# Urban County Council - August 27, 2026 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · August 27, 2026 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6865 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6865?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2026-08-27 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: September 12, 2026 - **Length**: 27,848 words - **Speakers**: Mayor > ⚠️ **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 Urban County Council met on August 27, 2026, at 6:00 PM in the Council Chambers at Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, with Linda Gorton presiding. The meeting included two agenda items: a presentation on Avory Woolery Day and a public hearing regarding FY2027 Ad Valorem Taxes. The Council took two motions to a vote during the session and heard public comments from two speakers. Both agenda items were informational in nature. ## Attendance **Present:** Amy Beasley, Hilary Boone, James Brown, Emma Curtis, Tom Eblen, Chuck Ellinger II, Whitney Elliott Baxter, Lisa Higgins-Hord, Shayla Lynch, Tyler Morton, Jennifer Reynolds, Liz Sheehan, and Dan Wu. **Absent:** Joseph Hale and Dave Sevigny. **Late arrivals:** None. ## Votes and Decisions The Council passed two budget ordinances by unanimous roll call vote. **Ordinance 0703-26** amending certain budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to provide funds for purchase orders and pre-paid expenses rolling from FY 2026 into FY 2027 passed 13-0. Chuck Ellinger moved the ordinance and Emma Curtis seconded it. All 13 council members voted in favor: Amy Beasley, Hilary Boone, James Brown, Emma Curtis, Tom Eblen, Chuck Ellinger, Whitney Elliott Baxter, Lisa Higgins-Hord, Shayla Lynch, Tyler Morton, Jennifer Reynolds, Liz Sheehan, and Dan Wu. No votes were cast against the ordinance. **Ordinance 0704-26** amending certain budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures, and appropriating and re-appropriating funds for FY 2027 Schedule No. 3 also passed 13-0. Chuck Ellinger moved the ordinance and Emma Curtis seconded it. The same 13 council members voted in favor, with no votes against. ## Budget and Financial Actions The Council approved two financial agreements during the August 27, 2026 meeting: **Contract with Riggs Ward Design** - **Amount:** $135,000 - **Identifier:** 0453-26 - **Purpose:** Agreement to provide plans and designs for interactive outreach tools **Grant Agreement with Kentucky Transportation Cabinet** - **Amount:** $519,200 - **Identifier:** 0627-26 - **Purpose:** Agreement for the Intelligent Transportation System/Congestion Management System Traffic Improvements Project ## Public Comment Two speakers addressed the council regarding the Flock Safety camera contract. **Noah Cornett**, representing the Bluegrass Chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, urged the council to cancel the contract with Flock Safety. He raised privacy concerns and highlighted potential misuse of the camera system. **Billy Mallory** spoke in support of the Flock cameras. He cited a decrease in crime in the East End and noted improved safety for residents as reasons to maintain the system. ## Contested Items **Flock Safety Cameras** Community members expressed significant opposition to the proposed use of Flock Safety cameras. The primary concerns centered on privacy issues and the potential for misuse of the camera system. Numerous residents spoke during the meeting to voice their objections to the implementation of this surveillance technology. The disagreement reflected broader community concerns about data collection and surveillance practices, with participants raising questions about how footage would be stored, accessed, and used by law enforcement and other agencies. ## Avory Woolery Day A presentation was made to honor Avory Woolery Day. The item was informational in nature and did not result in a formal decision or action item. ## Public Hearing - FY2027 Ad Valorem Taxes A public hearing was held to allow citizens to comment on the proposed FY2027 Ad Valorem Tax rates. The hearing provided an opportunity for community members to voice concerns and feedback regarding the proposed taxation for the upcoming fiscal year. No specific speakers or detailed discussion points were recorded in the meeting materials. The hearing was conducted as an informational session to gather public input on the ad valorem tax proposal before any final council action. --- ## Decisions - **0703-26** — passed (13-0): An Ordinance amending certain of the Budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to provide funds for purchase orders and pre-paid expenses rolling from FY 2026 into FY 2027 - **0704-26** — passed (13-0): An Ordinance amending certain of the Budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures, and appropriating and re-appropriating funds, FY 2027 Schedule No. 3 --- ## Full transcript ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Now, I would like to invite our Knights of Columbus folks to come forward, please. Chief Wells. Come on over. Okay. Don't be shy. You've got the big jacket. This evening, we are joined by our local council of Knights of Columbus. The group is here to make a special donation to our Lexington Fire Department that will assist with the installation of Lexington's second Safe Haven baby box at fire station number 24. This is a very important project, and we are grateful for your support. And we thank you very much for being here and for this presentation. And before we go to that, I'd like to ask Chief Wells if he would like to say a word or two or three or however many. Thank you again, Mayor, and thank you to the council for being so supportive of this project. We're proud to accept this donation to purchase and install our second Safe Haven baby box, expanding access to that life-saving resource. We want to thank the Knights of Columbus for their generous donation, and especially Rick Towner, who has been just tireless in this. They have really done a remarkable job and raised a ton of money and found it in their hearts to give it to this cause, so we're so grateful. And thank you all again for your support of this project. Thank you, Chief. Welcome, Greg. Hello, my name is Greg. I am the Grand Knight for Council 14130. We are the Knights of Columbus Council that spearheaded both projects to raise the money for the baby boxes. We thank the City Council of Lexington, as without your cooperation, we wouldn't be able to provide this life-saving, as Chief Wells said, service. It's very near and dear to our hearts to save as many children as we can, and by giving women that don't see another way out a way out so that they don't have to do anything that might get them in serious trouble, unfortunately, and we thank you again. Thank you so much. Shall we take a picture with the council? Please. As you walk up, show them what the check says. Yeah, go on. So they know. Nice to see you. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you very much. Congratulations. Congratulations. All right. Thank you very much. Next up is the public hearing for the fiscal year 2027 ad valorem taxes. And I need to read a statement, and then we'll have the public hearing. So I'll open the public hearing right now. State law requires the urban county government to provide an opportunity for citizens to make comments about the ad valorem tax rates for the upcoming fiscal year if the proposed rates exceed the compensating rates. The compensating rate is a rate that produces approximately the same amount of revenue as that produced in the preceding year, excluding new property and personal property. A summary of last year's rates, the compensating rates, and the proposed rates for fiscal year 2027 were published in the Lexington Herald-Leader. Copies of the summary are on the table at the back of the room. So the public hearing is now in session, and I'd like to ask if there are any comments from the public on the tax rates, the property tax rates. If so, you may just come right up to the podium. All right. Are there any comments from council members? All right. The public hearing is now closed. Thank you very much. Now I have a second public hearing, and this is for the Fayette County Health Department, and the public hearing is now in session. And this is for their tax rates, which have been published and are available to the public. Are there any comments from the public? Are there any comments from the council members? All right. Thank you very much. The public hearing is closed. All right. That brings us to public comment for issues on the agenda. Now I know there are several people here who would like to speak to FLOC. It is not on the agenda. So if you signed up and put a yes by your name but you really want to talk about FLOC, you need to let me know when I call your name and we'll put you at the other public comment for issues not on the agenda. Okay. The way this works is I will call your name. We have quite a number of people to speak. And you'll need to come to the podium and restate your name for the public record and also state your council district or if you don't live in Fayette County. And you'll have three minutes unless you've been yielded time from other people, and we'll figure that out as we go along. So the first question I have is Sarah Otis here? Sarah Otis? Overflow. I'm sorry? Overflow. Okay. In order to give her time, she has to come to the council chamber. Okay. Sarah Otis? Oh, I'm sorry. Hello? Up here. I'm sorry. Wait. Are you Sarah Otis? Okay. Are you yielding your time to Noah Cornett? I am, and I meant to do it for the FLOC period. I apologize. Okay. All right. Very good. We'll see you later. All right. Is Peter Lynch here? All right. Welcome, and you'll have three minutes. So quick question before I get started. I saw conflicting information on the agenda online versus the one I'm having here. Online it looked like that we are covering data centers today, but on this document it says no. The data centers, they are not on the agenda. Can I be moved to the other section so I can speak? Yes, you can. Thank you. Yes, you can. Okay. Let's see who we have here. All right. Is Allison Helsinger here? And you are not speaking to data centers or FLOC, is that correct? Welcome. Third time's a charm, right? Yes. My name is Allison Helsinger, and I live on 5411 Haley Downs Drive in the 12th District. I'm here to talk about the solar initiative. I believe you all should have received some correspondence from me on behalf of myself and my neighbors, voicing our opposition to these types of industrial projects on agricultural land. If you do need a copy, I have some here with me. I respect your ability to read and consider our concerns. However, there are some points that deserve to be discussed. Allowing these types of industrial projects to infiltrate our farmland goes against the longstanding traditions and preferences of this council and the community that it serves. My husband and I were not permitted to carve out a 10-acre lot on our 200-acre family farm for the purposes of building a single family home due to the strict zoning requirements for agricultural land. We were advised the precedent was clear and firm. But now we are considering allowing a for-profit company to install a large-scale industrial facility on the same type of land. Dropping the word farm in the name for the sake of optics does not change the fact that this is an industrial project wholly unsuited for this type of land. You wouldn't let cattle graze near a nuclear plant and call it a nuclear farm. We are opening the door to outside companies who stand to make a significant profit by exporting one of our most critical resources. How is a vote in favor of this a vote in favor of all of the people that you serve? Further, why are we starting our initiative on farmland? Why not start exclusively with non-agricultural sites? If a cow or sheep can graze under a solar panel, why can't a car park under one? It's easy to sit there and say that 1% isn't a big deal when that 1% isn't in your backyard, across the street from your house, diminishing your property value and your quality of life. And for what? We don't even really know. At least 5% of electricity produced is lost in its transmission. So by placing this on the far edges of the county, we're already setting ourselves up to be behind the eight ball. There's been no guarantee that our costs will be lowered, we don't know how it's going to get on the grid, and really no firm explanation of how this serves all of the people. So while renewable energy is important, and we applaud the council and our city government for exploring the options, the Planning Commission's recommendations without consideration of inclusion of our agricultural land is the way that best serves the people of this county. And for those reasons, we ask you to reconsider your vote on that issue. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Daryl Baker, followed by Reva Russell English. Welcome. My name is Daryl Baker, District 8. As many of you who know me in council as someone attached to another organization, a non-profit, I mentioned to many of you that if you see me in red, then I'm representing AARP. I am not representing AARP. I am speaking to you as a citizen in this wonderful county. What I want to speak to is the solar farms. And what struck me wanting to speak was in March I saw that it was voted 8-7 not to do it, and then all of a sudden I hear in the media city has approved putting solar farms in rural land. Then I began a deep investigation of how that happened and what was involved in that. I read all the ordinances. I read all the particulars. I understand what they are. My concern is 1% if you're in the farm industry, I grew up in Wisconsin. If you open the barn and one cow goes out, if you don't close it, more cows go out. So when does 1% become 2%, 5%, 10%, 20%? I've lived 12 different states. And in the 12 different states I've lived in, you have a jewel of a county, city, and surrounding area. And you've protected with urban service boundary. And you've gone about the process to be very careful and thoughtful about how you tend to approach on any of that. My experience is knowing human nature, having been a pastor for 35 years, people somehow kind of lose track of themselves and they begin to do some things more because we've already done it. So now we can always do more. And when do you stop yourself from doing that at all? The reality is if you take one shovelful of ground from that urban service boundary and turn it into something else, it takes 100 years if you leave it alone for it to get back to the quality it was when you left it with the shovel. That's what you lose. And when you lose it, you lose it forever. So the attraction to industry, tourism to come here, now you begin to diminish our interest by others to want to spend some time here and investment here. So I say this all as a caution, a caution. I was very happy when it was no. I'm not as happy with the yes. But I say with a caution, if you want to reconsider, please do. Realize what you're potentially starting and what can happen as time passes, as faces change and attitudes change, what the results may be. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Reva Russell, English, followed by Jim Coleman and then Eric Copston. Welcome. Thank you, Council. Thank you, Mayor. My name is Reva Russell, English. I live in the 1st District and I farm in the 12th. We are all of us, whether we know it or not, in the midst of a battle between the real and the unreal. Much of the battle is taking place elsewhere with other people, other money, other land. But the ideas line up surprisingly well, no matter where the battle is being waged. Are we going to let the planet cook or not? Are we going to speed up the cooking with data centers, AI and surveillance, or are we going to try and slow it down? I know you don't want to let the planet cook. So tell me why. If you believe solar is an answer and a help, aren't you funding it in our budget? Why, if it is so important and so essential to us reaching our goals, are we relying on an out-of-state company funded mostly by Shell, a company that is very much battling on behalf of the unreal? Why is it that the most you will do if solar is a solution is let our farmland be a greenwashing site for a company bent on cooking the planet faster? Why are we providing cover for their sins in order to generate clean energy on real farmland that's already being teed up if we're not careful for AI, the ultimate unreal? Why would we let Shell and company destroy our farmland and think it might stop them from destroying the world? The world is here. Fayette County is what we have. I know you don't want the planet to cook. I know you also believe solar is a solution. So fund it, with our money, in our built environment. The land on the chopping block is already hard at work on our behalf. It is a carbon sink. It is an ally. And it's real. Please don't ruin it. Thank you. I'm so sorry. Council rules say no clapping, booing, yelling, signs blocking people, if you can refrain from that in the future. Next is Jim Coleman, followed by Eric Kopstein, and then Kathy Clement. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor Gordon. Mayor Gordon, members of our council, thank you for having us here this evening. My name is Jim Coleman. I'm the fourth generation owner of Coleman Crest Farm in the 12th District. I'm here tonight to respectfully urge you to vote no on the proposed zoning amendment that would allow large-scale solar facilities on agriculture land here in Fayette County. Let me be clear. I'm not opposed to solar energy. I support renewable energy. I support innovation. And I support Lexington's goal of reducing carbon emissions. But I strongly believe we can pursue those goals without sacrificing our most valued asset, our land here in Fayette County. First, farmland is not just vacant land. Fayette County's agricultural land is an economic asset. It creates good jobs, supports our farming and our food production. Second, our city's own proposal recognizes the soil issue. Proposed ordinance requires land management plans to address baseline soil conditions, soil compaction, and staging areas. The ordinance also specifically requires applicants to minimize grading and compaction to retain topsoil. Large-scale solar construction can affect agriculture soils. We should not make our best farmland the testing ground for industrial land. Third, the proposal could open the door to approximately nearly 2,000 acres of agriculture land here in Fayette County, and we shouldn't look at each solar project individually. We need to ask ourselves, with a focus of 10, 20, and 30 years, how will this evolve? The cumulative impact could permanently change the agricultural landscape for us here in Fayette County. Fayette County is not a place. Fayette County is a way of life. Fourth, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended against this approach. And finally, we do have alternatives. So I would ask you tonight, why should we put large-scale solar in productive agricultural soils when we can first put it on land that's already been disturbed? Councilmembers, this is not a choice between solar and farmland. It's a choice of where we put solar. I urge you to adopt a simple principle, which is solar first and farmland last. Put solar on rooftops, on parking lots, on brownfields and landfills, but protect Fayette County's productive agriculture land. I respectfully ask for you to vote no on large-scale solar in agriculture zones, protect farmland, protect Fayette County, and protect our great future. Thank you so much for this opportunity. Thank you. Next is Eric Kopstein. I apologize if I said that wrong. And then Kathy Clement. Welcome. Yeah, good afternoon, and thank you. You pronounced my name perfectly. My name is Eric Kopstein, and I'm from Silicon Ranch Corporation in Nashville, Tennessee, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. To begin, I want to recognize the extraordinary amount of work that this council, the planning commission, the staff, the members of this community have put into the solar ZOTA over a period of really many months now. This has been a deliberate and thoughtful process. You've examined difficult questions involving land use, agriculture, economic development, property rights, environmental stewardship, and the future of Fayette County. And the result of that work is a thoughtful and balanced ZOTA. I'm here today to urge you to support the solar ZOTA adopted at the prior council meeting and to move it forward. I also want to underscore that Silicon Ranch is not a developer that builds a project, sells it, and leaves town. We're a long-term owner and operator. When we build a solar project, we remain invested in that project, in that land, and in that community for decades. Our approach to agrivoltaics, which you've also heard about, reflects that same philosophy. We believe and we've proven that solar generation and agriculture can not only coexist, but they create opportunities for innovation, for research, and economic development. Silicon Ranch also is a learning organization. We've already learned a great deal through this process from the people of Fayette County, and we embrace that. We want to continue learning from this community and in turn create something that Fayette County can showcase as an example of thoughtful, innovative land stewardship. And that's exactly why a carefully constructed ordinance like the one before you really matters. Fayette County has developed a responsible framework that establishes rigorous standards while creating a path for responsible projects to move forward. You've studied this intensively. You've listened. You've debated it. You've refined the ordinance. So much work has been done. And to close, and on behalf of Silicon Ranch, I respectfully once again ask you to support the solar ZOTA and move it forward. Thank you for your time and thank you all for your service to Fayette County. Thank you. Next is Kathy Clement followed by Judith Humble and then Jeremy Jenkins. Welcome. Thank you. Should I wait 15 seconds? No, I think you need to start. Okay. He'll start it over. There you go. My name is Kathy Clement. I'm in District 5. I'm here to support the August 18th solar ZOTA. When I moved to Kentucky 36 years ago, I was told around here coal is king. Little has changed in 36 years except that our other fossil fuel, natural gas, is also flourishing. Our local utility, which is a private monopoly, generates 97% of its energy from coal and gas. They recently suspended coal plant retirements and are building three new large gas plants. Kentucky even has a special commission stacked with gas and coal representatives that, along with recent Senate bills, restricts coal plant retirements and encourages new gas. No wonder we have one of the dirtiest energy supplies in the country and we are among the top ten states with the highest per capita carbon emissions. What are some of the impacts of this dirty energy that we all use? First, it is needlessly expensive. A recent study shows that the cheapest path for the state is to increase renewables and efficiency. This is important. Nearly a quarter of Kentucky families are energy burdened. And that is only considering the direct costs of our energy, not the costs of fossil fuel damage to the health of workers, the public, and the environment. Rates of incurable black lung disease are at the highest level in nearly 50 years. Kentucky ranks fifth in the number of coal ash impoundments that poison our groundwater. We rank sixth in the number of orphaned gas and oil wells that leak greenhouse gases and contaminate groundwater. Finally, power plant emissions cause respiratory and heart disease, developmental health problems, and premature death. And they cause climate chaos that in turn threatens public, environmental, and economic health with increased disease, pests, crop loss, and deadly, destructive extreme weather. But solutions are here for the taking. Renewables are ready now. I urge you to embrace the good model in the proposed ZOTA, which is supported by Lexington's Environmental Commission, that allows a limited amount of agrivoltaic solar and protects our farmland. There is no threat here. We need this reasonable plan because state and utility policy, as well as costs, means rooftop and parking solar will not be sufficient. Kentucky ranks 43 in the country in adoption of rooftop solar. We need solar at every scale. As Kentuckians, we either take our reliance on fossil fuels for granted or celebrate it with our license plates. But the costs are unacceptable. We can and must take this great opportunity to live up to the comprehensive plan, reduce emissions, protect our soils, and protect public health and welfare. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Judith Humble, followed by Jeremy Jenkins, and then Justin Kinder. Welcome. Hello, Council. I'm Judith and Mayor Gorton. I'm Judith Humble. I'm chair of the Blue Grass Climate Action Team and the Sierra Club Conservation Committee. And I live in the 5th District, so I'm here tonight again to ask that you support the solar ZOTA as amended by Council during the August 18th work session. I think a very important feature of that ZOTA is that it welcomes agrivoltaic solar into the community. It is not industrial solar. It is a form of agriculture that we're going to see a lot more often. I want to point out Kathy Clement's comments about the fossil fuel industry and our current state of affairs and ask all of us to put down the magic wand that will wave over Lexington and put rooftop solar and parking lot solar everywhere we need it. What she did was paint a picture for you of the very hard battle we're going to face if we do that. We have 140,000 houses in Lexington. About 2,500 of them have solar, and we've got a long way to go if we expect rooftop solar to answer our needs. I want to share with you what I learned about agrivoltaic solar this afternoon. I spent my entire day actually reading peer-reviewed articles and reading about this form of agriculture, and that's what it is. So it's been around since at least 2008. There were models before that. It has been road-tested in many, many communities, and it is welcomed by farmers. The farmers who practice this model consider themselves part of the agricultural community. They make their living as farmers. That's how they identify, and that's how they earn an income. It has many uses besides solar gracing, which is the one we've been introduced to. It can accommodate cattle. It's been used for beekeeping here in Kentucky. It's been used for pollinator habitat. It's been used for chickens and small waterfowl like ducks, and it's been used for vegetables. So when we talk about this array eliminating agriculture, it doesn't do that. It is agriculture. It's just partnered with solar panels, and you get two benefits. If all the developments that have been proposed for this 1% of land in Fayette County come to fruition, the energy will be sufficient to power 10,000 houses. That's so much more efficient than trying to go rooftop to rooftop to rooftop and create the energy that we need. So I would like to see us open our eyes and welcome this as an innovation. I think it can make Lexington an interesting place to visit because we're going to have a utility company model, a brownfield model, and an agrivoltaic model. And I see it as progress for our community, and I hope that we realize it was developed as a conservation model. It's not industrial. So thank you. Thank you. Jeremy Jenkins, followed by Justin Kinder. Welcome. Jeremy Jenkins, District 3. I've been up here a little bit. I think you know where I stand on the Solar Zoda, so I'm not going to get into all that. Do you have a district? District 3. 3. I'm sorry. But I just want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak on behalf of hundreds of union members here in Fayette County regarding the Zoda. I sincerely appreciate your time, dedication, and thoughtful consideration through this entire process. I've really not been into politics a lot, but I've learned a lot, and I've enjoyed it. Most people can't say that about politics, but regardless of some of our differences on this issue, I do respect the work you do and the responsibility you carry in making decisions for our community. Thank you for listening and giving our members and the community a voice in this important conversation. I hope you support the Zoda. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Lane Boldman, followed by Elizabeth Vermin, and then Phillip Meyer. Who's first? Lane Boldman. Justin Kinder. Oh, I'm so sorry. Yes, you're next. Sorry. Thank you. I'm Justin Kinder. Thank you. I live in the District 12, more specifically in the Haley Downs, where the proposed silicone ranch is going to put their farm, the solar farm. I'm here in opposition of commercial solar on agricultural land. I've worked my whole life to get this little piece of heaven of where I'm at. Most people in that neighborhood is the same way, and now it's just going to be destroyed by the solar company all the way around. That's my personal reason, but I would be fighting for this no matter where in Fayette County this is. Fayette County is known as the horse capital of the world, not the solar capital of the world. When we start destroying the land, and that's what this is, this would be a cancer that would eat away at the very being of our community. So I urge you to rescind or change your vote to the eight that said yes, and thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Now, Lane Boldman, then Elizabeth Overman, and then Phillip Meyer. Lane Boldman, District 11. I have spent 30 years as an environmental advocate, both on solar issues and on land conservation. I work with many, many different groups on both these issues. The argument that you all have to deal with is one of the more contentious ones, so I want to respect that. But I've looked at this project pretty carefully. I've looked at the ZOTA, and I'm in favor of your very careful structure of this ZOTA. I think it's done very well. Fayette County, as a major population area, has a responsibility to set an example for how to manage competing interests such as this. I believe the ZOTA finds a responsible way of managing those competing interests, providing a very constrained and controlled option on a limited percentage of land. This is not the first, nor will it be the last, contentious issue facing the council. When cities were dealing with issues like heat islands, flooding, and other environmental issues that impact cities and rural areas, many learned how to design solutions that provided or sustained natural benefits while designing structural ways to address these real problems. I have worked on projects such as this, such as conflicts on highways that cut off wildlife, and find ways to design them so that you can accommodate both. Well-designed projects can be a plus-plus. Well-designed projects can provide a workable solution to contentious problems. The solutions do not always need to be an either-or choice, and you should be a leader on how that happens, being a major area. This ZOTA, which tightly restricts the amount of land used, requires continued agricultural use, and addresses concerns such as soil condition and bonding, is to me a reasonable solution to a very contentious problem. I want to second the comments that were made by Judith Humble and Catherine Clement. This can be done, should be done, and cities like Lexington need to be the leader in this area. Thank you. Thank you. Elizabeth Overman, followed by Philip Meyer, and then Deborah Winslow. Welcome. Hello. I'm Beth Overman, representing the Rural Land Management Board and the PDR program, and I will start by thanking our two board members who are here tonight, Jim Coleman and Phil Meyer, who's coming after me. There are so many eloquent speakers tonight, so we have a position paper that we sent to you all yesterday via e-mail. I am not going to read it because it does not compare to these things coming from the heart from these residents of Fayette County, but I would enter it into the record and ask that you all please reconsider your vote. The Rural Land Management Board is opposed to large-scale solar in the rural areas. Our federal funding partners, NRCS, do not allow large-scale on protected land, and so it takes that land out of possibility for conservation, and they do that because of the disturbance to the soil that the conservationists believe cannot be restored. And we do support solar on other areas and things like the Haley Pike. Also, a lot of our PDR farm owners have solar that supports just their farm. On one of my recent monitoring visits, one of the farms where their primary residence is, they have a detached garage behind it, and they had solar panels the length of the garage to provide energy for the farm. And so we absolutely support that. There are Don Robinson, who many of you all know, has put solar panels on all of his barns. And so we most certainly support that. It's just that putting the large-scale solar on our farmland is not something that the Rural Land Management Board supports. So thank you all. Thank you. All right, Phil Meyer, then Deborah Winslow, and then Vivian Hodge. Welcome. Hello. I'm Philip Meyer. I'm a retired farmer now living in the 3rd District. I have lived in Fayette County my entire life, and I've been involved with this process the last 50 years. We're trying to protect what makes this city great. A vote approving large-scale solar in our rural area establishes a very dangerous precedent. Our city is unique and a very desirable place to live because of 60-plus years of efforts to prevent sprawl and preserve our excellent farm soils. There is a place for large solar farms, but not on our prime soils. Any significant job creation from this ZOTA is short-term, and it will not lower our electric rates. This power is going to go into the grid, and it's going to go someplace where the rates are higher than Lexington. I urge you to vote no for this ZOTA, which is a vote for the long-term welfare of our city. Please redirect your efforts to commercial rooftops and parking lot solar, and hopefully get the state to change the rules to make it more economically attractive to folks. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Deborah Winslow, followed by Vivian Hodge, and then Robert Hodge. Welcome. Thank you. My name is Deborah Winslow. I live in the 3rd Council District in Lexington. For those listening, I'm a short white woman with gray hair, and I'm wearing a green top and a white 3M Aura N95 respirator mask. I'm here to speak in opposition of corporate solar. Let's not put more money and power in another corporate overlord. Thank you. Thank you. Now we'll hear from Vivian Hodge, then Robert Hodge, followed by Henry Jackson. Welcome. Vivian Hodge. Mayor, I'm here for the flock cameras. Okay. Well, we'll get to you later. Thank you. Robert Hodge, are you? Flock cameras. Okay. We'll get to you later. And then how about, oh, Henry Jackson, I know why you're here. Are you still here? There he is. Welcome. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor. My name is Henry Jackson, 7th District. As a longtime supporter of both the PDR program and the Fayette Alliance, I support the proposed solar zoning ordinance and have three comments. Pardon me. A recent comment was that solar power is cheaper than energy use because it's cheaper in price. But that's not always true, and I'd like to offer two examples. The basic claim ignores a far larger goal to restore the balance of destructive greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, causing vastly more expensive damage than the impacts of any cheaper power use per se. Second, the effect of the paradox depends on the scale of the situation. A simple example is that I drive less, but I'm not driving more because I'm paying less for gas. Wikipedia has a lengthy article on the subject, the Jevons paradox. Pardon me. My second comment is that the proposed ZOTA to permit a maximum of 1% solar farming is fair and reasonable, especially in light of the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, there aren't any other uncommitted sites in the county that have ready access to greenhouse gas emissions, and there are no greenhouse gas emission lines needed to send power to the grid at scale. And lastly, as I tried to point out in my August 16th op-ed, the decision to permit the proposed zoning rests on the need to balance our priorities, both ag preservation and the county's goal to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The decision to permit a maximum of 1% land for cleaner, cheaper greenhouse gas emissions is fair and reasonable, and it rests on the need to balance our priorities. As the flagship ag county in Kentucky and a leader in land preservation, we should adopt the proposed solar ordinance that serves both urgent clean energy and ag preservation goals. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes the folks who wanted to speak on issues that are on the agenda. I move to place on the docket a presentation honoring black soil of Kentucky. So moved. Second. Councilmember Brown, I knew I heard you down there. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. Thank you. We'll do that right now. I'd like to invite Ashley Smith to join me at the podium. I want to welcome Ashley and thank you for being here. Ashley is the co-founder and CEO of black soil Kentucky. Black soil is a one-of-a-kind black woman-owned small business that through grants, strategic partnerships, sales and agritourism activities has made a significant investment in black farming and agriculture in the state of Kentucky. Black soil is a one-of-a-kind black woman-owned small business that through grants, strategic partnerships, sales and agritourism activities has made a significant investment in black farming operations, culinary businesses, creators, craftspeople and makers. Black soil is doing the good work of investing in our neighbors while promoting the importance of supporting local businesses. Ashley, your business is a wonderful asset here in Lexington and we appreciate the opportunity to have you here. It is my pleasure to offer this proclamation. Whereas the black soil charitable fund Inc. was established on August 25, 2017 and has grown to be a leading nonprofit agribusiness serving all of Kentucky and across the United States. And whereas the organization serves as Kentucky's only statewide agritourism company with a mission to reconnect black Kentuckians and their heritage and legacy in agriculture. And whereas over the past nine years, black soil Kentucky has served farmers, chefs and makers through grant writing, education and outreach, strategic partnerships and procurement opportunities. And whereas the work of black soil Kentucky has increased, sustained and explained critical market share for Kentucky black farmers, Kentucky black shepherds. And black artisan makers through its institutional sales, strategically partnered farm to table dinners, community outreach through flagship heel over a meal series, workshops and exploring the commonwealth through their homesteader farm tour series. Now, therefore, I, Linda Gorton, mayor of Lexington, do hereby declare August 25, 2026, black soil day in Lexington. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Would you like to say a few words? No. I'm good. I'm good. All right. Thank you, mayor Gordon. Thank you to our council. Specifically, I'd like to thank certain council members who have gone above and beyond in supporting us from the beginning, council member James Brown, council member Katie Brown, council member Lillian Brown, council member Smith. Thank you all so much for your investment and your support of black soil KY. I want to thank my staff here, Amber Fuller and Krista Callanan, and so happened to be one of our farmers, Mr. Jim Coleman, who we know is an outspoken advocate here of local agriculture. And I'd be remiss if I didn't thank my family who was here, especially my young daughter who wants to be heard from the beginning. So again, I want to invite them to come up to the front for the picture with council as well. Thank you, council. Thank you, mayor Gordon. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 18-2019A15b6 to read number 6, a driver of a vehicle stopping, standing, or parking within a bicycle lane on the following streets of Georgetown street. Otherwise in compliance with all parking requirements contained in local or state law. Thank you, council member Morton seconds that. Are there any questions? All right. All those in favor. All right. All those in favor of that language change please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. Thank you. That passes and that will require I believe a new first reading. Yes, your honor, but it hasn't been first. Yes, it would require a new first reading. Okay. Can we do that now in the middle of these? Would that be okay? Yeah. An ordinance amending section 5A urban county code of ordinances to prohibit stopping, standing, or parking in designated bike lanes and providing exceptions as amended. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Now seeing as how we're in second readings, council member Eblen has a motion to suspend the rules for number 11, I believe. Yes. I move to suspend the rules to give second reading to the ordinance prohibiting parking in bike lanes, item 11, under ordinances second reading as amendment. Second. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, council member Ellinger. Seconds. Any questions? All right. All those well, I guess you need to read it. All those in favor say aye of the suspension. The suspension. Okay. Is anyone opposed? All right. Now you can give it second reading. An ordinance amending section 18-119 of the Lexington Fayette urban county government ordinance prohibiting parking in designated bike lanes and providing exceptions as amended. Number 12. An ordinance levying ad valorem taxes for the fiscal year July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027 on the assessed value of all taxable property within the tax jurisdiction of the Lexington Fayette urban county government all taxes on each $100 of assessed valuation as of January 1st, 2026 assessment date as follows. General services district .075 on real property including real property of public service companies .0893 on personal property including personal property of public service companies noncommercial aircraft and noncommercial watercraft .1500 on insurance capital .015 on tobacco and storage and .0450 on agricultural products and storage. Full urban or partial urban services districts based on urban services available on real property including real property of public service companies .137 for refuse collection .027 for street lights .009 for street lights. General services district .0110 on insurance capital .0150 on tobacco and storage .0450 on agricultural products and storage abandoned urban property $1 in levying an ad valorem tax for municipal purposes at the tax rate of .088 on each $100 of assessed value on all motor vehicles and watercraft within the tax jurisdiction of the Lexington Fayette urban county government as of January 1st, 2027 assessment date. General services district .0110 on insurance capital .0243 on each $100 of assessed value on each $100 of assessed value as of January 1st, 2026 assessment date and levying a special ad valorem public health tax for the fiscal year July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027 on the assessed value of all taxable real and personal property within the taxing jurisdiction of the Lexington Fayette urban county government including real and personal property including real property of public service companies at a rate of .001 on each $100 of assessed valuation as of January 1st, 2027 assessment date. Number 14 an ordinance levying ad valorem taxes for purposes of support of the soil and water conservation district for the fiscal year July 1st, 2026 through June 3rd, 2027 on the assessed value of all taxable real property within the taxing jurisdiction of the Lexington Fayette urban county government including real and personal property within the $100 of assessed valuation as of the January 1st, 2026 assessment date. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there a motion to approve? All right. When you're ready if you'll take a roll call vote, please. Citizens Council Who Respek. Councilmember Boone. Yes, ma'am. Councilmember Brown. Yes. Councilmember Curtis. Yes , ma'am. Councilmember Eblen. Yes, ma'am. Councilmember Ellinger. Yes, ma'am. Councilmember Elliott-Baxter. Councilmember Higgins Ford. Yes. Councilmember Lynch. Yes. Councilmember Maguire. Yes. Councilmember Reynolds. Yes. Councilmember Sheehan. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Those all pass. Now it's time for first reading of ordinances. Number 15, ordinance changing the zone from a single-family residential R1C zone to a corridor business B3 zone for 4.912 net, 6.047 gross acres for property located at 1770 and 1800 Harrodsburg Road. Plumbers and steamfitters local number 452 Building Corporation Council District 10. Number 16, ordinance of the Lexington-Fay Urban County Government authorizing the issuance of various purpose of general obligation bond series 2026-B in one or more sub-series in an aggregate principal amount of $9,740,000 which amount may be increased by an amount up to 10% or decreased by an unlimited amount. Approving a form of series 2026-B bonds, authorizing designated officers to execute and deliver the series 2026-B bonds authorizing and directing the filing of notice which with the state local debt officer providing for the payment and security of the series 2026-B bonds and maintaining a sinking fund creating a bond payment fund for the series 2026-B funds authorizing acceptance of the bids of the bond purchaser for the series 2026 bonds and repealing inconsistent ordinances. Number 17, a resolution amending section 16-1C19 section 16-1F70 and section 17-11 of the Code of Ordinances of the Lexington-Fay Urban County Government adopting and incorporating the complete streets design manual as an engineering manual for infrastructure development in Lexington-Fay County. Number 18, an ordinance amending article 31 of the Lexington-Fay County zoning ordinance relating to the solar energy systems and as follows amending section 31-2 to redefine the footprint of solar energy systems SES and provide new definitions relating to farmland of statewide importance prime farmland and brownfield property. Amending section 31-4 to expand the zones whereas SES is in allowable use amending section 31-6 to provide additional guidance regarding the setting screening usage and decommissioning of ground mounted SES to encourage community benefit plans relating thereto and to further provide specific requirements for any large-scale SES located in certain agricultural zones including requirements for a land management plan, vegetative cover, stormwater management and agricultural protection requirements. Amending section 31-7 to clarify conditional use permit application requirements and to provide considerations for the Board of Adjustment when reviewing conditional use permits for SES and creating section 31-8 to provide exception for ground mounted SES on brownfield properties. Number 19, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fay Urban County Government to reflect current requirements from usable expenditures and appropriating funds fiscal year 2027 schedule number 6. Number 20, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fay Urban County Government to reflect current contract funds for purchases orders rolling from fiscal year 2026 into 2027 and appropriating funds schedule number 5. And number 21, an ordinance creating chapter 28 of the Code of Ordinances of the Lexington-Fay Urban County Government privilege fees for public infrastructure improvements as follows adopting definitions for privilege fee participating owners, non-participating owners, public infrastructure, shared public improvement or infrastructure acreage and interest authorizing the allocation of costs of construction of shared public improvements to non-participating owners in the form of privilege fees authorizing the execution of privilege fee agreements by the mayor or the chief administrative officer as the mayor's designee for construction of shared public infrastructure and for the reimbursement of costs associated therewith from privilege fees remitted by non-participating owners requiring competitive bidding process procedures for construction of shared public infrastructure unless waived for good cause shown providing for notice for all non-participating owners in a public hearing regarding proposed construction of shared public improvements and the allocation of costs to a non-participating owners by way of privilege fees establishing minimum requirements for privilege fee agreements authorizing administrative fees and authorizing the collection of interest on privilege fees. Thank you. Thank you. Council are there any walk-ons? Does anyone have a walk-on? All right. Are there any motions to suspend the rules and give second reading? All right. That brings us then to second reading of resolutions. Number one a resolution ratifying the permanent classified civil service appointments of William Long account senior grade 524 E $2,992.16 by weekly in division of accounting effective July 26, 2026. Elizabeth Caldwell telecommunicator grade 517 N 24.917 hourly in the division of enhanced 911 effective August 9, 2026. Austin Williams breathing apparatus manager grade 516 N 25.500 hourly in the division of fire and emergency services effective August 9, 2026. William Wood administrative officer senior grade 526 E $2,972.80 by weekly in the Department of General Services effective July 12, 2026. Xavier Whitting vehicle and equipment technician grade 517 N 24.428 hourly in the division of facilities and fleet management effective August 9, 2026. Robert Keller vehicle and equipment technician principal grade 521 N 33.123 hourly in the division of facilities and fleet management effective August 9, 2026. Evan Nelson staff assistant senior grade 511 N 18.784 hourly in the division of aging and disability services effective July 5, 2026. Jason Thomas recreation manager senior grade 522 E $2,554.08 by weekly in the division of parks and recreation effective July 26, 2026. Trudy Rose recreation manager grade 522 E $2,570.32 by weekly in the division of parks and recreation effective July 26, 2026. Chandler Morgan golf services assistant grade 512 N 21.675 hourly in the division of parks and recreation effective July 26, 2026. Notifying the permanent appointments of Ilya Sharapov, police lieutenant grade 317 E $4,450.93 by weekly in the division of police effective July 12, 2026. Jeffrey Howard, police lieutenant grade 317 E $4,450.93 by weekly in the division of police effective July 5th, 2026. Zachary Flowers, police sergeant grade 315 N 42.968 hourly in the division of police effective July 5th, 2026. Jordan McMillan, police sergeant grade 315 N 42.968 hourly in the division of police effective July 12th, 2026. Caleb Wake, police sergeant grade 315 N 42.968 hourly in the division of police effective June 15th, 2026. Number two, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute the agreement awarded pursuant to RFP number 2026 with Riggs Ward designed to provide plans and designed for interactive outreach tools for the division of environmental services at a cost of $135,000. Number three, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a release of easement, releasing a utility easement on the property located at 1318 for sales road. Number four, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a contract with Keeneland for the police holiday dinner. Number five, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Lexington urban county government to execute the agreement with Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, KYTC, for the acceptance of federal funds which grant funds in the amount of $519,200 for the Intelligent Transportation System Congestion Management System Traffic Improvements Project for the fiscal year 2027. Acceptance of which obligates the urban county government to the expenditure of $129,800 as a local match and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number six, a resolution authorizing payment in the amount of $11,700 to the Commonwealth of Kentucky State Treasurer as a civil penalty related to occupational safety and health compliance and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute any necessary documents related to the payment. Number seven, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute fourth and final renewal of the contract with Hazen and PSC for sanitary sewer remedial measures program management consulting services for the division of water quality at a cost to exceed $900,000. Number eight, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute lease agreements for the residential park properties with the following individuals listed. Is it listed properties in consideration for the sum stated in annual rent? Ada Williamson for 4051 Richmond Road, $2,442. Teresa Jill Farmer for 3401 Shamrock Lane, $9,240. And Victoria Ham for 3561 Shamrock Lane, $7,260. Number nine, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute purchase service agreements with the following 30 extended social resource ESR program, community-based initiatives, grantee agencies pursuant to RFP number 14-2026, community wellness and safety. RFP number 16-2026, childhood and youth development. RFP number 17-2026, food insecurity and nutritional access. And RFP number 18-2026, mental health. Arbor Youth Services, $186,000. Aval Kentucky, Inc., $115,495. Hospice of the Bluegrass, Inc., DBA Bluegrass Care Navigators, $101,000. Bluegrass Council of the Blind, Inc., $36,000. Kentucky Literacy Center, Inc., $119,000. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Lexington, Inc., $54,000. Central Kentucky Youth Orchestra Society, Inc., $24,500. Children's Advocacy Center of the Bluegrass, Inc., $180,000. Chrysalis House, Inc., $105,000. Common Good Community Development Corporation, $63,000. Food Chain, Inc., $152,000. God's Pantry Food Bank, Inc., $372,000. Greenhouse 17, Inc., $54,000. Jubilee Jobs of Lexington, Inc., $42,000. Kentucky Refugee Ministries, Inc., $68,000. KVC Behavioral Health Care, Kentucky, Inc., $43,000. Lexington Community Radio, DBA Media Lex, $23,000. Lexington Leadership Foundation, Inc., $164,000. Lexington Gay Services Organization, Inc., DBA. Lexington Pride Center, $45,000. Lexington Rescue Mission, Inc., $64,000. Mission Lexington, Inc., DBA Mission Health, Lexington, $107,000. Calming Lexington, Kentucky, Inc., $89,000. And Nathaniel Missionary Society, Inc., $155,000. New Beginnings Bluegrass, Inc., $154,000. Nursing Home Ombudsman, Agency of the Bluegrass, Inc., $54,000. The Shepherd's House, Inc., $187,000. The Foster Care Council of Lexington, Kentucky, $19,000. The Nest Center for Women, Children, and Families, $342,750. The Urban League of Lexington, Fayette County, Incorporated, $53,000. Visually Impaired Preschool Services, Inc., VIPS, $6,000 to provide services to the public at a cost not to exceed $3,177,745 in fiscal year 2026. Thank you. Thank you very much. You have a couple more. Number ten, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute purchase of service agreement with the Bluegrass Area Development District Incorporated for fiscal year 2026 of local dues payment to support aging services, workforce development, and regional planning at a cost not to exceed $61,288.30. Number 11, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a purchase of service agreement with the Bluegrass Area Development District Incorporated to provide a regional match to the state funded home care program at a cost not to exceed $48,610. Number 12, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an agreement with UMatter Kentucky Inc. to maintain and support the juvenile treatment courts program at a cost not to exceed $50,000. Number 13, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute and submit a grant application to the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application. And to accept this grant, if awarded, which grant funds in the amount of $47,359 in federal funds under the fiscal year 2026, State Homeland Security Grant Program, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Lexington, Fayette, or urban county government for the expenditure of funds ratifying the prior execution of the application or any necessary documents related thereto. And authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 14, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute and submit a grant application to the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application. And to accept this grant, if awarded, which grant funds in the amount of $581,860 in federal funds under the fiscal year 2025-26, State Homeland Security Grant Program. The acceptance of which does not obligate the Lexington, Fayette, or urban county government for the expenditure of funds ratifying the prior execution of an application or any other necessary documents related thereto. Authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 15, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute certificates of consideration and other necessary documents. And to accept deeds from owners of record for property interest needed for the Sutherland Trunk Sanitary Sewer Project, a remedial measures project required by the consent decree increasing the easement acquisition budget by some $32,500 from $500 to $33,000. Number 16, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute and submit a grant application to the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application. And to accept this grant if awarded, which grant funds in the amount of $14,348 in federal funds under the fiscal year 2025-26, State Homeland Security Grant Program. The acceptance of which does not obligate the urban county government from the expenditure of funds ratifying the prior execution of an application or any other necessary documents related thereto, and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 17, a resolution authorizing the mayor, division of police, to purchase Nighthawk subscription services from Leeds Online, a sole source provider. And authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute any necessary agreement with Leeds Online related to the procurement at a cost made or not to exceed $7,000.01 in fiscal year 2027 and subject to sufficient funds being appropriated by the council in future fiscal years. Number 18, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute the facility on permit and honorariums with the Kentucky County Board of Education for Extended School Programs at Julius Marks Elementary for the Division of Parks and Recreation at a cost to exceed $3,000. Number 19, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to accept an award in the amount of $72,566.36 in federal funds from the Federal Emergency Management Fund, FEMA. From the Kentucky Department of Military Affairs, Division of Emergency Management for reimbursement of expenses related to the requested response to the Martin Community Structural Collapse event. The acceptance of which does not obligate the urban county government to the expenditure of funds and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 20, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to accept an award in the amount of $88,765.17 in federal funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. From the Kentucky Department of Military Affairs, Division of Emergency Management for reimbursements related to the requested severe weather response. The acceptance of which does not obligate the urban county government to the expenditure of funds and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 21, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to apply for and accept a state homeland security grant from the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security if awarded. Which is estimated to a total of $226,976.48 in state funding to purchase radiation detection equipment and a new boat for the Lexington Fire Department. The acceptance of which does not obligate the urban county government to the expenditure of funds and authorizing the mayor to exceed any agreements or amendments related to the grant award and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 22, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute and submit a grant application to the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application. And to accept this application, grant if awarded, which grant funds in the amount of $325,421 in federal funds under the fiscal year 2025-26 state homeland security grant program. Acceptance of which does not obligate the urban county government for the expenditure of funds ratifying the prior execution of an application or any other necessary documents related thereto and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 23, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute change order number three to the agreement with GRW Engineers, Inc. for design services for the town branch wastewater treatment plan, dewatering pump station improvements for the division of grants and special programs increasing the contract price by a sum of $6,462.19. From $402,644 to $409,106.19. Number 24, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute the host agency agreement with the National Council for Unaging to accept senior adults from the Senior Community Services Employment Program to train at the new senior and therapeutic center at no cost to the urban county government. And number 25, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute agreements related to council capital projects expenditure funds with LexArts, Inc. $19,146.41, Lexington Children's Museum, Inc. $19,055.26, LFUCD Division of Parks and Recreation, $7,850. International Book Project, Inc., $17,500. And Lakeview Island Security and Maintenance Association, Inc., $1,800 at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now, is there a motion to approve? So moved. Vice Mayor Wu? Second. Council Member Eblen seconds. And when you're ready, if you'll take a roll call vote please. Council Member Boone? Yes, Ma'am. Council Member Brown? Yes. Council Member Curtis? Yes, Ma'am. Council Member Eblen? Yes, Ma'am. Council Member Ellinger? Yes, Ma'am. Council Member Elliot Baxter? Yes, Ma'am. Council Member Higgins-Horne? Yes, Ma'am. Council Member Lynch? Yes, Ma'am. Council Member Morton? Yes, Ma'am. Council Member Reynolds? Yes, Ma'am. Council Member Sheehan? Yes, Ma'am. Vice Mayor Wu? Yes, Ma'am. Council Member Beazley? Yes, Ma'am. Thank you. All right, thank you. Those all pass. Now, when you're ready, we're ready for first reading of resolutions. Number 26, a resolution accepting the bid of Calhoun Construction Services, Inc., in the amount of $185,000 for the Tate's Creek Pro Shop Renovations for the Division of Parks and Recreation, and authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accede in agreement with Calhoun Construction Services, Inc., related to the bid. Number 27, a resolution ratifying the permanent classified civil service appointments of Daniel Stamper, safety and loss control specialist, grade 520E, $2,564.80 bi-weekly in the Division of Human Resources, effective August 23rd, 2026, and ratifying permanent sworn appointments of Lucas Catron, police officer grade 311N, 29.226 hourly in the Division of Police, effective July 27th, 2026. Cezanne Coca, a police officer grade 311N, 29.226 hourly in the Division of Police, effective July 27th, 2026. Truman Galusha, police officer grade 311N, 29.226 hourly in the Division of Police, effective July 27th, 2026. Kaleb Goldie, police officer grade 311N, 29.226 hourly, in the Division of Police, effective July 27th, 2026. Geraldine Navarro, police officer grade 311N, 29.226 hourly in the Division of Police, effective July 27th, 2026. Jacob Reitz, police officer grade 311N, 29.226 hourly in the Division of Police, effectively July 27th, 2026. Zachary Schoolmaster, police officer grade 311N, 29.226 hourly in the Division of Police, effective July 27th, 2026. Justin Shelton, police officer grade 311N, 29.226 hourly, in the Division of Police, effective July 27th, 2026. Lina Tsmith, police officer grade 311N, 29.226 hourly, in the Division of Police, effective July 27th, 2026. Pete Harrick Sweet, police officer grade 311N 29.226 hourly in the Division of Police, effective July 27th, 2026. Brody Thompson, police officer grade 311N, 29.226 hourly, in the Division of Police, effective July 26. Jacob Wright, police officer grade 311N, 29.226 hourly in the Division of Police, effective July 27th, 2026. Number 28, a resolution authorizing the Division of Water Quality on behalf of the Urban County Government to purchase service and parts for the online process analyzer for the West Hickman Wastewater Treatment Plant from Insito, a sole source provider at the cost not to exceed $54,870. Number 29, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Lexington and Fay Urban County Government to exceed a professional service agreement with Kenya Ballard to serve as a survivor liaison to act as a point of contact for those seeking gun violence survivor support from one Lexington and from referral sources and to liaise with appropriate one Lexington staff in determining the status of application process and payments at a cost not to exceed $20,000. Number 30, a resolution authorizing the Division of Police to purchase Magnet Axiom from Magnet Forensics LLC, a sole source provider, authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute any necessary agreements with Magnet Forensics LLC related to the procurement at a cost not to exceed $26,320. Number 31, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute and submit an application to the Kentucky Department of Education for provisions of preschool education services at the Family Care Center for the 2026-2027 school year. Number 32, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Lexington and Fay Urban County Government to accept a sole source quote from Tecton Construction LLC for materials and labors to repair the damaged buildings at Cardinal Run North for the Division of Parks and Recreation at a cost not to exceed $105,011. Number 33, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government as a collaborative applicant to execute and submit the 2026 continuum of care grant application to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application which seeks up to $3,866,080 in federal funds for the operation programs by community non-profit organizations to reduce homelessness in Lexington and Fayette County and to accept an amount up to $153,932 of the grant funds. If the application is approved for the project planning expenses related to the monitoring programs funded by the grant, the acceptance of which obligates the Urban County Government for the expenditure of an amount up to $38,483 as a local match and ratifying the prior execution of an application or any other necessary documents related thereto and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 34, a resolution approving the Fayette County Sheriff's Settlement 2025 property taxes for taxes collected as of the April 5th, 2026 and granting the sheriff acquittance. Number 35, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Lexington, Urban County Government to execute a memorandum of agreement with NAMI Lexington, Kentucky Inc. related to the operation of the mental health court at a cost to exceed $270,000 using funds allocated from the fiscal year 2026 general fund. Number 36, a resolution authorizing a director mayor or a designee on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute the clinical education agreement with the University of Kentucky and any necessary documents for the implementation of educational experience opportunities for the university students in various fields of healthcare related studies with global Lex at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 37, a resolution of Lexington, Fayette, Urban County Government authorizing the advertisement for bids and the distribution of the preliminary official statement for the purchase of principal amount of its various purpose general obligation bonds, series 2026 bonds in an aggregate principal amount of up to $9,740,000. Which amount may be increased by an amount of up to 10% or decreased by an unlimited amount. Number 38, a resolution authorizing a director mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement related to the Council of Capital Projects expenditure funds with LFUCG Division of Parks and Recreation, $500 at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. Number 39, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute deeds of easement with Kentucky Utilities Company and Windstream Communications LLC, granting temporary easements across a portion of the property located at 1785 McGrathian Parkway for temporary electric and telecommunications facilities. And further authorizing the mayor to execute any other documents related to the easements at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 40, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with the US Geological Survey for the continuing and ongoing maintenance and restoration of existing stream flow and precipitation gauges for the period of July 1st, 2026 through June 3rd, 2027 at a cost not to exceed $127,000. Number 41, a resolution authorizing the Division of Traffic Engineering to renew maintenance and support with Q-Free America through traffic control products. The sole source for vendor for software to manage the centralized traffic control system at a cost not to exceed $62,000. Number 42, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a purchase of service agreement with a vehicle lease agreement with Lexington Fay Animal Care and Control LLC for animal control services at a cost not to exceed $2,512,545. Number 43, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Waste Management, which grant funds are in the amount of $4,000 in Commonwealth of Kentucky funds for the fiscal year 2027 for the disposal in recycling of waste tires, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Urban County Government to the expenditure of funds and authorize the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 44, a resolution authorizing a direct to the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute change order number three to the services agreement with GRW Inc. For professional design services for the Department of Environmental Quality and Public Works. Increasing the contract price by the sum of $22,205 from $508,318 to $530,523. Number 45, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an endowment fund agreement with the Blue Grass Community Foundation for an endowment fund to support the development of the Division of Parks and Recreation's Kelly's Landing property. Number 46, a resolution authorizing a direct to the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an amendment to the program and administration contract with the Blue Grass Area Development District to accept award of up to, accept award of $127,187, $6 in federal and state funding for operation of the Lexington Senior Center in fiscal year 2027, which obligates the Urban County Government to provide a match of $8,223.53. Number 47, a resolution authorizing a direct to the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute the memorandum of understanding with the University of Louisville Research Foundation for the precipitation in the Kentucky Coast Pilot Project Centers of Activity, Sequencing and Testing for the Division of Water Quality and those costs to the Urban County Government. Number 48, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute the agreement with the University of North Florida Training and Service Institute Inc, DBA, the Institute of Police Technology and Management to conduct police officer training for the Division of Grants and Special Programs at a cost not to exceed $17,500, including $16,900 in the Kentucky Office of Highway Safety Grant Funds. Number 49, a resolution authorizing, resolution of Lexington State Urban County Government accepting an additional grant of $3,770,202 in federal funds from the Kentucky Cleaner Water Ground to Grant ARPA for the East Hickman Pump Station Expansion and Rehabilitation Project as part of the Consent Decree. Remedial Measures Plan Project, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Urban County Government to the expenditure of funds approving the grant assistance agreement authorizing the amendment of the Lexington State Urban County Government's annual budget and authorizing a representative to sign all the related documents. Number 50, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute any and all documentations necessary for the reallocation of awarded Kentucky Cleaner Water Grant Funding ARPA, reallocating excess project funds from the completed grant projects to grant projects not otherwise fully funded. And further authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 51, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the Kentucky Justice Cabinet under the Violence Against Women Act Program for the continuation of the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Program to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application. And to accept this grant if awarded, which grant funds in the amount of $65,000 in federal funds and $12,000 in state funds accepted, which obligates the Urban County Government to the expenditure of $24,667 in fiscal year 2027 as a local match. And authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 52, a resolution authorizing the mayor, authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with photo, to upgrade the current photo shelter subscription to add new alt text capabilities, AI functionality and significant accessibility compliance benefits for the Office of Public Information, increasing the cost by $4,500 for an annual cost not to exceed $9,815, subject to sufficient funds being appropriated in future fiscal years. Number 53, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute agreement with LinkedIn Corporation for advertising services to promote open positions within the Lexington Bay Urban County Government on its platform for the Office of Public Information. An annual cost not to exceed $20,925, subject to sufficient funds being appropriated in future fiscal years. Number 54, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute change order number six to the agreement with Calhoun Construction, associated with the new senior and therapeutic center construction, increasing the amount by $326,485.06, raising the total contract amount from $17,206,172.98 to $17,532,658.04, with no calendar day change to the agreement time. Number 55. Excuse me, I believe Councilmember Higgins-Horde has a motion about number 55. Thank you, Mayor. I move to amend number 55, Neighborhood Development Funds, to modify the total amount allocated to Black Yarn to 2,000, so moved. Second. Councilmember Morton seconds, and are there any questions? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that passes. Thank you. Can you repeat which one you're changing? Sorry about that. Will you repeat? Can you repeat the amount that you're? Repeat which one you're changing the amount. Sorry, this microphone's missing out. Do you want me to repeat the whole thing? Just the name of the organization. Black Yarn? Black Yarn. Black Yarn. Black Yarn. Okay, sorry. Sorry, am I saying Lung? Number 55, a resolution authorizing and directed to the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to exceed agreements related to Neighborhood Development Funds with Ginkgo Foundation, Inc., $1,000. Squire Oak Homeowners Association, Inc., $1,000. Downtown Lexington Corporation, $1,500. Lexington Community Land Trust, Inc., $800. IMHER, Inc., $9,500. Tate's Creek Band Boosters, Inc., $2,000. Tabor Lake Subdivision Association, Inc., $500. Transylvania Park Committee, Inc., $800. Hill and Dale Neighborhood Association, Inc., $500. LexArts, Inc., $1,500. Highlands Neighborhood Association, Inc., $1,500. Lexington Community Porch LLC, $1,000. Kentucky Ice Hockey Collective Company, $3,000. Lexington Leadership Foundation, Inc., $680. Fayette County Military Suicide Prevention Coalition Corp., $1,150. African American Forum, Inc., $1,250. Casa de la Cultura Hispana de Lexington Corporation, $2,550. Joyland Neighborhood Association Incorporated, $950. Pensacola Park Neighborhood Association LLC, $2,650. The Southland Association, Inc., $3,350. Southland Jamboree Association, $1,150. Antioch Missionary Baptist Church, Inc., $1,100. The Colors of Promise Lexington, Kentucky, Inc., $1,450. Artistic Hands Shaping a New Society Corporation, $850. Seize Your Given Opportunities, Inc., $1,050. Black Yarn, Inc., $2,000. And NAB, that's Kentucky State Command Council Corporation, $350 for the Office of the Urban County Council at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. And number 56, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to exceed an agreement related to council capital project expenditure funds with Garden Meadows Homeowners Association, Inc., $2,000 at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any walk-ons, council? Are there any motions to suspend the rules and give second reading? All right, Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Mayor. I move to suspend the rules and give second reading on item 48 on behalf of the administration. And this is for police officer training. Council Member Curtis seconds. Are there any questions? All right, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, next is Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Mayor. On behalf of the administration, I move to suspend the rules and give second reading to item number 54. This is a change order related to the Senior Therapeutic Center. So moved. Vice Mayor Wu seconds. Are there any questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, thank you. Thank you. Council Member Beasley. Thank you, Mayor. I have two. On behalf of the administration, I move to suspend the rules and give second reading to number 26, which is the renovation of the Tage Creek Golf Course, so they can get started on that project. Council Member Morton seconds. Are there questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, thank you. That passes. Thank you. My next one is I move to suspend the rules and give second reading to number 55, which is our NDF funds, just so that we can go ahead and get those cleared up as quickly as possible. Thank you, Council Member Reynolds seconds. Are there any questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that passes. Council Member Lynch. Thank you, Mayor. On behalf of the administration, I move to suspend the rules and give second reading to item number 39. This is relating to the easements with Kentucky Utilities and Windstream at the site of the new police training academy. Council Member Baxter seconded. All right, are there questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that passes. Council Member Boone. Thank you, Mayor. I have two motions to suspend the rules. On behalf of the administration, I move to suspend the rules and give second reading to item 32 under resolutions. Accepting a quote for materials and labor to repair damaged buildings at Cardinal Run North. Second. Council Member Baxter seconded. Any questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that passes. My second one is, on behalf of the administration, I move to suspend the rules and give second reading to item 45 under resolutions to execute an endowment fund agreement with the Bluegrass Community Foundation for an endowment fund to support the development of Division of Parks and the Recreation's Kelly's Landing property. Second. All right, Vice Mayor Wu seconded. Any questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Anyone else? All right, I believe we have 26, 32, 39, 45, 48, 54, and 55. All right, when you're ready, if you'll give those second reading. Number 26, a resolution accepting the bid of Calhoun Construction Services, Inc., in the amount of $185,000 for the Tate's Creek Pro Shop Renovations for the Division of Parks and Recreation, and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Calhoun Construction Services related to the bid. Number 32, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Lexington-Fay Urban County Government to accept a sole source quote from Tecton Construction, LLC, for materials and labor to repair the damaged buildings at Cardinal Run North for the Division of Parks and Recreation at a cost not to exceed $105,011. Number 39, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute deeds of easement with Kentucky Utilities Company and Stream Communications, LLC, granting temporary easements across a portion of the property located at 1785 McGrathiana Parkway for temporary electric and telecommunications facilities, and further authorizing the mayor to execute any other documents necessary to transfer the easements at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 45, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute the endowment fund agreement with the Blue Grass Community Foundation for an endowment fund to support the development of the Division of Parks and Recreation's Kelly's Landing property. Number 48, a resolution authorizing the director of the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute the agreement with the University of North Florida Training and Services Service Institute, Inc., DBA, the Institute of Police Technology and Management to conduct police officer training for the division of grants and special programs at a cost not to exceed $17,500, including $16,900 in the Kentucky Office of Highway Safety Grants funds. Number 54, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute change order number six, the agreement with Cal Construction, associated with the new Senior and Therapeutic Center at construction, increasing the amount by $326,485.06, raising the total contract amount from $17,206,172.98 to $17,950.00. $17,532,658.04 with no calendar day change to the agreement time. And number 55, a resolution authorizing the director of the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute agreements related to the Neighborhood Development Funds with Ginkgo Foundation, Inc., $1,000. Squire Oak Homeowners Association, Inc., $1,000. Downtown Lexington Corporation, $1,500. Lexington Community Land Trust, Inc., $800. IMHER, Inc., $950. Lakes Creek Band Boosters, Inc., $2,000. Tabor Lake Subdivision Association, Inc., $500. Transylvania Park Committee, Inc., $800. Hillandale Neighborhood Association, Inc., $500. LexArts, Inc., $1,500. Highland Neighborhood Association, Inc., $1,500. Lexington Community Porch LLC, $1,000. Kentucky Ice Hockey Collective Company, $3,000. Lexington Leadership Foundation, Inc., $680. Fayette County Military Suicide Prevention Coalition Corp., $1,150. African American Forum, Inc., $1,250. Casa de la Cultura Hispana de Lexington Corporation, $2,550. Joyland Neighborhood Association, Inc., Incorporated, $550. Pensacola Park Neighborhood Association LLC, $2,650. The Southland Association, Inc., $3,350. Southland Jamboree Association, $1,150. Antioch Missionary Baptist Church, Inc., $1,100. Colors of Promise Lexington, Kentucky, Inc., $1,450. Artistic Hands Shaping a New Society Corporation, $850. Easier Given Opportunities, Inc., $1,050. Black Yard, Inc., $2,000. And NAB, that's Kentucky State Command Council Corporation, $350 for the Office of the Urban County Council, at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Excuse me, I'm sorry, before we go on, Council Member Brown, did you have something before we? Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. On behalf of the administration, I'd like to make a motion to give second reading to number 49 and number 50. So moved. All right, Council Member Morton, seconds. Are there any questions? All those in favor of 49 and 50, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Council Member Reynolds, did you also have one? Okay, thank you. I move to suspend the rules and give second reading on item 46. This is for the senior center. So moved. All right, Council Member Ellinger, seconds. Are there any questions? All right, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, thank you. Anything else? All right, now. Number 46, a resolution authorizing the mayor and behalf of the urban county government to execute an amendment to the program administration contract with Blue Grass Area Development District to accept an award of $127,186 in federal and state funding for operation of the Lexington Senior Center in fiscal year 2026, which obligates the urban county government to provide a match of $8,223.53. Number 49, a resolution of the Lexington Fair Urban County Government accepting an additional grant of $3,770,202 in federal funds from the Kentucky Cleaner Water Round Two Grant ARPA for the East Hickman Pump Station Expansion and Rehabilitation Project as part of the Consent Decree Remedial Measures Plan Project, the exception to which does not obligate the urban county government to the expenditure of funds approving the grant assistance agreement authorizing the amendment of the Lexington Fair Urban County Government's annual budget and authorizing a representative to sign all related documents. And number 50, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute any and all documentation necessary for the reallocation of awarded Kentucky Cleaner Water Grant Funding ARPA, reallocating excess project funds from the completed grant projects to grant projects not otherwise fully funded, and further authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Thank you. Thank you. Now, is there a motion to approve all of the second readings? Move to approve. Council member Reynolds, second by Council member Higgins Ford. And when you're ready, if you'll take a roll call vote, please. Council member Budd? Yes. Council member Brown? Yes. Council member Curtis? Yes, ma'am. Council member Evlin? Yes, ma'am. Council member Ellinger? Yes, mam. Council member Elliott Baxter? Yes, mam. Council member Higgins Ford? Yes Council member Lynch? Yes. Council member Morton? Yes. Council member Rushing? Yes. Vice mayor Wu? Yes. And council member Beasley? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Those all passed. All right. We do have communications from the mayor. Appointments. If I could have a motion to approve. Approved. Thank you. Council member Curtis, second by vice mayor Wu. Are there any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. Thank you. That passed. Next, we have communications from the mayor. Donations. Could I have a motion? Second. Council member Morton moved. Council member Curtis seconded. Are there any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. Thank you. That passed. And then we have communications from the mayor. Procurements. Could I have a motion? Second. Vice mayor Wu. Second by council member Curtis. Are there any questions? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. You also will see communications from the mayor for your information only. And that brings us to disciplines. There are no fire or police disciplines. And that brings us to council announcements. Please log in. Council member Curtis. Thank you, mayor. Colleagues, I don't think it's any secret that we have several neighbors joining us tonight in council chambers to speak to us about Lexington's utilization of flock cameras. And so I wanted to take this opportunity to share my perspective on this issue publicly with all of you, with all of them, and any of our residents who might have an interest in this issue. I was not on council in 2022 when the pilot partnership with flock was approved, nor when it was extended and expanded in 2024. Had I been, I would have voted against their approval. I want to be very clear. I do not believe that our police department or public safety personnel have pursued the utilization of these technologies maliciously, nor do I believe that they have misused them thus far. I believe that they have done what they always do, done their best to utilize every potential tool at their disposal to keep us safe. But as I've told several of our public safety leaders one-on-one, I also have to lead in my role as a council member in such a way that I still recognize myself in the mirror at the end of the day. And I believe based on all of the information that I have seen both prior and during my time in office, that flock is not a corporation that acts in good faith or is worthy of our collective trust. I also believe that these cameras have far greater potential for collective harm than they do for collective good. Whether it's abuse by individual law enforcement officers in other jurisdictions, data from flock cameras being used to enforce draconian anti-abortion laws in other states, or the Supreme Court's 2026 ruling in Cheshire versus United States that a warrant must be obtained to collect sprawling digital location history, or the fact that we're seeing municipalities across Kentucky and across the country setting several precedents for termination of their contracts with flock. I think we owe our residents a robust discussion about whether or not these cameras are still truly keeping us safe. The folks who have come to council chambers tonight to speak to us about this issue deserve our attention, our respect, and consideration, and I thank them for showing up to participate in our civic process. So colleagues, please do not dismiss them out of the desire to avoid a politically inconvenient conversation. Let's face this issue head on and give it the attention that it deserves, the attention that our constituents have been asking of us. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else have a council announcement? No? All right. Thank you. We do have quite a number of people signed up for items not on the agenda. So Sarah Otis, are you still here? Okay, very good. Are you yielding your time to Noah Cornett? All right, thank you. So first up, we'll have Noah Cornett, who will have six minutes, and then Peter Lynch, who will have three minutes. Welcome. Good evening, members of the council. My name is Noah Cornett, and I stand before you today not just as a concerned citizen and a long-term resident of Lexington, but as the co-chair of the Bluegrass Chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America. Do you mind to say your council district? My apologies. Noah Cornett, District 2. Thank you. Thank you. At our recent annual convention, our membership, which currently totals over 350 dues-paying members, voted overwhelmingly to make the removal of flock and other ALPRs a priority for our chapter for the foreseeable future. But we are not alone in that concern. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, various immigrant rights and privacy advocacy groups, and folks from all over the political spectrum recognize these cameras for what they are, a mass surveillance tool that is constantly abused and a fundamental threat to our constitutional rights. In even the last few days, hundreds of Lexingtonians have signed on to the following letter, drafted by our chapter, which I'll read to you now. Dear members of the council, we, the Bluegrass Chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, write to you regarding the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County government contract with flock safety and the growing ubiquity of automated license plate readers, ALPRs, in Lexington. Over the past two years, our members, now over 350 strong, have united to defend and expand the democratic liberties now under attack in our country. We have grown at this rate in no small part because people in this city, like generations of working people before them, are determined to win the struggle for these freedoms. The right to privacy is necessary for a free society, and ALPRs inherently contradict this right. Furthermore, they hold great potential for abuse, whether by federal agencies, massive corporations, cyber attackers, or authorized users abusing their authority, which the council cannot realistically hope to regulate. We are especially troubled by the likelihood of such abuses being directed against our most vulnerable neighbors, including immigrants, people of color, and victims of domestic abuse, considering the many instances of this occurring nationwide already. Flock's claimed benefits to public safety are exaggerated and unproven, and do not justify its immense financial and social cost. For all of these reasons, and to defend our community's safety, rule of law, and civil liberties, our chapter unanimously voted in May to bring this issue before the council and the public. Over the past months, you have already heard several of our members voice their concerns at public comment sessions. We would now like to lay out our proposal in full. We urge the council to enact the following measures. Number one, immediately cancel LFUCG's contract with Flock Safety. Number two, commit not to enter any future contracts with Flock or other ALPR providers. Number three, remove all Flock cameras within six months of the cancellation of this contract. Number four, ensure all ALPR data collected until this time is deleted, unless serving as evidence in an ongoing legal proceeding. Number five, prohibit all ALPRs within six feet of public roads or LFUCG-owned land. Number six, institute thorough zoning regulations on private ALPR, with the greatest restriction on those in residential zones. And number seven, require a search warrant for city authorities to create or employ technology which creates a profile of surveillance data on any individual. We are not alone in these goals. As ALPRs become better known to the public, they are drawing ire across the nation and the political spectrum, leading to dozens of city governments, from Newport, Kentucky to Los Angeles, California, to cancel their contracts with Flock. We are heartened to see these cities rejecting this dangerous technology, and we hope that council will follow their example. We are collecting signatures citywide on a petition in support of the positions listed above. Sincerely, Bluegrass DSA. And with that read, I would urge the council to look out into the crowd. These are the residents of the districts that you represent. These are residents that are currently under 24-7 surveillance, suspects in an investigation that never ends. Their data being sold by a private company to be fed into AI-powered databases that track not just their locations, but their behavior. And in many cases, their lives being put at risk by a system that is abused, faulty, or both. We have seen cases of people, including children, being pulled out of their cars at gunpoint after Flock has misidentified their vehicle. We have seen that its data can be used to track women going across state lines for reproductive care. We have seen it be used to track people's exes and spouses. In some cases, like those in Shively this week, over 2,048 times in two months. And I am incredibly disappointed to report that twice in April, our very own city, a city that prides itself on its progressivism and its love of our immigrant neighbors, sent that data to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE, a department dedicated to little more than racist violence and terrorizing immigrant communities. Cities all around the country, including many right here in Kentucky, have already chosen to cancel their contracts and remove these cameras. Lexington has the chance to do the same, to be an example of a city that cares about its citizens' right to privacy and refuses to take part in a mass surveillance network. So now all of you on council have a choice. To stand with your constituents on the right side of history, or to stand with an unelected, unregulated, Fourth Amendment-violating, Peter Thiel-funded startup. The choice feels pretty clear to me, and I truly hope it does to all of you as well, because we aren't going away. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. The council rules prohibit any kind of clapping or booing. I'll have to stop the public hearing if you want to do that. So if you could please follow the council's rules. All right. Now I need to ask if Anthony Hewitt is here, and are you giving your three minutes to Catherine Shinners? Okay. Thank you. All right. Next we have Peter Lynch, and Peter will be followed by Catherine Shinners. Welcome. Hi. Is this working? Yes. Hi. I live in District 11. My name is Pete Lynch. I teach politics at the University of Kentucky, and I'm the Kentucky Party candidate for U.S. Congress here in the 6th District. I'm here today because I oppose A.I. data centers and flock cameras. Despite months of community feedback, including a packed public hearing at 1.30 on a Thursday, the ordinance they gave to you still has at least four major weaknesses in terms of rate payer costs, energy use, water use, public health impacts, and several other major issues. My time here is limited to three minutes, so I'll only speak about the public health impacts and only for a moment. New research coming out of Harvard indicates that a single A.I. data center in Virginia is causing increased hospitalizations, asthma related issues, and even premature death in the local community. We shouldn't even consider allowing new A.I. data centers in Lexington until more research has been conducted on the effects of A.I. data centers on humans, animals, and the environment. Don't risk harming our children just to help tech billionaires force A.I. data centers into a community that clearly does not want them. You have to ask yourselves, am I going to serve the rich or am I going to serve my community? You cannot do both. If you'd like to speak with me about those four major problems at length, you can find my email address at petelynchforkentucky.com. But until those four major issues are fixed, you should extend the data center moratorium as long as legally possible. Now onto the subject of flock cameras. Our mayor and county council have been welcoming flock cameras into Lexington since 2022. Flock surveillance has been an ongoing issue for several years now, and we continue to pay for it. We are going to end up spending $2 million on flock systems over five years. It's time to put an end to the flock program. Lexington taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize an out of state corporation that spies on us. End the contract with flock and give them 30 days notice. Instead of spending our money on flock surveillance tools, spend it on things that most people actually want. But getting rid of flock and using that money elsewhere is just the first step. We need to think about how to make sure something like this never happens again. All surveillance tools used by the government need to be approved by the council after open public hearings. Finally, and most importantly, you need to ban law enforcement from accessing information from corporations without a warrant. While I'm fighting against AI data centers and mass surveillance at the federal level throughout this campaign, these are the three most important things you can do here and now to protect the people of Lexington. Extend the moratorium on AI data centers and the flock contract and create laws that protect our privacy. Thank you. Thank you. Is Kevin Haller here? And are you giving your time to Mel Mosier? Yes. All right, thank you. All right, next we have, let's see. We have Catherine Shinners. I'm sorry? Shinners. Shinners, who will have six minutes. Thank you. And then we have Mel Mosier, who will have six minutes. Okay. My name is Catherine Shinners. I reside in District 6, and I appreciate being able to speak with you today. And I'm sorry I can't quite see your name, but I want to thank, is it Emma Curtis, for your remarks opening this section. I have deep, deep concerns about the deployment of flock cameras and systems. I worked for many years in high tech in Silicon Valley. I understand that technology can sometimes enhance security, law enforcement, and efficiency. Flock cameras sold as license plate checkers record human and vehicle movement within its field. Activity is then stored, and not just, say, a license plate number, can connect with other characteristics of the vehicle, such as make, model, color, unique decals, scratches, or dents. Stored in a database across time, this technology enables law enforcement to establish patterns of movement. These patterns of movements are soon to be exploited in a new version of flock, as outlined in a recent Wired Magazine article, that will be bundled with a menu of 69 AI-driven searches. For instance, one preloaded search will find witnesses by listing cars both seen in a neighborhood, or vehicles that go to a gas station between certain selected time periods, or associates of any of vehicles that pass a camera within, say, two minutes of a particular plate. The installation of flock cameras and the broad sweep of information it captures is not simply a new tool, tool for law enforcement and public safety. It's a new level of surveillance, civil surveillance infrastructure that, as such, should require much more comprehensive planning and community engagement prior to deployment. Did the city broadly survey its residents prior to beginning negotiations with flock, so that they really understand the nature of the entire flock system, including the frequency of photo capture and associated data collection, retention, and integration with other data sources around the country? Has the city validated the reasons it has for complete confidence in the reliability of flock operations, such that citizens would not be at risk for erroneously being identified for crimes? Have you clarified to citizens that use of flock cameras should not be confused with CCTV camera use at road intersections for traffic light infractions? Why does the city council feel it needs to broadly surveil citizen activity? Has the city engaged third party independent data collection and retention expertise to verify flocks claims about its data collection handling? What other due diligence processes has the city used in its decision making? Has the city communicated how the supposed need for flocks cameras works within an overarching public safety framework? What are the metrics upon which this technology's performance will be measured? Will these be reported to residents? What about potential lawsuits that could cost the city if police action were incorrectly taken due to inaccuracy? Such cases are appending around the country now. What about the damage to citizens wrongly identified? Has the council conferred with city attorneys about the liability risk to government if such an incident should occur? I ask that flock surveillance system and similar systems and contracts be terminated as unnecessary overreach and flock camera operation should be immediately decommissioned. The Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutional right to privacy from surveillance in public spaces. The use of flock technology abuses citizens and residents right to privacy as they go about their daily business. I thank you very much. Thank you. Is Madison Plucknett here? Okay, are you giving your three minutes to Luke Allen? All right, thank you. All right, next is Mel Moser, who will have six minutes, and Luke Allen, followed by Luke Allen, who will have six minutes. Welcome. Thank you. My name is Mel Moser, and I live in the ninth district. And because of the time constraints, I'm only going to address one issue. The nightmare that flocks cameras are in terms of their security or lack thereof. And that nightmare is one of the reasons that the mayor of Cynthiana recently made this statement, quote, Because of company policies and enlightening information, the city is uncomfortable to move forward with flock. That's also the reason why, in a public letter, Denver officials made this statement about flock, quote, We do not believe the city and county of Denver should continue doing business with a company that has demonstrated such disregard for honesty and accountability. I've submitted a document to you which has all of my sources so that you can see for yourself that these are uncontroverted facts. It's not my opinion. It's not anybody's opinion. And nobody can dispute it, including flock, and they haven't. In November of 2025, two years after Lexington, more than two years after Lexington started using flock cameras, an independent nationally known security expert did a complete analysis and issued findings related to flock. And in accordance with the way that these things are done, they notified flock of every security problem as they found it. They're called CVEs, or Common Vulnerability and Exposure. And this individual, John Gaines is his name, found 22 with flock that have already been cataloged and added to a national database, as well as eight others which are pending the addition to that database. And I can't tell you or pretend that I understand all of these security issues with flock. But there was one that caught my attention, I think everybody here will understand. It was in the executive summary, and I'll quote from that. The license plate reader units were found to run Android Things 8, a platform long past the end of life and unsupported by the vendor or Google. In a conventional penetration test, such findings would be classified as high or critical severity due to the inherent risk of unpatched vulnerabilities within the operating system and bundle applications. In other words, in Lexington and elsewhere, flock was using technology that was so out of date that they couldn't update the security because Google quit supporting the software. And they didn't tell you about that. In fact, flock didn't respond to this until May of 2025, and here's their response. Quote, we have not at this time determined a need to remediate devices currently deployed. Flock will address these vulnerabilities through a combination of over-the-air updates and improved factory settings for new devices starting today in the second quarter of 2025, end quote. So in other words, we're not going to do anything about this. We're going to do it on our schedule. We're only going to spend the time and money when it fits our budget. I mean, that in a nutshell is one reason you don't want to have a private company conducting surveillance on Lexington's citizens. But as bad as the fact that their technology isn't even up to date, the various ways that these cameras can be hacked is truly mind-boggling. It's described in the white paper in detail, but I put a source on there, another well-respected cybersecurity expert. He did a video demonstrating how this is done. The name of the video is We Hacked Flock Safety Cameras in Under 30 Seconds. So if you have a chance or you have an IT person that you know or is on your staff, take a look at it. It is an eye-opener. Now, this was communicated to Flock. They acknowledged they received it. They didn't claim that they couldn't be hacked. It couldn't be hacked, but their response was, quote, exploitation of these vulnerabilities would require physical access to a device, end quote. Well, the cameras are pretty easily accessible if you have a ladder, and the white paper and the video show definitively that that's simply not the case. You don't need to have access to the physical device, although it's easy enough to get it. Recently, U.S. Senator Wyden and U.S. Congressman Chris Namorthy, I think, publicly released a letter to the FTC which contains this paragraph. Six months ago, I'm sorry, Flock's cavalier attitude towards cybersecurity needlessly exposes Americans to the threat of hackers and foreign spies tapping this data. Accordingly, we urge the FTC to hold Flock accountable for its negligent cybersecurity practices. Six months ago, Flock finally hired their own independent security person, but they keep putting off. They've never done any fixes on any of these things, and it's not clear when you're going to ever find out about what they found. So I think it's time now to, in the words of the Denver officials, it's time for Lexington to stop their dealings with this kind of company. Thank you. All right. Is Sarah Weckman here? Okay. And you are giving your time to Susan Ryamsada? I'm sorry. I may have massacred that. Okay. And is Mary Hodgins here? Are you also giving your time to Susan? Okay. Thank you. All right. We have Luke Allen, who will have six minutes, and then we have Susan Ryamsada, who will have nine minutes. Welcome. My name is Luke Allen. I was born here in Lexington, but I'm currently a resident of Frankfort. We're told that ALPRs are necessary because they're used to prevent and punish crime, and I'll leave it to others this evening to dispute that claim. I want to instead point out that to gain a full consideration of this technology, we need to consider its creation of new opportunities for crime. Early this month, the Washington Post reported that over 50 law enforcement officers across the country have been accused of or charged with misuse of ALPR data over the last two years. The overwhelming majority of these were officers stalking women, mainly ex-wives and girlfriends. And I'd just like to name a few of these disturbing cases, which continue to be reported by local and national news week after week. And just as a disclaimer, most of these are still alleged pending court decisions. Just last week, it emerged that a Louisiana sheriff's deputy tracked his ex-fiance's movements for years. In Georgia, a town police chief tracked his ex-girlfriend obsessively and sent her threatening messages regarding her movements to the point where she started to check in her walls to see if he had cameras in the area. She started to check her car for bugs. She didn't know how this was possible. In Illinois this summer, another police chief tracked three ex-girlfriends and the ex-boyfriend of another partner. In Milwaukee, an officer spied on his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend. He was caught by an internal affairs detective. But now that internal affairs detective is on trial for doing the exact same thing. And just right over in Louisville last year, an officer who had previously narrowly been off the hook for shooting a citizen without warning has also been indicted for stalking his ex-girlfriend. And unfortunately, not surprisingly, several of the women in these cases reported they were afraid to go to the police because they believe that the officers would side against a colleague over his accuser. And I also have to point out that these are only the portion that were caught necessarily. And why are these all, local PD officers aren't the only ones who have access to this data. So why are all these stories about them? We don't hear any about federal employees or federal agencies or FLOC employees. It's because those, at least with the local PDs, there's people holding them accountable. At least there's some supervision. If we're not hearing about it from within FLOC or from the federal agencies, it's not because it's not happening in all likelihood. It's because they're not being caught. And there's no oversight over that. Now, I hope and I fully believe that the vast majority of our Lexington police hold themselves to a higher standard than this. But the regrettable fact is that, can we really believe that not a single one of these 650 ordinary, mortal men and women will ever be tempted, the worst and most painful times of their lives, to do the wrong thing? Are we prepared to accept the worst ways in which one of these situations I described earlier could have turned out? And on this point, I want to quote FLOC's own CEO's statement that he made to the post on these incidents. He says, we're not going to change humans and humans make bad decisions. What we can do is make sure that they know if you use this tool, you will be held accountable. So what we're actually hearing from FLOC is that they've concluded, and I'm sure they've investigated this thoroughly, that there's nothing that you can do to stop these crimes from happening, they say. And that includes, of course, the fig leaf tinkering around the edges, patches that they've rushed out in the last few weeks after this story came out. There's nothing in there that they haven't considered before. There's no magic solution that they came up with just in time for damage control. So what he leaves instead, of course, that there is a way to stop it, which is that councils like this one, like the one in Cynthiana, around the country, can withdraw these means to do the wrong thing at any time. And in contrast, FLOC may say that all we can do is punish people after the fact. But I think that any good police officer, I think anyone concerned about crime, would be the first to tell you that that's a very poor substitute for stopping a wrong from being done in the first place. And that's what this council has the power to do. We've seen others do it, and Lexington needs to be the one to set an example for this whole region. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Susan Ramzada, and I apologize. I'm sure I mispronounced your name. You'll have nine minutes, and then you'll be followed by Billy Mallory. Welcome. Thanks. That was actually a pretty good pronunciation. My name is Susan Rahimzadeh. Good evening. I only used nearly the nine minutes, so you don't have to worry about that. I'm from Richmond, but I spend a lot of time in Lexington, so I thought I would come speak. I know that you all have heard a lot about FLOC tonight. And I know some of you might think that the increasing public anger about FLOC is overblown, because initially I felt that way too. I've never been particularly worried about my own personal data, especially as a law-abiding citizen. But the more I've learned about automated license plate readers, ALPRs, the more I've realized that the public concern here is well warranted. I just want to touch on three quick points, inaccuracy, vehicular physical safety, and privacy. So to begin with, as others have pointed out, the amount of false alarms produced by FLOC is tremendous. A randomized trial in a city in California found that 37% of all ALPR alerts there were misreads. A quote, astonishingly high error rate, end quote. Which led to drivers being repeatedly pulled over because their license plate had been misread as a stolen vehicle. This can result in extremely traumatizing or dangerous experiences for innocent people. Especially for groups that have already been historically racially profiled by police. Lex 18 highlighted yesterday a woman in Milwaukee who was incorrectly pulled over at gunpoint for a homicide she played no role in. And she lost her job because of the incident. The political commentator John Oliver called attention to another incident recently where a car with a mother and five children was pulled over. And the minor's forced to lie on the ground because her SUV had been mistaken by the ALPR system for a motorcycle in a different state. I know FLOC advertises their system as this heroic measure to end crime. But looking at the data, the very occasional success doesn't outweigh the very real harm caused by all the misfires. Secondly, despite safety being in the name, these cameras seem to have inherent safety hazards in how they're constructed. All the FLOC cameras I've seen are poles that go straight into the ground. They lack a breakaway or a slip plate, which is a useful old technology that's used on many stop signs and lampposts to prevent injury to passengers when a vehicle comes into contact with a pole. These tools can prevent up to 40% of damage done to a vehicle and a driver. So I thought maybe I would demonstrate with my pen as a fun presentation. But if this is the pole, the pen, and this is the slip plate. If a car hits it at a fast speed, because of the slip plate, the pole just falls over and there's less damage. But if there's no slip plate or breakaway and a car hits that at a fast speed like by a highway or by a hospital where a car is moving quickly, then it just wraps around that pole. I have never seen a FLOC camera that has a breakaway on it. And given how common car accidents are, I think if this company truly cared about safety over profit alone, breakaways are a measure that they would consider implementing. Lastly, I know you're aware of the numerous stories around the country of police officers using ALPR devices to aid ICE and stalk women. FLOC employees are a great concern as well. When a citizen in Georgia was able to obtain extremely limited FLOC audit records on who was looking at the cameras in his town, he discovered not just officers, but FLOC employees and executives watching private cameras inside the Jewish Community Center, inside gymnastics gymnasiums, cameras aimed at parks and playgrounds. This is despite the fact that FLOC safety told the citizen that no FLOC employees were looking at the cameras. The rest of the data the citizen couldn't access because the city told him it would cost half a million dollars to fulfill his public records request for the data. I simply feel uneasy about a company who seeks increasing access to our own private information while being increasingly defensive and protective of its own data. And if I run city council, I don't know if it would rest entirely easy with me if these cameras were used for something nefarious, or if a car ran into one, or if a misread caused someone to get hurt and I hadn't done anything to stand up to them. I think if there's one lesson we've learned time and time again as a country, it's that sometimes we ultimately regret some new technologies because we didn't see the consequences before they were already here. The city that first instituted predictive policing, for example, Santa Cruz, has already retracted the technology with the police chief citing concerns about racial profiling and inaccuracy. In Madison County, where I live, moreover, we grew up doing school drills to flee nerve agents and mustard gas from the Blue Gas Army Depot. Suffering the effects of people in the past, creating a destructive technology simply because they could without considering the long-term consequences. We're starting to see the consequences of ALPRs now, and it's time to stop the momentum, or at least have a more public conversation before renewing contracts. I know you care about public safety, but there are means to increase public safety without cultivating a culture of paranoia and fear. Fort Wayne, Indiana, for example, successfully created a 40% decrease in crime by instituting research-backed crime prevention through environmental design. By adding new sidewalks and streetlights, more trees and murals, and together they created a pleasant atmosphere with increased visibility, and these environmental factors influenced behavior and lowered crime. It may sound extreme, but given the misuse we're already seeing of flock cameras, I wanted to end with a quote from Hedda Kovali, a deceased Czech memoirist who lived through the Soviet surveillance state. She told her husband, I can't believe that something inherently good can turn into its exact opposite just because of some mistakes or personal failures. If the system was fair and sound, it would provide ways of compensating for error. If it can only function when the leadership is made up of geniuses and all the people are 100% honest and infallible, then it's a bad system. Thank you for having me. Thank you. Council members, we're going to hear from two more people and then we'll have a ten minute break if that works for you. We have quite a number of people left. So next is Billy Mallory, and you'll be followed by Lisa Guess. Welcome. I'm Billy Mallory, I live in the first district. And actually, I was here when the prior council considered the flock cameras. And a lot of data, a lot of background was given on that. It was discussed for a very long time. At that time, the first district in the east end had the highest homicide rate in all of Lexington. And many of those were teenagers, teen on teen violence. And many of those went unsolved. Since flock has been instituted, our crime rate has gone down significantly in the east end. And any crimes that have happened of late have been solved very quickly through the use of whether it was flock, whether it was traffic cameras. But with the use of the real time intelligence center, most of our crimes, including the one that just happened at Charles Young Center, was solved almost immediately with arrest. So as far as data and all of that, I don't have that for other cities. You know, what I care about is where I live. And I know that in times past, many of our elderly were afraid to sit on their porch. Our families could not let their children play in the front yard or the backyard because you never knew which direction a bullet was coming from. That's the reality that people were living with. And I could dare say that there's hardly a person that lives in the east end that has not been impacted by violence in some way or doesn't know someone. I actually was good friends with Anita Franklin that lost her son. So all of us have been touched in some way. So personally, I am grateful. Many of the people who live in the east end are grateful because they can now sit out on their porches and enjoy. When it's not so daggone hot, we see children that are out on their scooters, on their bikes. And I would just say that I think that we have a great police department. And we are very fortunate that we have neighborhood police officers who actually know us. We actually know them by name. So it's not just about cameras. It really is about how our police department and how well they get to know our neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Lisa Guess. Welcome. Good evening, Mayor Gorton and members of the Urban County Council. My name is Lisa Guess. I live in Fayette County District 1, and I have the honor of serving as the president of the Lexington Community Police Academy Alumni Association. I'm here tonight to express my support for the Lexington Police Department and its continued responsible use of advanced license plate reader technology. ADLPRs have been used in Lexington since 2022. And during that time, they have repeatedly helped solve violent crimes, recover stolen vehicles, and perhaps most importantly, bring missing people home. Those are real outcomes for real people living in this community. And knowing this technology is being used responsibly to help LPD identify and apprehend those who pose a threat to our community makes me feel safer living, working, and spending time in Lexington. But tonight, I also want to speak about something that technology alone cannot provide, and that is trust. Through my involvement with the Community Police Academy and the Alumni Association, I've had opportunities that many in our community have not taken advantage of. I have spent time with LPD officers, command staff, specialized units, and civilian employees. I've seen how they train, how they operate, and how seriously they take the responsibility that comes with the authority that is entrusted to them. Those experiences have built my trust in this department, and that trust is not blind. It is built on years of interaction, observation, education, and partnership. I recognize that concerns have been raised because there have been examples elsewhere of officers or agencies misusing these systems. Those incidents should be taken seriously, and those who misuse law enforcement technology should be held accountable. Yet the actions of others do not and should not define Lexington or the police department. The Lexington Police Department should be judged by its own record. Here in Lexington, ALPR technology operates within a policy framework developed with community partners, and its use is regularly audited. We have an effective public safety tool, clear rules governing its use, oversight to ensure those rules are followed, and accountability if they are not. That is how responsible technology should be managed. We should not remove a proven public safety resource from responsible officers, because individuals elsewhere abused the access to similar technology. Instead, we should maintain strong policies, oversight, and accountability, while allowing LPD to continue using a tool that has demonstrated its value to our community. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now, council, we will take a ten minute break if you'll be back here at 840. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ We will continue. Now, is Sean Howard here? And are you yielding your time to Herbert Lynn? All right. And is Isaac Looney here? And are you yielding to Paige Hensley? Okay. Next we'll have Herbert Lynn, who will have six minutes. Then we will have Corey Edwards. Then we will have Paige Hensley, who will have six minutes. Welcome. Good evening, everyone. My name is Herbert Lynn, and I'm speaking tonight as a private citizen and resident of District 7. I'm here tonight to encourage the City Council to end the city's contract with Flock Safety. The City Council can choose to terminate the agreement without penalty simply by issuing a 30-days written notice. Tonight, I would like to focus on the fact that ALPRs make our communities less safe and waste taxpayer dollars. These cameras create dangerous situations even when used as intended, and the results do not justify the cost. Misidentification and misreads are a huge problem for ALPR systems. In Toledo, Ohio, a man was pulled over, attacked by a police dog, and jailed because an ALPR camera misidentified a 7 as a 2. In Sherwood, Arkansas, two parents were detained at gunpoint leaving their 6-week-old baby alone in the back seat of the car because an ALPR read an O as a 0. In Aurora, Colorado, a family was forcibly removed from their vehicle, including four children, the youngest of which was 6 years old, and forced to lay face down on the hot asphalt in the August heat. An ALPR flagged the family's SUV as stolen, but the report on the stolen vehicle listed a motorcycle. In Florida, an ALPR flagged a woman's black Dodge Durango for being involved in a hit-and-run, even though eyewitness reports and paint transfer evidence pointed to a maroon Dodge Durango. That woman was jailed for two weeks and charged with vehicular homicide. And these are just a few of the dozens of similar incidents that have unfolded throughout the country. And although these cameras unarguably help to solve crimes, they are not the solution of our civil rights and the endangerment of the public. Now, FLOCC touts its 99% accuracy statistic, which sounds like really, really, really good propaganda unless you actually understand that statistic. We are talking about a system that scans every vehicle that passes by every FLOCC camera in cities throughout the United States. Nationwide, that 1% misread rate accounts for over 200 million misreads per month. To their credit, some police departments have chosen to investigate this issue, and what they've found is that misreads make up a huge proportion of the alerts they receive. The 37% figure you heard earlier was a randomized trial in Vallejo, California. Another police department in Sacramento found that of the alerts flagging vehicles as stolen or involved in a felony, misread license plate accounted for 71% of those alerts. I want to reiterate, that is a 71% false positive rate. And remember, the police still have to follow up on these alerts even when errors aren't caught. And Lexington is using the same equipment and the same software as these other cities throughout the nation. They likely have a similar false positive rate. And when those false positives are pursued as they should be, that means additional time, resources, and taxpayer dollars are spent when police could be responding to serious crimes instead of going on wild goose chases. I have seen no published data on the accuracy of Phlox camera systems. In other words, no such oversight is being conducted or that information is damaging enough that it is not public. This program has been in place for four years and there is no public information on whether it's working well. If you spend $150,000 on a new boiler, I know this from where I work, you need to have the state inspectors come in and put a stamp on it. $150,000 for the police and the City Council has not deemed that necessary for follow-up? I mean, if you want to create a social program that helps regular residents, that means feasibility studies, means testing, actuarial analyses, effectiveness studies, and onerous paperwork for the recipients. But if you want to put in a mass surveillance system, I hope that our City Council is wise enough to not just trust the word of a multi-billion dollar surveillance and data brokering company. I know this isn't true. I've met with many of you all personally, I've sat down, had meals, had coffee with you all, but from the outside, it looks like the City Council is willing to put innocent people in harm's way, willing to risk their lives for an unproven technology. These misidentifications and misreads have resulted in millions of dollars paid out to victims from city coffers. You all are stewards of our taxpayer dollars, and allowing this contract to remain on the books means that you are allowing the gambling of taxpayer dollars on dangerously inaccurate and possibly ineffective technology. But there is a way to fix this, and I know that you all want to fix it. It is not too late. All that's required of you, the City Council, is to bring up a vote to draft and send a letter to FLOC issuing a 30-day cancellation notice. And please keep in mind that FLOC is not the only system with these problems. Replacing FLOC with Axon or another system is not the solution. That is why we are asking the City Council to also commit to no future contracts with other ALPR and mass surveillance companies. It is not too late for the City Council to stand on the right side of history. It is not too late to save taxpayer dollars, and it is not too late to protect the well-being of our community. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Corey Edwards followed by Paige Hensley, who will have six minutes. Welcome. I am Corey Edwards, and I am from District 5. In 2022, Lexington was handed 25 cameras for free through the LPD as a pilot program, and within four months of that pilot program, what we had is that our Mayor and our Council at that time asked for 75 more cameras. And by December of 2022, we had it approved through our Council to have at least 100 cameras. Now, we are paying a $1.4 million contract of five years for FLOC safety. But what no one likes to talk about for FLOC safety is what they did to their original hometown city, Atlanta, that has 5,000 cameras. Atlanta only has 100,000 more people, but has 5,000 cameras in their city. Not the metropolis, not the Fayette County area, their city. And because of the data they were able to show from 2021 to 2025, those cameras did not help with homicide. They did not help with really any crime statistics of any resort, except for Grand Theft Auto. And the only thing they did was improve it by 0.3%. They spent $15 million at least just for the installation of the cameras, not even for anything else, not for the descriptions, not for the data that you have to be able to access or anything like that. They spent $15 million over four years, have 5,000 cameras, and can't prove one crime statistic being better in those four years because of those cameras. And now we have to entertain the idea that these cameras are improving something, but we don't even have data from before and after that these cameras are being installed. So why are we sitting here saying that these cameras are helpful, but we can't ask the first question of, did we need them in the first place? Were they significantly helpful? Are they more helpful in certain areas than others? But instead it's just a blanketed check given to Flock Safety, who has proven with 100,000 cameras across this nation, they will install it anywhere they want, any way they want to, and anyone who can have access to it will probably be law enforcement or third parties through law enforcement. And that is a huge issue. Because if we're going to sit here and allow our city, which has other programs like Lexington One, who have people who are trying to directly address youth violence, but their budget is $200,000 compared to cameras that have no human elements, nothing of community and trust to be built from them, we're spending $1.4 million. So what are we paying out of the trust of the people that we already have programs to be able to address things like youth violence or murder or homicide and things like that? Because we can go with the data that we have from the criminologists. We can invest in our community and the youth programs that we have there to fight nonviolence. Or we can find a mass surveillance state and act like we're not trading in the trust. Alright. Is Josh Adams here? Yes, ma'am. Are you yielding your time to Hudson Chamberlain? Yes, ma'am. Alright. So next is Paige Hensley who has six minutes. Yes, Paige Hensley. And then we have Hudson Chamberlain who will have six minutes. Welcome. Hi. Paige Hensley, District 4. Good evening. The last time I was here to speak was in April on the subject of data transparency with flock cameras and ALPRs. Today I am here to speak on the same issue. Last time I spoke, I made the observation that the Lexington City Government's license plate readers page appeared to have been last edited in November of 2022. Since then, there have been a few updates to the page. There is now an example of what an ALPR alert looks like from the perspective of local police dated for June 2026. However, I am sad to report that the rest of the page appears exactly as it did in April. Most notably, the sections titled Success in Recovery Stolen Vehicles, The Typo Has Not Been Corrected, and Statistics. The Success section continues to frequently change the scale of comparison. For example, pre-flock data from all 12 months of 2020 and 2021 is compared to only 8 months of post-flock data from 2022 in a text-based explanation. The embedded line chart image below this still claims to include data from before and after the installation of license plate readers and still only displays data from December 2019 to February 2022, meaning it is exclusively pre-flock data. This line chart also appears to indicate a decrease in days to recovery that tracks with nationwide downward trends in crime, all of which predate the installation of flock cameras. It also indicates an extreme amount of seasonal variance. This is common amongst all crime statistics, meaning it is even more important to release holistic data now that we have several years. It's a little harder to understand when the statistics section of the site has last been updated since there are no timestamps included. I have to hope for the City's sake it is out of date considering it only reports 370 stolen vehicles recovered since March 2022. Meanwhile, there have been at least 476 incidents of stolen vehicles in the first 6 months of 2026 alone and 3,788 since the first flock cameras were installed. This is according to the City's own data. The City of Lexington and Lex PD have NIBRS data linked on the same page. If the City of Lexington and Lex PD wants us to trust that AOPRs are making an impact, they need to start by releasing actual evidence of this. If the data shows it does work, you need to release that data. If you can't release that data, then I would recommend that the City of Lexington and Lex PD release that data. The City of Lexington needs to terminate the project. Thank you. Is Eva here? Are you yielding your time to Dylan Bourne? We have Hudson Chamberlain who will have six minutes. Donald Harris will follow with you. Good morning. My name is Hudson Chamberlain. I'm a resident of Council District 8. I want to thank the Mayor for the quick correction to order earlier. I agree. This issue requires your undivided, uninterrupted attention. On to business. I'm here today as a member of the Blue Grass DSA and an organizer in the No AI NKY coalition. I'm here to talk about the positive side effects of public outcry. Nearly 100 local governments ranging from barely incorporated to some of the largest in the nation have cancelled their contracts with Flock Safety. If a tool is so critical to solving crime, why have other elected officials decided to listen to their constituents over Big Tech and get rid of ALPO? And get rid of ALPRs and cameras that enable a fascist surveillance state. Secondly, several police departments on their own volition, meaning no local government mandate telling them to do so, have decided to end their access to this critical tool. Why haven't our very own decided to do so? The way the news and some of you talk about Flock Safety, you have to ask yourself this question. Like how could these officers even think about doing their job without AI enabled 24-7 access to primarily black and immigrant community members when they travel? And soon to be general live video feed through more newer models of Flock devices. If so many officers across the nation are denying themselves this access and still serve their country, do you not hear the people? Do you not see the signs? The funds freed up from canceling this contract could go to more trainings to prevent citizens from paying legal fees and settlements from unfortunate accidents, let's call them. That would free up more money. Yet another value add to the budget. These could then go to tools proven to reduce crime and public disturbances. I need the council to understand that the only support vacuum to exist through this entire process is the one me and my neighbors live in every day. Listen to the people. Reject enabling a fascist surveillance state. Cancel the Flock contract and commit to no new contracts with any ALPR providers. That leads me to the other topic I'm here about, data centers. I've been in meetings with planning staff, have talked to planning commissioners. The theme that stuck out to me was time and the irresponsible lack thereof. This council gave, let's be real, the planning staff, not the commissioners, two months, more like 30 days, to come up with a planning solution to one of the biggest nonpartisan issues of my time on this earth. A hopefully unintended outcome. I'm here to talk to you about how we can build a plan on true public participation. Do you want to know who has all the time and money to be involved in organizing and activating their community on the data center issues? The developers. The suits. The capitalists who seek only more capital at the expense of the working class and the AI NKY coalition activists have poured into fixing the problem about the problem this council unfortunately created. That is, educating my community, my neighbors, my friends on how to have their voice heard on again, one of the largest issues of my time. The capitulation of elected officials to hungry, hungry capitalists. Ban AI data centers in Fayette County, regulate existing and new data centers out of our beautiful home, listen to the people, see the impact your decisions have had, pass a permanent moratorium. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Donald Harris, followed by Dylan Bourne who will have six minutes. I would like to cede my time to Clay Davis, please. I'm sorry? Did I cede my time to Clay Davis? Yes, I think you can. All right. Is Clay here? Okay. Very good. All right. Next is Dylan Bourne who will have six minutes and then Clay Davis who will have six minutes. Welcome. Hey. I'm Dylan Bourne from district one. I'm also here to talk about the flock cameras. I'd like to open first to thank you all for letting me put the camera up there and giving us the chance to speak here. So I want to address two issues of the flock cameras that I think are worth noting and voicing here. The first is the assertion that these cameras are perfectly okay to use for public scrutiny. For example, if everyone speaking on this issue tonight went outside, stood on every street corner and just took pictures of cars and documented their license plates, I would imagine all of you and probably Lux PD would have a problem with that. It's kind of weird. I'll put it even more simply. If you were to invite me over to your house, you know I'll be there, but you may find it odd to have cameras in your fridge, et cetera. In that case, I'm violating a social contract that we have. In the case of flock safety, sure, legally we may not have a right to privacy in public spaces, but that doesn't necessarily mean a camera on every corner is appropriate. Sorry, I'm anxious. The second point worth noting is how the culture has shifted in the last decade or so. There was a documentary that went viral. It was about the Chinese social credit score and how these cameras were everywhere. You can't go anywhere without a camera being on you. That's un-American. That was the consensus of everyone, regardless of their political party. The American surveillance state is uniquely interesting in that they utilize a loophole where they can't audit a private company the same way that we can audit a public one. Today they're license plate readers, but what about five software updates from now when flock safety sales are down and they need to turn a profit to pay Andreessen Horowitz back? The issue is ultimately that flock is a private company logging and collecting our data for their interests, not the interest of our community, not the interest of the public. What we need to do is turn a profit, and that profit is coming from taxpayer dollars at the cost of law-abiding citizens' privacy, and ultimately, that's not okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Clay Davis, who will have six minutes, followed by Drew Hanson. Welcome. Good evening. Good evening, everyone. I'm Clay Davis. It's a pleasure to see you watching Lexington and a resident of District 8. I have been a leader in this community on the subject of surveillance for nearly a decade. I have to say that this is a truly fascinating exercise tonight. You've seen before you a room full of people from every Donald Trump faction across the country, Republicans, Democratic Socialists, Greens, and Independents, all standing shoulder to shoulder to oppose action that this governing body has taken. That kind of unity is rare in this current arena and it should be an indication that you should stand more safe, have effectively divided the community into pro and anti-flock factions. And it's truly ironic that your collective viability to be re-elected may well depend on where each of you land on this issue in the coming election cycle. Nine years ago, well before the deployment of flock cameras, my organization predicted that this is exactly where Lexington would end up. In a veritable fishbowl of warrantless surveillance. With more and more to come. At that time, my organization proposed a model ordinance that inevitably would have provided our community with the guardrails, complete transparency, and accountability for all forms of government surveillance. Our ordinance is by orders of magnitude more comprehensive than Kentucky's new state ALPR law, House Bill 58 that just passed. However, the council took no action. Periodically over the years, I resubmitted that ordinance and asked council members to adopt and enact it. Time and time again, the council failed to act. With the council taking us seriously nearly a decade ago, it is highly probable that much of the uproar you are contending with today could have been avoided. But here we are amidst a contentious hotbed issue that has growing national momentum. Some of you might be looking for an alternative remedy to serve as a middle ground between those who support these invasive devices and those who oppose them. Our ordinance is still on the table, and it's on the same silver platter it was originally served to you on. Our ordinance is not anti-technology. It is pro-responsible technology. It could go a long way towards building community trust and provides the guardrails that this community needs. Once again, I have recently submitted it electronically to each one of you for your consideration. However, let me be perfectly clear. I oppose flock cameras, and more especially, I harbor tremendous disdain for a system that sweeps all of us into a warrantless, searchable, nationwide database. I share in my heart the same sentiment as so many others in this room and across our splendid city. I want them gone. And I intend to be a huge pain in your collective backsides until they are. But unfortunately, the surveillance toothpaste at this point in time is out of the tube in Lexington here, and now that the police have tasted the fruit from this poisonous tree, they and yourselves may be reluctant to turn loose of it. If that turns out to be the case, and the people cannot convince you to ban these devices altogether, if legislation does not come down that forces these wicked devices out of existence, and we are forced to live with these damnable spy poles in our community, then at a minimum, the community deserves an ordinance that makes the city's surveillance decisions transparent, evidence-based, and community informed. Council members, I once again ask that you move this ordinance forward, and I thank all of you, especially those who were attentive while I presented. Good evening. Thank you. All right, next is Drew Henson, followed by William Osborne, and then Caitlin Adams. Each will have three minutes. Welcome. Hello, I'm Drew Henson. I live in District 1. A couple years ago, I learned about this new system called FLOC. I'd never heard of it before, and as I started researching this new mass surveillance system, I couldn't help thinking of all the literary warnings provided to us by Orwell, Bradbury, and Huxley. This is an authoritarian tool. I was also certain that my community in Lexington, Kentucky, would never allow something like this in our town. I guess I was wrong. The FLOC camera system showed citizens across the country the government has the choice and power to exchange citizens' freedom and privacy for the exchange of a false sense of safety. A common claim behind FLOC cameras is that they provide a safer community. The presence of FLOC cameras does not provide security, but a false sense of security. A camera can no better prevent violent crime than an absent police officer. Citizens should have a say in whether they would like to trade their privacy and freedoms for this illusion of security. Another common claim by FLOC is that they only read license plates. The Institute for Justice has already cataloged over 100 misuses of FLOC cameras, including spying, stalking, and investigating innocent people. Users that have access to this system are able to use it for their own nefarious purposes outside of the original intent of the FLOC system. Misuses include stalking and spying on the location of ex-girlfriends, romantic partners, and spouses. These instances are in direct contradiction to FLOC's claim that they provide a safer community. It is also not a wild assumption that the FLOC camera system, once the infrastructure has been built and put into place, will continue to update their software and technology to include more features such as facial recognition and cell phone tracking. In my eyes, this is an inevitability. It is just a matter of when. The original FLOC contract approved by the city of Lexington was approved for $1.6 million over five years, so not only do I not agree with the concept of governmental mass surveillance, I have to pay for it as well. I feel like this money should be used for something more beneficial like Lexington's failing infrastructure. I cannot speak for all Lexitonians, but as of now, I have not met a single person that agrees with the use of the FLOC camera system. That was before I heard the other two people speak, so that's outdated. This is not to say that there are not people in Lexington that agree with the system, but I think it does point out that most people do not want this in their community. I urge the Lexington government to operate on behalf of the people and to respect their wishes and what their tax dollars are paying for, whatever that may be. The FLOC camera system is an attack on individuals' privacy, their civil liberties, and their freedom by indiscriminately tracking citizens with no prior cause for investigation. This FLOC camera system gives users the capability to use it for their own purposes and uses funds that could be better used to improve the lives of Lexingtonians. I request that the City of Lexington do what is right and cancel their contract with FLOC. Thank you. Next is William Osborne, followed by Caitlin Adams, and then Trevor Knudson. Welcome. I'm from Council District 10. I've lived in Lexington for 18 years, longer than I've lived anywhere else, and for seven of those years, I made my career in politics, so I understand that I know what the other side of that table is like. I've worked all the way from City Council to U.S. Senate. I get it. A lot of different things to consider. First off, I do want to say that it is about to get a lot more complicated with that Supreme Court decision. It is a Fourth Amendment search, and I think future decisions are going to put that same rule on FLOC cameras. In addition to that, a lot of the numbers, a lot of the arguments we see is that we're covering stolen vehicles, right? Do we want to be a city that puts the main focus on recovering stolen vehicles, or do we want to put the focus on protecting the ex-partners of those who have access to FLOC cameras? This is not some far away thing. This happened in Shively, Kentucky. It is already here. WKYT has already run reports on it. This is not rumors or false claims. They are verifiable events that have happened that put people at risk. I hang my hat now at a wealth management firm. If some of you know or don't, we have a fiduciary duty to do what's in the best interest of our clients. That includes respecting their rights. That also includes keeping their information safe. I spend a lot of time every day looking at and attending seminars that prevent fraud, and one of the security things they mention on these cameras are very real, and they can contribute the same thing to that. Outside of that, I would say for the 13 of you that were attending tonight and present, much appreciated. Thank you. Next is Kaitlin Adams, followed by Trevor Knudson, and then Willow Jordan. Welcome. Hello. My name is Kaitlin Adams. I am from District 1. I was born in Somerset, Kentucky. I am a Lexington transplant, if you will. I moved up here a few years ago, and I've never found a city that's more welcoming to people like me and my friends and just everyone who I'm in cahoots with. However, I'm one of the many people speaking here on the issue of the Flock cameras. I will tag on to what the gentleman said before me. Just this morning, Lexington 18 reported it on a Kentucky police officer who used Flock to track and harass his ex-girlfriend not only throughout Kentucky, but across state lines into Indiana. He searched for her over 2,000 times, and he was only caught once later, well after the damage has been done, after a protective order had been issued against him. There have been also multiple instances of citizens being wrongfully identified, accused, and investigated for crimes due to automatic license plate reader software across the country. By creating a mass surveillance network with a lack of proactive restrictions on what can be done with the data gathered on all of us, not just those breaking the law, we are allowing for ample opportunity for bad actors to take advantage of this data, and they are taking advantage of it. It is difficult to feel that these cameras are keeping my community safe when I also know that the data gathered on innocent citizens can and will be used against them, even if they're just driving. Several of the people before me mentioned vehicles misidentified and traumatic families being traumatized by direct action of police based on incorrect identification based on software. I just urge you to reconsider the city's contract with FLOC. Consider all of the opinions that you've heard before me. I think it's, as citizens of Lexington, we deserve better than to worry about looking over our shoulder at our police department and giving them the opportunity to make a mistake based on software where there's no human element to verify said data, especially when it's gathered en masse on citizens who aren't really consenting to it. You've heard Mike and fellow citizens before me. It is clear that several of your constituents want this technology out of our city and the money used in more appropriate places to prevent crime rather than proactively punish for crime. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Trevor Knudson, then Willow Jordan, and then Gary Jones. Welcome. Good evening. My name is Trevor Knudson. I'm a citizen of District 3. I'd also like to speak against the FLOC cameras. The preceding speakers have spilled out a lot of the current abuses and dangers, like imminent dangers. I'd like to step back just a little bit and look at the long-term picture. Where does this lead us? Because I think that as elected officials, it's an important part of the duty not to just look at the immediate effects, but the long-term future, what happens to the people who come after us. I think that sort of thinking is kind of discouraged in our current environment, where it's short-term profit, it's the next election cycle, but I think the long-term picture is something that we need to keep our eyes on very carefully and consider in all our judgments. So, the short answer for where this goes is, it only goes worse. All the dangers we've talked about now are just the beginning. It only gets worse from there. This is a road that leads directly to a very bad place. And I think if we jumped forward in the future, and we just jumped ahead of all the changes between now and then, we'd look at it as some sort of dystopian, science fiction, horror story. But the point is, is that it's not going to do any good. But the point is, is that it's not going to jump right there. It's going to go in incremental changes. There's going to be a next step, and a next step, and a next step. And people are going to become acclimated to it. It's going to be like frogs slowly boiling in a pot. They don't notice it's happening, and they get used to it until it's too late. And I think that this is exactly where this sort of technology and this sort of system leads to. And that's a big hyperbole, but it's very, very simple economics that causes this. What are the economic pressures on companies like Flock, right? They're going to try to get bigger bids. They're going to try to compete with other companies doing the same thing to provide more technology, to provide more capabilities, more surveillance capabilities, deeper, more penetrating capabilities. And that's going to be a race to the bottom. So if we look at this, for example, we are already starting to see it. It starts with the CCTV cameras, right? They're just plain cameras with a recording, right? And it's moving on to license plate readers, and then adding on to the artificial intelligence, and then networking the artificial intelligence between all the different areas, right? And so I'd like to say, well, where do we go from here? What's next after that? And it's going into things like TSA style, like even in airports, you know, they see through your clothes. It's going to get to points where they're reading brainwaves, you know, 50 years from now, and telling what you're thinking. And that sounds crazy, but AI was science fiction not long ago. I think it's in all our interest to think clearly about the potential future. Thank you. Thank you. Now, is Elizabeth Deniston here? Okay. And are you yielding your time to Shannon Deniston? Are you signed up to speak? I didn't sign up. Okay. Well, the rules up here are that if you want to speak, you have to sign up. If you want to yield your time, the person has to be signed up to speak. So, is Shannon here? Oh, okay. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Okay. So, we have Willow Jordan followed by Gary Jones. They'll both have three minutes. And then we have Shannon Deniston who will have six minutes. Willow Jordan has left. Willow has left. Okay. What about Gary Jones? Are you here? Is Gary Jones here? Gary Jones is here. Is anybody left out there? Probably not. Okay. So, Willow has left and Gary maybe is not here either. Shannon, you have six minutes. Welcome. Thank you very much. I'm actually from Mount Sterling, Montgomery County, and I'm here tonight just to do my part as a citizen of these beautiful United States of America. And the Constitution, it's a very important document and very dear to my heart. It's our guiding document for government and only a few words on a few pages. Yet, government has many laws that limit us while we have only a handful of laws to limit government. Mayor and members of the Urban County Council, Lexington has 125 FLOC license plate readers watching our roads. These cameras do not merely look for stolen cars. They feed vehicle movements into a nationwide searchable surveillance system. A warrantless surveillance system. FLOC says roughly 140,000 active users access its systems every month. The public cannot search the database. We cannot see where government vehicles travel. Yet, a vast number of government users can search ordinary citizens' movements through participating agencies. That creates an enormous security risk. A system capable of reconstructing travel patterns can expose the routines of police officers, judges, elected officials, military personnel, defense contractors, and people connected to critical infrastructure. Whether the threat comes from an insider or a future cyber attack concentrating that much movement, data creates an intelligence target. And this is something that not very many people have thought about, I don't think yet. But, I mean, the secure, the lack of security and the vulnerability that this presents. The system has already been proven to be hackable. The guy that had hacked it, he was going to an event and they actually canceled his reservations. Didn't even want him on site where that FLOC event was taking place. But he had documented it. Privacy is security. And abuse is not hypothetical. The Washington Post found at least 69 police officials accused, charged, or convicted of misusing FLOC or other plate reader systems. One Indianapolis officer allegedly conducted 3,759 searches involving vehicles connected to his wife and acquaintances. In Colorado, one government account reportedly ran approximately 19,194 FLOC searches. 19,194 searches. And only 29 of those were tied to a specific case number. So before anyone tells us how many crimes FLOC helped solve, show us the other side of that ledger. How many unjustified or illegal searches have been performed? When a surveillance tool becomes the instrument of stalking, misconduct, and unlawful access, that must count too. The Fourth Amendment was written to stop general searches. FLOC turns that principle upside down. Collect everyone's movements first, then decide who you want to investigate. I believe that is fundamentally incompatible with the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. FLOC Safety is now advertising a drone called FLOC Alpha. And it explicitly advertises that its camera can read license plates from up to 2,000 feet away. 2,000 feet. FLOC also says that its Alpha drone can fly up to 60 miles per hour. It has a thermal and low-light imaging sensor. And it has an 800 times zoom. 800 times. It says it can integrate directly with FLOC's broader ALPR network and can potentially lead directly to aerial observation or tracking. This week, Senator Josh Hawley, the chairman of the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, opened a formal investigation into FLOC Safety and how it collects, retains, and shares Americans' data. Then there's this thing called the Heat Map feature. A lot of people aren't familiar with it, but a year recently in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, FLOC representatives told their city council that the system could not create a heat map of vehicles' movements. The police chief checked it and found out that it could. He withdrew his support, and the council unanimously rescinded the contract the very next day. Newer FLOC technology goes even further, analyzing frequent locations, movement patterns, and associations. Think about what this means. Government no longer has to simply ask, where has this vehicle been? Technology can simply begin asking, where does this person usually go? Who do they associate with? And where are they likely to go next? Imagine if this technology had existed just a few years ago during COVID, how our governor would have abused it. Not saying that Lexington would have abused it, but imagine how state government would have abused it. In Los Angeles, they allowed its FLOC contract to expire and stop using the system over serious concerns of privacy, data security, ownership, and sharing. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has since called on the police department to walk away from FLOC entirely. Los Angeles is far from alone. In just the last few months, Austin, Texas, Fort Collins, Colorado, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Flagstaff, Arizona, Bend, Oregon, and others have shut down, terminated, or declined to renew FLOC programs amid privacy and surveillance concerns. Here in Kentucky, the cities of Newport, Fort Mitchell, Hartford, Independence, and Cynthiana have each terminated their FLOC contracts or allowed them to expire without renewal. What do these cities know today that Lexington may regret learning tomorrow? Lexington doesn't have to be the last city in America to recognize the danger. Lexington voters were never asked at the ballot box whether they consented to this level of surveillance. I am asking this council to suspend Lexington's FLOC program, require an independent audit of each and every search, prohibit countless patterns of life tracking, and hold a full public debate before this goes any further. Public safety matters. Constitutional liberty matters, too. We should never surrender one to claim the other. Thank you. Thank you. Vivian Hodge, then Deborah Nelson, then Robert Hodge. Welcome. Hello. My name is Vivian Hodge. I am the Vice President of William Wells Brown Neighborhood Association in the First District. The William Wells Brown Neighborhood Association is in favor of the installation of more FLOC cameras in the East End. The officers of this neighborhood association were invited to tour the surveillance room and were also afforded the opportunity to see FLOC in action and ask questions to obtain a clear understanding of how the cameras worked. This information was taken back and shared with the neighbors. A few police officers attended our meeting to address their concerns and issues. After a lengthy dialogue, the neighbors agreed because the East End was one of the high crime areas in the First District, we wanted to support the installation of FLOC cameras and are open to receive more cameras to deter and aid in the reduction of crime in this historic area of town. This letter of support was written April 8, 2024 and is still very representative of the neighbors' desires today and who better to speak on the needs of the East End than the East End. William Wells Brown Neighborhood Association supports the use of FLOC cameras and we support our great Police Department. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next is Debra Nelson followed by Robert Hodge. Welcome. Good evening. I'm Debra Nelson, District 3. I live in the Glendover neighborhood at the corner of Heather and Jessalyn where Traffic Engineering has recently installed a traffic circle. I represent a group of neighbors on adjoining streets who have come together in hopes of one day having that traffic circle be green and have a little bit of neighborhood flavor. You may be hearing from us, but I came here tonight just to say thank you to Traffic Engineering. Thank you to the Council for making our neighborhood safer. Before the traffic circle, daily we heard screeching tires, honking horns. We saw near fatal accidents all the time and there was, I know, a life-threatening accident that happened since the traffic circle. The neighbors have come together. We came together last night and we all agreed we don't hear the sounds. We don't hear the beeping. People are slowing down. People have figured out how to take the circle with barely stopping, but it's definitely helped. It's definitely calmer and you have made our little corner of the world a little safer. Thank you for responding to community concerns, using data, consulting research, and making good use of our tax dollars. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thank you. Next is Robert Hodge, followed by Michael Robinson. Is Robert here? No? Okay. How about Michael Robinson? No? All right. Council, that concludes our public comment and thank you all for being here. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Second. Council Member Morton, seconded by Council Member Ellinger. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Thank you very much. We are adjourned. Thank you very much.