to vote, Tom. Do we just? You're gay, Tom. So we only have 13. Do you have an issue with your computer? Okay, hang on a second. All right, has everyone logged their vote the way they want to? Is it changing because people are changing their vote or is their… went away. Okay. So a yes vote means no public hearing. A no vote means there will be a public hearing. Or you can put it on for a public hearing if you want. Yeah. So does everybody, did everybody vote the way they think they did? So that is a tie vote and a tie vote fails. So the motion fails. Are there any other, the motion to put it on without a public hearing failed. Okay. So we're still on the docket. Yes, Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. So at this point, what is the next step for this item? Does a motion need to be made with a hearing? What's the next step? If you, well, law can guide me here, but I think that it's on the docket to be approved. Well, the Planning Commission disapproved it, so it comes as a motion to disapprove on the docket. Correct. Who's my, where's Keith or Dave? So there's, it's not on the docket yet. It will be, yeah, but without a public hearing. It still needs to be put on the docket, correct? Well there's possibly two answers to that question. It does need to be put on the docket and you put it on with a hearing. You don't have to put it on the docket, but if you fail to take action, then the action of the Planning Commission, as Council Member Worley referenced, becomes the final action on it if you don't take action in the time that you have. So if there's no motion to put it on with a public hearing, then when the docket is approved, if that item is approved, it goes on as is. If you want my impression, it's on the docket. Yeah, it's on the docket. And it's on the docket without a hearing if you don't make a motion to put it on with a hearing. You can make a motion to remove it from your docket, which means that it's sitting and will wait its time limit out, and then what the Planning Commission did would become final. Mayor Wiles. I agree with most of everything except for the fact that there was an affirmative motion. that has been called failed so i don't know that we can say it's on the docket if it was moved to be placed on the docket without public hearing and that motion failed then to me it's just it's still just out there without action right but it's not been placed on the docket but if you approve this docket yes with no motion to remove it right then you're approving it on the docket you just haven't established a public hearing for it i think we might start changing our parlance then saying i moved to give this a public hearing or take it off as opposed to put it on which is our default because our the way we've typically done it the language makes it seem like we are placing it on the docket not that it is already there that is true but consider every other item on this docket you do not individually address those items you approve a docket or you don't approve a docket sometimes you remove items from the docket and this particular case you've failed to put it on without the hearing but it's still sitting there waiting for action of some nature that action is going to call for a vote though without a public hearing that's right but potentially that's true there's another motion that could be made There's two motions that could be made. And again, it's your docket and your interpretation of your rules and how the work copy docket works. But in my opinion, as this stands, it's on your docket if you vote to approve it. Because it's still on the docket you're voting to approve. But it goes on, in my opinion, without a hearing. if you don't take an action to put it on with the hearing. So can I ask a... Council Member Savigny is next. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mayor. I guess my question is, so if we do nothing, we still have the opportunity to come back as a body and re-vote on putting it on the docket officially one way or the other. And we just have to meet this 60-day or 90-day requirement. And if we don't do anything in 90 days, technically, their rule is law. So to me, we actually have time. There's actually no urgency, I do not believe. With this caveat, as I think Tracy Wade explained, your last meeting this calendar year is the 5th. there's a notice period if you decided to have a hearing that has to be met in order to have that hearing. I think it's a 21 day period. So whenever you do take action on it there has to be sufficient time for the notices if you're going to have a hearing. That would make sense. Thank you. And the council has to approve that 21 days ahead and they you won't be in session to do that that's correct correct okay yes you will be next week so but so to your point about you will be here next week this docket will be done one way or the other so commissioner so some action so every time the council gets a docket they are asked to make a motion for every zone change, either to put it on with a public hearing or to put it on without a public hearing. If they take no action to do that, I don't understand what happens to it because they're asked to do this every time. And that is the practice of it. But with all the other items, there are items that automatically go to your docket for approval. those are zone changes and ZOTAs, text amendments. You traditionally put zone changes on either with or without a public hearing, but what you have presented to you is a docket for approval. And as it is written, if you vote on it, those are the items that are on the docket. Now, that's one man's interpretation of how your work copy docket works. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner, if you're trying to clear this up in my head, you're saying that even though the way zone changes, the ordinance changing zones are written on our docket, they're written in a neutral fashion. They do not say with a hearing and they do not say without a hearing, right? It's your interpretation that even though that's not stated, that the default position is without a hearing? Correct. Okay. Even if that is the case, which I'm not a big fan of that interpretation, I have to tell you. Because it's unclear, right? You're reading something that's neutral in one direction or the other. So let's put that aside for now. Let's say you are correct. But we just took a vote that voted down having a zone change without a hearing. And I don't understand that if we take no further action from this moment, that it still goes through essentially nullifying the vote that we just took. That's the part that really boggles my mind. The Commissioner of Law would like to speak. Please do. Please do. please do good afternoon now you'll hear another man's opinion i think the vote changes it um i i've never quite understood why you go through the process if you're not going to have a hearing of doing these extra steps but i think the fact that you voted on it in the manner that you did changes the equation so i don't know that it's i don't believe it's automatically on the docket anymore it would be to commissioner horn's point it would be cleaner if if someone made a motion to take it off of the docket. But it shouldn't proceed forward in the same manner that it would have prior to the vote. And I think what you all need to decide, obviously, is whether you want to have a hearing on this or not. And I think your day, I think it was pointed out, I think you have, it may only be one day that it can possibly take place on given the notice requirements and given what your schedule is like. So I think that's the next step for you all to decide whether or not you want to have a hearing on it, and we'll work from there. So from my estimation, there are two things that we can do right now, and you all let me know if this is correct. One, if this body has voted down having the zone change without a hearing, the next move would be somebody potentially making a motion to have the zone change with a hearing, take another vote on it. That's action one. Action two, if we take no action, what we're doing is letting the clock run out on the Planning Commission's decision. And once that shot clock runs out, the Planning Commission's decision stands, and then we're also done. Are those the two options that you see before us? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Mayor. So I would agree that had we not taken any vote at all with Commissioner Horn's interpretation, that it is just there, regardless of whether we made a decision or not. The fact that we made a decision, I think that Commissioner Barber is correct, that we have said this will not go on the docket without hearing, affirmatively. But we did not say that it's going to have a hearing. So it is just there, but I don't think it should be on the docket. So not to the merits of this zone change at all or to what my colleagues ultimately decide to do, but to clear up this matter and at any time it can be placed back upon any motion, I would move to amend the docket to remove this item until such time as my colleagues decide how they want to either docket it with or without a public hearing. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Member Gray seconds. The motion is to take item number 10 off the docket. Does anyone wish to speak to the motion? Council Member Legree? For clarity's sake, Mayor, or maybe the parliamentarian can answer this, is there a time certain that we would need to bring it back onto the docket by? I just want to clarify that timeline. It has to be heard by January 22nd, correct? But because we won't be in session and because- I believe you would have to make a decision on a hearing by December 5th. Yeah. Okay. Remember the 21 day notice also. Okay. That's, I just wanted to clarify a timeline. Okay. And Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Mayor. And I plan to support the motion to remove it from the docket. But I will say that without us coming to some clear action on this item, we are keeping this community in limbo. So if anybody's going to make a motion to reintroduce it, I think some kind of public notice. I know it's not required, but I think it would be helpful and appreciated if somebody was going to make a motion to put it back on the docket. Thank you. So if I understand, if someone were to make a motion to put it on the docket, it has to be 21 days ahead of the hearing date, correct? And council would have to do that. So our notice has to be received by state law 21 days in advance of the hearing, but that means you all need to schedule it in advance of that, so preferably at least 30 days out. Right. So that we can send the mailing. Council has to vote to do that. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. Council Member Legree, did you get to finish? Mayor, I think it's more confusing then for the community, perhaps if we withdraw and then put back on, then to establish a hearing date now. I could be wrong, but if what Council Member James Brown has said about providing notice and whatnot, not, then if we are going to establish a hearing date, now would be the more clear time. The motion on the floor is to take it off the docket. Yeah, but I think she's saying don't do that to go ahead and establish a date. You're speaking against the motion, it sounds like. I am speaking against the motion because it sounds as though we'll need to establish a date for the hearing one way or another. And we have a lot of community members in the room now, and we have representatives from both sides in the room now. And to establish a hearing date now would be the most clear time to do so. So that everybody knows if we are going to have a hearing, when it's going to be, so that people can prepare and so that various meetings about any kind of changes to the plan could be had in an expedient way. So I understand what you're trying to do, Council Member Worley, but I do think I could make the motion, alternatively, to set the date so that then we can move forward with more clarity. So, I'm sorry, please. Council Member Worley is next. Thank you. The council member is correct if you want to have a public hearing. To be clear, what I'm trying to do, my opposition to the motion to place without a public hearing, was only to give the opportunity for all various options to be on the table. If you establish a public hearing now, then you are marching towards a public hearing. You've made that decision. We may ultimately decide not to have a public hearing. for the public's transparency and notice to the public council member you're 100% right because this doesn't need to seem to be like we've done all of this talk back and forth about our process and then these folks don't know what happened. We need to, according to the notice requirements, we need to make a decision by December the 5th whether we're going to have a hearing and set that hearing or whether we're not going to have a hearing. So I think the public then can know on that, which we could do this at a regular council meeting, during a council report or council announcement, anytime that somebody's recognized you could address this issue. But typically, if we're going to do it based on a work session and starting to establish dockets, then the December 3rd work session would be the time then to bring this back up and place it on a docket. So for the public's point, and if you want to set a hearing, set a hearing. Again, I won't be here. But all I want is to give everybody the option, and this basically gives through the holiday and a week for people to talk and see whether a hearing is a viable option or whether we need to let this thing go on its normal course and let the applicants decide whether to come back. That's the intention of what I'm trying to do, is basically to give us two weeks. and then we decide what to do. Okay. Or decide to do nothing, which is a result. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. The motion is still to take it off the docket. Yeah. While I appreciate Council Member Worley's sentiments on kind of giving us more time, part of it, it does feel like kicking the can down the road, and it's going to be the same council that decides this in two weeks. So I would support a motion by Council Member Legree on setting a hearing date. The one move that I don't want to take is no action whatsoever to let the clock run out to let the Planning Commission's decision stand. Not because I agree or disagree with the Planning Commission. It's because I don't think that that's how we should operate. I think we should be proactive and take our role seriously on taking whatever the action is. So I will not be supporting this motion to take it off the docket, and I will be supporting a proposed motion by Council Member Legree to have a hearing. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. Okay. The motion on the floor is to take number 10 off the docket. Now, if that passes, it changes things for a proposed motion from you. So, anyone else want to speak to the motion to take this off the docket? No? All right, let's do another electronic vote, please. And if you are in favor of removing it from the docket, vote yay. If you are opposed, vote nay. Oops. Okay, the vote is 11 yes to take it off the docket. Three no, that vote passes. So number 10 is removed from the docket. All right. Thank you all. Now we're still talking about the docket. Does anyone else have any other item for the docket? Do we have anything else for the docket? Council Member Fogle, we're going to continue our meeting, please. As you leave, if you can kind of quietly leave. Council Member Fogle, you've got the floor. I would like to put number 11 on the docket without a public hearing. Second. We have two seconds, Council Member Worley and Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes to put it on without a public hearing. And so we're done with first. We only have one thing on first reading of ordinances. So is there anything else about the entire docket? All those in favor of approving the docket as amended, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Thank you very much. Next up, well, Councilmembers, we had one person come in while you were all having discussion of a motion who wants to speak to an item on the agenda. And so I'll ask if Dee Headley is here and still wishes to speak. All right. Thank you. Next up is the November 12, 2024 Council Work Session Table of Motions. Second. Thank you, Council Member Baxter. Vice Mayor Wu seconded. Are there any corrections, additions? All right. All those in favor of approval say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. There are no budget amendments. There are no budget adjustments. We do have new business. Motion approved. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger, Council Member Baxter seconds. If you'll log in with questions. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. I guess I can say it's Indiana, but I don't know if I want to do that. Director George or, yes, Director George is here. I'm glad that we're doing the supplement and looking forward to everybody receiving their check. Can you, all eligible employees, could you tell me who was excluded in that? How did that work again, if you don't mind? So this is for all full-time employees in the unified pay plan, so it would be all classified civil service employees, so it does not include sworn employees. And then including this sworn, just okay. And does it just the general fund or will there be also coming from other funds too? Both. Yeah, both. Other funds too. And do you know the number from both funds by chance? I did not hear that. Can you someone say that on the microphone, please? Yes, sir. We're just over 1.6, between 1.6 and 1.7 million dollars across all funds. And it doesn't include elected officials, so we're not giving ourselves the supplements, Yes, sir. Okay, just to make sure everybody understands that. Okay, thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Does anyone else have any questions about new business? All right, all those in favor of approval say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Now, first communications from the Mayor is about appointments. If I can have a motion. Second. Council Member Gray moves. Council Member Fogel seconds. Are there questions? All right, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Next is communications from the mayor, donations. We do have some. So moved. Thank you, Vice Mayor, second by Council Member Reynolds. Are there questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. There are no procurements today. And that brings us to continuing business. I'll ask for a motion to approve neighborhood development funds. Council Member Plumman moves. Council Member Reynolds seconds. Are there questions or amendments or anything like that? All right, all those in favor of approval, say aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. And Council Capital Projects are next. I'll entertain a motion. So moved. Council Member Fogle moves. Council Member Savigny seconds. Do you have any questions or amendments? All right, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? That motion passes. Next is Budget Finance and Economic Development Report. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Mayor. The Budget Finance and Economic Development Committee for September 24, 2024, Summary and Motions. The meeting began at 1.01 p.m. First, the committee unanimously approved the August 27, 2024 Committee Summary. Then we had Commissioner Aaron Hisley presented the monthly financials and introduced Crossland, a representative women-owned business as LFUCG's new auditing team for this year. Revenue collections were 1.1% ahead of budget for FY25. However, some revenue sources are showing less growth than budgeted. Personnel counts are running less than a $2 million variance to budget. Operating savings are due to delay billing and services that have not yet been rendered. No action was taken on this item. The third item is Council Member LeGree introduced a downtown project update item, and the presenter, Hannah Aiton, the focus is on an updated downtown master plan. A downtown master plan is a comprehensive long-term strategic document that guides the development and revitalization of a city's downtown area. Components of the master plan include community engagement and partnerships, development, quality of life, and implementation and phasing. A roadmap for the future of downtown is needed for sustained and new growth. No action was taken on this item. Vice Mayor Wu introduced the LexArts Finance and Equity Review. The LexArts CEO, Amy Sweetall, according to the Creative Vitality Index in Fayette County from 2021 to 2022, 301 jobs were created. Industry earnings gained $25.3 million and nonprofit revenues increased by $843,000 for the arts. The vision of LexArts is to be a catalyst for creating a progressive and innovative community inspired by the arts. LexArts FY25 revenue goal is $2.7 million with nearly 64% of funding going directly towards artists, projects, and grants. No action was taken on this item and the committee adjourned at 2.58 p.m. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Do any council members have questions for Council Member Brown about the report? All right. Thank you again. um next up is council reports council member reynolds thank you mayor i think i have some photos that will be coming up on the screen today we did a little press conference in ribbon cutting to celebrate the relocation of the blue 2020 blues statue um there on the town branch trail off of Manchester. I want to thank Councilmember James Brown and Councilmember Sheehan for being there as well. Kipta was really great to work with. What happened was about a year, a little over a year ago, I ran into him actually in the distillery district and there was a question in my mind, where did the blues statue go? This statue used to be located on the corner of Rosemont Garden and Southland Drive. It was there for 18 months that LexArts was doing a project with sculptures on Southland. And so it was there for a temporary amount of time. And then if it was bought, then that's great. And if not, it would go back to the artist. So there's some folks that turned out today for the windy time outside for the ribbon cutting. And I asked Kipto, I said, where did it go? And he said, I have it. And I said, oh my goodness, if I can find a way to get it, I would love to display it somewhere in the 11th district. And the distillery district just seemed like the perfect place, especially by the trail. So many people walk by, there's several music venues, and so it was really just a great thing, and I really appreciate the Corridors Commission partnering with them. Hilary Angelucci, I'm not sure if she's still in the room, but she did a lot of work on this project. I really want to thank her. The Public Arts Commission for making it possible. Heather Lyons in the Mayor's Office. It was really a partnership between a lot of different groups to make this happen. There's a lot of city employees that worked on it as well. And my friend Nathan Zamron helped me figure out how we were going to transport it. So I'm just really grateful for the opportunity to have public art. I'll continue to work on public art initiatives. And I just want to thank everyone for coming out today on Manchester. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Mayor. I think I have a few photos as well. But I just wanted to thank everybody for coming out on Friday. It was a super exciting groundbreaking for our city's new senior and therapeutic recreation center in Shiltoe Park. So there were several council members there. There we are. It was cold and raining. But there were so many community members there. I'm very excited for this project. And I am as well. So thank you for everybody that came in. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Lynch. Thank you, Mayor. I just would like to remind my neighbors that this Sunday at 4 p.m. will be District 2's first district-wide Christmas tree lighting and toy drive. So the Second District Council office is partnering with Fire Station 24, our only fire station in the district, and we're going to light the Christmas tree, have hot chocolate. There will be activities for the kids, inflatables, and, Mayor, I'm very pleased and excited to have you there to flip the switch on Sunday evening. So I want to invite all of my District 2 neighbors to come out this Sunday at 4 p.m. at Station 24 on Magnolia Springs Drive for the Christmas tree lighting. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Gurek. Thank you, Mayor. So last week I had the pleasure of attending the National League of Cities City Summit, where the NLC celebrated its 100th anniversary of serving city governments around the nation. So it was a great opportunity to learn. I have so much information. I sent an email out to our commissioners to let them know to be prepared to receive a whole bunch of information from me for me once I return. So I have tons of information about what other cities around the country are doing about issues that we are dealing with here in Lexington. While there, I had an opportunity to see some of the council members that we, myself and my colleagues, met in Salt Lake City. So it was a great time to reconnect with other locally elected officials around the nation about how to make our cities a better place. And in my absence, while I was away, if you ever notice, if I'm not here, I either leave an announcement or in this case, I had residents who were here. As I knew what was going to happen when the city came up with its winter plan to house our unhoused population in the 6th District, of course, there will be a lot of questions that I would have. And thankfully, in my absence, we have residents that were here to speak about their concerns. And so thank you to the members of, or the residents of the Eastland Parkway neighborhood who showed up to let you know, my colleagues know about their concerns. And they are asking me, colleagues, do you all have anything that you all would like to relay to them? Because they're waiting for information from the council members and the mayor who were here present to hear what they had to say. And during my, I don't know how many seconds I have, less, I have a question for Commissioner Lanter regarding the winter program, really quick. It'll be really fast. Regarding the motels that we're using, I am receiving feedback regarding some RFPs that weren't necessarily made public, and I just need clarification on when the RFP for the food and the security went out and the opportunity for businesses to see them. I just wanted to. The Division of Procurement may be able to better answer your question. However, the security RFP closed on Monday. It was made available in public the same way every other RFP. I can't hear you. It was made available the same way every other RFP is made public. Which is? That would be a question for procurement. Okay. Yeah, those were made available through our ION WAVE system, the way all of our other procurements are available. I do believe the one is closed for security, and I believe the food is closing this week, perhaps. We do have some folks that have been registered and have shown interest. We've had several questions. So if people are interested and propose, we will have those responses pretty shortly. Okay. Well, thank you. I'm receiving – let me be clear. I'm receiving a lot of communication from my residents, which is in the 6th District, which is rare. So I will be in touch because there's some things I need to make sure that are clear to the residents of the district and to make sure we're on the sync page. All of our procurements are through Director Slayton, Todd Slayton, that's usually here with you. He can answer any questions that you may have. But they are through the IonWave system, so it's publicly available to anybody and everybody that would want to bid on that and see those opportunities. Thank you so much. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. And also, I just, as I, like 30 seconds left, I would ask sincerely for the website to be updated with our plan. The last time we've had an update on, was from 2023. We, I would like to see the 2024-25 plan, at least on our website, so the residents can have access to it. So right now, I've been, not I, there is assumption of hiding the ball from the residents. And I want to make sure that we're as transparent as possible with people. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Fogel. Thank you, Mayor. And I'm going to stay in that vein, Commissioner. And when you said that the list was sent out, is that a city's list? Or does it go out to the community? because I know that we had several people that wanted to apply for the RFP, but they never saw it listed anywhere where they could put an application in, and these are people in the community that has businesses. All of our procurements for the city are listed on our procurement website through the city. So whenever we put out opportunities to bid for whatever services, whether it's construction or food services or security or whatever, they're through our procurement website on the LFUCG main city. On the LFUCG page? On the main city's website, yeah. There's a division of procurement website. You can register as a vendor, and if you want to receive specific communications, if you are a food vendor, If you want to just see items where there's food opportunities, they can send them directly to you. Or if you want to see everything that the city is putting out there, they can send you any kind of correspondence that you want to receive. But all of our opportunities are listed out there. So that would be something that the council wouldn't even receive, like a notice of, we know there's been some concerns about the RFPs. Not unless you're signed up to be a vendor. You would just send it to the vendor or the vendor would check that? Is that what you're saying? Yeah, it's publicly available all the time. We're constantly updating it as new opportunities come on our website. So it's not sent out to anyone specifically unless you have gone on and registered as a vendor and you are electing to receive direct communication from us. Okay. So without the community knowing that and that process, then that's the reason why they weren't able to be on those projects. Thanks. Thank you. Can we get an update about the hotels? Thank you so much. Can we get an update? I know that over 357 people applied for the application the first two to three days. And then it was such an overload that your office stopped the applications. And then we saw where it was listed that the applications will reopen at the middle of the month. We're at the end of the month. The applications aren't open yet. Can you tell the council and share with us how many rooms are occupied at this moment? We have 95 rooms and approximately 75 are occupied at this moment. So 75 are occupied at this moment. So the application is back open then? Not that I'm aware of, no. We have not been able to open the application because we still have more applications than we would have spaces available. So all we would be doing is taking applications that we wouldn't be able to process. And so I know that in our budget there was $2,500 per room for resources that are going to be given to the folks who are occupying those rooms. Is that correct? $2,500 per person is being given to the nonprofit organizations that are providing services to those individuals. And so can you help me? Is that in person or is that that packet that Jeff told us about? Like when the person applies with the application, they receive a resource packet. Do we have physical mental health people going to the hotels talking to folks and people in housing going to the hotel talking to folks through our partnerships? Each of those partners is providing a minimal level of service that they're able to provide. This is not a full service program. This is strictly an emergency response program that keeps people out of the cold. It's not the intent of this program to provide high-level services. So then why are we paying $2,500 per room to provide those services? Because there's still an expense associated with those organizations, taking those applications, processing them, placing people in the room, checking in on those individuals daily, making sure they have food, doing the data entry associated with that. There's still a significant amount of work and expense associated, and they're not willing to do that for free. So colleagues, I won't be here, but I would like for you all to please keep your finger on the pulse with the winter program and ask for updates concerning the folks who are out at the hotels. And reason being, I do know that there has been two overdoses, one resulted in a death. And so I want to make sure that the security is doing their job that we're paying them for because we're paying an enormous amount of money. And I asked for a menu because we're paying over $400,000 for a service to provide the food, but I haven't received the menu yet. So I hope you guys keep pushing and make sure that the money that we are allocating is really going for the people that are in these hotels. And we have such an overload and such an outcry. I just need you all to please, please continue to push this and ask for results of the winter program. And with that, my time is up. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Before we go on, I want to be sure everybody understands and is clear about the procurement, especially those who might be watching. What Commissioner Hensley said is we have two different things going on. If you're a vendor, you can go on our website and you can sign up to receive, if you're a food vendor, all the food RFPs. The other thing is the entire public can go on the website and see our procurement and the bids that are out. It is totally transparent. And I just didn't want anybody to be confused about the two different things that are going on. With that, Councilmember Plum. Thank you, Mayor. A couple weeks ago, I got a really cute email from a young man by the name of Logan Frazier and he goes to the Steam Academy and he and his fellow Eagle Scouts, Troop 382, had a project out at Heisel Park and they wanted me to know that they did it. So I went out there and there I am. That's the old bridge. That's the new bridge. thought it was really cool that young folks in our community take a responsibility and want to keep it in good shape and they also do work out at Raven Run on a regular basis so just to shout out to to Jacob and I mean Logan and his friends and thank them for taking care of the 12th District that's all Mary thank you thank you councilmember Savigny thank you mayor I just wanted to start a few accolades before our last session because it seems like I've seen these before and they pile up. So I'm going to just say a few nice words about a few of the people that are up here. Council Member Worley, thank you so much for your, and you actually have stayed for an entire, like into this session, so I'm excited. Thank you for your leadership on GTP. You've done a great job, and I do appreciate everything that you did, all the advice that you provided me. You were always very straightforward and very even-keeled, and you gave me always things to think about, so I appreciate it, and I thank you for your service. Councilmember Plowman, thank you for getting me to serve on the Rural Land Management Board. It really was important to me to experience what rural Fayette County needs and wants. And you were always a joy to work with. You always gave a great perspective. You championed that area well. And they should be very, very proud of you, as I am. And, Council Member Fogle, you are so authentic to yourself and your district, your life experience. and we would not have had that if you were not here on this council with us. And I truly appreciate this. And I want to thank you all. And I want to thank your families for sharing you with us for the time that we've had together. And whenever the other folks show up, they might get a thank you, too. Thank you, Mayor. We hope they'll show up for the meetings we're still going to have. That's right. Thank you all. Oh my gosh, does anybody else have a council report? All right, we do have someone signed up for public comment for issues not on the agenda. And I think, as you know, you come to the podium, state your name and your council district, and you'll have three minutes. And so we have Martin Rivers. Welcome. Mayor and Council, thank you. My name is Martin Rivers, 148 Idle Albert Drive, Councilmember Sheehan's 5th District. Several of you folks have actually mentioned this term today, and that's government transparency. In the budget and finance meeting earlier today, there was a nice presentation on the budget process that's upcoming. But as a normal citizen, that presentation was all about you and nothing about the citizens. And I may be weird, but I like to follow the budget process. I like to learn from the budget process. I'm retired, and so I have the ability to come to these sessions and learn from you folks. Many of your constituents are not in my position. sessions and the retreat for budget between the mayor and the council are open to the public but they are not recorded and so if you work during those periods of time which is during the day you're sort of left eye and dry. There are so many important things that are talked about in those meetings that describe why it is hard to allocate the actual small amount of funds that you really have available to allocate to discretionary spending. Please make those meetings available to your constituents. And even to yourselves, wouldn't it be nice to go back and actually watch video of what happened in those sessions? The only other thing I would request is if there happens to be a stage two of the study by Ms. Farley, could citizens be included for input? Thank you. Thank you very much. And that brings us to adjournment. Thank you. All those in favor, say aye. We are adjourned. Thank you all for coming. so