♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ I'd like to go ahead and call to order the Lexington Fayette-Urban County Council work session of April 14, 2026. And the first item on our agenda is public comment for issues on the agenda. We have quite a number of people signed up, and so here's the way this works. I will call your name, and I'll probably call two or three names so you can queue up. And when you come to the podium, you will need to restate your name for the record and say your council district. And then if no one has yielded you time, you'll have three minutes, and the buzzer will go off when your time is up. And if someone has yielded their time to you, which I'm going to confirm in a minute, you'll have a different number than three minutes. So let me just check to be sure folks are here. Helen Alexander, are you yielding your time to John Phillips? Okay, very good. John, you'll have six minutes. And then is Emma Farrier here? All right. Are you yielding your time to Walter Farrier? Okay, where is Walter? You'll have six minutes. And then Susan Kellogg, are you yielding your time to Brittany Rothmeyer? Okay, so Brittany, where are you? There you are. You'll have six minutes. Gardner Bell? Okay, are you yielding your time to Elizabeth Bell? All right, so she will have six minutes. And then Nancy Bell, I saw you back there, and Heidli Bell, you're both yielding to Price Bell. Correct? So Price, you will have nine minutes. All right, very good. Okay, we're all set. And first up is Andrea Dreher, followed by Don Robinson, and then John Phillips. Andrea, welcome. Hi. Welcome. And if you'll just restate your name and your district. Can you hear me? Yes. My name is Andrea Dreher. I'm a professional wetland scientist and owner of Healing Habitats. I was asked to come here today to speak on behalf of wetlands and the wetland system. And on behalf of moving the storage tank from where it is currently to its new location. I just wanted to briefly discuss wetlands and why they're important. Why should we actually care about wetlands? 81% of our wetlands in Kentucky have been lost and actually we're one of the top ten states who have lost the most wetlands in the entire country. There was a study done by the USDA that looked at historical photos and determined that 81% of our wetlands have been lost. When new development happens in, oh, another reason that we need to care about wetlands is that they were the original storm water basins. So they are like sponges. They hold water. They hold a lot of water. So when we got rid of all of those wetlands, there are no longer water storage in the way that we used to have. This has actually contributed to a good chunk of our flooding. So when I heard about this project where a landowner is trying to put in a conservation project on their property that is going to involve building wetlands in the city of Lexington or in that boundary, number one, it's incredibly hard to find public landowners to build conservation wetlands on their property. Number two, any kind of development that happens within Frankfort, Lexington, or Danville or any area within this one boundary has to be mitigated in the same geographic area. And that area is only from Carrollton to Berea. So there is very limited land opportunity to mitigate the development impacts of Lexington, Frankfort, and Danville. So any landowner that is willing to do that is awesome, number one. Number two, it is just really it's hard to for the state, KDFWR for instance is the one doing the In-Liu-Fi program to find landowners in that general area to be able to do it. So I guess my final comment is that it is, wetlands are incredibly important for everyone and I'm in favor of moving the facility so that those wetlands can be built. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Don Robinson followed by John Phillips. Mayor, could I ask your permission to let John Phillips precede me? He sort of frames comments. Sure, that's fine. I'll come after him if that's alright with you. Okay, that's fine. So John Phillips, you have six minutes and then we'll go to Don Robinson and after that is Margaret Graves. Welcome. Thank you very much. I'm glad to have six minutes although I doubt I'll use it all. Can you restate your name for the record? I will. Madam Mayor, members of the council, my name is John Phillips and I live in the 5th district. I'm here officially representing the Lexington-Frankfurt Scenic Corridor Board of Directors. This is a 501c3 organization that was created in 1988 comprised of folks living or working on or near Old Frankfort Pike. Our mission is to preserve and enhance the Old Frankfort Pike area. We were major partners in developing the roundabout, the scenic overlook, the secretariat statue and more recently the National Scenic Byway designation. I speak today to oppose the moving of the Mint Lane pump station to a new location outside the urban service boundary. We are in favor of fixing and expanding the current facility which is inside the urban service boundary and which can meet the current consent degree, accommodate growth within Area 1 and do it for less money. Placing a new sewer pump station and adjoining outside the urban service boundary for the benefit of private individuals in anticipation of expansion sometime in the future is a horrible precedent. Such a decision flies in the face of a long-standing practice of keeping such public infrastructure investment inside the urban service boundary. Moving the Mint Lane station outside the USP would signal an implicit future expansion. Such a decision would encourage landowners adjoining the urban service boundary to offer creative enticements to the city for similar goals. One can easily imagine landowners including some along Old Frankfort Pike attempting to use this potential ill-conceived move as a precedent to disregard the USP for their private benefit at the expense of their neighbors and the community. Indeed, one reason why this practice respecting the USP was established and the investing in the USP inside the USP, it kept the planning process clean and more importantly it kept it objective. Two years ago, I served as a member of the Mayor's Advisory Committee to recommend under the guidelines of the Council how much and where to expand. The Mill Ridge property Mr. Wu will remember this well, was vigorously debated and thoroughly analyzed and was not included in the expansion. The Planning Commission tweaked the committee's recommendation, even adding some land to the 2,800 acres but they too declined to add the Mill Ridge property. So if you approve the moving of the pump station outside the USP you are pre-ordaining in my judgment an area for future expansion that is not wanted and is not needed. The process that the Advisory Committee went through the recommendation of the Planning Commission and your own newly created process so carefully constructed, well done, should not be abandoned. The land use principle established in the Advisory Committee should not be ignored on the grounds of speculative future expansion for the benefit of one family. Members of Council, Mayor, the urban service boundary should not be up for sale. Thank you. Thank you. Now we'll hear from Don Robinson followed by Margaret Graves. Welcome. My name is Don Robinson. I live at 4153 Military Pike which is in District 12. In the vicinity, it's my neighborhood where the pump station, all the proposal and changes are going to be discussed today. I'm going to speak a little bit differently. I'm a third generation thoroughbred breeder. I'm also co-chair of Fayette Alliance. It's been my passion to preach and involve myself in land use issues. I am very passionate about the urban service boundary. Very passionate about protecting our economy in the rural area. I've raised a number of very good horses. I'm going to speak a little bit for kind of a silence in the room. A neighbor very close to the pump station Darley Godolphin Stud. They consider themselves guests in this country and don't weigh in politically or land use issues but I will weigh in as a user of their incredible services. They have 13, 14 world class stallions and part of the proposal would be to put this sewer pump and tank right in front of those stallions. These stallions represent $50 million annual revenue a year. They have farm in Bourbon County and Woodford County and I'm quite certain if this were to come to pass and the council, you made this change the stallions would move. We solicit business and particularly agribusiness in this county and I urge you to keep that in mind. They are about to in another year retire probably recently the world's greatest horse called Sovereignty that won the derby last year. He will be there so I'm speaking for the good of this industry they are a great attraction and so I hope you will respect this guest in our country and take care of the business that they've brought to Fayette County. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Margaret Graves and Margaret you will be followed by Alma Farrier. Welcome. Thank you Mayor. My name is Margaret Graves and I live in the 6th district. I come before you today as an advocate for good planning and sensible government. I've been an advocate for farmland conservation for nearly 30 years in Fayette County. I have serious concerns about the proposed relocation of the Ment Lane pump station outside the existing urban service boundary. Given the budget constraints faced by the government which the Mayor just eloquently outlined, it would be physically irresponsible to move the pump station when it can be improved at its current location for less taxpayer money. Consider the other more worthwhile uses of the 5.3 million dollars in savings that could be directed to projects for the benefit of all Lexingtonians. For example, the 5.3 million could be directed to affordable housing within the urban service boundary. No affordable housing units have been built in the 2,800 acre expansion area to date. And the head of the Home Builders Association in a moment of surprising candor has admitted that builders do not plan to build any affordable housing in the expansion area, even though that is exactly how the expansion was sold to your predecessors. If we want affordable housing, we need to either mandate it or provide financial incentives. Publicly funded infrastructure investments should benefit the public at large and should not be driven by private development interests of one family who wishes to build luxury homes on their horse farm. The urban service boundary has served this community well since 1958. It was the first urban service boundary in the country and has enabled our community to grow in a physically responsible manner that promotes compact, contiguous growth. Without the USB, Lexington would be Anywhere USA, defined by sprawl, rather than the horse capital of the world. Pursuant to the consent decree we are spending tens of millions of dollars to fix infrastructure problems created by past rapid growth. In addition, the cost of infrastructure improvements for the new expansion area is 1.3 billion dollars, a cost that was not considered prior to expanding the boundary. You have recently adopted a new data-driven process for determining the USB when it should be expanded and where it should be expanded. A decision today to move the Met Lane Pump Station to Mill Ridge Farm would be a breach of the USB resulting in a backdoor expansion. I urge you to save taxpayer dollars, hold the line, and fix Met Lane in its current location. Thank you very much. Next is Alma Farrier, followed by Walter Farrier. Welcome. Thank you. My name is Alma Hagyard Fallon Farrier. I live in District 12. I am in opposition of the relocation of the Met Lane Pump Station to Bowman Mill Road. My family came to Lexington in the late 1800s. In fact, they still have the longest existing business in Lexington of 150 years. They came here caring for farm animals. They continue to do so, mostly in equine and my father and my grandfather practiced and my grandfather managed Mill Ridge Farm from a long time ago. My father became a veterinarian. He grew up on that farm. He worked on that farm. He became a veterinarian and he cared for the horses on that farm. So that area is very near and dear to my heart. My family will continue to do so in caring for animals. I have a nephew and my daughter are pursuing veterinary degrees. So my hope is that this unique land in the bluegrass will continue to be available for them to practice and care for our animals in this area. As stated from fellow members in opposition of this proposition, this land is unique. It provides agricultural business, be it in horses or other animals that provide billions of dollars to this community in many ways. Destroying this land will destroy that economy. Once this land is destroyed, you cannot get it back. A pumping station will likely offer further expansions of houses and now you'll have house farms instead of horse farms. The preservation of the watershed area of this is a concern and this should likely be feasible with proper renovation of the current pumping station. So I think that there's a way to manage things with the current station. Fiscally it will be more responsible to do so and then hopefully preserve the watersheds and meet all the needs that most of us would like to have here. In conclusion, being good stewards of the land on which we are only temporarily here on this earth to manage is imperative to use what is already in place and not destroy the beautiful bluegrass farmland that we have. I thank you for the time and consideration. Thank you very much. Next is Walter Ferrier. You will have six minutes and you'll be followed by Sam Dunn. Welcome. My name is Walter Ferrier. I'm in the 12th district. I live at 280 Military Pike. I'd like to take the liberty of adding a little color to the conversation thus far by evoking in your minds two starkly different images. The first is reflective of my near 45 years of cycling in and around Lexington. Over the years I've logged thousands of miles, but I'd like you to come with me on a particular route from Military Pike out into the country. So let's get on our bicycles. We'll carefully navigate down the gravel driveway, turn right on Military toward Harrodsburg Road. We go a little bit over Old Bridge, take the hard hairpin left turn down by the Ramseys onto Bowman Mill Road. As we cycle along South Elkhorn Creek, we pass Helm Place, we pass Millridge Farm on the right, Jonabell Farm on the left, up and down a couple of hills up to Parkers Mill Road. You with me so far? Let's turn left onto Parkers Mill, go behind the airport up the hill again toward Fort Spring Pinkard Road, turn right over toward Versailles Road. We'll work our way to Rice Road, turn left just past the Thoroughbred Club on the west side of Keeneland, navigate to Van Meter Road, Elchester, Old Frankfort Pike, work our way to Yarnalton, on and on. You've driven these roads, but over time and with routine the impact of what we feel to be the unique culture and beauty of rural Fayette County kind of gets lost on us. But my fellow cyclist Chuck Ellinger can attest that when you're on a bicycle cruising along at 15 to 20 miles an hour, that beauty is in your face. Your guests see it when you drive around and for the first time in Lexington they're just amazed by the beauty of Lexington. The second image comes from a prior mayoral candidate, when and who is immaterial at the point as of this discussion, but suffice it to say that while campaigning it was either a Herald Leader or perhaps one of the news stations picked up what I consider to be the money line underlying his campaign. And he said publicly and I paraphrase perhaps, if we grow smartly but aggressively we can be the next Atlanta. Atlanta. That doomed his campaign and he lost in a landslide. So there you have it. You've got the unmistakable unmatched beauty of Lexington, you have Atlanta, and if you want to come with me down I-75, Berea, Corbin, Knoxville, Chattanooga, as you approach Atlanta about 20 miles or so off in the distance you get a glimpse of the Atlanta skyline. And from that distance it looks pretty cool. But as you get closer you kind of realize that Atlanta is a big sprawling mess. It has, it's just so unremarkable, you know, notwithstanding maybe Mercedes Benz Stadium and the Olympic Village. It's unremarkable. How many people do you know that say, gee, I can't wait to leave Lexington and move to Atlanta. So I ask you don't approve this project, don't expand the urban service area. To do these things would put us on a slippery slope to become Atlanta in the future. Appreciate you hanging in there with me on this story. Thank you. Next is Sam Dunn followed by Brett Jones. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor. Good afternoon. I'm Sam Dunn, Council District 9. My wife and I have lived in Palomar for 26 years. I'm a board member on the Palomar HOA and Scott Bryson, our president, is with us here today as well. Our neighborhood began in 1986. Today there's 663 homes and townhomes situated on 200 plus acres. We're a planned community bordered on the west by our neighbors, the historic Mill Ridge Farm, and on the south by Bowman's Mill Road. Our neighborhood takes active interest in the compatibility of development that occurs around us. Since 2023, we've been actively involved in discussions regarding the urban growth master plan and the urban services area expansion. We've been before this body on several occasions to share our opinions, but today we're here to talk about crap. Politically correct if I say sanitary sewers. Sorry about that. My wife, Signa, was on the staff at Dunbar High School when it opened in 1990. Within months after the opening, a foul sewer odor enveloped the school that was still there when she retired 17 years later. For the many students and faculty that learned and worked at Dunbar, the odor became known as the Dunbar Funk. I'm told that 36 years later the Dunbar Funk is still around. Our Palomar and Old Bridge neighbors who live adjacent to the South Elkhorn Pump Station are very familiar with the Dunbar Funk as well. At certain times during the year, it permeates the southern part of our neighborhood. Obviously, the Beaumont development was built out in the early 1990s, and the sewage treatment system on the west end was not sufficient to account and accommodate for the massive growth. Last year, our board members attended a meeting at the Lexington School which the LFUCG planning staff shared the vision for the approved urban services area expansion on Parkers Mill Road. During that meeting, we were told that the development could have as many as 1,335 doors when fully developed. That represents two times the number of doors in Palomar Hills development. That's a lot of crap flowing downhill. We're aware there are three potential sites for an upgraded pump station to handle existing and new sewage capacity. Mint Lane, Beaumont's Mill, and the Bluegrass Airport. We're not experts in the sewage treatment area, and we have to trust the city engineers and consultants to give us expert guidance for our community. In closing, our message is simple. The Palomar Hills neighborhood supports building sewage infrastructure that is capable of additional capacity for the existing and future needs of the West End of Lexington. We desperately need to alleviate the pressure on the South Elkhorn system which affects the Palomar neighbors. It's time to eliminate the Dunbar Funk. Thank you. Next is Brett Jones, followed by Brittany Rothmeier. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Council, for this opportunity. To be very honest, it's an opportunity that I have sort of lived in fear of for these last few weeks. And the reason for that is that I have to get up here in opposition to some very good friends, and that's the Bell family that are seated back here. I've known Price almost all my life. We have a great relationship. We have a great partnership. We have business interests with the Bells, with Healy, who's been a great mentor to me. These are people that I respect, but they are people that, unfortunately, I feel obligated to oppose today. I think this issue, this precedent that stands to be set, as John Phillips laid out very well, would be catastrophic if we let a farm owner who and I don't begrudge the Bells for trying to be included in the urban service boundary. It's not what I would have done. I believe this land around Lexington is what makes Lexington this incredible place that we all know. But to go around that process that has been in place to set that precedent, to open up, to green light, to really give a playbook to people who are not as well-intentioned as the Bell family would be absolutely catastrophic for this city. I think it is bad policy. I obviously think it is a bad precedent, and I think it is horrible optics for this council, for this city, to condone that and to let this happen. So I'm appreciative of your time, and I sure hope that we can make the right decision here. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Next is Brittany Rothmeyer, who will have six minutes, followed by Robert James. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilmembers. I promise I'll try not to use all my time. Brittany Rothmeyer, on behalf of Fayette Alliance, our urban service boundary, as you all well know, was adopted in 1958 not just to protect the productive farmland that surrounds Lexington that you've heard so much about, but also to control infrastructure costs and encourage efficient development patterns. Time after time, issue after issue, our community still overwhelmingly supports the urban service boundary. And this year, we adopted the first official process to guide future expansion decisions. Of course, that's the Preservation and Growth Management Program. It was hard won, as we all know, after the recent expansion of the urban service boundary just a few years ago in 2023, with nearly 3,000 acres being added for future development. Over the past year, the planning staff, councilmembers, and stakeholders like Fayette Alliance worked hard on that program to guide future decisions about the urban service boundary and make sure that they were based on research and data. We came together to trust in a better process, which supports our comp plan, which overwhelmingly affirms our community's belief in the urban service boundary. More than anything, I felt like that process represents the hope and trust that we can make urban service boundary decisions in a better way. But we can't talk about the urban service boundary until we talk about infrastructure. As a longstanding policy, it's kept inside the urban service boundary. This supports the general USB concept and the general understanding that development follows infrastructure. Until 2022, to meet the needs of the EPA consent decree, upgrades were and have been planned at the Mint Lane Pump Station in its existing location behind Dunbar High School. At a 2022 meeting, Mill Ridge Farm came up as a potential location for expansion of the urban service boundary, and the ability to extend infrastructure there was studied as a result of that conversation. Mill Ridge advocated to be included in the expansion in 2023 and was ultimately not chosen. At the Environmental Quality and Public Works meeting in August of 25, when this issue of moving the Mint Lane Pump Station came up, Commissioner Martin noted that moving the pump station to Bowman Mill was only raised as a possibility because of discussion of the expansion of the urban service boundary to include Mill Ridge Farm. When it was not chosen, he said that he moved forward with plans to make upgrades in the current location, meaning it has always been feasible to serve land inside the urban service boundary, including our new expansion areas. Since then, Mill Ridge has continued to publicly state that they plan to develop parts of their farm in the future and has advocated for relocation of public infrastructure to their farm as well. Despite all of that history, we've now studied the feasibility and the cost of moving the pump station. Commissioner Martin was very clear at the August EQPW meeting that plans for upgrading the existing location have capacity to serve development inside the USB, which now includes our new expansion area 1 that was brought inside again just a few years ago in 2023. A study now shows that not only do we have the capacity, but it's also the most fiscally responsible choice, with a capital cost $5 million less than relocating the facility to Bowman Mill and Mill Ridge Farm. Now that we know the costs of relocating the pump station are not cheaper than upgrading it where it is, and we know that the existing location upgrades can serve our planned new growth areas and address the ongoing issues in all the neighborhoods. That was the primary purpose of the EPA consent decree to begin with. The primary logical reason to relocate the pump station to Bowman Mill at this point would be to enable development in this area in the future, which would require an expansion of the urban service boundary. Doing so is spending taxpayer dollars to meet an unknown need and purpose and to benefit a private property owner. It would also undermine the recently adopted LP and GMP program before we've even implemented it for the first time. This process can't work and it can't be trusted if we strategically place infrastructure to guide growth before we determine if and where expansion is needed, and that's just the economic reality of this conversation. Ignoring this connection sets a policy precedent that private interests can guide where our city puts multi-million dollar infrastructure. Any property owner, including Mill Ridge, who wants to be included in a future expansion is welcome to follow the new process that's outlined in the LP and GMP. While the final conversation of wetlands is vital, it's difficult to reconcile that with the decision that will also enable hundreds of acres of sprawl development that is the most harmful type of development to our environment. Practically, the city can upgrade the Mint Lane pump station to meet consent decree requirements and future growth in new expansion area one in its current location. That would be our tax dollars meeting our community needs. Further, doing so does not prevent Mill Ridge from applying or being included in a future expansion of the urban service boundary or developing their farm in the future. They would, like any other property owner in an existing or future expansion area, be required to pay for their infrastructure pursuant to the new infrastructure funding plan, which also hasn't been finalized. Fiscally, it's most responsible to upgrade and expand the Mint Lane pump station in its current location. Policy-wise, it's the most responsible to upgrade and expand the Mint Lane pump station in its current location. It supports our comp plan, the LP and GMP, and our long-standing policy to keep infrastructure inside the USB. Today we ask you all to make the decision that's the best fiscal, policy and data-driven decision for our community members and our taxpayers, one that upholds the USB and the LP and GMP. We ask that you move forward with remediating the Mint Lane pump station at its current location and please keep infrastructure investments inside the urban service boundary. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next we have Robert James, followed by Bill Justice. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor, Council. My name is Robert James. I live in the 12th District and I'm a 6th generation farmer and my family farms about 400 acres on Military Pike. I also serve as President of the Fayette County Farm Bureau, which represents over 650 farming members of this community, as well as serving as the voice of Kentucky agriculture. First of all, we'd like to applaud the Council for adopting the Preservation and Growth Management Plan that will, going forward, provide a sound and data-driven process for questions surrounding future growth. Fayette County Farm Bureau has long supported the Urban Services Boundary, a nationally recognized tool that has served our community well for over 50 years. The Urban Services Boundary protects the prime farmland that hosts our signature agricultural industries while concentrating urban development and infrastructure in the urban service area to reduce its cost to local taxpayers. Sewer infrastructure that supports urban development must be located inside the urban service boundary. Placing it outside of the boundary would allow for a de facto ad hoc expansion of the USB and outside of the comprehensive plan update process and the rigorous public input that goes with it. This would be a precedent setting, backward step, and a deviation from the sound, data-driven process that the Council and the Lexington Planning Commission have already adopted. Fayette County Farm Bureau is thus opposed to any proposal that locates sewer infrastructure that supports urban development in the rural service area. Locating that sewer infrastructure in the rural service area is not in alignment with the Lexington-Fayette County Comprehensive Plan, the Rural Land Management Plan, and we urge you to keep the pumping station at its current location. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Next is Bill Justice, followed by Ann Bakus. Welcome. My name is Bill Justice. I own Justice Real Estate, and I've been selling farms for about 50 years in this special place we call Lexington. I sincerely believe in doing everything that I can to ensure that Lexington remains the special place it is today, and I'm sure most of you on this Council, or you wouldn't be serving here, feel the same way. It is a special place in the world. I want to express my strong feelings that the Mint Lane Pump Station not be relocated to Mill Ridge Farm. It sets a slippery slope and practices that we've followed for decades. Lexington is a special place, due in large part to our Comprehensive Plan and our urban service boundary. It will cost the taxpayers a lot more money to relocate it there. I urge you to keep it where it is. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Ann Bakus, followed by Elizabeth Bell. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor. My name is Ann Bakus. I live in the 12th District. As many of these folks have said before, the urban service expansion was done, the urban service was expanded by 2,800 acres in 2023. Mill Ridge Farm, as you know, was not chosen at that time. Now those same landowners have been lobbying to have infrastructure located on their property, which would be building infrastructure outside the U.S.B. This has only happened for two entities, the stockyards and the Kentucky Horse Park, since the inception of the U.S.B. in 1958. As we all know, development follows infrastructure, and if these landowners succeed in this private interest venture, how can you, Council, say no to the next landowner who comes in the same manner or the next developer as well? You will have set a new precedent that will not be ignored soon or identify such that makes us so unique and envied by so many in our community. This regarded the policies of the following since 1958, the protection of the urban service boundary. Please be thoughtful in your decision and support upgrades to the pump station in its current location to keep it within the urban service boundary. Thank you. Next is Elizabeth Bell, and you will have six minutes, and you'll be followed by Philip Meyer. Welcome. Thank you. Hi. My name is Beth Bell. I live in the 12th District with my husband, Price, and our two children. We live on Mill Ridge Farm. We are that family. I want to start by thanking you all for your service to our community. I really, genuinely appreciate the commitment you bring to Lexington, and happy Earth Week, and that's exactly what I'm here to talk to you all about. I started my career in nonprofit fundraising for a land conservation organization in Tennessee, so I understand and deeply value the importance of caring for land we have so that future generations will reap the rewards. And we practice what we preach. At Mill Ridge Farm, we care for the land that is ours to steward. We plant trees, hundreds, in fact, over the last five years. We work with bird experts to understand and care for the population that calls Mill Ridge home. We practice regenerative farming methods to make sure our soil and grasses are nutrient rich, not only for the thoroughbreds we care for, but the foxes, coyotes, deer, and bugs who live here, too. Our family is also proud to have co-founded Horse Country, which connects the public with working horse farms across the Bluegrass. We welcome over 9,000 visitors to Mill Ridge Farm every year, and we're honored that our tours have become the number one top-rated thing to do in Lexington on TripAdvisor. Sharing this land and these animals with our community is something we take seriously. We want to share what we have with our community and visitors alike, growing a love for the land and the beautiful thoroughbreds we are honored to care for. What happens to this land matters deeply to us. Since 2015 and the completion of the Beaumont subdivision, 13 million gallons of wastewater have polluted Cave Creek and the surrounding land on our farm. Trash, hypodermic needles, human waste are polluting the stream that flows into the South Elkhorn and ultimately into our city's water supply. This doesn't just affect our family, it affects all of us. Today, I want to talk about what this decision could restore, not just what needs to be fixed. Since 2022, Price has been working with Kentucky Fish and Wildlife to restore the damaged land along Cave Creek as a floodplain wetland. This was long before any discussion of a boundary or a pump station relocation ever came up. What has emerged is a genuinely rare opportunity. Kentucky Fish and Wildlife's water silo program, funded entirely by wetland mitigation fees, not taxpayer dollars, is prepared to restore nearly 25 acres of floodplain wetlands along a linear mile of Cave Creek on our property. That's 25 acre feet of stormwater storage that could attenuate floods, filter pollutants, restore precious wildlife habitat, and protect our drinking water at absolutely no cost to LFUCG or the public. What makes this so special is that naturally occurring wetlands are uncommon in the Bluegrass region. The soil along Cave Creek is hydric, meaning this area was once a wetland. To find a willing landowner in an urban area with this soil type in this location is something the experts at Kentucky Fish and Wildlife called a rare opportunity that should be acted upon. Doing so will protect this area permanently as a wetland through a conservation easement with Kentucky Fish and Wildlife. But the window is closing. The conservation easement cannot be finalized while the existing pump station sits within the project area. Kentucky Fish and Wildlife has temporarily suspended easement acquisition to give us time to make the right call, and that call is the Bowman Mills site. It places infrastructure downstream and outside the easement boundary, unlocking this entire project. Without moving this pump station, this opportunity will be lost. As Director Martin has made clear, his team needs to begin design work within about 70 days. But this is not just an infrastructure decision you're making today. It's an environmental one. We have a chance to fix past mistakes and leave something lasting for future generations of humans and wildlife alike. I hope you'll take it. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Phillip Meyer, followed by Price Bell, who will have nine minutes. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor and Council. My name is Phillip Meyer. I live in the 3rd District, but for 68 years of my life, I lived on Military Pike and Blue Gate Farm. I grew up in this area, and it's one of the most beautiful areas of Fayette County. And I feel we need to do everything we can to protect any further encroachment in this area. I don't really have anything new to argue to add to this argument about why we shouldn't do this, because we do not want this dangerous precedent of building outside the urban service boundary. And so I urge you all very much to not allow this movement of the pump station down next to Bowman Mill Road. It needs to stay inside the urban service boundary. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Price Bell, who will have nine minutes, followed by Lee Nayland. Welcome. Thank you. Mayor Gordon and Council Members, thank you. My name is Price Bell. I live in District 12 at 3414 Bowman Mill Road with my wife, Beth, and our two children. I'm the General Manager of our family's Mill Ridge Farm. Before I address the substance of today's decision, I want to acknowledge the work that brought us here today. Council directed the Division of Water Quality to conduct a thorough, independent evaluation of three potential sites for the Mint Lane Pump Station. Director Martin and his team did exactly that. This report is not advocacy. It is not political. It is professional engineering judgment. And that judgment clearly points to Bowman Mill site as the most prudent path forward. I'm here to explain why that matters and why this decision deserves to be viewed in its proper context. First, what this decision is. Since 2015, the Mint Lane Pump Station, which is located on our property without our permission, has overflowed 28 times. Nearly 13 million gallons of untreated sewage have been discharged onto our farm and into Cave Creek. That's the equivalent of 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools of raw, untreated sewage. As we know, the city is under a federal consent decree, and action is required. The question for you today is not whether to act, it's where to act most wisely. Director Martin's study answers that question. The Bowman Mill site sits at a lower elevation, downstream along Cave Creek. That means gravity, not machinery, does the work. Lower energy use, less mechanical strain, and lower lifetime cost to the taxpayer. As Director Martin often says, gravity works for free and it doesn't take a day off. The Bowman Mill site can easily accommodate the full 4.5 million gallon wet weather storage facility needed to meet consent decree requirements. In addition, as Director Martin's study suggests, it can alternatively accommodate a 6.8 million gallon tank on the site. Director Martin includes this option because he anticipates a need for greater capacity in our system. Whether that is to meet the demand for Expansion Area 1 or relieve pressure on the South Elkhorn Pump Station, Director Martin specifically notes the opportunity at Bowman Mill to add capacity. This site can be built on donated land, avoiding the protracted timeline and cost of negotiating with the school district. And critically, it can be delivered on the same timeline as rebuilding at Mint Lane, so there's no schedule penalty for choosing the better option. Director Martin noted a need to begin in fiscal year 26 during the August EQPW meeting, a deadline that is roughly 70 days away. The wet weather storage tank is the first of three that must be constructed in our city before December 2030 consent decree deadline. Time is of the essence. For these reasons, Bowman Mill is the most efficient, most resilient, and most fiscally responsible solution available to this government. Second, what happens if we don't choose it? In sharp contrast, the existing Mint Lane site is uphill and constrained. At .08 acres, no direct road frontage, surrounded by karst features, a mapped sinkhole, and floodplain complications. In August, Director Martin noted that it is not the best site. Rebuilding there carries more risk and produces a facility that is designed only to meet the minimum requirements of the consent decree. Look, and that point matters more than anything else in this decision, because a system designed only to meet today's baseline requirement does not create capacity for tomorrow's housing. Under the suggested Mint Lane scenario, no additional density can be added within the Mint Lane service area, including parts of Beaumont and surrounding neighborhoods, because the system will not have capacity to support it. So while it may satisfy the consent decree on paper, it effectively locks the city into existing zoning and limits your ability to respond to housing demand where expansion has already been decided. Bowman Mill changes that. It not only solves the compliance issue, it provides the additional capacity needed to support infill, redevelopment, and responsible growth within areas that are already planned for it. This includes relieving pressure on the South Elkhorn Pump Station and the trunkline beneath Palomar, which are already at or near capacity. Choosing the technically superior Bowman Mill over the significantly constrained Mint Lane is the difference between addressing a problem and solving it correctly. Third, what this decision is not, and this is where I want to be very clear, there has been a coordinated effort to frame this infrastructure decision as an expansion of the urban service boundary. This framing is not supported by the facts nor the policy of this government. Let me start with one fact that deserves to stand on its own. The Mint Lane Pump Station already sits outside the urban service boundary. A 2025 survey by Banks Engineering established that the existing pump station sits outside the LFUCG-owned parcel outside the boundary. So the idea that placing infrastructure outside the boundary would represent a dangerous new precedent is simply not accurate. The Mint Lane Station sat quietly on our property outside the boundary for years, and that fact did not impact the last expansion decision. Beyond that, the Rural Land Management Plan documents that there are already 261 acres of utility infrastructure across 18 separate parcels located in the rural service area outside the USB. These include water tanks, substations, stormwater facilities, and in fact, pump stations. Siting utility infrastructure outside the urban service area is not an exception. It's an established practice with a long history. Finally, and arguably most importantly, the Comprehensive Plan, adopted by this Council in June of 2023. Our Comprehensive Plan speaks directly to this issue before you today. Theme B, Goal 1, Objective F states, quote, "...ensure stormwater and sanitary sewer infrastructure is placed in the most efficient and effective location to serve its intended purposes." That is the directive. Not the most convenient location, not a location inside a particular pipeline, the most efficient and effective location. Director Martin's analysis tells us where that is, the Bowman Mills site. Furthermore, this Council recently adopted the Lexington Preservation and Growth Management Program. This data-driven program governs how and when the urban service boundary can expand. It is demand-driven, not infrastructure-driven. The ordinance establishes a precise, multi-step process that begins only when the annual growth trends report shows that vacant land supply has fallen below a 20-year threshold. That threshold has not been met. A pump station siting decision does not trigger it, does not influence it, and cannot bypass it. As a reminder, the LP GMP requires, one, Council review of and action on the Planning Commission policy and regulation recommendations. Two, a Council resolution to the Planning Commission. Three, formation of a nine-member citizen subcommittee comprised of experts in fields like agriculture, environmental sciences, economic development and housing. Four, Planning Commission review of the citizen subcommittee's recommendations. Five, Planning Commission review of property owner proposals. Six, master planning process led by the Division of Planning. Seven, Planning Commission adoption of the master plan. That is a lot. This is a process that cannot be circumvented. Anyone suggesting that choosing Bowman Mill expands the urban service boundary is conflating two separate decisions. Infrastructure placement and land use policy are distinct and governed by entirely different and robust processes. Why this matters for Lexington's future. This decision is not just about a pump station. Community leaders in this government talk constantly and rightly about Lexington's housing crisis. Studies show we need tens of thousands of new housing units to give families a real shot at ownership in this city. Planned facility expansions at UK Healthcare will require thousands of new healthcare workers. Where will they live? Housing requires sewer capacity. Bottom line, the Bowman Mill site provides that capacity for infill and redevelopment in areas that are already planned for growth. The Mint Lane site does not. Council members, if we choose the option that only meets today's requirements, we limit tomorrow's opportunity. This is the kind of decision that doesn't make the headlines. It's a pump station. But it is one of the critical, unglamorous pieces of a puzzle that determines whether Lexington can deliver on an issue as important as affordable housing or not. Finally, what introduced me to the Mint Lane pump station and my greatest driver in being here today is the wetland restoration project. Relocating the pump station to Bowman Mill allows a state-funded wetland restoration project along Cave Creek to move forward. Kentucky Fish and Wildlife placing a permanent conservation easement along 25 acres and a linear mile. It repairs years of environmental damage caused by 13 million gallons of overflows. And it creates the opportunity for public green space, a future trail connection, and ultimately meaningful community access along one of the most beautiful corridors in Fayette County. A required infrastructure investment can become a lasting community asset. In closing, Council Members, this is not theoretical for us. We have lived downstream of a failing system for years. We're asking you to follow your own plans, the guiding policy for our community, to trust the engineering judgment we've commissioned. And I'll leave you with one final quote from Director Martin. The ideal place from a sewer standpoint, it should always be at the bottom of the hill. Let's build this right together. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Lee Nayland, followed by Christina Dudick. Welcome. Welcome. My name is Lee Nayland. They tell me I live in District 9. I don't know. I live in Firebrook neighborhood though. And I've lived there for 27 years. It's interesting. I moved from Los Angeles to here. And about 15 years ago, we were driving out Bowman Mill, and my 11-year-old son said, Dad, does it get any better than this? And then we decided, you know what? We're not moving to Chicago where we're going to stay in Lexington. And so I have a real appreciation. I drive that road every day to work. And I have a real appreciation of that corridor. I have a real appreciation for Millridge Farm. I've had a chance to tour that farm, learn the history of that farm and of the family that owns that farm. And I know that they care as much about that corridor, that farm, that area. Lexington Farm Horsing is somebody that got transplanted from Los Angeles, so I don't believe for a minute that they were trying to do something that's going to damage Lexington. And that's really why I'm here today. About two weeks ago, I got all these emails floating in my inbox, and you know, I'm not the smartest guy in the room, but I could tell it was just propaganda. It was one-sided, you know, it was, you know, oh, they're going to have urban sprawl, they're going to reduce your property values, you know, it's going to be a disaster. Well, I don't know if you know anything about this, Mayor, but my tax assessment just went up for the third time in nine years because of all of the development around Man o' War and down Harrisburg Road, which is a lot closer than this pump station, and our property values keep going up. So I knew that kind of wasn't true. And then there were some other things that just demonized people who I knew, and I knew that I needed to come and speak out. What else do I want to say? Basically I'm a simple person. There's a problem to solve. Something's broken and it needs to be fixed, and that's your guy's job. And if the current location, based upon all the assessments, is only going to do the minimum, it's not going to fix it, then you don't need to kick the can down the road. You need to fix it. And I don't know anything about boundaries or whatever else, but, you know, if the engineers say this is the best location, or the airport's the best location, move it to the best location and fix the problem. I'm going to leave you with one witticism. People say that the converse or the opposite of progress is Congress. You guys don't need to be Congress, okay? So make the right decisions, figure out what the right answer is, and don't be lobbied or influenced or pick sides or make everybody an enemy or evil. Just do the right thing. Thank you very much. Next is Christina Dudak. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor and Council. I'm Christina Dudak. I also live in the Firebrook neighborhood, 2604 Waternol Court, and I'm in District 9. I guess that, you know, I'm a real estate broker also, as Mr. Justice is, and I've seen so many people moving to Kentucky because it's beautiful and horse country. And unfortunately, you know, it's getting smaller and smaller and our city's getting more and more sprawl. There's a lot more commercial development that seems unnecessary, in my opinion, as a realtor. Don't hold it against me. But Bowman's Mill is outside the urban service boundary that, you know, and I agree that there is an issue with this system. And I know that we're two years behind on fixing it, according to the EPA. I would encourage you to maybe look more towards the airport, to move it more away from where people live and from the horse farms, and to look more deeply into that and to keep it in the urban service boundary. My daughter, funny story, I just remembered a little while ago, when she was writing her college essays, she wrote about Bowman's Mill, it's really funny. And it makes me cry because when I read it, I cried. She said, you know, there's a little road called Bowman's Mill that when I come home from school, as soon as I hit that road, I know I'm home. And that's home to a lot of people in that area. I've lived there for 25 years, I've lived in Lexington my whole life. And to know that even a kid sees that area as what Lexington is, is really powerful. And I would just ask that you all try to preserve that and keep it beautiful and keep it what it is and explore something that's more feasible for people, you know, put it at the airport where it's not going to stink and people aren't going to smell it. Put it somewhere that's further away from homes. If it's feasible to fix where it is on Mint Lane, fix that. Save the $5 million, fix it. Or add an additional one if you can't, if that's not going to get big enough. I mean, surely there's a solution that doesn't take Bowman's Mill away from our city and our county. That's all I got. Thank you very much. Council members, that concludes our public comment. And I want to thank all of you for coming and participating. Next on our agenda is the docket and I'll entertain a motion to approve. Second. Council member Sheehan, council member Ellinger seconds. Are there questions? Council member Baxter. All right. I move to put I move to place on the docket for the April 16th, 2026 council meeting a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute a site-specific agreement with the Jesmond South Elkhorn Water District, Fuquay Acquisitions II, LLC, and Gateway Lofts, Stonedale, LLC to provide sanitary sewer conveyance and treatment capacity to portions of property in Jesmond County. So moved. Second. Thank you. I think I heard council member Reynolds second. Are there any questions about the motion? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Thank you. Council member Eblen. I move to place on the docket for the April 16th, 2026 council meeting without a public hearing, item 0285-26, an ordinance modifying the conditional zoning restrictions to allow additional principal, accessory, and conditional uses in the existing corridor business B3 zone for 1.16 net, 1.88 gross acres for property located at 532 and 550 South Broadway. And 659 Pluckett Street. Second. Vice Mayor Wu seconds. Are there any questions? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Thank you. Is there anything else for the docket? All right. All those in favor of approval of the docket as amended, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Thank you. Council members, we have council work session March 24th, 2026. Table of motions. I move to defer. Second. Council member Baxter and council member Reynolds seconded. Are there any corrections or additions? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Thank you. Next we have budget amendments. Could I have a motion? So moved. Second. Vice Mayor Wu, seconded by council member Baxter. Now if you have questions, please log in. Council member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Journal entry 162275-76 and 162274. Are those on the first page? That would be on page four. Page four. Welcome, Mr. Benz. And I'm guessing this is part of the police training at Coal Stream. Is that correct? It's not. This is actually related to it's tied in with item L on your new business, which is the installation. Say that again. I'm sorry. This is tied in with item L under new business for the construction of waterline infrastructure for Legacy Business Park. Oh, okay. I see that. Okay. I thought the mayor was going to be bringing something forward for the police training at Coal Stream and I was thinking that this would be part of that. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. Council member Brown. Thank you, Mayor. On behalf of the administration, I make a motion to amend the list of budget amendments on pages three through five of the work session packet to add additional budget amendments to clean up budget overages and provide for needed expenditures as we near year's end. These BAs are all budget neutral, no fund balance impact, and will provide additional funds for risk insurance and the general urban sewer and water quality funds, provide funds in the general fund for Acela software conference support, fleet welding, and other fleet repair equipment, provide funds in the general fund for art maintenance by recognizing funds from Blue Grass Community Foundation, and provide additional funds in the urban services fund for human resources for required testing of waste management employees. So moved. Second. Council member Baxter seconds. Are there questions? Council member Morton. I guess I'm just curious, I guess where are the funds coming from and where they're going to? Commissioner Hensley. Yes, sir. I appreciate your patience and appreciate the walk on. We had a few things going on this week, so sorry they didn't make the initial packet, but we will have all the details. They are reallocations within our existing budget, so a lot of the insurance came from other insurance lines as we were moving things around, and a lot of them just came from other reallocation sources if we had accounts that had funds that were available. So we will be providing those for you with all the detail that you typically receive on a Wednesday if you have any questions, that you'll have those available for you before you have first reading on Thursday. That's just like many different accounts? Is it a lot of different accounts? A lot of different accounts, yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions to the motion? All right. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Thank you very much. Now let's see. Was that up? That was an amendment to the budget amendments, so we're still on the budget amendments. Okay. Are there any other items for budget amendments? All right. All those in favor of approval, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Council members, you do have some budget adjustments for your information only, and that brings us to new business. I'll entertain a motion. Council member Savigny. And second by council member Baxter. And if you have a question, please log in. Council member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. I'll start with G for Gorton. And this is about the snow. Charlie, can you tell us what our new snow plan is here? It looks like. And there does look like at this point, and this doesn't have a dollar value included in this? It's a unit price contract. So they've given us unit prices for hourly rate of all different types of equipment. Everything from graders to knuckle booms, everything in between. And basically what this does is it gives us the ability, if in the event of an emergency, to pick up the phone and call somebody. We run their numbers through based on how many hours and be able to come up with a quantity. But because they're pre-approved, we can pull the trigger on it immediately instead of waiting and going through the bidding process, which oftentimes takes weeks, as you know. Now with this, because we don't always know when we're going to have an issue with the snow. Do they have to then, when we contact them, they have to show up then? Because one of the issues is they have other jobs, and then what's the priority that we sit in on this? That's one of the things I'm going to be digging into, and it'll be a component of the plan, the improved plan that we're working on. I want to make sure I clearly understand what they have committed to as far as mobilization, timing, location, all of those things, because you're right. You don't want to have somebody that you call up and they say, well, I won't be there for a few weeks. There is a mixture of local companies and more national companies in this, and so we feel like we've got some balance there in order to be able to get somebody here quickly if we need to. I'm with you. I really want to put some meat on the bone as far as what their expectations are and how quickly they have to respond. I think you might have some help there. Richard Dugas has quietly come forward. Richard Dugas with the Environmental Quality and Public Works Commission. I wrote the RFP. There is a four-hour, so if we did need a disaster response, say we have a tornado next week or a windstorm or something like that, we would put a notice out to the eight contractors. We'd give them four hours to respond back to let us know what pieces of equipment that they would be able to supply for us. So I think that answers the question you asked before. It does, but I just want to know, are they going to be – they're not on call for us then, so if we put out that request in four hours, they have to respond, but they're not committed to responding. That is correct, and that's one of the reasons why we chose to do the unit price contract with eight contractors. The chance of all eight contractors not having something for us is less than if we were to award it to just one contractor. Gotcha. All right. I understand that now. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. I have one on L, but we kind of discussed that one. And F, Craig, no, I think you kind of – well, if you don't mind on L, just give us a little update because that's what the budget amendment was, but if you would just talk about what that is. Sure. So this authorizes the execution of an extension deposit agreement, as well as some allied letters of agreement for the installation of water main infrastructure servicing at Legacy Business Park, and there's two other items that are also part of this item. There's installation of a master meter for the site as well as is included, as well as the relocation of a water main. That's creating a conflict at the southern entrance of the site. Sounds good. And now F. Welcome, Director Duncan. Thank you. Could you – so this will be an 80-20, and explain to me what the complete streets manual – what's our goal here? What's going to come out of this? Council Member, of course, these funds are already allocated and the contract is in place and we are completing the complete streets manual. And we do believe it's possible that we'll complete this before the contract expires on June 30th. Out of abundance of caution, we're extending it for six months. We will be giving the Planning Commission an update on the complete streets manual very soon and then once we've got that completed, we'll follow up with you all. Perfect, thanks. Thank you, Mayor. Looking forward to it. Thank you. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Mayor. I have some more questions for item G. So that I understand, I know you were saying about the timing, but my question is about – so there's a work group being formed to discuss the recommendations, so why is the contract going before further discussions on the recommendations? So essentially what we did was, not knowing that the AAR for the snow plan was still ongoing, we knew there was an urgency to put out a request for contractor assistance in case we had a disaster or an event that needed assistance prior to us finishing the AAR and updating the plan. So that's why we put this out on the street, we're awarding it, so again, as soon as it's approved by this body, then if a disaster happens, we would then have contractors on staff or we would have contractors under contract to be able to assist us. As we move forward and update the snow and ice plan, then we will potentially put out another contract that is refined that would meet the more finite criteria that would be part of that updated snow and ice plan. So in other words, we want to get something out and have help on hand right now if something happens tomorrow and we would be able to deal with it and that's why we did it this way. Okay, thank you for further explaining that, that makes sense. So potentially we could be having another contract for more contractors depending on what comes out of the work group. At some point in the future, yes, after we get all the way through the snow and ice plan updates and all that, we might refine or we might just update this contract since we already have those contractors in place, we might just make some tweaks to this contract. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Beasley. Thank you, Mayor. I also have a question about, gee, I was going to ask Director Allen but he's not here so I'd like to ask Commissioner Hensley instead. I'll do my best. I know, shocking, right? So here's my question. My question is, so we have these six contractors, right? But we're not putting any money on that. We're not putting like a retainer like I would if I was hiring a lawyer, right? So we have two components. We have, in the Mayor's proposed budget, we have an operating component that is in the Streets and Roads budget that we do have a retainer that is that response. So we actually do have a piece that we go ahead and pay them for fit up to hold our place in line, if you will. That is a contractor that we have had previously. We're going to continue that and we do have that in the budget. Then we also have a placeholder amount of funds that's being held in the Commissioner's budget for those extra call up contracts. That's over and above what we've ever had before. And it's additional in the Mayor's proposed budget should you all want to change it. We wanted to pull those two pieces out separately because one is regular operating and one is in the case of a severe event or something that we would experience that's out of the ordinary that we can call upon those additional resources. So the ones that Mr. Dugas is referring to would be those additional like call up, we need additional help. And they have a separate allocation of funding in a different place for those really intentional events that would occur. But we do have a retainer with some contractor, right? We do. Because we don't like, just with the last no, we had contractors in place, right? But if we hadn't paid them and Fayette Mall called and said, can you come do our parking lot? I mean, we're going where the money is, right? Yep. So we do have both components. Yes. And did we have those with the last budget as well? We did. Okay. That's my only question. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Council Member Morton. Thank you. I have a question for item E. Is Director Conrad here or, okay. The question was just related to if the league is open to the public, there's the cost of the league, and then if there's resources for those who may need help with those fees or costs. Yes. Thank you. Council Member Morton. I'm sorry. I couldn't hear if it was E or B. Yes. Don't worry. So the franchises have different levels at which they charge for participation, but Parks and Recreation offers our Count Me In Scholarship Program. So a 50% discount for folks that are applying for those leagues. So we encourage them to use that. We have many leagues that are using it. So I think that that helps benefit not only the community, but also the leagues in attracting more players. That's amazing. And I guess, what about that? What do you think is the average cost just for the leagues, if they're different? I think it's between a couple of hundred dollars and probably several hundred dollars, just depending on which league they're playing in, the age bracket, if they're traveling, not traveling. So I think there's a number of factors. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question about G as well. I don't know who wants to tackle this one. It's following up on Council Member Reynolds and Council Member Beasley's question. And I think my question's in that same vein of what is the downside of, let me clarify first. These new contractors are in the severe weather category, not in the regular operations category. Is that correct? Correct. What would come through the proposed budget, to clarify for Council Member Beasley's question, yeah, the contractor that we did have last year on contract that was previously approved by this body, their contract will automatically renew. They have eight snow plows that are part of our normal snow plan. This contract that's on the docket for today is for what we call snow, ice, and disaster response. In addition to those contractors that we already do have. And what Commissioner Hensley was referring to is that will come in the proposed budget in two separate budget different allocations. The one for the regular snow contractors that's previously already been approved, that's an operational budget in Streets and Roads operational budget. And then there's a proposal for a contingency operational budget that will be in the Environmental Quality Commissioner's budget and that will be essentially an all-hazards disaster again because the way this RFP is written is it can be wind, it can be snow, it can be flood. So kind of consider that as an all-hazards disaster response fund if something happens. And those funds won't be tied up unless there's an actual event. So that's kind of my question is what if we don't call on any of these severe weather contractors? Are we out money from these contracts? There is these contracts, the one that's before the body today, there is no fit-up cost. This is just simply a contingency. It is where they've agreed to provide us equipment on a quick recall for a set rate. Now these rates because they're emergency and disaster rates, they're going to be a little bit higher than if you schedule something a month down the road, but that's the nature of the business. We're only paying for what we use essentially. You're only going to pay for what we use. They're what we refer to as a time and materials contract. So if we use a contractor for 10 hours, then we pay for 10 hours. Okay. I appreciate that. With how recent the after action report came out, my concern was making sure that we weren't getting ahead of ourselves and kind of going down a particular path, especially that would cost us money if the working group came up with different solutions that didn't include this. So from what you said, it doesn't look like there's any real financial downside to us having them kind of ready to go in case we need them and contingent on this group kind of forming a new plan that also includes them. That's exactly correct. This is exactly what Director Larkin was speaking to. This is giving us a tool in the toolbox in case we have an event that occurs as soon as you approve it. Okay. Then we would have these contractors available to us. Thank you very much. Thank you. Council Member Beasley. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Dukas, I have another question for you. So in fact, we don't have any, so if we get another ice storm like we had this past time, we don't have anybody on retainer to be able to handle that, right? The ones that we already, the contractors we already have on retainer, on retainer but in the operating budget is just snowplows. Is that right? They're correct. What we have on, what we have on contract that's approved as of today is 72, the contract number is 72-2025 and that's roughly a half a million dollar contract. And yes, they're primarily fit up with snowplows and spreaders but those snowplows and spreaders, they're large, larger ones so they can be used to break up ice because those are tandem tractors, I'm sorry, tandem snowplows. They're larger so they could be. That's the ones that we typically use to plow Man O' War. That's primarily what we use because they're larger than some of the trucks that we have. But we had them on contract last year and they couldn't handle the ice that we got last year. It wasn't even last year, it was like months ago. Is that right? One of the items that was, that occurred as part of, that we've identified as part of the AAR is that contractor had a significant number of equipment failures and we are working on setting up a meeting to assure, with that contractor, to assure that doesn't happen next year. But without having any of the other ones under retainer, if we get another snow or ice like we had, we don't have any guarantees that our streets are going to get plowed first before Fayette Mall, right? If we want to put that contract back out to bid, we could put that contract back out to bid but the last two times that we've bid that contract, we've only had one respondent and that's the person that we have under contract now. Okay. But even with the ones that we were talking about that are in this G, right, these six, we don't have any guarantees that they're going to work for us first. All eight of them, right? Correct. Because if we get another event. This does not guarantee any of these contractors will work for us. If we wanted to modify this contract and give them retainers, then that's something that potentially we could work out. But what is before you today is not that. That is, that's where I talked about earlier, the response is once we develop our snow and ice plan more, if we decide that we need to have more contractors on a retainer, then that would be what we would modify and we could potentially, we'd already have this publicly bid and we could say to these contractors, would you be on, we would offer them a set amount to be on retainer. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Hensley, just talking numbers. So I think year before last we had about 2 million, then we put another 2 million this year and it looks like in the Mayor's budget date it was 5.1 million. Yeah, it's a total of 5.1. Could you kind of break down those numbers and how, just, I'm trying to understand the, what we have set aside. Because it sounds like part of it is not just for ice, but if we have any kind of natural disaster in general, we could use that money for. Yeah. So the emergency contingency is in the same bucket. So ice, wind, storm, whatever that happens to be, that's in the Commissioner's office. A large chunk of that is $1.9 million, and you're going to test my memory here, $1.9 million for streets and roads for additional equipment. That includes putting the salt spreaders, the brine spreaders on all of the tanks, the tanks on the back of all of the vehicles that we have additional equipment for. Need your help. The numbers. Oh, thank you, Melissa. Thank you so much. So $1.9 million basically to streets and roads for equipment purchases, heavy equipment, and those kind of needs. We also have, we do have the million dollars that's in there for salt. That's not new. We had it last year. But we're also going to be starting the year with full barns. We have additional capacity that's 11 and a half tons, 11 and a half, is that right, Richard? I think that's right. 11,500. 11,500. And so we'll be going in with full barns, and then we have the capacity to go ahead and refill those throughout the year next year. So we've actually added capacity in salt for purchases of salt next year. We've added beet heat. That was really helpful in those really cold temperatures. We've obviously didn't have enough of that, and we'll need more of that for next year. We added overtime dollars for the expanded capacity to have folks not only in streets and roads, but we actually pull from our parks department, water quality, a number of different folks chip in and help from the city, but also then our external contractors that we had additional dollars in for our outside contractors. Part of that, which will live in the commissioner's budget for that all-emergency fund. And how much is in that one? That was, I think, a million dollars over there in that emergency fund. But to your all's point, if that does not get spent, if we have an incredibly warm winter next year and we don't need any of that, that will be available for reallocation next year. Well, let's just hope. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Are there any other questions about new business? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Council communications from the mayor appointments. Good. I thank you. Vice Mayor second by Councilmember Baxter. Any questions? All those in favor, say aye. Is anyone opposed? That passes. The next communications from the mayor is donations. Councilmember Reynolds second by Councilmember Curtis. Are there any questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That passes. And the final communication is procurements. Could I have a motion? Councilmember Baxter second by Councilmember Curtis. And are there questions on this one? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Thank you. Next for continuing business and presentations. First we have our council capital projects. Could I have a motion? Second. Vice Mayor Wu second by Councilmember Ellinger. Are there any questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. And next we have social services and public safety committee. And I'll turn it over to Councilmember Reynolds. Thank you, Mayor. This is the summary of the March 17th, 2026 social services and public safety committee. I called the meeting to order at 1 p.m. We had the approval of the February 17th, 2026 committee summary. And then we had an update from 1 Lexington. It was their yearly update. And Director Devine-Carama presented the 2025 presentation. It mentioned that the city is focused on reducing gun violence among youth, now ages 10 through 29, by addressing root causes through prevention, intervention, enforcement and re-entry strategies. Key efforts include It Takes a Village and summer programs. And there has been a reduction in gun violence over the past several years. And then, in addition, there is a emphasis on strong cross-sector partnerships in real-time coordination to prevent retaliation and to support communities. Moving forward, 1 Lexington plans to expand survivor support, workforce pathways, mentoring for system-involved youth, and long-term organizational stability through increased funding and structural alignment. There was no action taken on this agenda item. Next was an update, an annual update for Partners for Youth. And Partners for Youth Executive Director Sharnika Shackelford presented the annual update on the program. Partners for Youth is a longstanding Lexington nonprofit focused on youth development and juvenile delinquency prevention. They talked about some core strategies that they're working on. And this includes their summer job youth program, which serves 300 youth annually, as well as the MetroCats, which is their STEM education initiative and digital scholars literacy, and the Neighborhood Youth Council. Overall, Partners for Youth serves a key connector between youth community partners and workforce pathways, with a strong emphasis on expanding access, scaling partnerships, and increasing long-term youth outcomes in Lexington. No committee action was taken on this agenda item. And the next one was items referred to committee, and there was no action on that item. The meeting adjourned at 2.20. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Do any of the council members have a question for Council Member Reynolds? All right. Thank you very much. At this time, we have our Mint Lane Pump Station Relocation Study, and Acting Commissioner Charlie Martin will give the presentation. Welcome. I feel like I've already given half of it already. I will have to say I like it better when people don't ask me a lot of questions about sewers, and so this has been a different departure. Can you hear me? Okay. There we go. Thank you. All right. I will ask everyone to bear with me. My allergies are acting up severely right now, so I'll try to muster through this, but if I have to pause for a little bit of water, I may have to do that. Mint Lane Pump Station Relocation Study. This is the charge that we were given in 2025 as far as to go back and reevaluate three different locations that were mentioned before. That was the existing Mint Lane Pump Station location, which is behind Dunbar High School, what we call the Bowman's Mill site, which is downstream from there along Bowman's Mill Road, and then late in the game, we were asked to take a look at the airport as well as far as a potential opportunity to have a pump station out there since we already owned the land. The focus of this has been on technical stuff. This is an engineering study, and we're trying very hard not to have any emotional bias in the whole matter, just presenting the facts. So a little bit of background here is in late 2022 is when we were asked to engage in the sewerability study is that there was a committee's working on looking at the expansion opportunities and I went to a meeting in June of 2022 and overwhelmed them with tons of sewer information and they're like, we need to study. So we went down that path in 2023, and in this part of the county, we looked at multiple locations. One is the purple area, which is about 572 acres, what we're calling the Mint Lane RSA. That is downstream from where the Mint Lane pump station is. You see a proposed pump station, the green box that's roughly in the middle of that map that's in front of you. That would have been the proposed location or what was presented in the sewerability study as an alternative to the Mint Lane pump station. It was intended as presented as a way basically to be able to serve land. The council had basically had asked for valuations to add up to 5,000 acres of land throughout the county, and so when we went through the sewerability study, we were trying to present opportunities for them to add different areas and reach that number. The other part of that was this green area up there that's called Area 1. In the end, at the end of 2023, the green area did get added to the urban service boundary, but the purple area did not, which has kind of led us to where we're at today. Three different locations that we're going to kind of hone in on here a little bit. One of them here, as I said, is at the Dunbar location. That's the existing Mint Lane pump station. I believe it's been there since 1998. I think I told somebody else before, 88. I just knew it was before my time. The second location is, as I mentioned before, what we call the Mint Lane RSA, but also it was the Bowmans Mill Road. You see that the water flows from right to left, so if you go from the existing Mint Lane pump station and go to the left, you follow that green line. That is a gravity sewer that drains down to a wet weather storage tank and pump station facility, and then the dash line is the pressurized line where it pumps back up. The third location is all the way to the airport. It's basically an extension of the green lines that I just mentioned, and it just turns to orange. You see orange working its way across Bowmans Mill Road through the farm properties on out to a site that we had talked with the airport about that I'll cover a little bit later. There's been some talk about the conservation easement. We've had discussions with the property owners and also with Fish and Wildlife about that. It's our understanding that it would extend from the Dunbar High School site down along Cave Creek to Bowmans Mill Road, and that the easement boundary generally coincides with a 100-year flood plain. What the draft that we have seen is that there would be gaps in this conservation easement which would allow utilities to be able to cross through those gaps. This is one of the unfortunate things that happen with conservation easements. If you make a conservation easement, the whole linear path of the stream, and then you do try to serve utilities later on, you can only serve one side, because the other side you can't cross, because once it has become an easement, basically as far as Fish and Wildlife is concerned, there are no longer utilities to be allowed in that conservation easement. You'll see later on when I'm talking about this is that number one, there's the gaps that would allow it to be expanded if necessary, but more importantly is that we have designed, or at least in our preliminary design, the alignment that is completely outside of that proposed conservation easement. As one of the speakers mentioned before is that Fish and Wildlife has agreed to temporarily suspend things while we work this issue out. Two other things to consider is that there are two underground springs located at the address that's listed up there. That's the large residential property that's back there, kind of in the middle of the farm. I'm not from here, but I've always been told it's the John White Brown place and stuff, so that's what I've been told. What we don't understand is how a pipeline that goes through that area would impact the performance of those springs. I mention it only because if you were to go downstream, either to Bowman's Mill or to the airport, a pipeline going one direction and coming back the other does have the potential of interrupting the spring. So the existing mid-lane pump station behind Dunbar, basically you see that there's an existing mid-lane pump station, 3.6 million gallons a day is the capacity of that. I think I need to frame it here at this point in time. Every pump station we're talking about on this is 3.6 million gallons a day. The reason why is because Palomar and then the downstream pump station on Bowman's Mill Road, what we call South Elkhorn, are the limiting factors. They're the choke point. You can't add more flow. You're going to have to balance out the wet weather flow by building these storage tanks. So 3.6 million gallons a day is the pump station size, no matter where you go. In this scenario, as far as this location, it shows a 150-foot diameter tank, a pump station that pumps into that tank along with a diversion structure. It says that it's a single easement. I didn't catch that when I was getting this. Everything we've proposed in our cost estimates are fee simple acquisitions, not easements. We use the same number at all sites except for the airport since we already own that. We're not going to buy it from ourselves. But it wouldn't be an easement. It would be a fee simple purchase. That would be our intention. Perceived risks, as has been mentioned here, yeah, this has got a lot of constructability concerns. It's a very, very tight site, very difficult to access. There's karst features there. You see in the inlet photo, there's a sinkhole there fairly close to where the existing pump station and facility is. There's also a floodplain. You see that little meandering channel there. That's basically a concrete channel for where stormwater comes under man o' war into this site and then on down into Cave Creek. So all of those things would have to be mitigated in the event that you did the Mint Lane pump station. Cost-wise, $19.6 million. It is less primarily, and you'll see this in the next couple of slides, the reason it's lower is we're not building a new pump station at Mint Lane. We're rehabilitating the one that's there already. Again, 3.6 million gallons a day, that's the most you're going to get out of any of these pump stations. So at the first site, why would we build a new one when we've already got one there? We're just going to rehab it. Take all the pumps out, take all the controls out, completely upgrade it, new odor control, the whole nine yards. And so that is much cheaper than building a new pump station at another site. Secondly is that you don't have the pipeline work going on here. You'll see in the next slide is that Bowman's Mill site is .8 miles downstream from where this is. And so you've got pipe costs that you're going to inherit there as well. The difference though in this is this does have site costs that are greater than they are at the other site. You see the proximity of this storage tank to the baseball field. If you've ever been back there, I mean we're right on it. And so there's going to have to be a retaining wall that gets built in order to be able to hold the field in place. I'll also point out, I ran out of risks to put up there, but there's going to be a lot of trees that will get taken out of there too as well where that red circle is. Okay. The Bowman's Mill road site, again 3.6 million gallon a day pump station. It eliminates Mint Lane. The storage tank, there's two different scenarios, exactly the same one that would be at the Mint Lane or Dunbar site, 4.5 million gallons a day or 6.8 if you allowed the 572 acres to connect to this. Again, the pump station stays the same. It's just the tank just gets bigger. That's the difference. .8 miles of pipeline coming and going and all of those things drive the capital cost up to the equivalent of Dunbar at Bowman's Mill is about $25 million, 24.9. The increasing the size of the storage tank to allow that 572 acres then goes to 27.3. Features easements, we would get easements on the pipeline part of it. We would prefer to have fee simple for the pump station and the storage tank itself. Again, we applied the same number at both locations. I think one of the speakers said something about a donation. I didn't count on that so I didn't figure that into the cost one way or another. It's small compared to the rest of it. The risks are less here. We're completely outside the flood plain and completely outside the conservation easement. There's always the potential for karst but there's probably less. There's no mapped sinkholes or anything that's here. So it's a less risk as far as the site itself. Getting to it obviously is always going to be a challenge and then there's the springs that I mentioned in one of the earlier slides. The airport location, this one was kind of almost like a Hail Mary. It's three miles away from where Mint Lane is right now. A 36-inch gravity sewer costs you about $900 a linear foot so you can kind of do the math in your head. Three miles is a long, long way to go. That really is what drives the cost up of this one more than anything else. It came in at an estimate of $48.4 million to go all the way to the airport. The airport folks were really nice. They were very polite and very welcoming and stuff but at the same time you can imagine they weren't real thrilled about the concept of a pump station on their property. I kind of identified with them a little bit, operating large campuses myself like at the treatment plants, if you've got useful land you want to hold on to it. So where they suggested we go is in where this very hilly and wooded area that's over here where no one would ever put a runway or anything. Just to show you a little bit, those are contours and stuff and usually in the engineering world when contours are very close that is steep and almost like a cliff. It could be done but it is very, very expensive. You see some of the other perceived risks. You've got 11 easements that you'd have to get downstream of the Bowman's Mill location and those are all active farming areas and stuff. So I can't imagine they'd be really welcoming as far as us talking to them about easements. More importantly the temporary closure of Parkers Mill Road. If you go further down Parkers Mill there's the airport and then there's the creek. There's really not much else that you can work with. So you would be basically in Parkers Mill Road trying to get there with a pipeline. Lastly is just the overall schedule and this goes on in the end here is it's probably just too far outside of our consent decree schedule. We've got to have everything done by the end of 2030 and I'm not so sure we would be able to do this in that time frame. I'm going to stop for my water here for a second. I threw this slide in here because I had the opportunity. I get to talk for 10 minutes. I know that Council Member Brown's heard me say this before and stuff is every time we talk about building infrastructure farther and farther away from our treatment plants we have this ongoing risk of that we're trying to pump stuff all the way back, miles and miles. It adds to the odor issues. It adds to our costs and it adds to our risk. If you saw the Potomac River story earlier this year, 200 million gallons of sewage dumped into the Potomac because they had a pipeline failure and it took them days to be able to get it under control. So this doesn't apply to this location here today but I just wanted to have a slide in here that made the point is that if we're going to continue to expand we probably need to be thinking about where is it we would want to have a third treatment plant and start working on it. It's going to take 15 years to get one if you start it today and so if you never start you never get any closer to that 15 years. So that's my two minute commentary about a third treatment plant. Further challenges back to the three sites that we were asked to look at is the new Mint Lane pump station which is Dunbar. As I said before, nobody would choose this site. It is very, very difficult to be able to work from. Commissioner, your time expired but I'm sure the council wants to give you more time until you're finished. I can stop here. No, no, no. Please do not. I just noticed your time had expired so please go ahead and finish your presentation. Okay. I've got a couple more slides left. I knew I was going to be pushing it but it's because of my voice. Vice Mayor Wood will take over the meeting. Thank you. Ready? Okay. All right. The Bowman's Mill site has been over and over again. It's outside the boundary. Potential impact to the underground spring and in the new airport location. Heavily wooded upland area, not really conducive for constructing and very unlikely to be completed by that deadline of December of 2030. As Mr. Bell pointed out, we have since learned over the course of this effort is that the existing pump station, which was built by developers, is not sitting on the land, according to what PVA says, that we own. You look at that picture, the red line is actually the property line itself and the pump station is to the left of that by a considerable amount. So whatever we decide to do here today, we're going to have to figure out a way to be able to remedy that. But I didn't want to give this presentation and not put that out there for public consumption. Here's a little schedule. You can see that the existing pump station site or Dunbar site and Bowman's Mill basically are on the same time frame. Slightly more time for the design and permitting process of Bowman's Mill just because you've got that pump station that you're building as opposed to rehabbing. You lose some of that or gain some of that time back in the construction. We allowed a little bit more time on construction at the Dunbar site just because of its difficulty and its proximity and access. Wrapping this up, the Dunbar site, it's a more constrained site. I keep saying that over and over again. I can't say that enough. Again, if all things were equal, nobody would choose that site. It's just really, really hard to deal with. Bowman's Mill, less constrained site. The opposite of this, though, Dunbar is a lower cost. It's $19.6 million versus nearly $25 million. It's a higher cost with or without expanding the urban service area to go to Bowman's Mill. Adds no, I'm sorry, I skipped over this part of it. The Area 1, both of these options will serve Area 1, the one that was added to the urban service boundary, but the Dunbar site requires a developer of Area 1 to pump to Bowman's Mill as opposed to, I'm sorry, to Dunbar. If you go to Bowman's Mill, it can be served by Gravity. We'll make sure that I'm clear on that. The existing main lane pump station Dunbar site requires pumping from Area 1. The Bowman's Mill site does not. Okay, back to this. No additional land for near-term expansion at Dunbar. The last bullet there kind of gave me some pause when I showed this to my wife over the weekend, which I should have done this earlier because she uses my litmus test for this. She's like, I don't understand what you're saying there, and what I'm trying to say is this, is that if you continue to stay at the Dunbar site, rehabilitating the existing pump station is going to cost about $1.6 million based on the estimates, and if you decide to expand five years later, that is going to be a lost cost. You've invested it, but you won't be able to recover it, but if you build a storage tank and diversion structure at Dunbar, that can be used no matter how far downstream you go. The storage tank and relief part of it doesn't have to be right next to the pump station. It can be anywhere. At Richmond Road and New Circle, we have a five million gallon tank there. That's at the top of the hill. So what I was trying to really focus on is the tank and diversion structure would remain in service if you built it at Dunbar, or it could go to Bowman's Mill, whatever it is that gets decided. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. Colleagues sign in with questions and discussion, please. Councilmember Baxter. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Charlie, for the presentation and for all the work that's gone into getting us all this information. I just have some kind of general questions at this point. I'm just going to start from the beginning of the presentation and go down. I'm looking on the existing Mint Lane Pump Station, that one. You talked about a single purchase, essentially, of land from Fayette County Public Schools. Have we had any conversations with them, or do we have an estimate of what that purchase price may be? We used $100,000 per acre because that's typically the number that is the starting point when you talk about land inside the urban service boundary, and we applied that same number to the Bowman's Mill site as well. So basically, it was a wash. Whatever we do, we'll have to get appraisals. Okay. But that is not included in the 19.6, correct, or it is? Yes, it is. It is. Okay. It's included in both the 19.6 and the 24 point. Okay. Perfect. Now, you also made mention that the Mint Lane Pump Station and the South Elkhorn Pump Station both are the 3.6 million gallon capacity or whatever, but that it was essentially in a chokehold. So, if you could have had a magic wand and done something, what would have been the better solution in that area, like another wastewater treatment plant or just a- Yeah, if you had a lot of time, yeah, that's what you would do because, like I said, you're pumping at such a long distance and all that, and you and I both know how much challenges we already have with Bowman's Mill. We have lots of challenges. Yeah. We have lots of challenges with my neighborhoods and things. Okay. Going to the further challenges that showed the property lines. Oh, we're going the wrong way. Wrong way. Yep. You know, we heard a lot of people talk about that we don't have infrastructure outside the urban service boundary anywhere else, but there are a few instances, and I was curious if you could name a few and then also have any examples of other infrastructure that may be incorrectly placed based on the boundary line. The only one that I know of that I have not gotten an explanation for is the Lexington Country Club on Old Paris Pike. They have a line that comes back into town and dumps into the Joyland neighborhood, and nobody could ever figure out how that happened. I've known about that for years. This one here, like I said, the gravity line that comes to it that comes from the Beaumont area dips outside the urban service boundary and then comes back into the backside of this pump station. It does that because it follows the drainage area. That's where the natural drainage area is. How that got built and how that got through new development, again, is before my time. Other locations, there are numerous ones. There's Blue Sky, there's the Horse Park, the airport. We serve three pump stations at the airport and one in Keeneland. Most often these things have to do with some type of infrastructure that is urban in nature but located in rural areas and stuff. Most of them were driven by treatment plants that failed. Blue Sky is a good example of that. Okay, thank you. And then the final summary page, the point that you made about the Area 1 developer having to pump to Mint Lane, what is the cost difference? I mean, obviously you're not going to know exact numbers, but a pump line versus a gravity fed line, what's the difference in cost for that developer? Probably a million dollars. About a million dollars. Probably a million dollars. Usually I think about a Class C pump station, which is probably what that'll take. When somebody asks me off the cuff, it's about a million dollars. Okay. Okay, I think that's all I've got right now. I'll let everybody else weigh in. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Hale. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So I know you answered a lot of this in your presentation, and I want to thank you for your presentation as well, but I just want to just ask some questions just for clarity so everything can be clear. So would all of Expansion Area 1 be served by Mint Lane if it were fully upgraded? Yes. It would have to be pumped there, but there is sufficient capacity at a Dunbar rehabilitated pump station, the existing Mint Lane, to handle all of Area 1 based on a reasonable density. It would take the developer to pay for a pump? Yes. They would have to pay for the pump station and then dedicate it to us, and then our people would operate it, and that would be the long-term cost for the government is operating the pump station. Versus Bowman Mill, that wouldn't be necessary possibly because of gravity, right? Right. And I wish I had included this map in there, but there is a drainage way that comes from that Area 1 area that ties in roughly about halfway across Mill Ridge Farm, and so then it would join in with the... line down there and go as far downstream as you want it to go. I wish I had that, but I don't have that with me today. Thank you, and let me just ask this question. What is the likelihood of having difficulty with FCPS regarding the easements for upgrading the Mid-Lake home station? I'm sorry, I missed that. What is the likelihood of having difficulty with FCPS to put the wet weather tanks? I don't know, I really don't have a gauge for that. My original plan was to give this presentation to the council first and not have the whole world see it, but unfortunately that didn't turn out that way. And so I didn't most recently gave it to my contact at Fay County Public Schools. I've not heard back from them yet with it just coming back from spring break. But I will be reaching out to them very soon because I would like to understand that better. Let's say we say, hey, let's keep it here. We have conversations with FCPS, and they decide no. Do we have a, are we thinking of a plan B? There's a plan B. I probably don't really want to go into it here, I guess, but there's always a plan B. People that have asked me about that before, whether it's us or the schools or the state or what have you, is that quasi-government agencies usually sit down and try to figure out ways to make things work out. Like I said, this is not land that they're using for anything other than science classes. I drove down there to take some pictures a couple of weeks ago, and the physics class was out there having a field trip and stuff. And so they're not building anything back there. Yeah, I've just been hearing different concerns like the Dunbar stink or whatever. And like if we say, hey, we're gonna come in, we're upgrading, we're gonna put more capacity here and on that area, I don't know if they could have concerns that it may get worse or I don't know if we, I would expect it to get better. Yeah, I would expect it to get better. That would have to be a critical component of any pump station that we build, given all the challenges that we've had with odor control over the last couple years. I'm not only just concerned about it there, I mean, even where it comes from. This comes from the airport and from two other smaller pump stations out there that dump into this. And sometimes the airport doesn't run at all at night. And so when it comes on in the morning, I get worried about how well that smells. And so that's either, anyway, wherever we go, pump station odor control is number one on the list. If I have any questions, I'll log back in. Thank you, Vice Mayor, thank you. Council Member Curtis. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And thank you, Director, for your presentation today. I'm sure you've been looking forward to this for a while now. I'm gonna just go on and dive into some of the questions that I have regarding some of the comment and conversation that have been happening. So I've just given you that heads up. So just for explicit clarity, both the existing site and the Bowman Mill site are outside of the urban services boundary. Yes, the current pump station is located outside the boundary. And the proposed pump station will be clearly outside the boundary. Okay, and so as it currently stands, though, the current infrastructure abuts the boundary? Yes, let me see if I can get this thing to work here. Okay. If you look very closely, there is a light green line that runs off of the heavy green line. That is what we call a trunk sewer. That's a gravity trunk sewer that comes from the neighborhood over here, which is Beaumont, and it drains over into this area, and it's off outside the urban service boundary, and then it works its way back into the pump station itself. There's no service connections to that, but urban county government flow is going through that pipeline, in addition to the discharge from the airport. Thank you for that explicit clarification, going a little more into detail on it. I do have a question about an item on the last slide that you presented. The last slide? Yes, sir. Okay. Yeah, there we go. So when we're talking about with the Bowman Mill site, the potential to add 500 plus acres to the urban services area, could you go a little more into detail about how we arrived at that number and what you mean when you say that? Okay, well, I'm gonna go backwards for just a second to a different slide, which maybe helps frame that. So here's the Bowman's Mill site, and the equal of what is at Mint Lane is a 3.6 million gallon a day pump station and a four and a half million gallon wet weather storage tank. That's not serving any of the acres that drain to this point. But if you serve all of the acres that drain to this point, it's roughly about 572 acres, and then that would then bump up the size of the storage tank, and then bump up the size of the cost. But as one of the speakers talked about earlier, is that this is why this was in the sewerability study. We presented a location that was as far downstream as it could be and presented the opportunity to add acres if that was what the work group, the planning commission, and the council wanted to do. Again, back at that time, there was a target number, and they were kind of all over the county. So what we were trying to do is give them examples of where sewer service could be provided to add acreage without being a detriment to the system. Okay, I appreciate that, because one of the things that you were mentioning was talking about the potential for lost investment with regards to Mint Lane. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the potential for that lost investment seems to assume an eventual expansion in that general area. It does. It's a worst case scenario is that if it's expansion tomorrow, it's 100% lost investment. If it happens 10 years down the road, you're probably three quarters of the way of having to replace the stuff you put in there 10 years ago, because in the sewer world, things don't last very long, especially with controls and things like that. We just, it was a poor choice of words on my part of it, but we think about that a lot in water quality. Are we going to invest in something that we're going to replace? You all don't want us to do that, and we don't do it either, so. No, thank you, and seeing as my time is running low, if I have more questions, I will log back in. So thank you, and thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Charlie, for the presentation, and thank you all to the folks that showed up to speak today and share your thoughts. We take them seriously and take them into consideration. My first question is about the existing lines, and maybe you can show me on a map. You said if the pump station was relocated to Bowman Mill, the lines may have an impact on the creeks. So are there existing lines following the same creek right now? I'm sorry, you lost me on that. So if the pump station was relocated from Mint Lane to Bowman Mill, one of the potential risks, I think you said you didn't know how the pipeline may impact the creeks. Impact the springs. The springs, I'm sorry. Those are the springs, yes. Yeah, there are two springs. One is a high-producing spring, and one is a lower-producing spring. When the expansion was being discussed, I got invited out there, and I actually got to see them myself, and if you're running a pipeline or two pipelines underground, five to six feet deep, since groundwater's traveling underground, I don't know really where it's coming from. I just know where it's coming out, and there's very much of a potential of interrupting that or redirecting that spring in a different location, because the pipeline, when we put it in, we backfill it with gravel, and so now it's a natural conduit for water to follow. So if we interrupt the spring, it may turn and follow our pipeline instead of coming out where it's coming out right now. Okay, so when water goes to Mint Lane now and it gets pumped, what direction is it getting pumped to go to the wastewater treatment facility? Is it going further downstream to another pump to go somewhere else, or is it? Yes, it's getting pumped again. It leaves the Dunbar site, goes up Man o' War, and then turns into the Palomar neighborhood across from Palomar Shopping Center, and then dumps into a gravity sewer that meanders through the neighborhood and comes out at Bowman's Mill Road back behind where Ramsey's is. There's a large pump station there, and then that, in turn, delivers it via a large pipeline all the way to West Hickman. Okay, all right, and you answered the question about the capacity, so if there were improvements to Mint Lane, it would be able to handle the new capacity from Area 1 that was brought in with the recent expansion? In all cases, Area 1 gets serviced. Area 1 is in the urban service boundary, so we feel like it's our responsibility to make sure that there's downstream capacity for it. And the developer would just have to create a pump to pump it to Mint Lane, but if it was relocated to Bowman Mill, they could put in a gravity line to go to Bowman Mill, but to eventually get pumped somewhere else. Yeah, it all has to be pumped because it all wants to drain towards the airport, towards Woodford County and stuff. So what I was trying, this map doesn't show it very well, and plus it's really hard for me to see it, is that roughly right, oh no, I'm sorry, I'm in the wrong place. Right in here somewhere where my arrow is, that's where the draw that comes down from the green area, which is Area 1. So there's a low spot, a drainage area, that if you put a pipe in next to it, it mimics the drainage area and ties into the gravity sewer at that point. So even when we did the sewerability study, we just chose downstream at Bowman's Mill Road, but if you really wanted to serve Area 1 by gravity, you could go halfway and still be able to do it. It's just when it stays at the top of the hill, you have to pump back up to get to it. Okay, and I might have listened to you too long, that's why I made the suggestion about going to the airport, to continue to go downstream, and the thinking behind the airport was since it was a rural activity center and that property was already our property, that that could be a potential solution. And I guess it could be, but it's just if we're willing to incur the cost. Yeah, it's timing and cost, and it's a tough ride there. Yeah. It's a tough ride there. So one last question, and you said the pump station and the wet weather storage tank don't necessarily have to be together. No, they do not. We've got two different locations, one I mentioned at Richmond Road and New Circle, that it has to have a pump station that pumps into it, but otherwise it has no reason to have a pump station, and so it sits there all the time. Lexmark property, we've also got one because we didn't want to tear up all the sewers along Legacy Trail, we just built basically a storage tank at the top of the hill, and it takes the excess flow off when it rains. This would work the same way. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Allender. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thanks, everybody, for coming today. And thank you, Charlie, for the presentation. Right now, where we currently have, it's .08, the size, is that my understanding? I'm sorry. The current place where it is right now is .08, is the location? .08 acres, yes. And you're saying that we need about an acre? At least. And if we, do we have, do they have the space there that we could work an agreement with Fay County Public Schools? I came back to the slide, as far as the karst features, the potential floodplain impacts, the proximity to the baseball field and the trees, again, it's a really, really tough site. When we started down this path, I mean, what we were doing was gonna start design for this particular location, and probably a lot more of those questions might have been answered. I'm reluctant to approach a property owner about buying something from them when I don't really mean it. That puts a lot of effort on them and stuff like that. I'd hate to just say, never mind. We have not found anything that tells us we can't build it here. Did we kind of go out and survey it, and just try to see where, that it would fit if we tried to do it? This location here is what, based on geotechnical evaluation and limited surveying, is the layout that they think that would work in this location. And you're saying we wouldn't have to put the wet weather tank there if we didn't have to? We have to have a wet weather tank either way we go. Right, I know, but we don't have to put it on this one acre, though. Well, if we went to downstream to the Bowman's Mill site, I would suggest that you go ahead and build the tank next to it. The point is, is that if you decided that you wanted to stay at Mint Lane for the time being, you could build the tank here, and if later you decided, you know, we do want to go downstream, you could build a pump station downstream, leave the tank upstream, and the only loss in your investment is the rehab you did to the existing station, which was about 1.6 million. All right, you said the tank could be other places. We've done that in other places. Yeah, yeah, as long as it's there to skim off the excess flow that right now goes into the creek, as one of the speakers mentioned, that's what it's there for. And then you, and the cost of the 19.6 was about five million less than the other one. That is, the 100,000, is that what you say, would probably cost for the? $100,000 an acre. That's part of that cost already put into this number. Into the 19.6, that's, you've added that in. It is in there, and it's also in the 24.9. Basically, they're washed. We've got two acres at $100,000 an acre, in both estimates. All right, that's all I think. Thank you. Everything else been answered, thank you. Council Member Savigny. Thank you, thank you, Vice Mayor. Thanks so much for the presentation. I'm gonna kind of whip through a few questions and try to get them done in the three minutes, or five minutes. You mentioned the underground spring, and we talked about that before, but the underground spring being a slight problem on the Millridge property, is it because of, what's, remember there's hot spring. I know it's down on the Cave Hill property. You mentioned that it was a problem if it moved downstream, and I just want to. I don't know if it would be a problem so much as it would probably, if the property owner wants to keep their spring, it would be a problem for them. I mean, basically, springs, as you know, they follow underground conduits, and then they emerge because of pressure. And if you change the pathway, then the spring changes, and putting in a pipeline will change the pathway, because that's just the natural thing to do. You bury a pipe, and you backfill it with gravel all around it, the water's gonna take the path of least resistance. Okay, good. And then, could you tell me, like, you made a comment that I'm trying to figure out. So you must have to, if it's on the Dunbar site, you're gonna rehab that equipment, but you must have to build another pump vehicle, because you can't rehab your pumps and not be moving the sewage upriver, right? You see the wet weather pump station. There is a separate wet weather pump station. So everything would go into the existing station, and when flows came up, it would spill over into the diversion structure you see in the bottom. That diversion structure then gives it to the wet weather pump station. It pumps it into the tank, and then when the storm goes away and flows drop off, it gravities back out. We have done them both ways. I prefer the wet weather pump station to be separate from the regular station. It just makes it easier. The other thing that's going on here is that because we're gonna rehab this station, that wet weather pump station's gonna have to serve as the temporary station if we use this site, because we'll be tearing the other one apart. Yeah, that's what I was wondering, and I'm wondering, couldn't you just do that anyway and move the, when you rehab that pump gear, couldn't you just move it downstream to rehab pump gear? You're not gonna throw away the pump gear if you moved it downstream. If you move downstream with a pump station and storage tank, you don't need anything here except manholes. Okay, yeah. Basically, we would abandon most everything in place and move downstream. Okay, and then I wanted to, I just wanted to put the consent decree in some sort of framework. So, to me, how much have we spent about so far on the consent decree? $380 million, something like that? And I'm, like I know in my geography right now, the Wolf Run Trunk, I mean, we're just upsizing a piece of pipe, and we're probably doing some other stuff, but we're upsizing, it's almost like when we put in infrastructure originally, we actually didn't plan for all the other things that we're gonna attach to it. And it's, I'm just saying, it seems to me that the consent decree is an undersized project, and it's the result of an undersized project. And I'm just, you could tell me I'm wrong, but. Yeah, I might disagree a little bit, because, only because, during dry weather, we don't have a capacity problem here in Fay County, in any of our collection system, or the treatment plants, either one. In dry weather, we have an odor problem, is what we have, because in some cases, we've overbuilt for the wet weather. And so, but I feel like that a lot of it is, is that deferred maintenance and things like that have really contributed to our problem as much as anything else. Having a storage tank, wherever it may be, is a blessing, because that 13 million gallons of sewage that went out over various years doesn't get released into the environment anymore. Thank you. Really quickly, can Millridge, can they put their own pump station, if we put this on Dunbar, could they put their own pump station on their product, on their land, in that same spot, and would it cause an issue? Or like, would they pump up to a station if they ended up being sewered, and what are the issues with them being able to do that? You know, I think anything can be done, but pumping it three times is usually not a very efficient thing to do. And then also, too, you'd have to make sure that there was hydraulic capacity in a new pump station to handle the flow that was coming from a new pump station downstream. The delivery of sewage comes differently. It's more of a point flow than it is spread out over time. It could be done, but it wouldn't be ideal. Thanks, I might have to come back in. My time's up, thank you. Thank you, Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you for the presentation. As always, very detailed, I appreciate it. I think most of my questions were answered already, but I just have one about the deadline. So the dissent decree, the upgrades have to be done by the end of 2030, correct? Yeah, everything now is December 31st of 2030. We got EPA to drop the subschedule that we were always struggling to make. All pencils down, December 31st, 2030. Okay, and we don't have a deadline this year that we have to meet with this pump station. That is correct. When we presented this back in last year, it was because it was in the budget to start the design, and I was concerned at that time that we were gonna be really pressing against the schedule. Since that time, I've taken one of the other storage tanks and moved it up so this one could move back and everything else would still be aligned. So no, a decision does not need to be made today. Ideally, what I would like to see is no later than the middle part of next year, because as the mayor mentioned in her address, we've got most of our projects done. We have 10 left to do in five construction season, and so we're trying to get everything lined up to make sure we meet that deadline. And remind me if you mentioned already, I apologize, how long from start to finish, let's say both of, if we kept it where it was and we upgraded or if we moved it, how long from the very beginning? Yeah, according to the schedule that Stantec put together, it's three to 3 1⁄2 years. Yeah, so, but that doesn't include acquiring land. They've got three to six months in there for property acquisition and easements, and I usually try to start early in that. Starting early means, you know, if we were just acquiring a fee simple thing, I would be able to start that a lot faster than pipeline work. But we've got time built in for both of those. We just have more time built in for the airport option, because there's 11 of them to get, as opposed to in the other two cases, you're dealing with a single property owner in both cases. Because I think it's important to understand, you know, how much time we have left to make this decision that we don't have to decide today, but that we don't have a lot of time. Correct, and especially with three tanks left to build, that's not something you'd build all three of them in the same year. I don't think there's contractor capacity for that level of construction. Right, because they're huge. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Council Member Boone. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And thank you, Commissioner, for your presentation. I know we've talked a lot, and a lot of answers have been, a lot of questions have been answered. I guess just to kind of clear things up a little bit, if we do this at Ment Lane, there will be no raw sewage running through Mooridge Farm? We never say never. Very unlikely, I guess. Yeah, the design storm that we have to meet to is it'll be a two-year, 24-hour storm, so the frequency would drop dramatically. But if you get enough, you very well might. Let me phrase this a little bit. We estimated that two million gallons were released last April, and we had all the rain. Four million-gallon storage tank would have controlled every bit of that. Right. And then it would also fix the EPA issues, along with that, that currently exist downstream. Sorry? The EPA issues with, I guess, the consent decree problems with the overflowing of sewage. Yeah, what they're expecting is that we abate that overflow frequency, and then once we have done that, then as long as we're under the consent decree, we're subject to a between $2,000 to $5,000 fine every time it does happen. But they expect you to do a project that's going to abate it based on the design storm that they approved, and then the assumption is is that it's not gonna happen. But when it does, they reserve the right to be able to fine you. Now, they've been somewhat reasonable, I guess, about that. Back in April, where we had nine inches of rain in four days, they didn't send us a fine for that. Everybody had issues. Right, and then, I guess for the pump stations outside the boundary, the one being with the Kentucky Horse Park, Stockyard, Airport, Blue Sky, can you kind of explain how those are fundamentally different than putting it on Bowen Mill? To me, the fundamental difference is that most all of them were driven by the need to eliminate a failing treatment plant, or eliminate the potential of one being added. So, like Horse Park, when I first came to work here in 99, they had a treatment plant out there, and it was a mess. And so the state was facing this issue whether they're gonna have to stay in the wastewater business, or they were gonna call us, and they called us. Blue Sky, same kind of thing, is the developer walked away from that, and so then we had to take it over, and we settled it as part of the consent decree to make it go away, and turn it into a pump station. There are some exceptions that have happened that aren't related to treatment plants. The Brenda Callen Elementary School, when it first got built, it was outside the urban service boundary, and it connected back in Hayes Boulevard, but then later on, obviously the boundary changed, and now it's inside the boundary. I think you characterize all of them that there is some type of governmental purpose, or public purpose that led to these happening for whatever reason. I've got a question, it might be for law, I don't know, excuse me, it's kind of, could you talk us through the process of how council makes these exceptions? Is it as simple as voting on a resolution? I believe back in August, you mentioned an ordinance or resolution from? So I think that it would, given the challenges with either site, I think the first step would be to make a decision point, and start negotiating whether it's gonna work, and exploring whether it's gonna work or not, because there's a scenario where you all move in one direction, and that doesn't end up being what you end up doing. Ultimately, if you're gonna go outside the urban services boundary, legally we would like a resolution in place that bolsters how we went about making that decision, so that it's clear that we're not intending on opening it up as a development decision going forward. That's what we would ask, and that's what we've done in the past. We've had resolutions that lay out rationally why we've done what we're doing outside of our plan. So yeah. Thank you, sir. And I have a motion, but I'm not sure if Vice Mayor is, would you like to speak first? Council Member, would you be willing to wait till the general discussion is over for your motion? Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Thank you, Commissioner Martin for your presentation and all your work. I wanna go to the summary page. The thing that popped out at me, and I'll kind of explain why, is the two sentences on the Dunbar site says adds no additional land for near-term expansion, and on Bowman Mill it says potential to add 500 acres service area. I'm wondering how you came to that 500 plus acre figure in terms of calculating acreage based just on sewer capacity as we don't know the potential density of a hypothetical expansion area, which to me would inform how much usage it has. It would be a different thing if it was a bunch of single family homes versus apartments and businesses, right? Right. Yes, every time my planning friends start talking about changing the number, I just get nervous as can be, because basically everything we're building is for about 15 people per acre. And so when they start talking about 18 or 20 and stuff like that, we get really nervous. It's like that all over town. It's not unique here. When we said 500 acres, that's what would drain to this location. It really doesn't try to contemplate what kind of density would be involved in a 500 acres. It's just Mother Nature wants the water to drain to this point, and there's 500 acres in that bathtub, so to speak. Okay, I appreciate that. I want to address some of the comments that folks have made, some community members and our neighbors have made about this situation. I very much support the concept of the urban service area. I brag to people all the time that Lexington is very different than a lot of places, right? We don't have that level of suburban sprawl, and whoever came up with this in 1958 was very, very forward thinking. It really is what makes us a special place and a unique place. During the last comp plan in 2023, I was opposed to the expansion that was promoted by some of my colleagues. And I opposed it because there was no process to inform the expansion. It felt to me like it was informed mainly by political pressure and the pressure that it built up from having not expanded for almost 30 years. So I opposed it. I was outvoted, me and my like-minded colleagues. When I served on the committee to determine where and how much acreage we were going to add to the expansion, I worked to keep that number low. And again, because we didn't have a process. I wanted us to build that process. So out of the comp plan, we did get a mandate to create this process, which later became LPGMP, Lexington's Preservation and Growth Management Program, along with Council Member Sheehan and our planning team. We worked really hard to adopt this program to really change the conversation and the paradigm that we've been in in this city for so long with this sort of diametrically opposed expand or preserve. And we worked with a lot of stakeholders, many of whom are in this room right now, to come to it. It's not a perfect product, but it's one that I feel like a lot of folks can live with. A lot of the commenters, in fact, praised it, which I appreciate. So when the conversation becomes this situation is a backdoor or a shortcut or a way to skirt this process that we just work for a year to build, I say to you, not on my watch. Because right now, even with LPGMP in place, any landowner can come to us right now and say, hey, we would like to be brought into the urban service area. We would like to apply for a zone change. And my answer would be, wait till 2029 or 2030 when we have the growth trends report to A, tell us whether or not we even need land, whether or not we even need an expansion. And then, if the answer is yes, then you go through the process, and I think one of our speakers laid out sort of the multi-step process that involves multiple agencies like Planning Commission and us. I think the idea of putting in infrastructure as a potential trigger to expansion, I don't think that's gonna happen, and I don't think, I certainly would lobby my colleagues against approving that sort of work around to a process that we've built. Because for years, we have not had this process. So anybody could go and apply to be brought into the urban service area. Now, that hasn't happened very often. So all that to say, I just want to be clear kind of where I stand on this situation. I don't care who it is, if it's this farm owner or another property owner. If they come to us and try to get around this LPGMP process to be brought in as an expansion, my vote will always be no. Council Member Savigny. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just have one more question for you, Commissioner. That whole Dunbar Funk thing, it is real. Like, my kids went there in the 2000s, and do you feel like this could fix the Dunbar Funk? I would expect that it would be. I mean, we spend every day working on this. And yes, you are absolutely right. My pump station supervisor, whose child went to Dunbar, told me the same thing. Yeah, okay, thank you. And then the engineering group that did this, Commissioner, we've talked, and you said that the full report isn't really ready to be published. And I was just wondering. I'm about halfway through it right now. Hopefully I'll get through it by the end of the week and get it distributed to everybody so you can see in its unfolded form. I would love to see it in its unfiltered form. So, thank you. That's all I have, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Boone, did you still have a motion? Yes, sir, thank you, Vice Mayor. I move to authorize and direct the Division of Water Quality to proceed with negotiations for easements and take other preliminary related steps towards implementing the proposed Mint Lane Pump Station sewer project at its existing location adjacent to Dunbar High School. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Colleagues, please sign in if there's discussion on this motion. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'm gonna second the motion, and part of the reason why is because I think if we have active waste dumping onto private property from one of our facilities, I think we need to take care of it and address it as soon as possible. And working to address it at this location and at this site I think is probably the most expedient way to address it. I also think that the decision that we're talking about today or a decision that we're gonna make today isn't about a backdoor to the expansion, backdoor to expansion. I actually think it's a conversation about infrastructure and where we place infrastructure going forward. And I think this is a process and a policy decision that we have to have a more robust conversation about going forward, and I hate for the decision that we make today impact or negatively influence us in making that decision going forward for the process and the policy. And then I think that it didn't sound like, it sounds like there's still more research and still more due diligence to do with this site, but it seems like it's the most expedient. So that's why I support the motion to move forward at this location. And maybe after more due diligence is done and we have to go a different route or make a different decision, we'll be more informed as we do that going forward. So thank you, thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Most of my questions were asked earlier in the discussion, so I didn't have additional questions, but I shared some of the same concerns and thoughts that my colleagues did. But as Council Member Savigny just asked, we don't even have the full report on the study of the locations yet. And so I will not support this motion because we haven't even seen the full report yet. And I'd be willing to have the discussion at that point, but I'm waiting for the actual full detailed report to actually have this location discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Savigny. Yeah, I won't obviously be supporting it either because I do think that having the report is important to me to make the most informed decision. And we'll see how the vote goes. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Curtis. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So I appreciate Council Member Boone bringing this motion and agree with Council Member Brown when he specifically was talking about the need to remediate the situation that's come about as a result of our infrastructure failure. But that being said, like my colleagues, I do think it would be inappropriate for us to make a decision today, especially when we've had this conversation about the timing of all of this, that we do have some flexibility here as long as we are making a decision by midway through next year. It does not seem to me that we can't wait a couple weeks to get the full report before taking a vote. So I'm not gonna be able to support this motion right now, but thank you. Thank you. Council Member Morton. Thank you. Well, first, thank all the community members that came out and gave their public comment. That is something I always support and love to hear. So I just wanted to say thank you to you guys for that. I guess just for procedural question, first, so let's say, and whoever wants to answer this, Law, Commissioner Martin, let's say if this motion does not pass and there's no other motions brought forward, where do we lie? I'm gonna take all of the questions and comments that I got from all of you along with the public comments that I'll listen to over and over again and try to put together a summary of it and then make sure that that is an appendix to the report that Council Member Sheehan pointed out that we need to have. And that way, you have as much as you can a full collection of all different perspectives. Okay. You mentioned the latest we could wait to make this decision is when? When's the latest decision has to be made? We have spent some of our design money on other things. It's what we do in water quality. We work on the things that are happening as opposed to things that aren't. But we still have some of the design money in Fund 4003, which is the open fund. We're in the Mayor's budget request there is to replace the money we spent on something else. So we'll go into FY 27, assuming you all approve that budget with our $2 million for design and property acquisition. Then it's really about getting direction from the Council about are we going here or are we going here? Because that's what we're going to do is that we're going to go wherever it is that we're told to do. That's what we were doing the first time before we were asked to look at it again. Okay. But timeline wise, a strict timeline for when this decision has to be made. When do you see that? The timeline, I would want to have it made this year, this calendar year. Except we could push it into next year. That's when I start getting nervous. You know, what I'm telling all my people is everything has to be done or under construction by January 1 of 2029. Because then we've got two construction seasons left. We ought to be able to make this and tie a bow around the consent decree. That's when I ride off into the sunset. That's fair. And then lastly, and you can choose not to answer. You could answer with whatever you like. But your recommendation, based on your expert opinion. What is your recommendation? I don't have a recommendation. I tried, as I said in the very beginning, I tried to fulfill the obligation of giving an engineering report. And what I've sat here and listened to is that there's a lot of emotional stuff. I feel for you that it's a difficult decision to make and stuff. My job was to give you as much technical information as you have so you could make that decision and feel comfortable with it. That's fair, that's fair. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And Charlie, you're right. There's a lot of information and there's a lot of emotion around this. And we do, we all take our jobs very seriously and we want to do what's best for our community always. I've said from the very beginning that I would not make any decision on this that was not fiscally responsible and that didn't have the community at whole, you know, the best interest for the community at whole. I also feel like our community deserves for us to make a decision based on all the information. And we just don't have it yet. We have a great deal of information in this presentation, but I really want to sit and look at that report as well that Charlie's still looking over. And so I won't be supporting this motion right now, but that doesn't mean that I won't in the future. I don't know, I don't know what the report will hold. So, because we don't have a strict timeline, I don't feel like we need to make this decision today. I just know that at the end of the day, the community deserves all of the information that we can possibly give to them and that my neighbors and my district deserve to be able to go in their backyard and enjoy life without smelling the Dunbar funk. So, thank you. Thank you, Council Member Hale. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Commissioner, again, for all that you've had to go through today. And I even thank the community for coming out as well. I just want to echo my colleagues. For right now, I'm not comfortable with making a decision just at this moment. I appreciate and I respect the motion from Council Member Boone, but at the moment, I'm not ready to make that decision just yet because I make my decisions off of information, and I need more information, I need the full report. And until I get that full report and I get that chance to sit over it and get to comb through it, then I can make my decision from there. So, I won't be supporting this motion right now because I'm just not ready to make a decision right now until I get that report. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Lynch. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Boone, do you mind to restate your motion? I just want to make sure I heard everything in it. I move to authorize and direct Division of Water Quality to proceed with negotiations for easements and take other preliminary related steps towards implementing the proposed Met Lane Pump Station sewer project as it exists at its existing location adjacent to Dunbar High School. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Boone. I would love to ask Commissioner Martin, since this is an issue of public interest, after you've gone through the rest of this study and you've prepared the summary, I think a part two presentation at another work session would be apropos, Vice Mayor, if we could get that on the future work session agenda because this is an issue of public interest, obviously. So in addition to, I know you're going to send us the report and your summary, but I think another public presentation at a work session, like a part two, would probably be helpful too. Would you be open to that? Absolutely, yes. Awesome, all right, thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, I just wanted to state on the record that while we don't have a lot of time, we have a little bit of time to make this decision and so I agree with my colleagues that have said they would like the full report before making this decision. So I won't be supporting the motion at this time, but I have not made my decision yet on the matter. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I appreciate my colleagues' conversation around having more information about making this decision. And I guess my question might be for Law. If we, do we necessarily have to have a motion to move forward at the existing site? Or, and I guess I'll preface why I'm asking this question, is because there's gonna be a land acquisition. Well, yeah, at some point, regardless of which site you all determine, there will be something coming back to you all for additional formal action. Like you have to do a negotiation on either site and those things would come back to you all for final approval at that point in time. So your actual final decision point on whether you move forward on it or not is then, but if you're not real confident in which way you're going, you would have wasted that time getting to that point if it's a successful negotiation at that point in time. So, but typically, this is unusual as well because typically Mr. Martin does make a decision on which way to go and he'll just do it. So this is a little unusual in this case, but typically what would happen in one of these projects is if you all did not weigh in and give your opinion about, the administration would just decide after they updated you all on what they were gonna do, here's the direction we're gonna go, they would start proceeding down that path and if you all had a problem with it, they wouldn't necessarily know about it until you've got that formal action in front of you all to basically finalize acquiring the easements and things like that to make the project happen. Okay, so you kind of answered my question. My question was, so they're still gonna have, they're still gonna have to do negotiations, so once we get the engineering report, that's not gonna answer questions about what it's gonna cost to acquire the land or easements, but if we were able to go ahead and start having those conversations, at least with Fayette County Public Schools, then we would be more informed when the engineering report does come back. I do think that he's probably, I would not be comfortable having a conversation with the school system formally about it, unless that's the decision going forward on what you all want to do, so. As a reminder, back in August, I mean, we were headed towards doing the Mint Lane Pump Station. That's inside the urban service boundary. That didn't require any action on the part of the council. It wasn't until we were asked to go back and look at this is the only reason we held that up and to me, as long as it's in doubt, as long as we're taking this issue, Dave was still behind me. It wouldn't be fair to negotiate with a property owner if you weren't sincere in pursuing it. It just kind of seems wrong to me. Well, that's my concern. It's just the current condition is gonna continue to exist until we take some action, so I'm ready to take some action, but we'll see how the vote goes. So thank you, thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, any further discussion on Council Member Boone's motion? If not, let's pull up Granicus and do a vote that way. All right, looks like it's nine to four. That motion fails. Any other discussion on the larger presentation? Council Member Boone. Yes, sir, thank you. Can I make a motion to put this back in the QPW and have conversations about it in there? You can. All right, we have a motion and a second. Discussion on this motion? Council Member Curtis. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Boone, could you speak to a little bit of the thinking behind putting this back into EQPW and what you're hoping to accomplish by doing so? Well, I think it gives us time after we get the report to thoroughly go back through it and have conversations in there and then report it out. And why you feel that would be preferable to having it come back in another work session? Because that's where it came from, I suppose, and that's where the conversation could be had. Fair enough, thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, I would prefer that it stays in front of the full council because the full council has interest in this and we have been made aware of this presentation and then the report, so I'm not in favor of the motion. I think it should come before the full council again. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Morton. I don't have any, I guess, huge concerns with it going back to committee, mainly because it's been emphasized in the timeline that we're not on a crucial timeline. We're on a timeline, but it's not that close where this can't make it through EQPW, where it can't be reported out, make it back to the full council, and we can still do allow for community input, allow for the vetting process, so I'll support the motion. I think there's time to look into it. Thank you, Council Member Savigny. Thank you for the motion. I won't be supporting it because I also know the EQPW schedule and there's not a lot of time to put it in there, but this is already in front of the whole council. This is it. This is kind of a big issue and to make it to basically have to deal with 10 people and have to deal with 15 people, I would rather have one more discussion about it and be done with it personally, so I will not be supporting the motion. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Sheehan. Because I've also tried to schedule things for the EQPW committee, I know that it is a pretty packed agenda, and so I don't know that we would actually be able to get to it in committee this year, but we know we need to make a decision this year. It also delays the conversation because we have to go through the reporting structures of committee, so I'm not gonna support the motion to put it back to committee. When we have already started this discussion and work session, I would like to just continue it with the full council. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Brown. I'll support putting it back in committee. Part of the reason being is because if it's a process and a policy that may come as a recommendation on how we deal with this, that may be something that needs to get worked out in committee as opposed to in front of the full council, so I'll support that motion. Thank you. Any other discussion on Council Member Boone's motion? All right, let's pull up Granicus again for a vote, please. Thank you. Council Member Baxter, I think we're waiting on yours. Yeah, that's okay. That motion fails nine to four. If I may, Commissioner Martin, when do you think you can get us, get this council the full report? Well, hopefully if there's not a lot more corrections than there were in the front part of it, I'll have it to you by the end of the week. I kind of dance between being the snow guy and being the water guy still, so I would have already had it done, but yesterday was all about snow. Post haste, because I realize there's not gonna get a decision until you've got this full report. The one thing that'll be absent is me being able to try to summarize everything that went on today, so I'm gonna get you the report in hand, and then we'll build on the comments and points that were made today. Okay. Given this discussion, and I will make a motion if my colleagues feel like it's necessary, now that we're not putting it back into committee, there was a discussion about doing a second work session presentation for this. I would be okay with working with our council administrator and Commissioner Martin to slot this in at the next available work session. If everybody is okay with that, we can move forward in that way. If there are any objections, I'm happy to make a motion and go through that process. Council Member Borden, are you speaking to this particular question? I had comments kind of similar in the same lane that I would love to set a date so that all folks can be informed on when that date should be set for the conversation on both sides. Could we do two weeks out rather than one? Vice Mayor. Work session of the 28th, I think, is in question. Commissioner. The 28th of April? Yeah, that's two weeks. I was just gonna tell you, I had an out-of-town commitment the first week in May. That was, I was trying to let you know that, but at the end of April works fine. At the end of April, it does work for you? I think it does, yes. Okay. Any other thoughts or comments on this? So, okay, so it looks like we're gonna work with the Commissioner and my office and Council Administrator to get you slotted into the work session at the 28th for further presentation and discussion, okay? All right. I think that is. Hopefully, I'll feel better by then. I hope so, too, and I hope we haven't made you sicker, Commissioner. It is time for Council Reports. I do want to mention that I think several of us have another obligation to get to, so keep that in mind, if at all possible. If you can push your Council Report to Thursday's Council meeting, I would really appreciate it. If not, go ahead and sign in. Council Member Morton. Thank you. And I'll just do this report because I had pictures already sent. So, I had the opportunity to spend the time with students at George Washington Carver Elementary, and it's a powerful reminder that our young people are already thinking about their future and ours. When we show up in these spaces, we're not just visiting schools. We're investing in our youth and investing in confidence, leadership, and possibility. I also connected with the students at the Learning Center. I'll actually wait. We're okay, right now? I also connected with students at the Learning Center, where the conversations were real, thoughtful, and forward-looking. Our youth are paying attention. They deserve leadership that listens, engages, and creates pathways for them to succeed beyond the classroom. And then, moving on, during the spring break, we kicked off our Bring Back the Bluegrass initiative with strong community turnout and hands-on participation. I want to thank the Marlboro Neighborhood Association, GeoMancer, and Park Staff, and all the neighbors who showed up and are ready to work. This initiative is more than about restoring green space. It's about building pride, building ownership, and long-term stewardship in our neighborhoods. Moving on, we had The Hunger Doesn't Take a Spring Break, a great initiative where we got to feed a lot of our youth in our parks throughout the city. We wrapped up another successful year of Hunger Doesn't Take a Spring Break, ensuring that our kids had access to meals while school was out. I want to thank the team from Juvenile Probation, our public safety folks, and I really want to give a shout-out to them. Every day, they were out in almost all of our parks, volunteering for the whole event, and that was just lovely to see. And then, I also want to thank Traditional Bank Spectrum, Kroger, Local 189, our neighborhood associations, and all the volunteers and community partners who stepped up to support this effort. We're especially grateful to the volunteers who not only showed up to serve meals, but also helped prepare them. That level of commitment does not go unnoticed. So, thank you to my fellow council members for their support and for showing up in our parks alongside us as well. This initiative continues to show what's possible when a community comes together with a shared purpose, to meet immediate needs while building lasting support systems. And I would be remiss if I did not give a special shout-out and thanks to my legislative aide and also Council Member Beasley's legislative aide, Dean of the Tatum, J.D. Norrison, Mason Sims. They really put a lot of good work in behind the scenes. Your tireless work on this initiative every day does not go unnoticed, or did not go unnoticed. And then lastly, Council Member Brown and my office launched the Smithtown Voices Project with an incredible turnout and meaningful community input. I wanted to give a special shout-out to the Division of Planning, an entire team for helping bring this vision into life, but then also all the great volunteers that came out. It's like the whole Division of Planning came out. This is just the beginning. We're excited to dive into the feedback we receive, continue building pathway forward to preserve the history while shaping the future with the residents leading the way. And it was a great initiative, thank you. Thank you, we don't have anybody signed up for public comment, so with that, we are adjourned. Thank you.