# Council Work Session - April 28, 2026 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · April 28, 2026 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6755 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6755?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2026-04-28 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: April 28, 2026 - **Length**: 35,871 words - **Speakers**: Mayor, Chair > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Council met on April 28, 2026, at 3:00 PM in the Council Chamber at 200 E. Main St, Lexington, KY 40507, with Mayor Gorton presiding. The meeting covered 4 agenda items, including action on Neighborhood Development Funds, Council Capital Projects, and a LexPark Budget Presentation, as well as an informational summary from the General Government & Planning Committee. Across the session, 7 motions and votes were taken, with the three substantive agenda items each receiving approval. The Council also heard from 5 members of the public during the meeting's public comment period. ## Attendance All 15 council members were present at the April 28, 2026 Council meeting. No members were absent or late. **Present:** - Council Member Ellinger - Council Member Savigny - Council Member Morton - Council Member Curtis - Council Member Boone - Council Member Sheehan - Council Member Brown - Council Member Reynolds - Council Member Hale - Council Member Baxter - Council Member Beasley - Council Member Eblen - Council Member Lynch - Council Member Martin - Council Member Wu ## Votes and Decisions The Council took action on seven items during the April 28, 2026 meeting. Six were decided by voice vote and one by roll call. **Voice Votes** - **Approval of the docket as amended** — Moved by Council Member Ellinger, seconded by Council Member Savigny. Passed by voice vote. [timestamp: 1:39:46] - **Approval of budget amendments** — Moved by Vice Mayor Wu, seconded by Council Member Sheehan. Passed by voice vote. [timestamp: 1:52:14] - **Approval of new business items** — Moved by Council Member Reynolds, seconded by Council Member Ellinger. Passed by voice vote. [timestamp: 2:00:45] - **Approval of communications from the mayor — appointments** — Moved by Vice Mayor Wu, seconded by Council Member Sheehan. Passed by voice vote. [timestamp: 2:01:19] - **Approval of communications from the mayor — donations** — Moved by Council Member Savigny, seconded by Council Member Reynolds. Passed by voice vote. [timestamp: 2:01:53] - **Approval of communications from the mayor — procurements** — Moved by Council Member Sheehan, seconded by Council Member Savigny. Passed by voice vote. [timestamp: 2:02:29] **Roll Call Vote** - **Mint Lane Pump Station Sewer Project** — The Council voted on whether to authorize and direct the Division of Water Quality to proceed with negotiations for easements and take other preliminary related steps toward implementing the proposed Mint Lane pump station sewer project at its existing location. Moved by Council Member Boone, seconded by Council Member Brown. The motion **passed 10–5**. [timestamp: 4:00:53] - **Voting yes (10):** Council Members Ellinger, Savigny, Morton, Curtis, Boone, Sheehan, Brown, Reynolds, Hale, and Baxter. - **Voting no (5):** Council Members Beasley, Eblen, Lynch, Martin, and Vice Mayor Wu. ## Budget and Financial Actions The Council considered five financial items at the April 28, 2026 meeting, spanning contracts for professional services, technology, construction, maintenance, and federal infrastructure funding. - **L0301-26** authorized execution of a $250,000 agreement with **Tunnel, Spangler, Walsh & Associates Inc** for the development of a Unified Development Code. - **L0303-26** authorized approval of a $15,600 agreement with **Xavus Solutions, LLC** for the purchase and licensing of hardware and software known as "My Senior Center." - **L0313-26** authorized execution of **Change Order #1** with **Elaine Allen** in the amount of **$31,219.37** related to the Whitney Young Community Building project. - **L0314-25** authorized approval of a three-year sole source service contract with **In-Situ** valued at **$54,870.00** for service and parts for the analyzer at the West Hickman Wastewater Treatment Plant. - **L0321-26** authorized execution of **Supplemental Agreement No. 2** and acceptance of federal funds totaling **$950,000** for the Wilson Downing Intersection Improvements Project. ## Public Comment Five residents addressed the Council during the public comment period, covering a range of topics including land use, infrastructure, and energy policy. - **Luke Fallon** [timestamp: 0:07] spoke about land use policy and the urban service boundary, raising concerns about how Council decisions in these areas could affect Lexington's standing as a globally recognized center for equine breeding. - **Elizabeth Nieto** [timestamp: 0:11] opposed the proposed development of a pumping station on Bowman Mill Road, arguing that the project would harm the beauty and character of the surrounding area. - **Dean Pulsifer** [timestamp: 0:13] offered a contrasting perspective on the pump station issue, expressing support for relocating the facility downstream. He emphasized that a downstream placement would better accommodate future capacity needs while minimizing visual impact on the landscape. - **Robert James** [timestamp: 0:14] spoke against a proposed amendment to the solar ordinance, contending that large-scale solar arrays are industrial in nature and should not be permitted within the rural service area. - **Walter Gaffield** [timestamp: 0:17] raised infrastructure concerns related to Expansion Area 1, specifically citing groundwater flooding and traffic as issues requiring more thorough planning before further development proceeds. ## Appointments At the April 28, 2026 Council meeting, the following appointment was made: - **Susan Lamb** was appointed to the **LexPark Board**. ## Contested Items Two items generated notable disagreement during the April 28, 2026 Council meeting. **Mint Lane Pump Station Location** The council was divided over whether to move forward with the Mint Lane pump station at its existing location or pursue alternative sites. The debate centered on concerns about cost, environmental impact, and the site's capacity to accommodate future expansion. The structured record indicates the vote was split, reflecting a lack of consensus among council members on the best path forward. Specific vote tallies and individual member positions were not captured in the available data. **Solar Energy Systems Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment** The council engaged in a heated discussion regarding a proposed text amendment to the zoning ordinance governing solar energy systems. The central question was whether to send the amendment to the Planning Commission for further review. Members raised concerns about the potential effects on agricultural land use and broader environmental impact. The outcome of this discussion — including whether the item was ultimately referred to the Planning Commission or tabled — is not specified in the available record. ## Neighborhood Development Funds **Agenda Item 0337-26** [timestamp: 2:04:03] The Council received a presentation on the allocation and use of neighborhood development funds for various community projects. Council Member Baxter and Council Member Savigny were the key speakers on this item. The presentation addressed how neighborhood development funds are being directed toward community projects, though the specific projects, dollar amounts, and allocation details were discussed during this portion of the meeting. The item was **approved** by the Council. --- *Note: The available record for this agenda item contains limited detail regarding the specific arguments made, concerns raised, or projects discussed during the presentation. Readers seeking the full substance of the discussion are encouraged to view the meeting video beginning at timestamp 2:04:03.* ## Council Capital Projects *[timestamp: 2:06:16]* Agenda item 0338-26 consisted of a presentation providing updates on ongoing and planned capital projects funded by the Council. Key speakers on this item were **Vice Mayor Wu** and **Council Member Ellinger**. The presentation covered the status of capital projects currently underway as well as those in the planning pipeline that are supported by Council funding. The structured data available for this item does not include a detailed breakdown of the specific projects discussed, concerns raised during deliberation, or the substance of any debate between members. The item was ultimately **approved** by the Council. *Note: Additional detail on the specific projects presented, any amendments proposed, and the full scope of discussion may be found by reviewing the meeting video beginning at timestamp 2:06:16.* ## LexPark Budget Presentation **Agenda Item 0319-26** | [timestamp: 2:06:16] Executive Director Laura Boyson presented LexPark's proposed budget to the Council, focusing on the need for rate adjustments to cover maintenance costs and capital investments. **Key Points from the Presentation:** - Boyson outlined the financial requirements driving the proposed budget, emphasizing that rate adjustments would be necessary to fund ongoing maintenance and capital investment needs. **Outcome:** - The budget presentation was approved by the Council. *Note: Additional details regarding specific rate figures, capital projects, or Council debate were not available in the source materials for this item.* ## General Government & Planning Committee Summary [timestamp: 4:00:53] The Council received a summary report from the General Government & Planning Committee, presented by Council Member Sheehan, covering agenda item **0335-26**. The committee's discussion focused on two primary topics: - **Solar energy systems zoning ordinance text amendment** — The committee examined proposed changes to the zoning ordinance related to solar energy systems. Specific details of the amendment's provisions were addressed during the committee's deliberations. - **Development process efficiencies** — The committee also discussed ways to improve efficiencies within the development process. The item was informational in nature, and no formal vote or binding action was taken by the full Council at this meeting. The summary served to keep the broader Council informed of the committee's ongoing work on these planning and regulatory matters. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the April 30, 2026 Council Meeting Docket - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the April 30 Council Meeting Docket, an Ordinance changing the zone from an Agricultural Urban (A U) zone to a medium-density residential (R 4) zone, for 38.998 net (39.148 gross) acres, for property located at 3515 Richmond Rd., without a public hearing - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the April 30 Council Meeting Docket, an Ordinance changing the zones from an Expansion Area Residential-1 (EAR-1) zone and Agricultural Rural (A-R) zone to an Expansion Area Residential-2 (EAR-2) zone and Medium Density Residential (R-4) zone, for 2.33 net (2.77 gross) acres, for property located at 4184 Todds Rd., without a public hearing - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the April 21, 2026 Table of Motions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve Budget Amendments - **Motion** — passed (0-0): amend to allocate $2 million to establish a quasi-endowment fund (for the Opioid Abatement Funds) within LFUCG - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve New Business - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve Communications from the Mayor- Appointments - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve Communications from the Mayor- Donations - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve Communications from the Mayor- Procurements - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve Neighborhood Development Funds, April 28, 2026 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): move the Lexington Parking Authority Proposed FY27 Budget presentation after Council Capital Projects - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve Council Capital Projects, April 28, 2026 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the proposed FY 2027 budget of the Lexington and Fayette County Parking Authority - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the Docket for the April 30, 2026, Council meeting a Resolution approving the proposed FY 2027 budget of the Lexington and Fayette County Parking Authority, as well as the proposed fee or rate increases presented today, pursuant to KRS 67A.921 - **Motion** — passed (11-4): place on the Council Meeting docket for April 30, 2026, a resolution for first reading to send this proposed language to the Planning Commission for their review and a public hearing by initiating a Solar Energy Systems zoning ordinance text amendment - **Motion** — passed (10-5): 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 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): adjourn the meeting at 6:56 --- ## Full transcript ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ It's 3 o'clock, so I'll go ahead and call to order the Lexington Fayette-Urban County Council Work Session. Today is April 30th, 2026. I'm sorry, I'm looking at the work copy. It's the 28th, I'm ahead of myself. So the first item on the agenda is public comment for issues on the agenda. And we have quite a number of people signed up. So here is how this works. When I call your name, you'll need to come to the podium and you'll need to come to the podium and you'll need to come to the podium and you'll need to restate your name for the record and say your council district for the record. And if no one has yielded you time, you'll have three minutes. The council rules say no clapping, no booing, no throwing things, just be nice neighbors. So anyway, first up is Luke Fallon, followed by Elizabeth Nieto, and followed by Dean Pulsifer. And if you want to queue up, that would be great. It'll speed things along. So Luke, welcome. Well, thank you for your attention. I really did not have prepared comments and actually just had a break in my day. So I came down to speak on behalf of my family and for the land where I've grown up out on Military Pike. I'm so sorry to interrupt you. Will you state your name for the record? Oh, yes. I'm sorry. My name is Luke Fallon. And I am in District 10, I believe. Again, I came to speak on behalf of the farm where I grew up on Military Pike and also speak to you. You know, it's a bit of a tricky situation because we have a very close family relationship with the Bells and with Millridge Farm going back several generations. So I have a great affinity for Millridge. And the Heidleys and the Heidley property and the Heidley legacy. And they've done a fantastic job as far as being custodians of the land and the legacy that their forebears left. And what I think the council as well as the planning commission needs to be aware of is the impact that this decision will have as far as the ramifications going forward for the future as far as land use policy within the region. The urban service boundary was established sometime in the 1950s and was an act of brilliance, in my opinion, because it maintained the line as far as urban development and attaining proper growth. It was not meant to stifle growth, but to maintain a proper mode of growth for the city of Lexington. Personally, I'm a fifth generation equine veterinarian. I have worked very closely with the Bells and with the Heidley family for generations to raise some of the world's best thoroughbreds. That land continues to produce the premier breeding stock and racing stock in the world. And it truly puts Lexington on the map as far as a global leader. It draws in professionals from all walks of life. It draws in professionals from around the world. To my practice, I'm the medical director for a large equine practice out by the horse park called Highgird Equine Medical Institute. We're celebrating our 150th year here in Lexington. We employ about 70 veterinarians. We have about 400 lay staff that support us. And we support the farms within the region. We truly have a global clientele that come to Lexington because of the horses and because of the land. Again, I do appreciate your attention to this very sensitive matter because it does affect land use policy going forward and potentially changing or potentially abrogating the rule with the urban service boundary. So thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Elizabeth Nieto and followed by Dean Pulsifer. Welcome. Good afternoon, council members. My name is Elizabeth Nieto. I'm from District 12. And I'm a resident of Bowman Mill Road and a graduate student at the UK Patterson School of Diplomacy. I come to you all today not with new data, statistics, or key analytic insight, but rather I come to you from a perspective of a 23-year-old young woman who's grown up on this road. My grandparents have lived on Bowman Mill for nearly 50 years and my parents and I for the past 11. Few people have the privilege of being able to say they live in one of the most picturesque regions of the country. And that is not a privilege I or any of our road's residents take lightly. As one of the road's youngest residents, I fully intend to be able to say 50 years from now that Bowman Mill has retained the same level of beauty and character that it had when I was 23. I do not want to one day mourn the beauty this road once had. Rather, I want to be able to embrace the beauty that never left. And I have serious concerns that this will not be possible if we allow for a pumping station, which inevitably sets a precedent for future large scale development. To proceed with the development of the proposed pumping station on Bowman Mill Road would be to mar the image of the Bluegrass State itself. With the Derby rapidly approaching, we as Kentuckians get the opportunity to reflect on the lyrics of my old Kentucky home. Nowhere in these lyrics do we honor the unnecessary development of expansionary-based infrastructure in the very spaces that make the bluegrass unique. I do not contest the need for the pumping station itself, but I urge each of you to thoughtfully consider the alternative options that have been presented instead. As the cautionary tale goes, the grass isn't always greener on the other side. Rather, it is greenest where you water it. The allure of placing a pumping station in a location that would allow for future large scale development comes at a cost far greater than budgetary considerations alone. Please consider the residents of this road who have devoted their lives to watering our prized space, a space any Kentuckian would take pride in preserving for decades to come. Thank you each for your time and attention. Thank you. Next is Dean Pulsifer followed by Robert James and then Walter Gaffield. Welcome. Yep, Dean Pulsifer, District 10. Something needs to be done to address the pump station. The current location is too small and has limited expansion capabilities. Gravity means that moving it downstream is a logical solution. Putting the pump station downstream does not require expanding the urban service area and doesn't say that expansion will occur. It just says that it is the optimal location to support services within the urban service area. If we're going to spend tens of millions of dollars on addressing this issue, then we should do something that will handle potential future requirements so that we don't have to redo this in the future. The area around Dunbar is already developed and the sporting fields already have a visible effect in this area. Having a pump station in this area will have limited visual impact. I think the construction site risks need to be an important consideration so the Bowman Mills site seems a better option. The lack of additional capacity at the Dunbar site seems to be a critical deficiency with that solution. I would urge the council to think about the future impacts and benefits of whatever they implement. Don't do a short-term solution that limits our future capabilities. Thank you. Next is Robert James, followed by Walter Gaffield, followed by Henry Jackson. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor. I'm Robert James. I live in the 12th District, sixth generation crop farmer here in Fayette County, and I serve as president of the Farm Bureau. I'm here today to express our opposition to the amendment to the solar ordinance on the docket. The proposed amendment does not address our primary concern from last summer about allowing large-scale ground-mounted solar in the rural service area, in that it is primarily an industrial use. While the agrivoltaics now available allow some type of very limited agricultural use underneath the panels, these solar arrays are still a non-agricultural use. In the intent section of the ordinance, it is stated that appropriate siting of arrays should be designed to avoid adverse impacts to productive and nationally important agricultural lands. However, there are no concrete requirements spelled out in the body of the ordinance for the Board of Adjustment to consider the risks about siting that this development poses to prime farmland and soils of statewide importance. The Board of Adjustment must be empowered to deny permit applications that do not protect and conserve the quality of the soil, that do not align with the character of the rural service area, and that result in a de facto expansion of the urban service boundary. While the soil protection is lax in the amendment, the 1% limit on large-scale ground-mounted solar is also an insufficient protection. All it would take is another zoning ordinance text amendment, like we are going through now, to raise that limit in the future. Furthermore, the 1% limit is based on the landmass of Lexington-Fayette County, while the majority of this development would occur in the rural service area. Additionally, the Public Service Commission is not required to honor our decision to limit solar development to 1%. There has been only a vague assurance that they will respect our solar ordinance, something they are not legally entitled or legally obligated to do. At a time when even global, national, state, and local governments are reexamining their net-zero goals, we are rushing to install energy generation that is land-intense and energy-sparse. No industrial-scale solar project has yet been decommissioned and returned to active, productive farmland. Once our farmland is gone, it is gone forever. This proposed amendment to the ordinance is a huge step backwards for our city, and its nearly 70-year history of responsible land-use planning, which has made Lexington-Fayette County a national model in this department. We urge you to vote no on this amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Walter Gaffield, followed by Henry Jackson, followed by Susan Mullins. Welcome. Mayor Gorton, Vice Mayor Wu, members of the Council, I'm Walt Gaffield. I'm in the 10th Council District, and I'm speaking for the Harrods Hill Neighborhood Association Board of Directors. More work needs to be done on groundwater flooding, both regarding Expansion Area 1 and any growth expansion area 1 across Man o' War Boulevard. Groundwater has been traced from Parker's Mill Road to McConnell Springs Park. The area, the entire vicinity, is full of caves, sinkholes, and flooding basements. My own basement, when there's a severe storm, I've had a sump pump run for two weeks. And I think that's relatively common in the area. It's something that needs to be looked at and studied. Anyway, part of the work on infrastructure needs to include groundwater management, particularly in surrounding subdivisions. Second point, I've got three of them, is traffic on Parker's Mill Road does not look manageable right now by Expansion Area 1. Inside of New Circle Road, Parker's Mill includes two regional parks, one on each side of the road, a New Circle Road overpass that pinches the width of the road, a traffic light, a crossing from one park to the other, and an existing traffic problem. So it's not a perfect site. And, you know, if it expands, that may not be a perfect site either. But work is going to have to be done on traffic and roads. And it's going to have to, if it expands, that's going to have to be done first. And more work needs to be done on the existing Expansion Area. If Expansion Area 1's .3, if Expansion Area 1 expands across Man o' War Boulevard, the amount of sewage will increase significantly between southwest Lexington and the West Tickman Sewage Treatment Plant. That will reduce the capacity of the sanitary sewer system to handle overflows, I would think. I don't know how much. That's a technical question. And sewage capacity is never 100% perfect. It would be too expensive to do it that way. So there's a percentage set. And if you expand the amount of sewage, it's going to increase the likelihood that you're going to have problems with it. And that depends on the density of the development. Lexington will need to plan for the future and be very careful in selecting expansion sites. I don't think we're quite ready to make that decision yet in that area. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Henry Jackson, followed by Susan Mullins, and then Max Otrykov. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Henry Jackson, retired City Planner, 7th Council District. I recommend adoption of the proposed solar ZOTA for two reasons. First, in the absence of an assessment of local vulnerability for climate change and a corresponding resilience plan, this proposed maximum 1% large solar collection of ordinances of fair and reasonable action to at least begin to address the potential dual impacts of that and supply chain interruptions. Particularly, if I'm right, if this region proves to be a climate haven, and as I've explained in my May 25th Herald Leader Op-Ed, I've left additional copies as a leave behind for all members of Council. Second, I think we can all agree that Fayette County is a premier ag county in Kentucky. Failure to adopt this modest proposal could miss a leadership opportunity for the other 119 counties in the Commonwealth. Last, I'm in favor of maximizing the PDR program and ag land preservation. However, the question here is to balance these priorities. Where in the absence of any other regional action, we need to prepare for an uncertain future. Please read my Op-Ed. I'll try to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Susan Mullins, then Max Otrakoff, and then Phil, let's see, then Phil Meyer. Hi. Okay, welcome. My name is Susan Mullins, and I'm in the 9th District. I live in Palomar on Mangrove Drive. I've emailed Councilperson Baxter and emailed Mr. Martin, Charles Martin, many, many times about the Mint Lane. I guess it's called Mint Lane. We just call it the Bowman's Mill Sewer Pumping Station. For sure, the last two years, the pumping station has gotten a lot, lot worse. Luckily, I don't back to the pumping station. I'm across, in the court, I'm across the street from it. So when my husband and I go for a walk in the evenings, seven to, between seven, eight o'clock, I'd say 75% of the time, you can smell sewer. And when we're on our patio, we're good. We don't, you can't smell it. But our neighbors across the street, and one's going to be speaking here in a minute, they can't use their new patio, their new deck, because of the smell. And multiple times, and he'll speak on it, they have issues inside their house. It's so bad. And, you know, this, I don't know what the solution is. Mr. Martin has come down. He's been great. He's come down to our court multiple times, all times of the day, and he can't figure out what the issue is. And it's just, it's gotten really bad. And I don't know. I just wanted to give you what we're experiencing. So thank you. Thank you. Next is Max Otrakoff, and then Phil Meyer. I apologize if I messed up your name. Oh, you actually did it perfectly. Max Otrakoff, District 9. So I am actually the neighbor. You know, like, our backyard backs up to the station. And just like Susan mentioned, in the last two years, the situation drastically deteriorated. You know, like, it's gotten significantly worse. If prior to that, you know, like, and that's exactly when we did a mace of renovation, you know, like, added the deck. You know, like, it was, you know, like, sporadic. You know, like, once in a blue moon. Nowadays, it's on a regular basis. You know, like, I show up from work, you know, like, and it's guaranteed, you know, like, to experience the smell. And sometimes it actually gets in the house. So it's gotten that bad. So, you know, like, again, I do not know what the solution is. But, you know, like, from my understanding is, my understanding is, you know, like, construction is growing, right? You know, like, we have new condominiums and new houses, new shopping center built, you know, like, right on top of that. And it's actually, you know, like, just, you know, like, it's going to flow down this pumping station. So I think it's, you know, like, plain and simple. It's at capacity, and it's not functioning the way it's supposed to. And, you know, like, it's gotten to the point where our social schedule, you know, like, we cannot, you know, like, schedule any events, you know, like, in our house. You know, like, or, you know, like, basically keep the people inside only. You know, like, we have no ability to predict how it's going to look like. So, you know, like, imagine, you know, like, you moving into a great neighborhood with great neighbors, right? You know, like, that's pretty much the anchor point for us, because my wife was ready to throw a towel and say, like, forget it, we're going somewhere. I don't care where, but we're leaving, right? So it's been that bad, you know, like, if you can imagine. So, and, you know, like, we haven't done so yet. We hope that, you know, like, it's going to be addressed. You know, like, we had multiple meetings with our lady right there, Whitney Baxter, you know, like, and representative of the, you know, like, sewer handling in the city. But, you know, like, again, you know, like, they're trying, but we don't see the solution in sight. So hopefully with, you know, like, this new proposal of relocating a pumping station, like, from Dunbar, you know, like, it can, you know, help, you know, like, with the station that we have in our backyard. So, you know, and I don't know what to say, you know, like, and just, I'm going to repeat it again, you know, like, in the last two years, you know, like, it's gotten significantly worse. You know, like, I don't know how to measure it except my nose, which is not super sensitive, you know, like, and I can tell you, you know, like, it's not getting any better. So please consider it, you know, and thank you for your attention. Thank you. Next is Phil Meyer. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor Gordon. I'm Philip Meyer. I am, until a few years ago, I'm now a resident in the 3rd District, and until a few years ago, I was a lifelong resident of Military Park, so this issue is near and dear to my heart. I have a letter from the Rural Land Management Board. I'm the treasurer of that board. This letter is dated April 9th from Lawyer Martin. It was addressed to Vice Mayor Wu and members of the council. I'm writing on behalf of the Rural Land Management Board to advance, in advance, the advanced plan presentation on April 14th regarding the Mint Lane Pump Station relocation study. We recognize that the Mint Lane Pump Station has significant issues that require remediation and expansion. Due to the longstanding policy of not placing sewer infrastructure outside of the urban service boundary, we respectfully request that the council repair the existing pump station rather than constructing a new one at Blue Grass Airport or Bowman's Mill Road. Construction at the Bowman's Mill Road location could open up over 500 acres of land to development that could be adjacent to Helm Place, which is protected by a PDR easement and an H1 overlay. Helm Place is located at 2650 Bowman's Mill Road. The Rural Land Management Board appreciates the council doing their due diligence on this issue and the work of longtime director of water quality, Charlie Martin, in providing the research. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Gloria C. Martin, chair of Rural Land Management Board. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now, I need to do a little bit of cleanup work here. As you know, when you yield time, everyone has to be here, the speaker and the yielders. So if I could ask, is Nancy Bell here? There you are. Thank you. Is Healy Bell here? Okay. Thank you. So your time will be yielded to Price Bell. Is Alice Little here? Okay. Thank you. And your time will be yielded to Beth Bell. All right. We'll go ahead then. And next up is Price Bell, who will have nine minutes, followed by Beth Bell, who will have six minutes. Welcome. Thank you. Mayor Gorton and council members, my name is Price Bell, and I live in the 12th District with my wife, Beth, and our two children. My name is Price Bell, and I live in the 12th District with my wife, Beth, and our two children. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak. This government commissioned a robust engineering study that examined a number of potential sites. That report, authored by professional engineers at Stantec, has been delivered, and it provides what I believe each of you are looking for, clarity to help this important infrastructure decision. I know that each of you take the responsibility of your office very seriously, and that includes acting in a fiscally responsible manner. That responsibility requires you to look at both the short and long-term implications of this choice. The engineering report gives you the data to do exactly that, so let's dive in. The headline is straightforward. Dunbar at 19 million, Bowman Mill at 24, a difference of roughly $5 million. I want to be direct with you. That number is not a reliable basis for this decision, and I'm not saying that. The engineers are. The Stantec report explicitly states, and I'm quoting directly, that contractors are, quote, likely to increase their bid price due to the tight site conditions and associated risks at Dunbar, and that, quote, the magnitude of this impact on the project cost is unknown and cannot be reliably estimated. The report then states, quote, no increase in the project cost opinion is included for this consideration. Think about that. There is an acknowledged anticipated cost increase at the Dunbar site that the engineers could not quantify and therefore did not include in the $19 million figure. The gap between these two sites is narrower than it appears and could close further or reverse entirely. That is not a talking point. That is professional engineering judgment from the team that this government commissioned, and the bid premium risk is just the beginning. First, Karsten Foundation. Four rock borings were drilled at the Dunbar tank location to determine whether the site could safely support the tank structure. Only one of the four met the target quality criteria, and even that one encountered a void with soft clay, which the report identifies as suspected karst activity. The Dunbar cost estimate already assumes an expensive rock anchor foundation, but the report makes clear if conditions are worse than anticipated, costs will increase and there is, quote, limited area available to shift the tank location. You'd be locked in at the maximum risk. Contrast that with Bowman Mill. None of the rock borings indicated the presence of a karst feature, and critically, there is land adjacent to the site. If any issues emerge, the report confirms there is, quote, flexibility to shift the tank location, allowing for more economical foundation. That flexibility has real dollar value, particularly as the December 2030 consent decree deadline draws closer. Second, the risk to FCPS facilities. To protect the Dunbar baseball field from damage during excavation, the report calls for a 30-foot retaining wall on the north side of the tank. The report notes the construction of this wall would be especially difficult because contractor access is only available at the bottom of the slope. The engineers flagged that a ready rock-style gravity wall could work in this situation, but would need to be confirmed by geotechnical exploration, meaning it isn't confirmed yet. And critically, the report requires active coordination between the geotechnical and structural engineers throughout design, specifically to ensure the baseball field isn't damaged or lost. That is an engineer's way of saying damage to the FCPS facility is a real risk we are designing around. The cost of the foundation and retaining wall are included in the estimate. The cost of getting them wrong is not. That's a clear theme in this report. The Dunbar site is all risk, no reward. Third, the floodplain problem. At its current 150-foot diameter, which is what has been priced into the $19 million estimate, the Dunbar tank encroaches into the FEMA floodplain. The report states an approved conditional letter of MAP provision will be required from FEMA before construction activity can proceed. Hydraulic modeling of Cave Creek has not been performed, and the report states directly the increase in the flood hazard elevations caused by the tank are not known. Stantec also states that placement of the wet weather storage facility in the floodplain could increase the base flood elevations at Dunbar High School or in the Harrods Hill neighborhood. Again, the Dunbar site means more time, more cost, more risk. If the tank is shrunk to 100 feet in diameter to avoid the floodplain, it would need to be 77 feet tall, more than double the original height to hold the required volume. The report states this height would be outside the industry guidelines for economical tank design, meaning it would cost more, not less, and would exceed the height of the city's tallest wet weather storage tank by 26 feet. It would be Lexington's first sewage skyscraper in the middle of an academic campus. This 100 feet in diameter tank adjustment is not priced into the $19 million estimate. The Bowman Mills site, standard tank size and cost outside the 100-year floodplain entirely, no floodplain MAP provision, hydraulic modeling, or FEMA negotiation required. Reading this Dunbar data, it's no wonder why Director Martin keeps saying no one would choose this site. When you add it up, the unquantified bid premium, the karst uncertainty, the floodplain risk, the honest conclusion is this. The $5 million cost difference is a floor, not a ceiling, for Dunbar, and Bowman Mills' cost is more certain. We haven't even discussed land acquisition from FCPS, whether they're willing to sell or how much it will cost this government. We haven't discussed that the Dunbar site would require yet another pump station in Expansion Area 1, obligating the government to unnecessary operations and maintenance costs forever. Electricity, maintenance contracts, mechanical failures, and eventual capital replacement. Those numbers are all absent from this cost data. Choosing Dunbar is not fiscal responsibility. It's taking the taxpayer's wallet to the roulette table. The misinformation keeps circulating, so I'll say it again plainly. This is an infrastructure decision, not an expansion decision. The Mint Lane pump station already sits outside the urban service boundary. A 2025 survey by Banks Engineering confirmed it. It has operated on our property without our permission outside the line for 30 years without triggering a single expansion decision. The Rural Land Management Plan documents 261 acres of utility infrastructure across 18 separate parcels in the rural service area outside the urban service boundary. Placing utility infrastructure outside the urban service boundary is not, quote, creating a dangerous precedent. It is an established precedent. It is an established practice. Critically, the Comprehensive Plan, the central planning document required by law that governs how Lexington grows and changes over time, speaks directly to this moment. Theme B, Goal 1, Objective F states ensure stormwater and sanitary sewer infrastructure is placed in the most efficient and effective location to serve its intended purpose. The most efficient and effective location is Bowman Mill. Finally, this infrastructure decision has no impact on LP and GMP. That robust process is triggered only when annual growth trends data shows vacant land supply has fallen below a 20-year threshold. That threshold has not been met. This decision cannot trigger it, influence it, or bypass it. LP and GMP is a process this community worked hard to build and we support it without reservation. The right infrastructure decision is also the right housing decision. Choosing Bowman Mill means Expansion Area 1 can connect via gravity, no second pump station required. As Director Martin says, gravity works for free and it doesn't take a day off. That matters because infrastructure costs flow directly into home prices. In a city desperate for attainable housing, this Council has a rare opportunity to structurally lower the cost of building it. In closing, Council Members, the Engineering Report is in and it provides the clarity you are looking for. The engineering data points clearly to Bowman Mill as the most feasible, most fiscally responsible, and most forward-looking choice for our city. The short-term cost difference is narrower than advertised and loaded with unquantified risk. The long-term cost picture runs in Bowman Mill's favor. The environmental opportunity is rare and time-sensitive. The housing benefit is concrete and the infrastructure precedent is already established. This is a chance to solve a problem correctly, not just adequately. To remediate a decade of sewage overflows, restore a wetland, lower the cost of housing, and build infrastructure designed for where Lexington is going, not just where it has been. Trust the engineering data you commissioned. Follow the policy you worked hard to create. Let's build this right for today and tomorrow. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Beth Bell, who will have six minutes, followed by Sandra, either Keeser or Kaiser, and I apologize. Welcome. Hi. Thank you. My name is Beth Bell and I live in the 12th district on Bowman Mill Road. I live on Mill Ridge Farm and am advocating for the movement of the pump station to the Bowman Mill site. Two weeks ago, I shared with you how our family cares for and stewards the land and animals at Mill Ridge. Today, I would like to address a few particular points that folks have brought up regarding the opportunity to restore the wetland around Cave Creek. First, we have the rare opportunity to restore 25 acres and one linear mile of wetland area with the state of Kentucky. Kentucky Fish and Wildlife plans to invest $2 million of state funds to restore this wetland and conserve it in perpetuity. The scale of this opportunity is significant as there are no other wetland restoration projects happening in Fayette County despite 80% of all wetlands in the state being lost. People have asked, if you fix the Mint Lane Pump Station, why can't you still restore the wetland? Kentucky Fish and Wildlife has shared that if the pump station is upstream of the wetland, they will not be able to participate in the project because of the chance it would overflow again and degrade the $2 million restoration investment they have made. Commissioner Martin said, when referring to a refurbished Mint Lane Pump Station at the April 14th meeting, he said, this pump station overflows, indicating that even a refurbished pump station with a wet weather storage tank may overflow at some point in the future. The state knows this and cannot make this investment of $2 million without the pump station being downstream. Our family and our farming did not ruin this wetland area. Sewage drainage onto our land did. We have the opportunity and the possibility of impact on naturally occurring springs. Kentucky Fish and Wildlife are very aware of the springs. They approached the current landowner of the springs in question about participating in the restoration project. They declined. Because the wetland project is requisite on the movement of the pump station, their initial studies anticipated the trunk sewer line connecting the existing site to the Bowman Springs, nor the overall wetland habitat to be restored. Andrea Dreher, a wetland expert with over 20 years of experience and owner of Healing Habitats LLC, who spoke to Council at the last meeting on April 14th, put it well. Quote, when constructing anything, there is always a risk of harm to natural systems. Likely, the new wetland system will likely not impact construction. That being said, Lexington is full of springs since it is a heavy karst area. Likely, very little development that happens in or near Lexington does not impact a spring system in some way. The overall good of the larger wetland system will outweigh the risks. We have been working with our 11-year-old son on the contaminants in the water on our farm. He found that both Cave Creek and the springs on Millridge are contaminated with E. coli bacteria. This is no doubt a concern for us. We want to make sure that we are making sure that we are making sure that we are making sure that we are making sure that we are trying to get to the solution. Our company wants a solution that is attractive even more than those who have expressed their concerns. The long-term fiscal responsibility and 2 weeks ago, they assured that this Service would not circumvent growth management program. This is a solution that will be lost otherwise. It protects our water supply and is a solution that can be made to blend in with the surrounding landscape. I hope you will make the right choice and help restore some of Kentucky's wetlands by moving this pump station to the Bowman mill site. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Sandra Kieser, followed by Blake Spurgeon, and then Susan Smith Sargent. Sandra? Welcome. Hi. I'm Sandra Kieser. I'm a senior assistant to the Bowman mill site. I'm Sandra Kieser. Sandra, welcome. Hi. I'm Sandra Krieser and I'm living in district five but I work in district one and I'm concerned with the parking situation and the request to raise the rates in parking garage again. I work at art artist attic, which is a collection of artists on top of the main and Broadway. Some of you may have been there. And we've been there since 1988 and we're artists, you know. And we don't have much of an income. We subsist as best we can. We're concerned with Lex Park's attempts to keep raising the parking rates because we're not the only people downtown who are not really concerned about the parking rates. We're concerned about the parking rates. We're concerned with Lex Park's attempts to keep raising the parking rates because we're not the only people downtown who are not wealthy and have to park to go to work. And indeed, you know, if you talk to people who work for local businesses, waitresses, and sales clerks, and various other people, we're all struggling to get by. And it's hurting business. Our visitors can't park when they want to come to the attic. And our artists can't park. So it's really a problem. And so we're concerned with Lex Park's attempts to keep raising the parking rates because we're not the only people downtown who are not wealthy and have to park to go to work. And several of our artists use the garage on short street to park in when they go to the attic because we have to carry a lot of things sometimes, we're artists and we have a lot of gear, and we need to park close by. So the fees are already very high and they're extremely high at the garages during special events. And on-street parking is limited to one or two hours. If you're working on a painting, it's really hard to get it done in an hour. And fines for parking violations have been as high as $50. We have a few people who have already been cited that much. That's a lot of money for an artist or a waitress. Pre-COVID, we saw increased revitalization of the downtown area. But increased parking is a problem. And so we're concerned about that. So I know that Cincinnati is in the process of installing a free trolley service. I had a talk with someone who worked on that project, who came to visit the attic, actually. And we once had a trolley service. And it was a free trolley service. And it was a free trolley service. And it was a free trolley service. And it was a free trolley service. And we once had a trolley here. And that was especially good on gallery hops and very helpful. And I understand Lex Park is thinking about instituting a new trolley service. But they're going to charge money. And it's a very limited service area. So anyhow, in a plea to make Lexington a vibrant artistic community, please. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Blake Spurgeon. Then Susan Smith Sargent. And then Mary Jeffries. Welcome. Welcome. Good afternoon. My name is Blake Spurgeon. I'm on the community relations team with Silicon Ranch. And so I've had the pleasure to meet a handful of you. And I just want to say we came to you guys in 2021 starting this solar conversation. And I really appreciate the thorough time and effort you all have taken to look at this very diligently. And so because of that, I'm not going to soak up too much of your time. You'll have heard plenty from me already. But our model of dual-use solar really does blend the needs of Fayette County. It keeps land in agricultural production while getting ahead of an energy demand that's already hit all-time highs and keeps climbing. This council has already taken steps in that direction. You've already approved a project directly adjacent to the project that we are proposing to build here in Fayette County. This ZOTA builds on that foundation and raises the bar even higher. Real agricultural standards, soil protections, decommissioning requirements so that only the projects truly committed to protecting the agricultural identity of Fayette County can even come to the table with a proposal. That's a precedent for the entire state, showing that solar can be done in a way that protects the soil and meets the growing need for energy. No other energy source can make that claim by protecting the soil and meeting the growing demand for energy. Regarding the Rural Land Management Board and the Environmental Commission, we presented to the Rural Land Management Board first in May of 2024. While we were not a part of the discussion earlier this month, we appreciate that the board had plenty of time to review the updated ZOTA language last week. We've also presented to the Environmental Commission on two separate occasions, first in July of 2024 and again earlier this month. All this to say, a yes vote today keeps this conversation going and keeps the community still in the conversation. After all the time and good faith effort that everyone has invested in getting this right, this conversation deserves to move forward, to continue. We are grateful for a seat at the table and look forward to working with everyone in this room to get this right for Fayette County. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Susan Smith Sargent, followed by Mary Jeffries. Welcome. Hi. Thank you. I'm Susan Smith Sargent, and I live in District 3, but I also work downtown in District 1. I'm an artist also at the Artist Attic. I think Sandra was very articulate in presenting the problem. I just feel very strongly that downtown cannot thrive if it becomes financially inaccessible to the very people who create its vitality. The proposed parking increases from $12 to $19 daily maximum significantly raise the hourly rate and really don't raise revenue, they raise barriers. A vibrant arts and retail district depends on accessibility. When parking becomes a deterrent, foot traffic drops, small businesses suffer, and the cultural life of the city weakens. Gallery hops and classes, local commerce rely on people being able to show up easily and affordably. As an artist working downtown, I am already priced out of parking. I can't afford to park downtown. When I say downtown, that means the people who contribute to Lexington's cultural identity are being pushed away from the spaces they sustain. More importantly, these costs discourage visitors, the art buyers, workshop participants, and community members from coming downtown at all. If Lexington truly wants a flourishing downtown, parking policy must align with that goal. These increases move us in the opposite direction, away from inclusivity, away from economic diversity, and away from a thriving arts community. I urge the council to reconsider these changes and prioritize accessibility as a cornerstone of downtown development. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Mary Jeffries. Welcome. Thank you so much. Most people know me by my nickname, Zan, and I also am an artist at Artist Attic. Minimally, it would cost me $12 to $20 a day to park, and I do have to park to work there. I have done a little bit of research, and the economic disincentive study by the National League of Cities found that parking fee increases of 50% or more lead to a 12% to 18% drop in small business transactions, harming local sales and tax revenue. In addition, the Tax Policy Center research says that while sometimes intended to boost turnover, excessive fees deter people from visiting commercial areas, reducing the economic vitality of city centers. As a group of artists, we attract visitors. They want to see art. They want to have places to go downtown when they're visiting. Well, when the parking costs so much, it's discouraging to them, and they will not come downtown. They will not shop in the stores. They will not come into the art galleries and buy, and that's a problem. So I would encourage the council not to raise the parking fees. It would have a huge detriment on those of us that work downtown. Thank you. Thank you. Now, is Christina Dudek here? Okay, and are you yielding your time to John Phillips? Okay. Is Don Robinson here? And are you yielding your time to John? Okay, so next is John Phillips, who will have nine minutes, and you'll be followed by Sharon Michael and then Robert Aiken. Welcome. My name is John Phillips, and I live in the 5th District, but I work in the 12th and have for 30 years. The issue before you is whether or not to relocate the Mint Lane pump station. Your decision has far-reaching impact. Now, it's amazing how one can read the same engineering study and come up with completely different results. Even sewer capacity, let me rephrase. There have been a lot of issues introduced in this discussion, but most of them are obscuring sidebars that really are far less important than the primary issue. Even the sewer capacity and overflow concern are not the primary issue. Now, they're very, very important. I don't mean to suggest that. Since it has been established that a renovated Mint Lane pump station will address the sewer and overflow issues, even with some engineering challenges, and accommodate the new development in Area 1. Now, I have great empathy, I really do, for the issues of overflow and smell, because I work every day by stink creek. Whatever issues Mill Ridge has with stench, dumped raw sewage, and frequent flooding, I've had it worse. Where is stink creek, you might ask? That's what everyone west of the Town Branch Treatment Facility called Town Branch. The stream was indescribably awful, especially after significant rain events. It was also one of the first areas to be addressed by the remediation plan created by the consent degree. And just like Mill Ridge, I was mad. Just like Mill Ridge and the neighborhood, I was very skeptical of a fix. But I was wrong to presume that the experts, such as Charlie Martin, would be incapable of fixing those problems. The Town Branch is no longer stink creek. The remediation has worked wonders, and frankly returned about 20 acres to my farm because it doesn't flood like it used to. If Mr. Martin says that a rejuvenated Mint Lane station can handle the current problems and accommodate Area 1, then I believe him, and so should you. If the overflow and sewer issues can be fixed at Mint Lane for a lot less, or frankly even if they cost the same, then the real issue is one of placement, setting up, and expansion, and then development. The proposed development of Mill Ridge, which I trust you've seen, which is outside the urban service boundary, would require USB expansion. I hate to say this because I really like the Bells. I really like Price. I really like Healy. But I find that really disingenuous. The desire to develop Mill Ridge, the pump location, station, and tank, would not be before us if we didn't have the development issue. So let me read that again. But for the desire to develop Mill Ridge, the location of the pump station would not even be discussed. The development plan, and it's innovative, it's luxurious, is in the wrong place. We're putting the cart before the horse. When I served on the Mayor's Advisory Committee with some of you to determine where to expand, we dealt with one criteria, sewerability. We did not consider police. We did not consider fire. We did not consider traffic. We did not consider any of those basic elements you might ordinarily expect. Why? Because the primary element, the primary criterion for a city that's on a hill with seven distinct watersheds, sewerability was and still is the driving criterion. Even under the process which you've developed, Section 5 identifies it as a critical element to development. In the case before us, if you approve relocating the pump station and tank to Bowman Mill at taxpayer's expense, you will reduce the sewer infrastructure costs that the Bells would otherwise incur. There is no public nor governmental interest. This represents a private benefit at public expense, a benefit all developers would seek. This is inappropriate. Allow me to make one more point. There's a large company that has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in central Kentucky. They have factories in Bourbon and Woodford counties, but their headquarters is here in Fatt County. They employ hundreds of people throughout central Kentucky. The company, which will be affected by this decision, will not speak up. Why? Because they consider themselves a guest of our community and feel privileged to be here in our bluegrass. The company is a foreign company. And as a guest, they believe it is inappropriate to weigh in on community politics. I find that tremendously honorable. If they are guests, though, that makes us the host. The factory floor is bluegrass. And they are a global business, the biggest in the thoroughbred industry, the biggest in the world. I speak of Godolphin Darley on Bowman's Mill Road directly across from Mill Ridge and the proposed pump station and the massive tank. Darley is breathtakingly beautiful, and it's open to the public. I ask you, is placing a pump station with a monstrous tank literally across the street from the front door of a business headquarters, is that how you want to treat our guests? I can't imagine that this council would do that to any other company that came to our county, let alone one who employs hundreds and has brought so much income to our community and adds to the distinction that we call our brand, the horse country, the capital of the world for horses. Your choice today sends a message, not just because it's inappropriate, but it sends a message to all of what we want to be. Thank you for your time. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Now we'll hear from Sharon Michael and then Robert Aiken. Welcome. Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council. My name is Sharon Michael and I'm a resident of the 9th District. The Bowman's Mill Military Park Corridor of Fayette County is a truly special place for many who live here. My husband and I have called Firebrook our home for 25 years, raising our family in this community. One of the primary reasons we chose this area when relocating from St. Louis was its unique balance of suburban living alongside the beauty and surrounding horse farms and natural landscapes. While I understand the need to upgrade the Mint Hill Pump Station, I am concerned that the proposed relocation would serve as a catalyst for expanding the urban survey boundary for private gain. Specifically, the expansion of Mill Ridge Farm risks undermining the integrity of the Preservation and Growth Management Program, which has long protected Fayette County's rural character. In addition, such expansion would place increased strain on existing infrastructure. The existing roadways in this corridor are not designed to support intensified urban development and the resulting costs would ultimately fall to LFUCG and its taxpayers. As elected officials entrusted with fiscal responsibility, I urge you to vote against the proposed new location of the pump station. Retaining and upgrading the station at its current site represents a more responsible and cost-effective solution that aligns with the county's long-term planning goals. Thank you for your consideration. Next is Robert Aiken followed by Bruce Breeding and then Emma Ferrier. Welcome. Good afternoon, Mayor Gorton, Vice Mayor Wu and Urban County Council Members. I appreciate a few moments of your time today to address our concerns in favor of the zoning motion and it's coming up here certainly and moving it forward to the next level. I want to begin by clarifying. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Will you state your name for the record and your council district? My name is Robert Aiken and we reside in Council District 4 on Will Hite Drive there at Labors Local 189. Thank you. I apologize for that. Getting ahead of myself a little bit. I want to begin by clarifying what this vote represents and not just and just as importantly what it does not represent. A yes vote today is not a final approval of the ZOTA. It is not the end of the conversation. It is rather a commitment to continue the conversation and ensures that the community retains a voice in shaping the outcome and keeps the process moving forward in a thoughtful, transparent way. A yes vote is at its core a vote for continued community input. This issue is not new to Fayette County. It has been a part of an ongoing dialogue for more than two years. During that time, residents, stakeholders, and leaders have engaged in meaningful discussions about how we balance growth, preservation, and innovation in this community. At the heart of this conversation is an opportunity, an opportunity for our community to lead, particularly to lead in the development of dual-use solar that both protects our rich agriculture heritage and contributes to clean, locally generated energy. This approach is not about choosing between farming and energy production. It is about finding a path that allows us to do both responsibly and sustainably. We also have to acknowledge a broader reality. Energy demand is at an all-time high. And all indicators show that it will continue to rise in the years ahead. The question is not whether the demand will grow, but because it will, the question is how Fayette County chooses to prepare it. Many things are coming into reality in the world now. Data centers, whether here in Fayette County or not, support of AI, need huge amounts of electrical energy. This is due to the fact of the nature of what it takes to do that. The energy comes off the grid. So Fayette Countians will pay for part of this in one form or fashion in the future. So it's imperative that we increase our energy in all aspects. Today's vote is a step toward assuring those decisions remain in local hands. It allows Fayette County to intentionally, to be intentional about how to meet future energy needs while preserving what makes this community unique. Do we take a productive approach that reflects our community's values and priorities or do we wait and allow the decision? Can I have one more sentence please? Again, a yes vote does not finalize anything at this current time and I encourage you to review this and look at it and move forward with it. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Bruce Breeding followed by Emma Ferrier and then Alma Ferrier. Welcome. My name is Bruce Breeding. I'm a resident of the 9th District. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I came here from the outside. I am not a native Lexingtonian. I'm married into a Lexington family. And several years ago my father-in-law was at the doctor across from St. Joe Hospital and he mentioned to the doctor I used to cut tobacco in a field right here. And he looked over and the doctor scrawled in his notes signs of dementia. He in fact had cut tobacco in a field where that building was. He grew up on Beaumont Farm. He saw Lexington grow over time. And all of us understand the difficult quandary that we face. I speak in support of the upgrade and repair of the Mint Lane Station. As someone who came here from the outside, I have the opportunity to remind all of us just how remarkable this place is. How different it is from any other place in the United States. When people come to visit us, they say it looks like a postcard. Is this real? And I say yes, it is. And I talk about the struggle that we have. We're like some Greek god that eats its own children. We don't want to expand, but we know to a certain degree we have to, and so we try to manage it. And I think every time someone, when we talk about this particular issue, says, it's not an issue of expansion. Yes, it's an issue of expansion. Every new stop sign that we put in is an issue of expansion. And so I speak not to the economics of this, you've heard that, you've read it. I speak not to the specifics about how this is going to benefit one group or not benefit another group. You've heard that. I speak, hopefully, to the spirit of this place. Lexington is unique, and every time we begin to deal with these issues, it's like death by a thousand cuts. And so I encourage you, I respectfully encourage you all to give serious consideration to what I believe is the most reasonable option to this issue, which is the upgrade and repair of the Met Lane station. Thank you all for the opportunity to speak. Thank you. Now we'll hear from Emma Farrier and then Alma Farrier. Welcome. Hi, my name is Emma Farrier and I live in District 12. Having lived in this area for nearly all of my life, I have a deep appreciation for the land. And I would like for it to be utilized and appreciated by future generations as well. This land is not only important to our identity as a community, but also to our economy. In order for these businesses to continue to thrive, we have to protect it. And the way that we can do that for this land is for the future by sticking to our policies, like keeping the placement of the pump station where it is and upgrading it where it is. As a 30-year-old Lexingtonian, I believe that this farmland is worth protecting for all that it offers to this community. Decisions that council members make today tell us about their priorities for the future. Lexington's growth is inevitable, but I believe there's a better way to go about it, rather than opening the doors to develop and destroy this farmland forever. Lexington has such a unique beauty that cannot be quantified. It's priceless. If we allow the urban service boundary to be extended to this farmland or more, a domino effect of development is likely to follow suit. Widen roads, more cramped neighborhoods, less agriculture, more taxpayer money, etc. Grow in and not out. For all of these reasons, upgrading the Mint Lane Pump Station in its current location is the best fiscal decision and the best public policy decision. Please support farmland and responsible growth for the future generations like mine. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next is Alma Ferrier. Welcome. Hi, my name is Alma Ferrier and I live in District 12. Thank you, Mayor Gordon and fellow council members for allowing me this time. I am in opposition to the relocation of the Mint Lane Pump Station to Bowman Mill Road. I am a neighbor of the Bowman Mill Corridor. My family and I live on Military Pike. My family started and still operates Haggard Veterinary Clinic, which employs, as you heard from my brother at the start, more than 400 people here in Lexington and is in practice for more than, and sorry, in Lexington and is a practice of more than 70 equine veterinarians. The company is celebrating its 150th anniversary in Lexington, and it is the oldest private vet clinic in the world. It was started in Lexington and has remained in Lexington because of the land here, because of the horses, and it helps support a key sector of the Lexington's economy. The land is my family's livelihood, and it will continue to be for the next generation. My daughter and nephew are both pursuing veterinary degrees. This land is unique in the world for raising thoroughbreds. It is the limestone in the soil throughout this area that supports these animals and the entire industry, which adds billions of dollars to the community and supports thousands of jobs. The industry depends on the land. The decision of the council makes on whether to upgrade this pump station and its existing location or move it to Bowman Mill Road impacts the future of our land and its key industries. It may seem far-fetched, but this policy choice will have a ripple effect. It will have a domino effect on Bowman Mill Road and nearby areas like Military Pike and agricultural areas that currently exist beyond Man o' War Drive, which is a natural stopping point for urban sprawl. It signals to our community how our decision makers feel about the importance of farmland and the industries that rely on it. It is not only fiscally responsible to upgrade the Mint Lane Pump Station in its current location. It is responsible policy for our future generations who want and need to rely on the land for their jobs and the animals that land supports and the identity of Lexington's prides itself on. I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now, is Susan Kellogg here? And you're yielding your time to Brittany. Okay, and then Ann Bakus, I thought I saw you're yielding your time to Brittany. Okay, and then is Laura Anderson here? And are you yielding your time to Aaron Michael, Mikkel? Okay, all right. So Brittany Rothmeyer is next, and we'll have nine minutes. And then Aaron is after that, and we'll have six minutes. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Members. Brittany Rothmeyer on behalf of Fayette Alliance. I just want to thank each of you for your consideration of this, of the Mint Lane topic. There are a lot of people here that care about it. There are a lot of people that reached out to you. It's difficult, as you all well know, for people to come down to City Hall at 3 o'clock on a Tuesday. So I just want to say thank you to everyone in the audience here who's taking time out of your day, frankly on any issue, but also on this Mint Lane issue. And if you all are here to oppose the relocation of Mint Lane Farm or of Mint Lane Pump Station, will you all please raise your hands? I just want the council to see how many folks are here. This decision before you all today is about more than a pump station. It's about policy, it's about precedent, it's about process. And frankly, this matter is pretty simple, although we've made it to be pretty complex. All the comments and all the discussion that you all have been a part of can be distilled into a few main points. Addressing the need for the neighbors, fiscal responsibility, and setting consistent and strong policy. All of these points make it clear why upgrading sewer facilities at the existing Mint Lane location is the best choice for the Lexington community at large. There are a few things that have been raised throughout this discussion that are confusing the main issues. This issue isn't about creating housing affordability or attainability. We expanded the USB in 2023, just three years ago, to work on this. This isn't about engineering constraints, which are manageable and already accounted for in the designs. Karst topography, limestone under the soil, is present throughout the area, which is exactly why farms exist throughout this corridor. This isn't about clean water, because we know that fixing Mint Lane where it is achieves that for everyone. This isn't about errors in a property survey. It's not about other situations where infrastructure is outside the USB. We know those were all done to fix a situation that didn't have another solution. None of them were done to accommodate for future unplanned growth. This isn't about difficulties in purchasing land. LFUCG will have to negotiate with Fayette County Public Schools or with the Bells, and we'd all be naive to think that either party won't have costs and conditions. It's been mentioned to me that one of our elected officials went to the school board to discuss this one on one behind the scenes. I think this is concerning because it circumvents the idea that this is a public conversation and a public issue. I want to get to the real issues here. The first is need. The flooding and odor issues that you all have heard about at nauseam need to be addressed. It's abundantly clear that making sewer improvements at Mint Lane fully meet the conditions of the consent decree and will resolve serious flooding and odor issues that have impacted surrounding areas. And they'll fully serve new expansion area one, which is the only area close by where the community has approved new growth. The second is fiscal responsibility. Upgrades at Mint Lane can do all these things at a significant discount to the taxpayer. The updated presentation indicates that that's nearly $7 to $9 million less than relocating facilities to Mill Ridge Farm. This choice uses existing infrastructure that we've already built and invested in instead of building completely new. Lexington has nearly 3,000 acres of approved new areas for growth and other neighborhoods throughout the community that need support and need infrastructure investment. Why would we spend $8 million more than we have to in a single location where we haven't identified a need yet for future growth? We owe it to our taxpayers to explore this option to its fullest. And not doing so is frankly a disservice to our community. The additional $8 million that LFUCG is proposing spending talking about today would ultimately personally benefit two private landowners who happen to be related. The owners of new expansion area number one and the owners of Mill Ridge Farm. Neither of whom who would have to pay for their own infrastructure when they develop if this sewer is moved. Their personal benefit would be paid for by every Lexingtonian in this room who has paid sewer fees since the EPA consent decree in 2011. That simply isn't right. Why are individual property owners trying to undermine engineers on this topic? The third issue is strong and consistent policy. In 2023, the Mayor's Advisory Group studied where to expand. Talked about Mill Ridge. They voted to exclude it. The Planning Commission confirmed that. The community confirmed that. Since 2023, Mill Ridge has continued their plans to develop their property. In June 2025, I was personally invited to attend a design brainstorming session for Mill Ridge Farm, which is outside the urban service boundary. I know that all of you all received a copy of this. I've also included it as an attachment to be entered into the record. I know you all are invited, but did not attend on the advice of the law department of the city. Community members, neighbors, and elected officials have been invited to Mill Ridge to discuss and view ongoing development plans. I know that some of you have gone there personally. It's their right to pitch it to anyone that they'd like to. Their proposed ideas for development are well done. They're sophisticated, they're engaging the community, and all of these are good things under most other circumstances. But this land isn't inside the urban service boundary, and it's not the process that our community relies on. We don't make decisions about infrastructure based on the sophistication of an individual development design. Designs change. Infrastructure investments do not. Two months after that June design event, in August 2025, the first public conversation about relocating these sewer facilities came up. But for this development plan, there would be no discussion, and the original plans to upgrade Mint Lane in its current location would have moved forward. We know that plan's possible because it was always the plan. Mill Ridge intends to develop their farm. They've told the majority of you all about it. The farm is outside the urban service boundary. And now, today, you're evaluating a decision to relocate the sewer to the very same property. And then there's the Preservation and Growth Management Program. The process is strong. It's why Fayette Alliance supported it and repeatedly applauded your efforts from this podium. You all are and should be proud of the process. I've also included as a handout section five of this process, our very own process that we adopted in February. Under section five, there's only three criteria that must be met when a property owner applies to be included in the urban service boundary. One of those three criteria is that a property must have access to sewer connections to be considered for expansion. Relocating these sewer facilities onto the Mill Ridge property that's proposed for development would fulfill this single most significant criteria for future expansion at the tax payer's expense, at the expense of everyone in this room. The questions before us are simple. Are we going to go against decades of city policy and choose to relocate infrastructure outside the urban service boundary? Are we going to pay more tax dollars to relocate and build new instead of using what we have? Are we going to use technicalities, construction challenges, and boundary arguments to justify intentionally placing infrastructure outside the boundary? And are we going to move city infrastructure to the same property as a site-specific plan for development at the tax payer's expense? That's what relocating these facilities would achieve. On the other hand, are we going to fix flooding, odors, and make sure our neighbors have clean water while using less tax dollars to do so? Are we going to invest in our existing infrastructure? Are we going to support long standing policies to keep infrastructure inside the urban service boundary? No option is without challenges or negotiations. But relocating infrastructure to Bowman Mill demonstrates how boundaries, just like ours, erode. Not all at once, but one decision at a time. Upgrading mid-length facilities where they are reinforces the integrity of the urban service area and sends a very clear message that we mean what we say about managing growth and using tax payer dollars efficiently. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Aaron, and you'll have to say on the record if it's Michael or Mikkel, and you have six minutes. Welcome. It's Michael. It's not the first time it's gone wrong. Okay. My name is Aaron Michael. I work for and with the Fayette Alliance, and I'm a very proud resident of District 10. I think as a community, we first started talking about solar about 18 months ago. I think it was September of 2024. Since then, we've had multiple rounds of public comment, a unanimous vote from the planning commission, and a vote from this very council. Both votes resulting in a vote against solar in our rural lands. Even though we are heading towards two years of discussion on this topic, Fayette Alliance is not tired of talking about solar. Clean energy is important to our community's future, and it's worth the continued conversation. So thank you for being a council that prioritizes a cleaner Lexington. While we're not tired of talking about solar, we are fatigued and frustrated about how we continue to prioritize the wrong type of solar for our community. We spent far too much time, energy, and resources prioritizing industrial scale solar on our farmland. The type of rural solar we've been focusing on doesn't directly benefit our community. We can't track where the energy gets utilized or require community benefit agreements to ensure it does. Yes, it will create temporary construction jobs, which are very important. But we also have 200 acres at the Legacy Business Park and 3,000 acres of expansion land already approved for development and construction. This type of policy decision also puts a lot of jobs at risk in another sector of our economy, our agriculture sector. So it doesn't seem like this solar decision is really about jobs. The recommendations you have before you today, created by a work group of only four council members, continue to accommodate a private, for-profit Nashville-based developer, Silicon Ranch. Even though we've already had two votes against solar in the rural area already. What these recommendations before you today failed to do is incorporate best practices from state and national organizations like Kentucky Resource Council and American Farmland Trust. Best practices that safeguard our soils and make sure our community members, not utility, not private companies, our community members, are the ones that actually benefit from our renewable energy policies. These recommendations fail to protect prime farmland. They lack safeguards against damaging construction practices, do not require adequate setbacks or buffering for neighboring properties. They also provide minimal oversight of agriculture use alongside solar and omit updated storm water standards, despite very clear national research showing that solar development requires different management than conventional construction. We are a community with a $2.6 billion agriculture industry. Our landscape is iconic and recognized across the world. So why are we omitting best practice recommendations from two of the most credible sources on environmental and agricultural protection? The Rural Land Management Board and Environmental Commission were asked to weigh in, but those recommendations haven't been shared with the public. Why would we start the clock on this Zoda now, again? Today, I urge you to vote against sending these recommendations to the Planning Commission for further discussion. They already voted unanimously against industrial solar on our rural land once before. Today, let's make the decision to finally start talking about the right kind of solar for Lexington-Fayette County. A couple of examples. How do we ensure that the 2023 expansion areas are built out to be as energy efficient as possible? Fayette Alliance has been told repeatedly that retrofitting our urban core with rooftop solar, with parking lot solar, is too expensive, it's too hard. Okay, we have 3,000 acres of new development to work with that doesn't need to be retrofitted. It just needs to be prioritized. Can we work towards prioritizing rooftop solar on schools and government buildings first? This would certainly reduce operation costs. How do we partner with Blue Grass Airport to create parking lot solar? Evansville, Indiana has already done this and now powers 50% of the airport terminal's electricity demand with solar energy. How do we build protections and strong regulations into our ordinance to balance solar and renewables without jeopardizing a $2.6 billion industry here in Fayette County? Please stop prioritizing industrial solar on farmland and start working towards clean energy solutions that actually benefit our community. Today, we ask you not to forward these recommendations to the Planning Commission. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Next is Rick Day, followed by Amy Clark, and then Don Todd. Is Rick here? All right, then we're going to move on to Amy Clark, and then Don Todd. Amy Clark? Is Amy here? All right, well, Don Todd's on his way up. You're next. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor. My name's Don Todd, and I live in the 12th District. And I live fairly close proximity to the proposed upgraded sewer treatment pump station, whatever. I'm encouraging you to maintain the current location and improve it or repair it. And I want to talk to you from a little different perspective. I've been involved in comp plan update committees for 30 years. I served on the council four terms, representing the 12th District. And this battle has been ongoing since 1958. And what we've done as a community is outstanding. We have managed to preserve an industry that is so sensitive and at the same time allow for economic growth in an area that is flagship for the state. This proposal is a de facto zone change. And if you don't believe that, you need to do more research. When you give this proposal to move it to Bowman's Mill, you in effect are giving them a zone change. You have taken them from a tourist seat to a priority seat on the airplane of development. They can stand in front of any planning zoning commissioner or the city council and say, we already have sewer. Those other people don't. And our sewer was built by the city. So we know it's built to good standards. You don't have to come out and check it and see if our pump station's not working right, etc. So they move to a priority position. And we've done that without calculating and seeing all those issues that we typically look at when we consider rural inclusion. What kind of soils are out there? Do we know? Is it Moorish silt loam? Is it Huntington silt loam? You have no idea. Is it got historic areas with homes and developments, farm developments that have been there for years and have tremendous historical significance, view sheds. All those elements that you consider when you bring a piece of property in are not gonna be considered here. This is probably in the highest area of preservation of all those areas in Fayette County that we looked at over the last 30 years. Don't do this. It's a bad look. You're sitting in a council and you're gonna make a decision to extend a sewer system, in essence, outside the urban service area at city cost. All of those folks here whose districts border the rural area, what do you think you're gonna be asked the next time this issue comes around? How come you guys paid for their sewer? Can we get a pump station or will you build this road or this access point? Or will you help us with other issues? Three minutes is never long enough. It never is. Don't do it. It's a bad look. Thank you very much. I see Amy Clark has joined us. Is Rick Day here? I forgot to say one thing if you allow me. I'm also representing Dr. Jim Owens and his wife Lucy that own Cave Hill. Okay, thank you. They don't want this. All right. Because there are waterways. They have the two springs that provide the flow for this creek. They don't want it. Thank you very much. Amy Clark is next and is Rick Day here? All right, welcome. Good afternoon. I'm Amy Clark of the third district, 628 Castle Road. Greetings. You have my letter sent to all of you just prior to this meeting for reference. I can't hope to say much in three minutes. Item B on your agenda today, letter star file 30126, asks for approval of a one year $250,000 contract for the consultant TSW to develop a United Development Code for Lexington. What's a United Development Code? Your blue sheet is all that the legislature file offers. The key thing is we don't know much of anything about it. I'm here to ask that you not dock at this matter nor support the advancement of the contract and project before you, our council, our planning commission, and the Lexington public have had an opportunity to really review the proposed project, its scope and aims, the expected outcome, and to express their ideas and wishes in public forum. The legislature file should surely include the RFP and the proposal of the consultant chosen. This is regularly done. I have no idea why it's missing. The project, its scope and aims and outcomes hasn't seen any public presentation and review, to my knowledge, nor opportunity for public comment and questions. It needs airing before the planning commission. It needs council introduction and deliberation. Generally, a ZOTA requires, in Kentucky statute, initiation by planning commission or council. My question is, is it premature here or prudent to start the process with staff and consultant to compose an entire code prior to the review and input of these bodies? But what is a unified development code? And here I will refer rapidly to your blue sheet. The current comp plan has an objective to update the zoning ordinance and development process to better address Lexington's growth and development needs. This is far too large and vague to direct the composition of a unified development code. Need to modernize the existing structure of regulatory documents impacting development has become apparent as Lexington has grown. Not groaned, there was an RFP issued. TSW was selected. The unified development code will analyze and combine the existing zoning ordinance, land subdivision regulations, and other development documents, as determined by the consultant and staff, to establish a streamlined code- Thank you very much. You can read the rest of it. Thank you. I would say that it's a massive project. Thank you. Next is Judith Humble. Judith, are you here? Judith Humble. I don't know if, is anyone out in the mezzanine? Judith Humble? Welcome. My name is Judith Humble. I live in the fifth district, and I want to thank Mayor Wharton, Vice Mayor Wu, and all of the council for your time today. So I'm here to speak strongly for the support of advancing the solar ZOTA to the next stage in the review process. I believe the ZOTA represents a crucial step in our community's transition to renewable energy, and our eventual achievement of our net zero goal in 2045, and I think our conversation needs to remain open. There's been controversy over the passage of this ZOTA, which has included the impact of large scale, ground mounted arrays on our prime agricultural farmland. I respect our agricultural farmland, I treasure it, but I also believe this ZOTA has robust protections, particularly in the section 31.6, and I believe it can be further strengthened in additional conversations. And currently, it's limited to 1% of use in Fayette County land as a conditionally useful permit. So we put a castle wall effectively around how much land we might use for a large scale ground mounted system. I want to talk a little bit about what may happen if we don't do anything, if we don't meet our goals. And it has to do with the health of our soil, which is what makes our agricultural land so very important. So scientists have been studying what will be the long term impacts of climate change and extreme weather on our soils, and it's not a pretty sight. So the things they are predicting, which we are already witnessing in Kentucky, and more intensively in other parts of the country, include the death of vital organisms that keep the soil in balance. The soil compaction from heavy rainfalls, reduced soil ability to retain moisture, soil dehydration, nutrient imbalances, and the inability of the soil to support root development and root growth. This all begins at a temperature of 86 degrees and escalates as we get higher, more prolonged heat on a continual basis. So variable weather patterns which affect the soil include polar plunges and blooming season. We recognize we've seen some of those. The other thing that will happen is if our winters aren't cold enough to freeze pest, we'll need more pesticides during growing season, and this will further impact the quality of the soil. So eventually what may happen if we don't meet our goals and effectively halt the transition of climate change is that these soils may become incapable of supporting our agriculture and livestock. Farmers are already talking about the effects of this weather, the cost to them, and the decrease in yields that they're seeing. So given Kentucky's many policy roadblocks to rooftop solar, that includes efforts to eliminate net metering that, okay, so we could lose anyway. So I support advancing this ODA. Thank you very much. Council, that concludes the public comment for now. And that brings us to the docket and rezonings. Is there a motion? Motion to approve. Council Member Ellinger, seconded by Council Member Savigny. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. I'm sorry, hold on. Council Member Hale, did you want to discuss the docket? Yes. Okay. So I move to place on the docket for April 30th, 2026 council meeting item three. On the work copy docket, an ordinance changing the zone from an agricultural AU zone to a medium density residential R4 zone for 38.998 net gross acres for property located at 3515 Richmond Road, a portion of, without a public hearing. So moved. Vice Mayor Wu seconds. Are there any comments? Did you have a comment, Council Member Morton? I have a question for Director Duncan or Commissioner Horne, whoever's in the room, or Chris Taylor works. Just was there any community feedback tied to this or pushback, or can you share that? All right, Richmond Road, there was one objector at that meeting. Thank you. All right, are there other questions? Council Member Curtis, did you have a, okay, any other questions to the motion? All right, all those in favor of the motion as amended say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Is there anything else for the docket? Council Member Boone? Thank you, Mayor. I move to place item 326-26 under ordinances first reading. An ordinance changing the zones from an expansionary residential-1 zone and agricultural AR zone to an expansionary residential-2 zone and medium density residential R4 zone for net 2.33 net 2.77 gross acres for property located at 4184 Todd's Road on the docket without a public hearing. Vice Mayor Wu seconds. Any discussion? Council Member Morton. And just the same question, was there any pushback or anything like that? There were no objectors at that hearing. All right, are there other questions? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Council Member Curtis. Thank you, Mayor. So given that the LexPark budget item has been, it was at the end of our last work session and got pushed to the end. And out of respect for LexPark Director Laura Boyson who's here to present to us again, I would like to motion, I move to move item 031926, the LexPark budget presentation to the top of continuing. Okay, we're still on the docket. If you don't mind to hold that just for a moment. Okay, is there any other item for the docket? All right, all those in favor of approving the docket as amended, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Now, we have Council Work Session Table of Motions for April 21st. Is there a motion to approve? Move to approve. Council Member Reynolds and Council Member Savigny seconded. Are there any corrections, additions? All right, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Budget amendments are next. Move to approve. Second. Vice Mayor Wu moves. Council Member Sheehan seconds. Do you have any questions about budget amendments? Please log in. All right, I see none. All those in favor, whoop, slipped right in there. Council Member Morton. I guess just a procedural question and I guess based on, I know we're going to have some opiate conversations. Is this the place to have it or where are we doing that? And maybe that's to Council Member Brown. The motion we're discussing is the table of motions for April 21st. Or I'm sorry, budget amendments. Are you thinking at it? So budget amendment discussion, yeah. It is already on budget amendments. Council Member Brown, did you have something? Yes, ma'am, I plan to make a motion. But I guess the question, and thank you, Council Member Morton, for asking it. Is now the appropriate time to make the motion to redirect opioid funds or and council comments the most appropriate time? And I guess I'll ask somebody from law that question. It's not on, that specific motion's not on as a budget amendment. Were you wanting to make it as a budget amendment? Well, there's some budget amendments that reference creating funds for opioid, some opioid funds currently as budget amendments. I just wonder if now is the appropriate time to make another amendment to create or to redirect opioid funding. A budget amendment, all right. Commissioner? Good afternoon. I think it depends on what use you're going to make it. Like for instance, if you were hypothetically wanting to put some in the contingency fund, that won't require a budget amendment, so you could do it at a later point in time in the meeting, if that's what you're asking. Yeah. But if you wanted to change the allocations in the budget amendments that are in front of you all, it would be appropriate to make a motion to do that at this point in time. Okay, so it does sound like it's the appropriate time to make an amendment to that. So with that, I'll make a motion to move $2 million from the opioid abatement funds to an endowment, a quasi-endowment account within LFUCG. So moved. Second. Council Member Morton seconds, and now is there discussion? Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. Maybe Commissioner Hensley? I wanted to get a little bit of clarity on both the way the amendment is written, and also those $2 figures. So when it says to establish fund for restricted opioid abatement settlement funds as discussed during the April 21st work session, as discussed last week. So memory serves me right, we voted on 3 million for the grants program, 2.2 for the homelessness task force, we did not make any determination for the rest of the money, is that correct? Correct. Okay, can you tell me, because in that discussion, the figure that we were working with was ballpark 9 million. There was a discussion about 700,000 from interest accrued. I'm looking at two numbers now under here, one is just a little over 10 million, one is a little under 800,000. Can you kind of square those numbers for me first? Sure, so the 8.9 million that we were talking about was the settlement funds we had received to date. I'm going to call those the principal funds. The around 700,000 that I was talking about was actually closer to 800,000 that we had earned in interest, so you'll see that as the second amount. In order to kind of go in the spirit of the conversation that you all were having, the interest was in one place, the principal was in another place, and so we were moving that all to the same place. And then we have been advised that we're to expect about $300,000 between now and the end of the year. So if we do that, we would bring back to you all another BA for $300,000. So we would finish this, then turn right around and bring you back another $300,000 BA. So we combined the three things, the money that we've received to date, the interest moved into that, what I'll call opioid proper fund, so that it can be assigned. And then the 300,000 that we have yet to receive, but we expect that we'll see by the end of this fiscal year, that has not yet been received, and that's how you get to the $10 million. So the $10 million is the 8.9 principal, so to speak. The 800,000 in interest, the 300,000 that we're about to receive, all totals out to a little over $10 million. Correct. Okay, so thus far we have those two allotments, the three and the 2.2. Council Member Brown is making a motion to move two into the interest bearing account. Correct. And then anything that we don't deal with right now is still basically unassigned. Exactly. And up for discussion at whatever date. Correct. Thank you for that. Thank you. Any other questions about Council Member Brown's motion? All right, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Council Member Brown. And Mayor, along those same lines, in the email I said that I was going to put in the ordinance that was presented to us from the administration, setting up that account. I'll make a motion to put that ordinance in the BFED committee for future discussion and amendments. So moved. Council Member Morton's. Okay, you're the chair, you can just do that. I just, I think I can, but I think since it's been presented to us as an ordinance, if it would be cleaner to do it as a motion. But if not, then I'm fine with just putting it in committee. I think it's fine to just put it in committee. Okay. All right. Yes, Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Brown, the intention of putting it into committee is basically to kind of define, because we've thrown around kind of different language, we've said interest bearing account, we've said endowment. They have kind of different definitions, so is your intent putting it in BFED to kind of basically hash that out to exactly what we're talking about? Yes sir, the conversations that we've had at this day and in conversations with each other. It's whether or not the principle will be accessible and what kind of flexibility and what type of percentage of future payments we want to contribute to that account and really what the guardrails are going to be on that account. So that's the intent of putting it in committee and having those discussions. Okay, thank you. All right, and Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Brown, when you said that, so because they've said 25%, the committee said 10%, so you're talking about flushing that out? Yes sir, thinking about, yeah, flushing that out. Just because I think some council members aren't comfortable with that large of a percentage, it's 25%, and then I think some want a little more than 10%, so I think we'll have those discussions in committee. Thank you. Any other questions for Council Member Brown or about the motion? All right. Actually, it's not, we decided it's not a motion. You're putting it in. We do still have budget amendments on the floor. Are there any other amendments or discussion about budget amendments? Council Member Morton. It's just in the same tune of the same conversation we're having. I know that in Council Member Brown's email, he mentioned possibly having a formal discussion related to the unassigned dollars and looking at the opiate abatement commission's priorities, looking at the administration's recommendations, but then setting priorities for this council for future allocations. But then also setting a process for when money do come in, whenever that is. So I'm wondering, is this maybe just a consensus within this council, or if we need to do that binding, if there needs to be a motion to come forward to initiate that formal process. Can I speak? Yes, Vice Mayor. Council Member Morton, right now I am looking at the proposed schedule for our committee of the whole for May 14th to see if there is room and time for that discussion. If not, I think we should definitely create some sort of format for that discussion. Okay, thank you. 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. We have a few budget adjustments for your information only, and that brings us to new business. Do I hear a motion to approve? Second. Council Member Reynolds, seconded by Council Member Ellinger. Please weigh in if you have questions. Council Member Hale. Thank you, Mayor. I have item J, so I think it may be Director Conrad. Welcome, Director Conrad. Thank you, Mayor. How you doing, Director? I want to just give you a chance to expound on item J and what this agreement will change about the existing agreement with Jacobson Park. Yes, thank you, Council Member, for the question. This agreement with Get Outside Kentucky will allow us to offer kayak, canoe rentals at both Jacobson and at Kelly's Landing. Some of those will be self-serve, others will be staffed. They also have adaptive kayaks for rental. So we really see it as an opportunity to expand accessibility, but also options at both locations. So we'll have better hours. We will have a change in how that they're renting them. We normally rent it by the half hour. The new outfitter who has a proven track record in Scott County and also with Richmond Parks will be moving those to an hour. So we're excited to be trying this out and hope it's successful. Awesome, thank you. Thank you, Director. I really appreciate that. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Morton. Thank you. Well, at first, I'll start off with item B. So I don't have a question for item A, but I'll start with item B. Can you just speak towards this item, its intent and the goals behind it? Commissioner Horne is coming. Welcome. I've got backup if I need it. First, to clarify anything that you may have heard, the Unified Development Code will not be any new legislation. It gathers all of the zoning ordinance, any of the regular code of ordinances, engineering manuals, sewer manuals, all of the documents related to development in Fayette County into one location to make it easier, hopefully more simple, for people who want to develop in Lexington to have one area to go to. And make it more accessible, too, with hyperlinks so that you're not having to go constantly to other documents in a Unified Development Code. Okay, thank you. And then, just regarding item A, I just wanted to take a moment to speak towards item A and thank my colleagues on council for your support of this investment in our community and future investment, investing in our youth. This is an investment in youth that pays dividends in safer neighborhoods, stronger families, and more stable communities. It's prevention first, giving young people structure, mentorship, and opportunity. It's economic development in a real and practical sense, building human capital while strengthening local workforce, allowing parents to work longer, more stable hours without the constant stress of wondering where their children are after school. It creates local jobs for youth workers, mentors, and program staff, while also supporting broader workforce participation for families. While this may seem as a small investment, it's a significant investment for the neighborhoods on the Russell Cave Road corridor, especially for our youth who would directly benefit from this programming once fully operational. And then lastly, a Boys and Girls Club creates a platform for youth to grow, learn, and see pathways to education, careers, and leadership. When we invest early, we reduce downstream costs in public safety, health, and social services. So an investment like these and this highlights a shift from reacting to problems to actively building futures. And I just wanted to thank the council for supporting this in the fund balance. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Beasley. Thank you, Mayor. Director Conroy, I have a question about Jay. Please, ma'am. How are you? I'm good, thank you. So my question, I have two. One, and I've already asked you this, one is how many seasonal jobs are we going to lose for our teenagers because we're moving this to that outside Kentucky? Yeah, so we've been asking those seasonal workers who may have returned to just shift to other positions within parks and recreation. So we always have positions open in our aquatic facilities. So we see that as an opportunity for them to be able to work in those facilities. And then my other question is, is outside Kentucky already, are these already open, can I already go to outside Kentucky and rent a kayak? I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? Can I already go to the outside Kentucky website and rent a kayak at Jacobson Park? Is this already in place? No, it won't be in place until it passes through council. So we anticipate hopefully getting that first reading and maybe a second reading tomorrow evening or Thursday evening. So that we can open and move forward with the contract as quickly as possible. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Brown. Thank you, Mayor. Monica, you might be able to answer this, Director Conrad, sorry about that. Item D, and it's the price increase for the Whitney Young Community Building. So it looks like the biggest bulk of that cost increase is sewer correction. So if that's inside the building or is that in a connection underground? It's under the building. Okay. Which is what makes it so challenging to replace. But the contractor's doing a great job, and we've been in communication with the neighborhood association on ensuring that we get this moved along as quickly as possible. And this is something that wasn't in the original scope. It's probably something that was found once they got in there and started doing the work. Correct, yeah. These older buildings that sometimes happen, it's just an old clay sewer pipe. Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Mayor. I wanted to ask Ms. Peter to come up and talk about item H, which is the safe streets and roads for all grant. Just to give us a summary for the public. Sure, my pleasure. Thank you, Council Members. So as you all know, we come to this podium several times to say we want to apply for a grant. This Department of Transportation has the Safe Streets and Roads for All call for proposals out right now. We have been working over the past year, as you know, to make steps toward our goals of Vision Zero. To have zero deaths on a roadway, zero serious injuries, and complete streets is our pillar of the built environment effort around that. So working with a cross collaborative group with LFUCG staff, Fayette County Public Schools, as well as a lot of community advocates in the space around making routes to our schools safer. We've used a data driven process to identify some top sites that might be good starting points for us. We need it everywhere, let's be honest. But looking at some of the campuses that might benefit from some light, quick improvements. So thank you to District 8 and District 3 for providing match that we will put toward this grant application. And if received, we would then use that award to create a safe routes to school program at two school sites that we could then pilot and then model for doing across the community if seen successful, which it will be. So, thank you. Thank you, I appreciate that update. Thank you, Mayor. All right, thank you. Are there any other questions on new business? All right, all those in favor of approval, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes, thank you. First, we have communications from the mayor appointments. Could I have a motion? Vice Mayor Wu, second by Council Member Sheehan. Are there any questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. The next communication from the mayor is donations. Is there a motion? I move. Council Member Savigny. Second by Councilmember Reynolds. Are there any questions? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right that motion passes. And the final communications from the mayor is procurements. Councilmember Sheehan, second by Councilmember Savigny. Are there any questions? All right all those in favor say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? I have one more communication that I would like to read and I'd like to ask the vice mayor to take the chair and recognize me to speak. It's all yours mayor. All right thank you. I wanted to weigh in on the Mint Lane pump station. All of us have heard weeks and weeks and weeks of information and I really appreciate the thoughtfulness that has gone into the discussions around the needed pump station at Mint Lane. I look at this through many lenses and you all have heard all the different arguments and there have been many. But most importantly at this time when our city had to right-size its own budget and our residents continue to feel the strain of increasing costs for basic needs, for me the decision is clear. Every one of these three proposals has its issues. There is no perfect proposal. So we need to focus on the most fiscally responsible choice that checks all the boxes and that is Mint Lane, which has been the original plan all along because of cost concerns. Although no negotiations have happened on any of these plans, the cost estimate for the current Mint Lane site is 5.3 million dollars less than the Bowman Mill site and 28.8 million dollars less than the airport estimate. Mint Lane will allow us to address the odor, the flooding problems, it meets the consent decree requirements, which is the original reason it needs done, and it would accommodate future planned growth and expansion area one. All at significantly lower cost to our taxpayers and I appreciate you listening. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Chair is yours. Thank you. Now we'll go on with continuing business and presentations, first of which is neighborhood development funds. I'm sorry. Councilmember Baxter and Councilmember Savigny. Any questions? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Okay, Councilmember Curtis. Thank you, Mayor, and I apologize for my timing snafu earlier. I would like to make a motion that we hear the Lex Park budget presentation 0 3 1 9 dash 2 6 after we hear the council capital projects so moved. Is there a, Councilmember Morton seconds. Is there any discussion to move the Lex Park up to after council capital projects? Councilmember Sheehan. Councilmember Curtis, could you explain why you want to move it because we have several items on here that are on their second presentations and we have lots of people here interested in all of them so I'm wondering why we're moving that one in particular. Thank you and that's a good question. As you might remember during our last work session we ended up going pretty late into it. We nearly lost quorum on it and the item that we were discussing at that point in time was the Lex Park budget. I know that this is a time-sensitive matter for them so I just want to create the peace of mind and emphasize that we're taking that time consideration seriously and get that item heard today. Okay thank you. Any other questions? All right all those in favor of moving Lex Park up to after the council capital projects say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right that motion passes we will do that. Next are council capital projects. Vice Mayor Wu moves, Councilmember Ellinger seconds. Are there any questions? All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right that motion passes. Now we will hear from Executive Director Laura Boyson on the Lexington Fayette County Parking Authority proposed budget. Welcome again. Good to see you all. Thank you so much. I am back thank you so much to talk about our budget and put some context around it because I think it's very difficult to approve a budget without knowing kind of the the context. So you have a presentation in front of you. I just thought it might be helpful to review. I wanted a year ago I said let's be curious about parking and so I thought I'll keep that theme going. We are in the middle of a 13 to 15 million dollar capital investment in three garages that excludes the courthouse garage which might be an additional five million dollars. That is just to keep the garage structures viable. It doesn't add space, it doesn't add technology, it keeps them viable. For example transit your fire suppression system is at its very end that's a million dollar upgrade things like that. In this fiscal year we spent about 1.3 million dollars on this effort. It's a seven-year project. Ongoing maintenance excluding the capital we spend about five hundred thousand a year to maintain the garages and on-street equipment. Just like today a little byproduct of the storm was flooded elevators. That's about twenty six thousand dollars each to take care of a flooded elevator. Courthouse we have an issue there and the Victorian Square an issue there with water. Most of what we do is subscription contracts so I don't have a lot of flexibility in changing the subscriptions for all the technology. It's a remarkable it's called IOT the Internet of Things that go into this industry and these are fixed contracts and they are exponentially moving on us. We are looking at different vendors negotiating trimming back etc trying to be fiscally aware and responsible. We're going to talk about that we haven't done this upgrade that I've created this adjustment that I'm looking for for a while so I just wanted to mention that during this time where we've held the rates on the transient parker this is not the monthly parker in the garages this is the person who comes in for a quick errand and leaves. So if somebody for example is working downtown and they wanted to park at the 350 garage then they would look for the monthly rate which is equates to on a on a five-day working week about five dollars and 25 cents a day to park there. That's a monthly parker we're talking today about transient in and out but our cumulative inflation rate and you all deal with this has been 29 almost 29 percent which is remarkable that costs have escalated and then as you all know just the cost to ensure a client experience which we don't like to say that we provide safety but the client experience we've been asked we were working actively with our police department they're asking us to double staff on evenings weekends early mornings in addition to increasing our garage security company. What we manage our garages are exposed to the elements we're not that you know you all know this you have property and these are some of the things that the corrosion that we're now experiencing and when we open up a corroded area we find corroded pipes and it's it's just exponential. I don't know if you all are aware of this but garages implode and that's what we want to make sure I'm not asking for an increase because we have just lofty goals I'm asking for it because the cost of these properties and the realities of these properties on the left is February 18th of 2021 that's when the truest garage at the time it was BB&T it collapsed in the last five years well just this year alone we've had three garages Dearborn Michigan in February had a collapsed garage Denver in March had a collapsed garage Philadelphia in April had a collapsed garage and in 2003 in the Financial District of New York a collapsed garage. Some of those created entrapments some of those created fatalities so these little things that I talked oh I'm out of order now these little items I talked about I apologize turn into real issues and that's what we're trying to stay away from. Okay so now that I might okay on street what have we asked you for in the past I think this is important to go to so in the past we've talked about in 2025 last year we came in for on street citation rates we were well under market and Vice Mayor Wu said what what will happen with this and I said we will change behavior and we did our citation rates in January were down 27% you all supported a citation rate that was the first time in 17 years we had increased on street citation in 2024 and 25 I came back for monthly Parkers the monthly Parker rate we hadn't increased it in six and seven years we took the 350 Victorian Square transit and he looks up by about five dollars a month the the monthly parking today my my request is for the transient Parker that is for the person who comes in renews their registration and goes out wants to drop off something etc this has not been increased since 2019 and that kind of concludes the suite of our our pricing we are not touching on street excuse me we're not touching on street meter rates those those remain the same we're not touching the hospitality rates as you know we give our hospitality workers 20 $25 per month to park in the garages as a monthly rate we support that industry so that's what we're looking for what we're looking for is again first time in seven years we're looking for right now we are a dollar per 18 minutes we are looking to simplify that and go to three dollars for the first 30 minutes which is the and then four dollars per hour after that so if you come in right now and you stay 18 minutes it's a dollar you stay 36 minutes it's two dollars if you stay an hour it's four dollars because it takes four components of 18 to make the one hour so right now we're at four dollars per hour we're going to go away from the 18 minute increments to a flat three dollars for the first 30 minutes and then four dollars per hour after that so it's not if you're staying an hour you're already at four dollars if you're staying 30 minutes you will see a one dollar increase we also have a twelve dollar cap and we'll go through what the market looks like we're looking we're asking to go to a $19 cap on that we consider these to be necessary and responsible financial adjustments to manage what we talked about with the first slide that's when I'll come back to this okay so where are we relative to the market am I pricing myself out of the market we want to be responsible to you to our community to our brand very important that we're responsible to the brand of Lexington so where are we last week we talked about I did not put the library in my data set because the library I believe is a separate product offering they have a dedicated tax base the ad valorem tax so they can they have a different way to finance things I'm a user tax so here you can see but I have it in here with and without the library so on garages the average without the library first hour 4.2 I'm looking for 4 additional hours the average is 5.4 with a daily max of 20.6 so $20.60 so that's without the library and you can see with the library if you look at the surface lots downtown so expensive then the average overall becomes 5.79 for the first hour 5.17 for the additional hours and 21.5 you can see our request $3 for the first 30 minutes first hour $4 incremental hours $4 a maximum of 19 so I still provide whether you add or take out the library up to you I'm still the best value you have we are not driving the price of parking in Lexington which might be a whole different conversation of the garages downtown there are 10 I'm four of them there's six others completely with ability to change pricing and I represent I manage only one surface lot downtown so I am NOT the dominant player that's setting the rates and that's a different conversation but anyhow all right so that's what I'm looking for kind of a recap of what we've talked about but I think it's important to know and and we're open to a discussion completely so this is our request we would implement these for the Helix Courthouse and 350 West Short Garage September 1st transit has an abundance of signage on pricing it's our largest it's really two facilities in one we would look to you to do that one in January of 2027 so I think if if you all are open to this I think it gives a community time to manage this the other thing is is that a client can still come in to the Helix and by the way we've met with Susan Lamb's office three times to assure that she's comfortable with this there's been no opposition three times was not to persuade her I wanted to make sure I could come to you and say she's fine with it and she's clearly fine with it but a client can still come in and if they're you know if they're efficient on coming in and getting out of her lines then the parking still remains a very good value in our community okay that's okay so that is essentially the request it backs into our budget I don't know if you can read that but that is our budget I am glad to address any questions you might have on the budget there's nuances to it and thank you thank you so much four minutes for next year okay next year I think that's the first time anybody's ever well I my board members are probably in awe that I got through it yeah okay we have a few questions councilmember Reynolds Thank You mayor and Thank You miss boys and I really appreciate your willingness to work with my office time and time again and take my calls and I really appreciate that I know you're kind of in a hard place so thank you for working with us I had a few questions so the daily parking rates and the hospitality rates we heard first from some folks that own businesses and that need to park maybe on the short street garage like every day what what are they able to do so that they're not spending so much money every day right good quick great question thank you so if you are working downtown you should be a monthly Parker because the monthly rate it and it's the most expensive at 350 it's a 105 a month which if you're working 20 business days a month equates to five dollars and 25 cents a day that's a great rate per day you shouldn't be paying the month the transient rate that's for people coming in and out coming in and out you're going to a you're going to make an errand you're going to possibly dinner you're going to run run an errand that's what transients for so our downtown workers should be parking on a monthly rate but they would not be those people would not be eligible for the hospitality rate no no they're they're not well the ones that spoke earlier at this point are not able to get hospitality we do we do define hospitality and and the artist attic which is a not-for-profit is not in that definition so it would have to be they would have to basically be working at one of the restaurants to qualify for the hospital or hotel hospitality restaurants or hotels okay and then we we had discussed the possibility of raising rates at night late at night for some of the negative activity that's been going on over on short street is that I didn't see that mentioned is that so right now there we have event pricing it's an open-ended pricing and and we have gone up to $15 on that but that's not managing the situation enough we're still having crime it's the price is too cheap because that's from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. a flat fee of $15 we met with the police and our neighbors across the street the SP parking lot went up to $33 for the night and the police have asked that we go up to 25 for the Friday Saturday night morning hours we went up to 15 two weekends ago and felt that that managed the situation very well we would like you to know that we have been asked to go up to 25 we need to have that in our toolbox but at this point the police would like us to do that we had a good response from 15 so I don't know that we're going to go directly to 15 to 25 did I did that make sense are you going to monitor it for a certain amount of time and then I know I know it's hard and we don't want to raise prices like that but I think because of the situation that we have over there it's it I've got to be responsible to the user and I have to be responsible to the community and we're trying to balance that right now so it's we're reviewing it yeah okay but we are at 15 right now they've asked us to go to 25 I've asked for you to be aware of that okay but I'm not just gonna do it okay thank you one more thing real quick so it to me I'm not necessarily opposed to the $4 an hour but the jump from $1 for 18 minutes to $3 for 30 minutes without another option does seem sort of large if you're just running in and running out and you don't need the 30 minutes but you're paying you know what was a full hour so I guess I'm a little bit concerned about about that jump and I just wanted to voice that but so a couple of things one we are at 18 minute increments is $4 an hour because it takes for 18 minutes to hit 60 I'm not opposed to the for an hour yeah I just the math is very interesting on this it so what we we have talked about is possibly and you all do it you validate for your client so you take this you support that cost rather than asking a business to support the cost you did you all know you validate for your clients yes so okay okay okay I guess that wasn't a surprise all right so you know they're one of the and this has come up from other people on the council when I think it's important to discuss is that the businesses could validate we could work with businesses to validate parking for their clients it's it's a thought my time's up so I'll leave it there but thank you thank you vice mayor Wu Thank You mayor Thank You miss boys and for the presentation can you speak a little bit to the issue of maintenance and the idea of sort of deferred maintenance I mean we're in this building very familiar with it we've been in this building temporarily for 40 years and we've had to do a number of repairs and sometimes certain maintenance and repairs get kind of pushback and pushback so if these increases were not to take place within this next budget can you speak a little bit to what potentially the long-term impact for the next couple of years would be you know just just the idea of like doing this maintenance tomorrow versus doing this maintenance in a year in two years in three years there's maintenance that has to be done you can't defer it because you're gonna have entrapments we I mentioned last week that we had post-tension cable that snapped on us I mean that will that's dangerous I can't convey to you how dangerous that is so I have to do these I can't postpone them because then I'm playing Russian roulette with safety brand everything so I can't defer much you know there's levers you can pull but on maintenance you can't defer much I am right now small things the garage at courthouse we're trying to use I use the expression duct tape instead of you know bolts and concrete I can only do that so long if you remember last year panels of the courthouse blew off so I can't defer it I just I can't defer it so what I'd have to do if this doesn't work I don't know how else to phrase it is we would have to make I don't know we'd have to make serious decisions and I appreciate that I appreciate that the the repairs aren't just about you know aesthetics or making things comfortable yeah it's not we're not doing things cosmetically I mean you have two entrapments on an elevator in a week that's a problem yeah so yeah no I appreciate that very much and I look at maintenance as as an investment because if we're spending a dollar today to fix something when that thing breaks it's gonna cost us three dollars to fix it and add on to that people might be hurt you know there might be property damage things like that to councilmember Reynolds point about sort of the the rate jump I appreciate the fact that these rates are going up to basically market rate it's very comparable to what everybody else is doing is there another approach that we can take as we ran into this in 2022 as well with some of those changes have you all thought about the idea of doing incremental increases and planning ahead so that not so we don't come back to this issue every single year and say hey can we raise this 25 cents can we raise this 25 cents have you all thought about doing say like a five-year plan and say we're gonna raise rates 50 cents a year for the next five years something like that so that the sticker shock wouldn't be quite as bad for consumers that is an option certainly but again if someone is staying there 30 minutes now they're paying two dollars it's a dollar more and I understand that a dollar can be a significant amount I'm not minimizing that but it's a it's not a significant increase the issue becomes is is that the budget and the demands on the money doesn't plan out that way all right so it's a two-sided issue I have massive capital needs that I have to take care of and if I incrementally move it up why these are going up like this I'm always out of balance so this was not you know this was purposeful and how we did it because we we know what it's going to do we know where it's going and so if I softly softly softly and then I have another one more elevator that floods I'm out of does that make sense it does and I appreciate that you're being thoughtful about that but we are it's not it wasn't like what can I get through or what makes sense it was like where are we where are the realities of this business yeah so well I appreciate that I I will certainly support this budget it sounds like this is not an issue of want but an issue of need thank you thank you councilmember Brown thank you mayor and thank you mr. Boyson for your patience and coming back again two weeks and you know it's in a row I thank you but it's been enlightening so I mean it was yeah matter of fact it was a case study in one of my classes so I'm teasing no it's been really very helpful for me so thank you so I'm running out of outfits so don't defer me so so councilmember Reynolds asked a lot of the same questions I had and and I wonder if since since it got brought up and we heard from folks that work in a nonprofit sector today is that a rate that you're looking at are you willing to look at to explore to see if it's something that you can either carve out a category or put them in a category that fits to keep their rate that's something that's manageable so they don't get treated like transient I am willing to look at everything right we are part of the community so yes I'd be willing to look at it you have to you have to balance it you know because X group I've been asked by so many people for subsidized parking my ask would be is let's talk about parking comprehensively because I am NOT the majority of parking let's talk to all the parking associations in our community and say what about doing this that's where we get the big lift yeah I would encourage you to do that to see if there's something we can do to help those folks you know I think you have a hard job I think you know rates hadn't been touched and addressed for a few years and you've been doing a right you've been you've been incrementally trying to raise rates in different sectors to help address the needs and I've been supportive of them because when you came the first time or the second time it was about safety and I think today's ask is about safety you showed us pictures of collapsed garages so I'm inclined to support these rate increases today my concern is if it feels like and it might have been 22 and not 23 but it feels like we've been talking rate increases for the last three years in a row but I guess that is because that's what I wanted to go through it was garage citation and now transient so I'm done with the suite of my product offering so and I don't want to complicate the motion or anything but is there anything you can say to us to kind of predict the future the next two or three years that you may not be coming to us with a rate increase okay so in project management they use a term don't anchor to this right so please don't anchor to this my hope my goal is that I don't have to come back here for a rate increase and we talked about this my chairman and I for three years now if I have some outlier that happens some I don't know what it would be then we'll come back and have a wholehearted conversation and and try to figure it out but my intention is not to be back here I don't need a reputation of no my intention is I'm done and we're good don't anchor to that okay all right but I did I did mention last year to vice mayor that the increase in citations would drop the number of citations I didn't recognize how well it would work 27% down in January was remarkable okay yes don't anchor okay so I appreciate that all right thank you mayor thank you councilmember Martin thank you thank you mayor well first thank you for the presentation thank you for taking the time to speak with me and share information and I'll just share you know kind of the same sentiments that I shared in our conversation that when we're looking at increasing prices I tend just represent the first district represent a majority of Lexington's lower socioeconomic status communities I tend to think from the lens of the underprivileged communities and knowing that any additional cost whether it be a dollar two or whatever you know that that directly affects those households and you know these households are having to choose between $1 to put food on the table and the next dollar to pay the bill so increases do matter but on the other hand I definitely understand why we're here and why the increase are being asked for and it's I think it's to the same sentiment that councilman Brown has mentioned safety and always I think safety should be at the forefront so what I would say is you know just as we continue to work toward the future and continue if this is adopted keep continuing to look at innovative solutions and I think you mentioned them like validations and different things that can help with a cost burden and I also shared that you know my yes vote will be tied to safety my no vote if it was a no vote it will be tied just to the lens of the underprivileged communities and that burden that they have so but I want to thank you for your leadership thank you thank you and I think we can accomplish both and I'll go to Susan lamb and we'll talk about for her next budget cycle where we can get validations so thank you and thank you for your input all right councilmember Eplin yes thank you miss Boyson for a good presentation you know nobody likes to pay for parking I don't like to pay for parking nobody certainly likes to pay more for parking but I think you've made a good case that this is this is a you know common-sense thing to really to manage and ensure the safety of our garages you know we all talk about how you know we want downtown to be we want more parking to be in garages and not on surface lots that really need to be redeveloped a lot of those into you know income and job generating development as opposed to surface parking so we appreciate the hard job you have with this and I would like to make a motion that we accept Lex parts budget as all right is there a second councilmember Baxter seconds now is there any discussion of the motion all right all those in favor say aye aye is anyone opposed all right that motion passes thank you so much council members are do you need a five-minute break or are you able to take your break five okay we're going to take a five-minute break you we have a quorum so we'll come back after our five-minute break and councilmember Eblen has a motion 9 to 1 is there a second councilmember Hale seconded okay any discussion all those in favor say aye aye is anyone opposed that motion passes next I believe we have councilmember Sheehan with the general government planning committee Thank You mayor the March 10th 2026 general government and planning committee was called to order at 1 p.m. the February 10th 2026 meeting summary was unanimously approved the committee received a presentation from the solar working group which met over six months to study large-scale solar in agricultural areas the group proposed updates to the ordinance including stronger decommissioning standards added definitions a requirement for dual use per agricultural production and a brownfield exception after discussion councilmember Sheehan moved to report out the solar energy systems zoning or text ordinance amendment to the Planning Commission for its review and public hearing and refer the rural refer the text to the Rural Land Management Board and Environmental Commission for review that motion passed 6 to 4 based on this report out from the committee regarding the solar energy systems zoning ordinance text amendment I move to place a resolution for first reading on the council docket for April 30th 2026 to send this proposed language to the Planning Commission for their review and a public hearing by initiating a solar energy systems zoning ordinance text amendment so moved second I who did I did I hear councilmember Lynch there was a rush to second I think I heard you first all right is there any discussion all those in favor I'm sorry councilmember Boone Thank You mayor I'd like to briefly reiterate that while I'm very supportive of solar development on brownfields and integrate into the built environment on rooftops I do not support large-scale solar development on the AG zone land I do believe that some proposed changes to the Zotus strike a balance and allowing more solar development to meet our sustainability goals but I still believe that can be done without expanding into our ag land particularly our prime soils and soils of statewide significance I'm eager to see what the recommendations come out of the Rural Land Management Board and the Environmental Commission's reviews I would like to see more protections put in place before it moves to the Planning Commission therefore I won't be supporting this motion all right thank you does anyone else wish to speak to the motion let's have a can you do a granite his vote instead of a voice vote please all right please log in I think we're missing a couple of is your computer is your computer working all right do you want to tell us what your votes are you're you're a no he's a yes councilmember Baxter you're a yes so that motion passes 11 to 4 all right thank you all right are you finished with your report I am NOT the committee also received an update on development process efficiencies Commissioner Horne reported that approval timelines have improved and then outlined ongoing efforts to better track applications and reduce delays and finally the committee discussed recommendations 8 and 10 from the planning and development study focusing on improving the certification phase and exploring a development liaison role committee committee members expressed interest in improving coordination and predictability in the process particularly to support housing production but noted that additional discussion will be needed during the budget process the meeting adjourned at 2 58 p.m. and that concludes my report all right thank you very much does anyone have a question councilmember Sheehan all right thank you very much yeah all right now Acting Commissioner of Environmental Quality and Public Works Charlie Martin has the mint the mint lane pump station presentation welcome I was so anxious to pick this topic back up I know you are planned on I know you're anxious I will try to get through these slides as quickly as possible because I know many of you would like to get to the Q&A part of things basically what I tried to do is I tried to go back through what we talked about on April the 14th and try to come up with I guess what my version of the summary is on highlights of things that maybe didn't get discussed so you see the bullet items there that will list what are the coming slides particularly talking about the airport clarifying some of the station capacity tank volume and densities and then we talked about densities on a very loose stand I felt like I needed to devote a slide to that tree removal I kind of glossed over that one and I know that's very important to people here in the community so I wanted to talk about that odor we mentioned that earlier before and then kind of finish this up with what I believe are the key points so yeah in great respect for councilmember Brown and his suggestion that we look at utilizing land that we already own I'm going to suggest that we consider eliminating the airport from consideration basically for these two reasons it's the greatest cost of all but even more importantly is it is the greatest risk at completing the project within the consent decree imposed deadline it's it was a great idea it's just a really really heavy lift to try to be able to get it done by 2030 so I'd ask that the council when we when we conclude this that they consider eliminating that from consideration we talked a lot about land development density we typically in the remedial measures plan will use 15 people per acre sometimes people use 9 sometimes people use 25 and so what I tried to do here is I tried to summarize what the cost of the project would be and in the different locations with the different densities obviously with the existing mint Lane you're just doing what's there right now there's not really a density consideration so you've got a tank volume that's four and a half million gallons and an estimated cost of 19.6 million if you take that exact same outcome and move it down to Bowman's Mill Road you're not serving any more customers or anything like that the tank volume is the same it jumps to 24.9 million estimated when you start doing densities of adding additional flow to that downstream location there you see the tank volume and the cost of the project escalating at night at the lower end it's 27.3 and at the higher end it's 29.3 million dollars those again are estimates one of things I wanted to make sure that I clarified here as well we talked about 572 acres before it mentions this on this slide obviously they got something wrong in the thing because they says 570 when we talk about acreage in sewers it's like a bathtub and where we're trying to collect or treat it is at the drain and so we look at it everything that goes to this I've had recent conversations with folks who have interests out there and not all 572 acres are ready to develop in some cases I think that there's a resistance to developing so I didn't want anybody to believe that you know we're talking about if you choose that option or that alternative that you're going to observe 572 acres right off the bat because you're not in many cases throughout the county is that some some land stays vacant for years and decades and so I wanted to make sure that was clear talking about trees extensive amount of tree removal will be involved at the Mint Lane site you see two photos there are the same though the tank is the big red dot and then you see it removed because it then gives you a better idea of how many trees are impacted not only is it the trees but there's also a bat mitigation program that when you remove trees you're removing bat habitat they're Indiana bats we jokingly wonder why we're worried about Indiana bats but we do anyway I wanted to make sure that this got included into this because it was I felt like it was maybe it was omitted and when we're trying to do our best that we can to give a accurate representation of an estimated cost that it's there so we're in this it's an additional cost and from what I talked about a couple Tuesdays ago but there this consultant is estimating that to be less than $100,000 odor control talked a lot about that set next to miss Mullins here a little bit ago let her know that what she was talking about is a little bit different than what we're talking about there's a boom existing Bowman's Mill Road pump station which we call South Elkhorn which is closer to Harrodsburg Road and that's the one that that her and I've met at numerous times just let her know that there is a project that's about ready to be awarded that is going to hopefully improve their dramatically and so she was pleased and she left so but for for the Dunbar site and or for the Bowman's Mill site basically they would see receive the same level of treatment the current Dunbar site has no on-site treatment none whatsoever wasn't built with that there's a chemical discharge into the force main which is the pipeline that leaves the pump station and dumps in at Palomar and the intention of that chemical treatment is to help the Palomar neighborhood and then the downstream one where miss Mullins lives at and the pump station trying to control odors any upgrade at that site would be including activated carbon for on-site treatment and a flow paced chemical application to the discharge that's what we're doing at every of our facilities now that's part of our ongoing program expansion is if you'll remember I've talked about demonstrating different chemicals and flow pacing that based on the amount of flow going through the pipe Bowman's Mill would not be any different than that likely upgrade would it be activated carbon because that's most new pump stations we build are all equipped with activated carbon and then the flow placed chemical application or oxygen we're going to be piloting oxygen this year as an injection point for one of our new pump stations and so that would be an option if we did go to Bowman's Mill so here's the summary of the key points or at least as I as I viewed them I tried to do them is as a comparison as side-by-side type of thing so so you can look at I get this or I get this the last two drop out there wash there they're the same so you really actually came down to four main points that in my mind is it in both cases you serve area one area one which is the Parker's Mill man-of-war area that was added to the urban service boundary it's our responsibility to make sure that we serve that it's it deserves services earned that service the difference is is that with the Dunbar site that that area has to pump to mint lane in order to be able to get service with the Bowman's Mill site it could be built and served by gravity by draining down into a new pipeline that goes through the farm the Dunbar site allocates no additional capacity for future expansion where the Bowman's Mill site would if you choose to build the tank volumes that are that are larger from what I talked about before you know in my mind I'm not so sure I you know 19.6 million versus 24.9 million for the same thing I mean even if those numbers do get closer why would you move downstream for the same thing I mean so really the discussion is is if you're going to build it build it for the for service for the future not for nothing and so that's why I have this in here is that if you were going to do this it would seem would make sense to me is allocated for additional capacity I've talked about this over and over again so I just want to keep repeating it several of the people talked about this as well there's no doubt is that there are greater risks at the Dunbar site than there are at the Bowman's Mill site that that's a given every project we do has risks and stuff if what we did was easy somebody would have done it a long time ago and we wouldn't have had a consent decree and so the the risk part of it is it make me uncomfortable as I said a couple of Tuesdays ago I'm pretty confident in what I read in stand text report is there's nothing that indicates to me that it can't be done at the Dunbar site it'll be hard but it can be done so to me this is the biggest headline of all of it though is it's um it's a pretty significant spread if you do exactly the same it's five million dollars if you make the tank to serve nine people per acre it's 27 million dollars if you go to 25 people per acre it's 29 million dollars 10 million dollars difference going back to it whether the site is hard or not yes Dunbar is hard but is it eight to ten million dollars hard I don't think so I just don't believe that and so you know I go back to something that the former mayor gray told me early on and when we started in the consent decree the one first things he said to me he said get it done get it done on time get it done right but get it done for less than what you said it was going to be so we mark mark Sanders will be talking about that next week if you're on the Environmental Quality Committee as far as our little graph we'd like to brag about that because we're still under budget and so everything we do is focused on trying to make sure that we are remain under budget I'll turn it back over to you ma'am all right that was quick thank you very much now are there questions comments councilmember Eblen when we're talking about I'm curious what is the how old is the current mint station pump station well that's a good question I've been trying to figure that out whether Dunbar came before the station or it came after the station and it's kind of a mixed bag because Dunbar could not have had sewer service without the pump station being there first so I'm going to say roughly about 1995 okay so it's about 30 yes and and it's been kind of needing work for quite interesting background is LFU CG owned that property and and transferred it to Fay County Public Schools hmm well my question is if we're talking about I mean one of the arguments for Bowman's Mill is that we is that is that would add capacity for future land that was brought into it I mean we tend to you know not do that every year we do that every decade two or three so if we built that would it still be good if you know by the time some of this expansion land were to come on the existing pump station our plan that we were presenting as of last summer was to rehabilitate the existing one new pumps new controls basically modernize it but not to increase the capacity of it for two reasons one when it's not raining it works just fine it seems to work very well secondly is is that if you increase that capacity now you're shoving problems into the Palomar neighborhood and then downstream into the other Bowman's Mill where it doesn't have capacity you you reach a point of no return about how much flow that you can send there in dry weather when the wet weather comes that's what the storage tanks are for instead of sending it downstream and overwhelming everybody you put it into the storage tank which acts as a surge tank to buffer out the flow but but you're confident that what you're proposing now it meant Lane would handle not only what's the problem that's there but what expansion area one yeah all that future development that will play out over the next couple of decades area one yes thank you thank you councilmember Savigny thank you mayor thank you again Commissioner for your presentation I have a few questions that I've shared with you kind of ahead of time but could you just the one one part of this is in it sounds like it's going to be in the floodplain so it if it's at Dunbar it's in the floodplain the report basically talks about I think you have hydrological models I think you do some modeling of floods or you do something and it talked about the concept affecting back you know back behind it like going up to Harris Hills right what you're phrasing is is that because we're filled it building in a floodplain or in the floodway that would have to have a Lomer which is a letter of map revision approved by FEMA and yes that's true we don't know the answer to that until we do the modeling of it we do not know the answer to that okay all right but that's something that if anyone's going to build in the floodplain that's the type of thing they have to do yeah I mean that kind of thing goes on all the time okay all right cool there was a there was that there was that discussion about and I don't recall it being there but the discussion about one side one one site being worse than the other for karst activity or for like and I don't really know what those those tests are that they do and maybe you can describe like it was that they were pounding pounding I think they pound rods and the geotechnical investigation that they did it was less favorable at the Dunbar site than it was at the Bowman's Mill site and so the way you overcome that is you use pilings or some type of alternate foundation construction in order to be able to support it at bedrock you're just you're going deeper to bedrock and I'm not a structural engineer but we've used a similar type of thing in two different locations the very first tank we built was a town branch and that's actually on top of a what was used to be a garbage dump and so it's got 30 foot pilings on it they go down to bedrock the cost estimate that's in there for for that reflects that additional cost yeah it seemed like they had some some major structural stuff they were doing underneath it and then the the Palomar people talk about this and and you it's talked about in the engineering report the the 3.6 million gallons per day I think it is there's some is there a you have a pumping capacity problem kind of downstream that's kind of the limiter is that correct it's like in Palomar again for dry weather versus wet weather and stuff you see that the where the real problems are are in the wet weather situation because the the system still gets so overwhelmed when it rains when it when it's dry we really don't have problems the mid lane has had problems in the past during dry weather mainly because it has been down from three pumps to two pumps because again the reliability of the equipment there is in question okay and the tank itself it looked like when I can looked at the engineering stuff the tank can can can it hold like one and one point one and a quarter days I think it was I think something I think the tank is supposed to hold about 4.5 million gallons is that correct it's 4.5 million gallons is the size is the size of the tank and so if you just did the straight math which is not really edits you can hold two days in there okay all right and then they did not in their in their estimates and I understand it but they didn't you you plan on the mid lane site to to repurpose those same you're gonna rehabilitate those pumps as part of your part of your work and you're not moving them or the stuff that they're in so they're currently still on the on the Miller the milf you know that farm yes yes the footprint of the existing pump station would not move you would basically just gut the thing and replace all of it. That's one of the cost savings of this compared to the Bowman's Mill site is you're not excavating another hole to basically build a wet well. What you do need to build is a the diversion structure that diverts flow into the tank when it rains because you'll have to use that as a regular pump station while you rehabilitate the one the existing one. But it's its footprint does not change. Yeah and I've got two seconds I'll come back. Thanks. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank You Mayor. Thank You Commissioner Martin. I'm curious the the biggest change that jumps out to me from this versus the presentation we had two weeks ago is that price point for Bowman Mill and the figures now that we're looking at an acreage figure with a density figure as well you have the slide and different tank volumes. It felt like to me our previous conversation behind this was kind of debating the existing sort of repair option of Mint Lane would essentially provide for our current needs up to this point but not provide for future either expansion or infill or area one any of that right? No it would if I misspoke it would always it was always the intention of area one and our basis point is is that area one has been added to the urban service boundary. We have a responsibility of providing sewer capacity at some point which is reasonable for them to connect to and that's Bowman's Mill. Okay so okay that that was a little bit unclear for me from last time but you're saying either option will provide the capacity for area one? Right either one the difference is one requires a pump station at area one and the other one would not. Gotcha and so I'm curious about these two sort of extra figures it was I was operating under the impression last time that Bowman Mill had a larger level of capacity for potential future expansion or growth and that to me was kind of the crux of the friction about this whole issue is are we sort of preemptively planning for future growth now that I'm looking at this 24.9 million dollars that it has the same tank volume as Mint Lane I'm I don't know I'm a little bit confused now and then with these two like projected larger volumes with a higher price tag I'm not articulating this very well but I'm trying to figure out where I'm having a disconnect. And and I still maybe have not explained this very well got it too engineered for everybody here I guess probably but what we were trying to illustrate is is that if you took the exact same thing and moved it farther downstream just because it was easier to build it cost still cost more money it cost more money because you're 0.8 miles farther downstream so you've got pipe work that takes it down there and then pipe work that takes it back and then the second part where our conversation about the pump station at Mint Lane we're rehabilitating something that has already been built and already been excavated as opposed to Bowman's Mill you are now excavating a new wet well what we call or a sump basically and so those costs are what's driving the the difference between having an apples to apples situation so what my comment was is that if you decided to do that I mean you wouldn't do that you wouldn't just build the same thing there and not allow yourself any capacity I mean that would be foolish so instead you would look at some day acreage or some density for the acreage in the drainage area or the bathtub that I mentioned earlier and those are the costs associated with those so those were in the slide I just don't think I explained them very well okay so if this council were to move forward with the Bowman Mill option we would have to essentially choose or decide on that tank volume to think about I think if you decided you wanted to move forward and you're told us that you were going to that we the intention is is we're going to serve this then our normal course of business would be to engage the property owners about what it is that they intend to do I mean you know I said I don't want to if if if you were you're saying expand then you know clearly you need to talk to somebody about what their intentions are because if they're wanting to do X and you do Y then you you just wasted your money and stuff I guess see this okay I feel like if we're just trying to create infrastructure capacity I don't know where in that conversation when we are not at an expansion conversation and we won't be at an expansion conversation until at least 2029 2030 based on the process of LPG MP I'm not understanding why we would engage with property owners to ask them about their future plan I think I understand the context your base our infrastructure building on a speculative like what people are gonna do I think I understand your question now let's look at it in the context that when we're doing a consent decree projects within the urban service boundary the late Ed Lane used to preach to me over and over again about make sure that you're doing this such as that full development can happen within that area our target is 15 people per acre that's what the consent decree RMP remedial measures plan is built upon so in not talking with somebody if we we had a capacity issue and we're doing something in Hamburg we would be doing it with the idea that we're providing capacity for 15 people per acre and that accounts for every golf course or every what is it looks to be a open or available piece of land in case somebody wants to do something there in the future does that help I'm gonna have to sign back in I'm out of time thank you councilmember Sheehan Thank You mayor my first point is really just a point it's not a question but you know I well actually it does have a question one of the things that is important to me in this conversation is water quality the whole reason we have the consent decree is because of water quality here and we're hearing from a wetland expert that this pump station needs to move for the state who doesn't like to give us money to give us to give this county two million dollars to preserve wetland but then and we're hearing kind of different things or perspectives on like the springs in that area that's all about water quality to me so the wetland expert that we got an email from today and heard about in public comment said that the springs in that area might actually improve if this is moved and they do the conservation project but I think my question for you is we have Springs all over the county so how are Springs handled in construction when you come across them in sewer projects like how in in other projects that you've done because there is some concern that the construction might impact the spring if this is moved what I'm trying to do if we encounter a spring is try to make sure that it doesn't continue to discharge in the trench of the pipeline that we created most of our pipes are put in the ground and they are back filled with gravel and so that is a natural conduit for water to travel alongside the pipe that's one of our biggest problems is that that water travels to the point to where it finds its way to get in the pipe and now we're back where we were before where we've got water getting in the system that isn't part of where it should be I would be interested in reading what the the wetlands or what the spring person said I was interested in that when mrs. Bell was talking about it because I haven't seen that and I'm not an expert in Springs by any stretch of the imagination our point is is that we're trying to make sure that if we redirect it that we're one we're not redirecting it into a somebody that's now going to have a problem is going to call and expect us to fix it but even more importantly is not create us a problem by directing spring water into the sewer system either directly or indirectly but have you seen in your other projects or when you've come across this that construction in an area has negatively impacted a spring I can't say that I've ever encountered one where it was negatively impacted in the sense of where somebody was using it for for some other purpose other than just naturally occurring no I can't say that I can recall something like that okay and then look at my time I have a little bit of a legal question I'm not sure if you're gonna answer this or but it's about easements what I think that we have heard through some of this discussion is that the current pump station is actually not on LFU CG property and it's on mill Ridge property survey has realized that now that 30 years later that it was built on not on our property it was built by developers and dedicated to urban county government but it all happened before my time I know I'm old but I'm not that old unfortunately so to keep this do we hold an easement with them like is there some agreement then that we have with that property owner to have that pump station there we've likely adversely possessed it at this point in time but but we would probably try to work something out with the property owner going forward so we will have to negotiate the property or an easement at the current location I don't know that we have to but or we would have to is it eminent domain like do we have to actually have a contract or something voted on for that property to that doesn't need to be voted on until we know we're actually picking it and going forward that you know that like we talked about last time you are gonna have to pick a direction or not pick a direction to go because I think they're gonna go with the existing site if you all don't instruct them otherwise and there may be obstacles with that there they may not work there may be things that come up that need to be addressed but at some point in time you all would be given more formal things to to act upon regardless of which direction you all so when we're talking about this particular location very quickly then we have a negotiation with Fayette County Public Schools for the current location and then also this landowner possibly yes okay thank you thank you councilmember Brown thank you mayor and thank you colleagues for your questions I mean it's I'm getting more clarity and clarity on this issue as we continue to talk about it Commissioner to try to try to understand it may not be the same question that the vice mayor was asking but the reason you would have a conversation with the property owners if we moved and built new infrastructure it's just because you've been instructed or best practices to think about future density and capacity at the area where you put the infrastructure gets developed is that is that is that what you were saying I think that's accurate I mean during the sewer ability study I mean that was things that we were looking at is it we wanted to make sure that if we were going to recommend areas for consideration is that we had the capacity to have it be what this community wants it to be I'm not the decision-maker I'm the doer I'm not the planner but I want to make sure that I've involved the planners so I do what it is that they want us to do yeah okay well that made sense that made sense to me when you said that now the other two questions I have is that if we use rehabilitate the current pump station and build the tower at the existing location at down meant Lane do we have any resources similar to what the state is offering to enhance or improve the wetlands area do we have any grants water quality grants or anything that that if they if we build it there then the property owner wouldn't be eligible for those state funds do we have anything that could supplement that since we we have the water quality management fee grant program that's funded roughly in about two million dollars a year you know I'd obviously had to look at the details of it to see whether or not it would score well and stuff because you know it's like with the other grant from a federal level or a state level it seems like grants are not as common as what they were before but I'd have to defer to others to really assert that but I mean you know obviously we're interested in wetlands I'm in the water business and stuff like that and so anything that we do in this county that helps enhance our overall water quality outcome is I'm all for that yeah well I would be interested in that if we decide to rehabilitate the current pump station my other question is is if you if we give some direction for you to look at the Mint Lane site you get into the go property negotiations you get into site concerns and say the estimated price balloons up to 25 million or more not over but just total cost of it is there something is there a mechanism in in the process that makes you stop and say look we're we're you know the price is going beyond or the cost is going beyond what we told the council and have anticipated we need to have another conversation clearly if that's what you direct us to do we would do that we have pretty frequent meetings with the mayor to update her on where we are with projects and even under previous mayors we did that since the consent decree is going on and we've had a couple of projects that we're not going in the right direction and we made sure that that leadership knew and so you know we don't we don't want any surprises and stuff like that and then we want to make sure stuff gets done and but if you give us specific directions to report back as we make milestones through the course of the design so you're comfortable with the outcome that seems reasonable to me okay all right well that just helps me think about it because I think part of the reason we're making a decision on on what location is is caused a big part of it is cost and if something changes in the in the investigation or process I'd be interested to know so thank you thank you mayor thank you councilmember Hale thank you mayor just I'm just talking about cost is the cost of the land the Fayette County Public Schools on has that been estimated in this nineteen point six million in all cases we used a hundred thousand dollars per acre as the as the estimated cost for land both at both locations you know we didn't enter into negotiations with anybody because without having a clear direction that would have seemed inappropriate to me to get somebody excited about or involved or spend money on trying to do something that's a maybe but it's a normalized thing $100,000 per acre in both both cases okay so the answer is one of my questions that we haven't had any kind of discussions with Fayette County Public Schools about that property no I understand there's been well I reached out to someone that I know with the school system on April the 9th after I had given you all the information I've tried to operate this thing to where basically council asked for information and I tried to give it to you and not give it to everybody else unfortunately it didn't quite work out that way um and let's talk about because I heard in one of the public comments talking about the first skyscraper tanks let's talk about the height of tanks versus mint lane versus Bowman are we with it with a tank height is that is that was that a true statement is the are the tank heights considerably higher at mint lane than they would be if you're obviously you remember you know geometry you make the cylinder smaller you're gonna be taller and stuff and so that would be one of those milestone points that I would come back because we're not gonna build a 70 foot tank that ain't gonna happen that'd be that'd be ridiculous I'm not you so sure why that was included in the other than just to try to illustrate the challenge maybe that's associated with that you know our standard tanks are 30 to 40 feet tall that's fairly normal the people who build tanks they have a kind of a sweet spot in in diameters they want to do a 140 or 160 it's kind of like buying stuff off the shelf at the mint lane site the thing about it is is because you're down so low there and stuff like that a certain level of height actually doesn't in my mind doesn't create an appearance problem for man-of-war because you're at such a lower elevation to begin with as opposed to building it out in a higher elevation where people can see it you know we've always tried to be out of sight out of mind with these tanks some better than others and and in your professional opinion do you do you think we can achieve that 150 diameter at mid lane based on the information that I have been given so far yes I do believe that thank you thank you mayor councilmember Baxter Thank You mayor Commissioner some of my questions have already been addressed but I wanted to talk a little bit about the challenges that were listed with the Dunbar site and if you had any so I'm specifically the the they called it in the report a tight tight site conditions and constructability concerns do you have any concerns right now that it would affect our overall timeline you know if it's more difficult and we're having to kind of problem-solve a little bit more do you feel like it's you know getting us closer to that that deadline with the consent decree at all right now I feel like the whole deadline is a function of the decision that this body makes because once I get that we're ready to go and we're we've got roughly two million dollars in an account for design work and so there's nothing that I would financially that would impede us from doing that because of the tough construction site I'd want to make sure that we had as long a lead time as we possibly could we have ten projects left to do in the consent decree that need to be constructed and Bob and I have talked about this over and over again if we get everything either done or under construction by January 1 2029 we're gonna make it because we'll have two full construction seasons left and so you know we're almost there so I'm worried about is it'll be tough site you know I keep saying that over and over again I mean I choose 15 other sites in town then I wouldn't choose this one it's hard but again it's this is where the decision was made as part of the sewer ability study and the goal five or the whole the Planning Commission said build it there and so we're until something tells me that I can't that's where I intended to do it thank you councilmember Brown asked a little bit about an increase in estimated cost and if you would come back to us my question there was when we're looking at these projects do we have a cap that we typically say like that we would potentially evacuate a project you know if it's X percent more than what our estimates are do we ever just say we've never hands up and say no or do we just like we've never done that before and I've been blessed that the council and leadership have always had a lot of confidence in us in doing the right thing and doing the most economical thing but you know and this may be presents a little bit of a different circumstance because there is an alternative typically we're giving you guys the alternatives this is what will work and accomplish what the consent decree is and it's the lowest cost option and you've had faith in us to carry that out well I appreciate that and I think that as councilmember Brown stated I think I would be more comfortable if we got and I don't know what that percentage is you know or a dollar amount but I would feel more comfortable if if this project hit a certain threshold that you come back to us as a whole to keep us in the loop of what that is considering that the financial implications were of such concern to the community so I don't know how we how we handle that but that would be an interest of mine moving forward so well I can add this I mean two afternoons I've spent time talking to you about this I felt like I personally kind of committed to stuff here if I felt like it was going south it would be my duty to tell you that I appreciate that all right that's all I have right now thank you councilmember Savigny thank you mayor and I'm just going to keep going on a few questions Commissioner won't won't there I mean on the Dunbar side itself my guess is we would if as as things hit this if if they're in you're going to if you're in the middle of construction you're just going to end up having change orders to base it's like hey we have to go deeper we have to do this we have to do that but that's kind of expected on any project I mean and and I think they even have it they do have I want to give them credit I think they put like a they put a percentage contingency and that's typically what so there is there is some money I want everyone to know there is there is some fluff money in the quote on both sides yeah you you know how that is is that your consultant never wants to be better I agree with you yeah I know that you had sent the Melinda Joseph to sarin you had sent her information asking for some permission to to do the core drills I think you and you shared some stuff with them as well I and and then you and I talked and I told you I shared I shared the presentation just to try to get it at a slightly higher level with them and then I I also as because we were sharing the actual engineering report with people I shared the engineering report with them so I did get Melinda Melinda Joseph design did comment she made some basic comments and I just want to read those kind of for the record she basically said the report states that they would need to purchase about 1.6 acres to do this project just that's it they were suggesting to construct it in an area we're not utilizing which is great but just doing the work for this project will likely have an impact on our students and staff to the restricted area it's housed in the height of the tank is concerning and I think that was even at the regular height and that was not pointed out in the brief overview that they shared with us the longer report does mention that if the urban service area expands that this option would not serve its purposes and I kind of want to ask come back to that and ask you if that's true the neighbor has shared with us that because the location of existing pump station he's not able to restore his wetlands these are cost estimates and therefore I would be concerned that if someone is looking at this thinking it's the lowest that may not be true it would be good to know what FEMA is going to expect if that might have a bigger implication on us as a school the report clearly clearly has challenges and it lists it lists the risks and challenges in the report and then basically she said she said overall I don't think it's a good idea to have this so close to the school so then my up then my question becomes if we go further away from the school we're we end up like your what are your options at that point it's well behind the school and we're right up on the boundary and as folks have pointed out is the actual existing pump station is sitting across the boundary so going anywhere else means you're going outside the boundary I mean you're you're very limited as far as what your options are concerned but we've already kind of snuck over the boundary somebody did so okay those does the one thing I was going to ask you I think that do that that art is the school at all is the school in the FEMA floodplain to know actually it's if you look at the contours it's a pretty steep hole down in there because there's that sinkhole that's there next to it because you know I had thought about when you and I had kind of exchanged some stuff about the the FEMA impact you know flooding to Dunbar high school itself would have to be pretty dramatic because I think it's like 20 feet above where the floor of this thing is so I don't I'm not so sure that's a player it'll change the base flood elevation but not at that not to that extreme okay so if we can't get it in there then the the alternative is to move at the tank to another location if if it can't work and that is the only choice and and can the tank be there and a future if they develop millridge at some point if they go through that process can they pump into that tank they would not need to pump in that tank because the tank stays dry unless rainwater comes up to the point to where it spills over into the diversion structure I think I talked about this a little bit last time so maybe I can say this again if you build the tank there and rehabilitate the existing pump station and then decide somewhere in the future that you want to go downstream you can leave the tank there it will still act the way that it did anyway it's a diversion structure it's all it's there for and you'd be worried that oh well we spent money on the existing mint lane pump station and now we've lost it if it's ten years down the road it's not such a great loss because you're only spending about one and a half million dollars on that pump station 1.6 I think is what the estimate was because you're replacing the pumps replacing controls you're you're not building a whole new pump station so further down the road you know the depreciation of that and the use of especially in a and an aggressive environment that sewers are 15 to 20 years is of all you're gonna get out of a pump station without gotten it anyway that's which is why this one's in such poor condition because it went so long I'm going to go to councilmember Reynolds who hasn't spoken yet Thank You mayor and Thank You Commissioner you have to have a lot of patience to do all of this so I appreciate it I know that we keep asking the same questions over and over so thank you and my colleagues have asked a lot of my questions but I did want you to just review and I know this is review why you looked at an additional location with a sewer ability study and and how we came to even look at Bowman's mall when we were asked to do sewer ability study I had met with a group of the goal five group or I think that's what was called there you go but basically what felt like our task was was to look at potential areas that could be expansion areas and be sewered effectively basically what in my mind now you know the council heads had established a goal of X number of acres be added to the urban service boundary so what we were trying to do is give them the menu of different options of which that they could add up and get to whatever goal that they wanted to get to and the mint Lane RSA was one of those and people have asked me this is like did somebody reach out to me and ask me to do that no they didn't I mean like said we we knew we had a mint Lane project there and stuff there's there's a farm there okay let's let's look at that it wasn't any secret I think at that time at least in what I believed is that there was interest in doing that but we presented that as not a recommendation but as a menu of options in which the decision-makers could say I like this I don't like this which is where we led to the expansion areas one through five that we have now so can we and along the same lines of the questions about depending on how much it ends up costing can we say we're gonna go at the Dunbar site and we're that's what we're gonna do but if if we can't negotiate with the school system if we cannot do a B or C then we will go to plan B I think you can say whatever you want to say as a council that's my duty would be to tell you what you know what's happening and why things are going south and explain to you in a convincing manner of why I don't think we can pull this out of the fire to give us the option of switching gears okay okay thank you thank you ma'am thank you councilmember Beasley you haven't spoken yet thank you mayor thank you commissioner I just have a few questions what let me start by saying that only one district 8 member has called and told me anything about this and I have never been to Mill Ridge Farm here's my question I don't have a lot of faith in Fayette County Public Schools right now because you know they're good and jacked up over there so what happens if we if we look y'all they laid off a lot of people today what happens if we go into negotiations with them and one they ask for too much money for this site or two they won't negotiate with us at all how far behind does that put you are we gonna be having this same conversation again in two months well I think that's when I call Dave and and the law department and say you know I need some help with this we have had difficult negotiations with property owners in the past we usually find a way a path forward with those things so you know until I get in deftly in the conversation you know it's hard to characterize that I've never had anybody call me up say hey please put a pump station in my backyard so you know usually somebody wants it for a reason they want it for a broader purpose and stuff that's the only people that call me and ask me for sewer infrastructure and so I expect it to be difficult conversation in the beginning but at some point in time that hopefully we'll be able to find a way that it's a win-win situation and we can still come in at a price point that is it's acceptable to us so but if we decide to put it on the Dunbar site and it doesn't work out and we have to pivot how far behind is that put us on construction to move it to the Bowman mill and here's the second part of that you said that we can only build right according to that up there and I don't know anything about building sewers y'all according to that we can only you can only build on the Dunbar site enough to make that 4.5 right but you can't do the 6.8 or the 8.8 which is the 59 or 25 people right so at some point if we ever were to expand that urban service boundaries in my lifetime we would have to build another pump station right we would have to we would have to put something else out there to sustain another tank to sustain the growth is that right a smaller tank yes you would have to unless you got rid of some some water and stuff like that and rehabilitated the system to reclaim that water in a different way there was two questions in there and I had the answer to one and now I can't remember what it was anyways it was a movie if we so if it doesn't work out and we have to pivot and move to Bowman how far behind we be you know if we were able to start moving ahead tomorrow based on a decision here we would know fairly quickly you know it's within six months on whether it seems like it's going to go or not go and if we pivot there's still time to pivot there's 2027 and 2028 like I said it needs to start by by January 1 2029 because that gives us two full construction season I think we can get it done there we have three tanks left to build and this was going to be the one we were going to do first because we kind of knew it was going to be the hardest one it's again it's a tight site given the the council's interest in this matter has extended that timeline we've switched things around now we're going to do the town branch phase two tank at the treatment plant no property owners just us just money no easements that one's gonna go we're gonna follow it by another one and we'll do this one last that gives us time to pivot if we need to without endangering the consent decree schedule okay thank you thank you mayor thank you councilmember Boone have you spoken on this no ma'am you spoke on solar didn't you okay so would you like to go ahead and thank you mayor and thank you commissioner thank you to my colleagues for asking some great questions and thank you to everybody that showed up today for some public comment I guess a lot of questions have been answered so I'll kind of just run through my thought process and what's going on here so about how many projects have y'all done for the consent decree I think we're around 90 okay have there ever been any projects that couldn't be completed because of property lines no do you foresee that coming into play on this project I said I don't see that being an obstacle that we can't find a way to overcome because we've overcome it so many times before right as far as you mentioned you had some brief conversations with fake any public schools about that land and some documents were shared is it you who does the negotiations with them or is that law or how does that usually proceed typically it's us it's a water quality staff we have two people that are devoted to the easement acquisition process because we have so many of them because of the consent decree so we would start that and and not necessarily involve law unless they've got unless one may wanted to bring attorneys we never go if the other party has attorneys than we have attorneys but otherwise we would try to handle it ourselves until it got to a certain point typically you in property acquisition you're relying on appraisals right and so fundamentally I think you know the only reason that there's extra acres up there and density is because we're talking about an expansion so I think fundamentally where we are with the facts you know we have expansion area one we have the infill we have we have the area there that this book is you've you've fixed the problem I guess so without backdoor in the program that I think all of us supported the LP GMP program I think that this is the best place to keep it is where it's at it's saving us it's almost seven to ten million dollars I think this is an expansionary question not necessarily a wetlands question not necessarily you know future growth questions it's kind of dealing with what we have right now we have decades of expansion areas to grow out and build out so I think there's fiscally the right decision to keep it where it's at and I don't really have any more questions for you but I will have a motion but I see there's another person to speak so okay vice mayor Wu Thank You mayor I'm gonna do something that I don't make a habit of doing and that's disagreeing with our law department and it's a scary feeling to do but Commissioner Barbary said that if this body does not make a decision on this particular issue that we would just be going with the Dunbar option which is the original the first option and I disagree with that because a this council last year asked Commissioner Martin to look into options and so now we've been weighing those three options and let's call them two options since we ruled out the airport and then to add on top of that councilmember Boone a couple weeks ago on this issue did make a motion to move ahead with the Dunbar site and that motion was defeated I believe nine to four so in my estimation this conversation is in play and it does require a decision of some sort from us and if we don't decide anything today or any other day to me the issue is unresolved but that's my own interpretation and we can go from there councilmember Boone mentioned that you all had had some conversations with LFU CG in the correspondence from Melissa Joseph design she says LFU CG never met with us to actually show us or discuss the option to increase place a WWS on our property next to Dunbar what is she correct and she's she is correct we got permission to enter to do the rock soundings and stuff as I said earlier I wasn't planning on this being a public conversation before you all got to see it and so I felt like you know communicating directly with the school system is basically the same as communicating to half the student body and I just didn't feel like in the way that we operate or at least I way I've always operated is if the council asks me for something I deserve to give it to you not from you to hear about it from somebody else yeah I can respect that I will also say that councilmember Brown and councilmember Baxter both brought up the idea of the site risks and those potential increases in costs and I know we are building you know a little bit of cushion into all of these plans for those kind of things so I do like the idea of setting some level of threshold for if things if the costs start escalating because of the risks that we're not going to know until we hit the ground right and and those are not I don't expect you to know what those risks potentially are or how much they will cost so I like having this idea of a safeguard of basically saying if we go ahead with this plan if things start getting a little hairy we at least have a way to kind of deal with it I'm still I don't want to spend a lot of time on it I'm still stuck on this a little bit and I don't know if I got the right answer if I just did not absorb it right from you if we were to go with the Bowman mill option would this body have to tell you which option which of those three price options to go with like would we because that there's there's a different cost to them right so if we if we said let's go with Bowman mill these are these are ranges okay because remember or I remember I guess explain this 25 people per acre that's assuming there's 20 you're using all all the acres all the 572 acres instead you're building a park and you're building roads and stuff there's there's a lot of math that goes on and it's kind of moves around quite a bit especially when you're talking about a footprint that's this large nobody develops that much acreage all in one year anyway it's a it's a build-out kind of thing and sometimes the market causes you to do different things in different times and so what we would we would typically do that's why we choose that 15 people per acre and I wish we would use that one instead of using this bracket because I think maybe it confused people is that it's somewhere in the range of 27 to 30 million dollars depending on you know what you decide to do and I always you know typically when we get into the design aspect of things if I can squeeze a little bit more out of something for pennies on the dollar that's what we're going to do okay I've done that on some of our tanks when we were talking about the sizing the consent decree said to build it at five and we were able to build one tank it's six million gallons it cost us 88 cents a gallon so cheaper than that so just so I'm clear I feel like you said this will cost us between 25 and 29 million dollars depending on what we want to do so is that you saying that if council were to choose this option we would have to give you a number of what we want to spend and how big we want the tank volume to be right because I it feels a little too squishy for me to say okay we're gonna go with this option and then you you build what volume exactly you know what I mean like I think that's a big question in all of this so are we going to dictate if we go with this option are we going to dictate the size of the tank if you did it would be the first time that's happened but I think you have the ability to do that as well but again I caution you is that if you choose a density and for a large area and then their needs change you may find yourself in a situation where you can't do that so you know when we're coming up with cost estimates and ranges and we're trying to see where what our budget is and what our budget will hold again if if I if I was given a 30 million dollar budget I'm going to build everything I can out of that 30 million dollars without being wasteful because someday somebody will want it that's kind of how we approach things I honestly still feel like this questions unresolved but I'll get ahold of you online to resolve it thank you councilmember Sheehan Thank You mayor back to the wetlands I appreciate the suggestion from councilmember Brown about trying to find a way to use local dollars to offset the state funding that might go towards wetland preservation but that's two million dollars so I do want us to consider that when we're thinking about the project cost comparison so that's one piece the second thing that I just want to ask a little bit more about and this again might pull our lawyers in the back when we are talking about trying to negotiate with Fayette County Public Schools and we have this communication today that indicates they're not super favorable about this idea if they say no you're talking about getting into difficult conversations with them and lawyers and I understand how that works between us and a private property owner but I don't understand how that works with another public entity well I have to be honest with you those kind of conversations when they get sticky are going to go on at a higher grade than I am at you know there that's outside of me and they go to higher ranges I just know that in the nearly 30 years I've been here whether it be the state or Fayette County Public Schools or anybody we usually find a path forward because typically when you have something that you need usually the quasi government agency has something that they need okay thank you and I can think a couple of them for Fayette County schools right now I'm not going to share them. Thank you. Council Member Boone. Just for clarification I guess we want to talk about wetlands that money would go towards the property owner not necessarily to the city. Which money are you talking about? The wetland grant. You know it would be a grant that would be basically administered by us and typically the property owners they they hire professionals to execute that and so it's kind of a it's a it's an agreement between the property owner and us but they benefit from the outcome with us financing it well actually the whole community benefits from the outcome. Well I have a motion I just see somebody else signed in so okay I move to authorize and direct. I think he wants to speak to the motion to the motion that's coming up. All right let's have a motion. 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. Councilmember Brown seconded. Councilmember Ellinger seconded and Councilmember Eblen seconded. We have plenty of seconds. Okay now let's speak to the motion. Councilmember Morton. Thank you. So and I think you might have hit at it but just for public record for my understanding again so let's say we get into negotiations this goes through we get into negotiations and FCPS decides that they don't want to negotiate what what's the next steps other than strong arming is it to move to down to Bowman Hill what would be the next steps as you would say. Well I said it earlier is that you know obviously at some point in time you'd have to get the law department and I would take advice from our attorneys but you know it would escalate up obviously in the like said with communications that I have with the mayor a regular basis I'd be communicating with her and getting advice from her as far as what direction to go. Right. Would you come back to council and get that direction? No I mean except at the end of the day if that's what if you want milestones and report it out of where we are I'm more than happy to do that. I will say and this is where I'm hoping Dave's behind me. He retreated. If it involves a property acquisition and probably result in a closed session I'm going to speculate that. That makes sense. You know actually I'm gonna make a amendment to the motion and what I'll do is I'll support the motion based on this amendment and I want to move to amend the motion to require that any negotiated agreement related to the Mint Lane pump station return to council for final approval prior to the execution with no binding commitments on expenditures made beforehand. So moved. Second. Councilmember Curtis seconded. Is that an open session? This would be property acquisitions. And basically the tent is just and it's in the same sentiment that's been heard as if this negotiation takes place and this price just balloons to the point where the council will come back and approve that the execution and moving forward with that property line. So example like they negotiate the price balloons up to 28 million dollars without some type of binding process and you can y'all can answer this what would be that case if there's nothing else bonding saying you to come back would you just move forward after the negotiations? Well well it would be if there wasn't anything there'd be an agreement with whoever we end up where whatever direction we go that would have to be approved by council similar to you know there'd probably be a purchase agreement something like that that comes that would be coming through council. I would always recommend closed session for property acquisition discussions and probably even including this one the but that's that's a little late but the but obviously any any vote on a actual agreement would be an open session. Thank you. Okay just a little bit we have an MOU form that basically when we're negotiating with somebody it's signed by staff but it clearly says right on there it is non-binding it is not approved only the mayor can sign an agreement like that the direction of the council. Okay now there are a few people who want to speak to the motion. Councilmember Savigny to the amendment this is to the amendment. To the amendment nope. You're out. Councilmember Eblen are you to the amendment okay yes okay all right so we've got councilmember Reynolds councilmember Curtis vice mayor Wu. So no matter what an MOU comes back to us right for approval. The MOU basically documents basically what we have internally agreed to but then that MOU gets processed through the law department and there's there's not an agreement signed. Anytime we acquire additional property we come back to you all for approval. It's normally normally in the form of a resolution so I don't know that your motion was really necessary because we would be doing we would be doing that anyway. Yeah and if it caught and if the project costs more it didn't have to do with the property but it that would still come. Like if we have to acquire additional easements to do this which I think we're probably gonna have to do we will be bringing you here's how much it costs us to get these easements and you will have to approve it. So in your professional opinion we don't need a motion saying come back to council. Okay thank you that was my the answer thank you. Councilmember Curtis you had a question? No? Vice Mayor Wu okay. Any other questions to the motion? Yes Councilmember Lynch. Councilmember Warren do you mind to restate your amendment one more time please? Yeah I may be willing to withdraw just with one pending question. Can you restate it first and then ask the question? Okay so the the amendment states to move to amend the motion to require that any negotiated agreement related to the Mint Lane pump station return to council for final approval prior to execution with no binding commitments or expenditures made beforehand. Did you have another question? Yeah so and then just for understanding there's something gonna come back before council if this comes back and it's you know the negotiation doesn't work or it's just ballooned to this high high number if council denies that what would be the next steps will be the process to follow? I think there'd have to be a meaningful discussion about what plan B this is going to be. I mean if plan A is not some it's just flame not viable for some unapparent reason or reason is I'm not apparent today then we'd have to have that discussion about what plan B looks like because the overflowing pump station at Mint Lane has to be addressed it's required by the consent decree. And currently as it stands plan B is not the Bowman mill station. Well I think we're talking about plan A right now but I guess plan B those are the only two that are on the table because I had suggested that we took the airport off of it so in my mind of what we're talking about here plan A which was the plan A that I brought to my budget links in last year is do it at Dunbar because that's where the urban service boundary is that's the way that we've always operated. If for whatever reason that doesn't work then we need to have that conversation about whether or not we're going to pull pull the trigger on plan B and in what context kind of goes to Vice Mayor Wu's conversation about densities and those kind of things. Okay thank you. So I withdraw the motion. All right does the seconder withdraw? The amendment has been withdrawn. Now Councilmember Eblen you wanted to speak to the motion. I was just going to say I'm not really that concerned about reaching an agreement with the school board. I think you know if push comes to shove the mayor and the school superintendent could work something out. I mean they depend on us for a lot of things and we depend on them for a lot of things. I don't really see that as a problem but I am concerned about when we're talking about these other options you know I don't think we've ever you know we certainly want to build infrastructure to handle the expansion that we have proved and have approved in the future but expansion are decades-long processes. We are still now developing land that we approved 30 years ago in the expansion out in some of the Hamburg area so we and then on top of that we've just approved another big expansion area and this that's going to take decades to build out. So I think the whole discussion about building for future growth is something decades down the line and it really is not what the issue is here. We need to meet the needs that we have right now and the needs that we anticipate and to me I think the Mint Lane pump station is the place to do it. It's the cheapest option it you know. Commissioner says it will work and I've got great confidence. Thank you councilmember Savigne. Thank you mayor. I just want to give my two cents. I won't be supporting the motion but this the swing on the the contingency cost is about four to five million dollars which makes the two if if the harder site is the Dunbar site which it the engineering report says that my guess is we will use most of the contingency on that one and I would think that we were going to use quite a bit less on a lower risk site. I also do not I recognize the fiscal responsibility piece of it and I I reckon I I don't think I don't think that anyone has ever said to you that we're going that if we moved it down to to another site that we would not be looking for some sort of something from the Millridge folks. I know they're planning on donating 25 acres of land which is about 2.5 million dollars according to you it's about a hundred thousand dollars an acre so I don't think that that the two proposals are actually far off is all I'm saying and I do think that the one site is better than the other and I am sure that you will be able to do it wherever we we select so I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Curtis. Thank you mayor. So obviously these discussions are always difficult and I just want to as we're speaking to this amendment and considering moving forward It's the motion. I'm sorry pardon me. There's no amendment. Considering this motion and considering moving this forward I want to express my appreciation for every single one of us for digging into these thorny issues and trying to do so in a way that's respectful thoughtful and intentional it's a not always the easiest thing to do it's certainly not always the fun thing to do but at the core of this issue and what's going to be guiding my vote on this motion is that LFUCG has a responsibility to the people that live in this city to quickly and cost-effectively remediate when we fail when we mess up that's the whole idea behind the consent decree it's the whole idea behind just basic government services and so I'm gonna be voting without in mind and I hope you all will as well. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to the motion? All right I'm going to ask the clerk to do a Granicus vote as opposed to a voice vote. Okay that motion passes 10 to 5. Thank you very much to everyone. All right it's time for council reports. Does anyone have a council report? All right let's just move right on to public comment for issues not on the agenda we have Rick Day signed up is he here? Okay I don't think he is here so I'll call for a motion to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. We are adjourned. Thank you everyone for coming.