... application to the Kentucky Department for Local Government and to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application, which grant funds are in the amount of $2 million federal funds under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program and are for the acquisition, disposal, and maintenance of distressed homes and demolition of blighted structures. Thank you very much. Is there a motion to approve that resolution? Second. Council Member Beard has moved that that resolution be adopted. Council Member Stennet has seconded the motion. Is there any discussion? I see none, so I think we're prepared to vote. Those in favor- Aye. ... please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay electronically. And Madam Clerk, please call the roll. We, we're actually not using this system- All right. ... for this just short, brief, real, it's more trouble Yes. So if you'll just call the role, we'll be in good shape. I will. Ms. Figel? Ms. Figel? Yes. Thank you. Ms. Gordon? Aye. Ms. Henson? Yes. Ms. James? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Mr. Martin? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Meyers? Yes. Mr. Stennet? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Blues? Yes. Ms. Crosby? Yes. And Mr. Ellinger. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you very much. That resolution is adopted. Is there a motion that we adjourn? So moved. Second. We have a motion by Council Member Stennet and a second by Council Member Meyers that we adjourn. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Th- I see none. We have no docket to approve today. We do have a summary. Is there a motion? Move approval. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion by Council Member Gordon, a second by Council Member Ellinger to approve the summary from January 20th. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. We have no budget amendments, but we do have, um, four new business items today. Move approval. Second. Council Member Beard has moved approval of the new business items and Council Member Gordon has seconded that motion. Is there any discussion? Council Member Stennet. I think it would be good here, and, and possibly appropriate, I know Charlie Martin's here, if you could briefly give us, ah, the background on item D, just so there's no misunderstanding about what we're changing out there. Uh, that, I think that would be great for the public who are watching today. Item D, as you see in your packet, is a proposed ordinance to, um, essentially add definitions to Chapter 16 relative to the stormwater program, but more importantly, change or add language on how LFUCG requires private property owners to maintain stormwater structures, which would include retention and detention basins. And what we've proposed here is consistent with what the current policy has been. And the reason why we're proposing it at this point in time is that the settlement documents associated with the consent decree required that we submit an ordinance for the council's consideration by January 31st of 2009. So today's the day. Um, it says, and it's very clear in my memo, is that we present it for consideration. And do we li- in our ordinance, are we gonna list what the required proper cleaning maintenance is? Um, you know, in, in the text of the ordinance itself, it talks about that if it is a residential property and it has an easement, that essentially the, w- w- what I might characterize, and some folks might argue with that, but what I would characterize as the light stuff, the general maintenance, the mowing, the picking up the trash, those type of things, are gonna be what is expected of, of the property owner. The urban county government will take the responsibility associated with the heavy lifting associated with those things, such as maintaining the actual structure itself, the concrete channel, the outlet, the s- type of things that are very difficult for an individual property owner or a group of property owners, they being residential, for them to be able to bear the burden of that. Um, one thing that I think that, that is important in this draft is, and this is something that we talked about considerably as we, as we prepared this draft for your consideration, is, is the issue associated with retention basins, those that hold water all the time, that based on our review of documents, there is nothing in any of the plats that requires a retention basin anywhere. Retention basins themselves are not stormwater structures. Many of those retention basins or ponds that, wet ponds that we see right now were actually constructed as amenities, so they're elective type of things. Um, the actual retention or detention part of that basin is actually the part of it that's above the, the water surface that you normally see there, because the dam is higher than that. Those things have a considerable, considerable amount of, uh, liability for this government. And so what we're proposing here is that we do not involve ourselves with retention basins. Um, as you recall, though, that we have, um, uh, in the stormwater fee proposal, you know, I, I feel like there's, there's a mechanism there that we can give people some assistance by having grant programs and those type of things like that, and I think those things can still be fleshed out in order to be able to make certain things happen. Did-- did that answer your question? It means that- The policy part of it, as far as how we go about doing things is, it's about helping property owners be able to manage these things in a way that's effective, that protects water quality. That's-- that's the starting point. That's why we're doing it. And I noticed in here, it mentions that, you know, filling in with dirt or fences were supposed to filter the vision or Director of Water Quality. I thought we-- we looked at things like that with the Vision of Engineering and our County Engineer. Are we changing that responsibility? Basically, yes. Good. Thank you. Council member Figal. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I do have some questions about this, and it might be a misunderstanding on my part, but in, um, section, um, 16 through 87, item C, it talks about the, uh, uh, pro- property owner having to maintain the integrity of the embankment and the structural items in the embankment- Mm-hmm. ... including concrete, pipe, gabions, stones, spillways. I mean, there's a whole list of things- Right. ... that the property owner is responsible for. Mm-hmm. Uh, which could be a very significant expense for that property owner. And my concern is how many of the property owners who have one of these drainage channels running between their house and their neighbor's house really understands that that's on private property as opposed to something that the city is responsible for. Uh, I just think this has a lot of implications for, um, for homeowners or for property owners that they... where they may not be aware of this. Th- th- you're right. It is a lot of... we- we've looked at this over and over again. On this, on C, I'll point out, there's some very important language here, and it's in that first sentence, "Where no public easement exists." We have no legal right to enter that property in the first place. So, you know, i- in those cases, how we can take over some of the, what I call the heavy lifting earlier, the structural type of things, those things, if a- a group of residential property owners or individual property owner wants to try to figure out a way to be able to lessen themselves of the burden, I will refer you to the next page, item I, "Nothing herein shall preclude the Irvin County Government from assuming responsibility to mai- maintain any stormwater control device pursuant to contract easement or other legal arrangement." We felt like that language was really, really important in here because, you know, this is one of those things that you turn the- the- the object on all these different sides and there's all... there's a million different sides to it. Um, well, this... to take this a step further then, there would be some, um, some can- some concern about how this would be enforced. Uh, and how... if- if the homeowners would be given an option to, um, to grant that easement to the city so that they could come in and do the work or would they be required, uh, within a certain period of time to- to get this particular kind of work done? Uh, I'm not quite sure, um, what it says about how the homeowner is going to feel responsible for this and if they know what their options are. A- a- another valid concern. I mean, one of the things that we are working on in parallel with this, is revising the ordinances regarding how we go about doing the entire f- enforcement program. Something else the EPA and the Cabinet wanted very strongly. It still needs a lot of work and because it did not have a deadline associated to it, as this one did with the consent decree, we did not bring that forward. It still needs a lot of work. But you're right, that's... the devil is in the details and how we go about dealing with somebody, either through a heavy-handed enforcement program or one that allows you to work with folks to be able to get to a resolution. I like the latter, and I think that most people in- in my group like the latter. It's not about just trying to- to bully people into stuff. It's really about trying to protect water quality. And, um, like I said, I- I recognize this. I've talked to several of the folks who've written into the newspapers about, you know, their concerns about how they deal with basins and I- I see their point. I have one in my backyard , I cut the grass and I do... so I- I live it firsthand as well. It's- it's a tough one. You know, what we're doing right now here is we're proposing the ordinance and that- that if there's additional discussion that's necessary, I'm all for that. Uh, we met that milestone by presenting this ordinance to the council for their consideration. Uh, as I recall correctly, we have 15 months from the lodging date, which would be roughly June of 2010 in- in- in to actually approve this. Obviously, I wouldn't recommend that we wait that long, but I mean, this- this is not something that has to be done today. So I wanted to make sure that we're clear on that. I'm- I'm glad to hear that because I do think there are some other details that really need to be worked out. Thank you. Thank you. Council member Gorton. Excuse me, Council member James. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I think Council member Figal led to where I was gonna get, which is, there does need to be a little bit more discussion, um, regarding this. And sadly enough, the way that our process works is, it's the only way that you have to introduce an item. Um, but, eh, what I- what I would support, and I know there are others that want to speak on this item, but what I would support is for this item to be put... to- to be placed into our sta- one of our standing committees for processing, because this does have a significant, um, property owner, um, impact. It could, depending on where it is, and we wanna have all of our folks involved, um, as much as possible and have the opportunity for our districts to know that this is going on, um, and to be able to give input. So I'll allow further discussion, but I hope that, um, preferably from somebody maybe on the Stormwater Oversight Committee, um, since that's something I'm sure you all have talked about this and- and maybe thought that this needed to come forward and are in support of it. But let's bring this forward to- to as many folks as possible and discuss this. Um, and I'm sad that this is our only process you have to bring this forward, but, um, if- if I were to make a motion, it would be to- to table this or postpone this until we get a recommendation from a standing committee. Thank you, Mayor. Ah, ah, is that a motion? Okay. All right. Council member, uh, Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, Charlie, I just had one question and I do appreciate that you're bringing this to us for discussion and whatever council decides to do with it, because we do need something in place. Um, are you thinking, just a follow on question to the, uh, enforcement, are you thinking any enforcement would be housed in the compliance office? I'm looking at Commissioner Taylor, where the other compliance will be housed for stormwater and- All, all, and all- ... consent decree? ... all compliance work related to those type of things will be in the depart- uh, Division of Environmental Policy. The way we're trying to set this up is that folks at the division level, whether it be in, in waste management or water quality, we do compliance work up to the point to where we just can't get a figure out, a way to work it out, and then we refer it on to them for a more formal action. Well, and I think, uh, council member Feigel brought up a really good point. The education piece, um, if, you know, as we move on with this and have discussions and we, we've got to figure out some way to educate the people in the community who have these facilities on their property. And I know that'll be a big part of your education push for the rest of the consent decree information. Yeah. You know, it's, it's, in some ways it does have a parallel to the discussions we're having on a weekly basis regarding the task force, is that, that how much of, of an obligation is LFUCG willing to take on? It's really about how much of a financial commitment we're, we're willing to take on. Because in any way, ca- shape or form is that maintenance has a financial obligation to it, and there's expectations, and I think they're fairly high when, especially when it's people's backyards. 'Cause that's what mine is. It's my backyard. Do you anticipate in the education piece using the website, our website to a great degree for this? I mean, I- It's funny you mention that. It's a natural- I had about a half hour conversation with our website person today. Okay, good. Good. Thank you very much. Council member Meyers. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Charlie, that was a great segue when you talked about, um, how much risk you, how much we want to take on as a government in terms of maintenance. When you go back to I on page 18, can you read that again and explain? Are... is what you're saying there, if I were a property owner, owner and I had a situation in my backyard, that if I wanted to deed a, um, easement over to the city, that the city would then take responsibility for it? In general terms, yes. I'm sure it's obviously going to be a lot more complicated that depending on what the terms and conditions associated with an easement are. Um, you know, an easement can be a lot of different things, but in, in a, in a very basic sense today, if we don't have the ability to get a piece of equipment in there, that's gonna be very difficult. And that's, that's part of the problem with I think with some of these that ha- don't have easements to start with, is that they were built such as that, that houses are all the way around them. And I believe there's one on, out off of Liberty Road that I've seen pictures of. There is just no way to get to the thing, unless we have a helicopter, and I'm not so sure that'll do us any good either. I'm thinking more off of Bold Bitter where we've got a situation back there. And it might be, uh, uh, Councilman Meyers, like I said, we spent a lot of time talking about this and with, I believe it's somewhere between 12 and 1400 basins in, in Fayette County or in the urban service area. There's a, a, a, a plethora of different scenarios, whether it be Bold Bitter or Liberty or Kennesaw Village or any of those other ones. No two seem to be a lot alike and then trying to find a, a ordinance or write an ordinance that's into a one size fits all was very, very, very difficult. And that's why we inserted that op- that, that, that language to allow us some flexibility to be able to deal with those uncertainties. So, so how willing is, how willing is the government gonna be to accept those easements, provided you can get equipment back there? I mean, 'cause it sounds like to me that if this goes through, that there's gonna be a ton of people wanting to provide an easement to the government so they take responsibility for it. Potentially that there will be, yes. Um, I'm, I'm not so sure I can answer that since whatever easement I bring, you all have to approve. So, um, what I will try to characterize to, to the council and to the administration is what the cost of doing that business is. Okay. Thank you. Council member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. Um, you know, my question, I guess starts out with, if we were taking over the residential storm drainage and detention areas and all that, we would already have either fee simple ownership or an easement over them before we would take over the operation? Are we already obligated to operate those if we have the fee simple or, um, easement agreement? What's our current obligation? Uh, this, this represents basically what our current policy has been. One of the reasons why we're codifying this is that because I don't believe there is anything that's been codified, and that's what EPA was pointing out. Our current policy has been is that if it has an easement, that we will maintain the structural things. There is some uniqueness that you find with certain plats because usually the plat, the recorded plat is what dictates the terms of them. And as you look through them, th- each one of them are a little bit different, a little bit different, a little bit different. And that's one of our concerns about this as well as far as the, as moving forward is, is that we're hopeful that we're not contradictoring a language that's on a recorded plat. We're, we believe that we are not. But I, I guess your question is, is that, that, you know, what are we obligating ourselves to? Right now, we don't believe we're obligating ourselves to anything more than what current policy has been. Okay. Do you, um, do you have a listing of all the detention areas and do you prepare an annual budget for the estimated cost for maintaining each detention? I mean, I presume you have to cut grass and prune trees and bushes and maybe repair spillways and I mean, I don't know what all you do in, uh, maintaining those, but wh- what are your obligations then? Well, we don't c- ... we don't cut grass. In, in 1687A, the property owner is responsible for mowing the grass. They're responsible for the lo- landscaping, algae, and just general debris. Um, we do the heavy stuff. Um, large limbs, or a huge amount of silt, or repairing the channel. Um, in the past, we haven't budgeted anything for them, which is part of the reason why we're having to do this, is because that's what we got sued for. One of the many components of which we got sued for. What I'm proposing in the stormwater, um, management fee is, if I remember correctly, half a million dollars a year devoted to maintenance and we would be developing a priority list of doing capital rehab or rehabilitation to these basins that were responsible to do this, provided that we approve this ordinance or some, some similarity of it to it. Um, there's another $750,000 that is for what I call capital rehabilitation that might be things that you have to bid out, that you ha- that, that require outsourced work as opposed to going in and correcting an erosion problem or rebuilding a broken thing. Something that's less, not as minor, I guess. Right. A- and this is money that's currently in the LFUCG annual budget or is this a proposed budget line item and a new- This is, this is the proposed budget line item associated with the stormwater management fee that, that the task force is currently evaluating that was appointed by the vice mayor. All right. If a, uh, current neighborhood, say, is maintaining and operating their detention pond and they're not, they haven't given an easement or fee simple title to the Irwin County government and they want to turn it over to the Irwin County government to handle, and I think o- many of the neighborhoods will want to do that, because if we do implement the storm drainage tax, they're going to say, "Well, we're paying y'all, uh, the money to handle this" and they want to turn it all over. What are your standards for accepting existing detention ponds, uh, before you would take them on? Do you do an engineering study and make sure they're in good condition and there's no capital improvements required before you would receive them? That would be an... Well, first of all, let me say is that it wouldn't be my recommendation that we do, we take any ponds. It goes back to what I said before. I think that we're taking on a huge liability by taking over ponds. When I say ponds, I mean wet ponds. Mm-hmm. On the detention basins, I don't think that... I think that there is a policy that was approved by the council or endorsed by the council somewhere around 2003 that has criteria that, to go through, but I can't say I've got it committed to memory and I don't have it with me. But there was a, a process that they went through in 2002 or 2003 regarding how certain basins could be transferred over to the government. Well, um, since that w- that ordinance was probably passed before the majority of our council members were elected, I think it would be very appropriate if you could get a copy of that ordinance and maybe provide it to the council members so we can review that. Um, the other, the other thing I was going to ask is that i- if you're... It says no tree should be planted on any dam structure associated with the stormwater control device. Could you touch on, just for the general public, what the reasons for that is? Um, because roots will undermine the structural integrity of a dam and that, uh, that's built to hold water and there, it's, in, when it's full, it has considerable amount of pressure pushing against the side of that dam. Mm-hmm. And so having things planted in it undermines the, the designed structural integrity of it. It's, um, it's a public safety issue. All right. All right, the other, uh, question I have is your, uh, area on commercial and industrial areas, y- you know, you're indicating that, uh, the maintenance and repair of all these devices will be by the owners of the property, uh, yet at the same time, we're proposing a fairly large, uh, stormwater fee because a shopping center, a, a school, an airport, you know, these properties would, or churches, they would discharge a lot of water, uh, into the detention area. My question is that if... Are we planning on offering these entities, if they're maintaining, paying the maintenance and operating these, where there's no cost to the Irwin County government, will they receive some type of a discount on their, their storm fee to offset that? There's 20% credit that's on the table right now, but obviously that's open for discussion and it's part of... I think it's next week, is it not, um, Councilman Gordon? This week, I'm sorry. We've, we've moved into the next week. This week's topic, uh, for the task force has to do with the credit program. All right. So this would be a good week for the people that own churches, schools, shopping centers and all that, maybe to attend the meeting. I know maybe they would have some input on that. Okay, I think that's the main, those are my questions. Thank you very much, Charlie. Thank you. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. C- Charlie, I just want to clarify one thing. Uh, those of us who've been working on stormwater for several years, um, and through our, our work, these are things that we've required people or asked people to do for years. All this does is put it in writing so that now, going forward, we have something to show people what we're asking them to do. Um, in, in regards to the conservation easements that we've talked about too, um, that's what we're going to actually have at their next water resource meeting, that same discussion about how do we get on private property so we can assist people that don't have the money to repair a, a creek bank or have a home that's actually going into a creek that they own. So this is just actually putting teeth into what we've asked people and been trying to enforce for years but haven't been able to because we don't have any language in our code that spells it out. Is that, is that a fair statement? You said it better than I could have. Because this doesn't change anything that what we already asked people to do. ... and we've tried to enforce it, but we really ha-- just hadn't ha-- hadn't had any way to do so. And I think this is just a start. There's m- lot more points to this and a lot more recommendations you'll be bringing forward of changes to our articles in the f- future to comply with the EPA. So this is just the first step a- and actually putting in writing what we've been asking people to do all these years. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I, I agree with what Council Man Stennett said except for one, one point and that is, um, if we codify this, then now all of a sudden we have the ability to enforce it. And I have a situation over on Beeler Park and Bo Bitter where the city wasn't doing its job in the beginning and there's a big easement in between the two backyards. The city would never go out and cut the grass, so the constituents out there, this was before I came on council, finally got together and approached the city and said, "What can we do about this problem? What can we do to mitigate the problem?" The solution was to have the city divide the property and deed it to the property owners. The problem is we've got a storm drainage system going through the middle of that that has never been taken care of. It's ne- never been maintained. But now, where it used to be an easement and the city owned the property and was responsible for it, but never did anything with it, now those property owners own it. So if we codify this, then now those property owners are gonna have to fix that situation. And now we've codified it in a way that suddenly the government has a way to mandate that they fix it. So while I understand that this has to be done and that the policy in the past has been if it's private property that the property owner has to take care of it, there are situations in which we're burdening property owners in a way that we need to have more discussion about before that happens. And so I would move to put this into planning so that we can take a further look at it. Second. Was that Council Member James that seconded the motion? Okay, the motion from Council Member Myers is to refer item D to the Planning Committee. That's correct. A- that was seconded by Council Member James. Is there any discussion on the motion to refer? Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. To the Council Member Myers' point, thi- we're talking about private property. We're not talking about property that LFUG- LFUCG owns, correct, Charlie? Th- this article's talking about changing for private property. This is talking about the, that is private property that we have an easement for. So I think that, that Council Meyers' point is somewhat correct in that, in that, that, you know, really I think the crux of what you said is, is a big part of our enforcement issue. We don't maintain the things that we have. So in this case, if I understood you correctly, we transfer the ownership over to somebody else and said, "Here, you maintain it." Well, you know, in that case, not knowing the details of it, there's nothing that prevents them from transferring back to it, but we can do this, this, this tennis game with the ownership of the property all day, but it doesn't do anything for water quality and it doesn't do anything to maintain it. And, and what we're trying to propose, I think as, as Council Man Stennett mentioned earlier, is, is that we're trying to put in place what we h- what we've, our policy has been all along and codify it, but I as allowing us to be able to be flexible enough to where if there's a way that we can work ag- out with our residential property owners to where we can maintain it or it can be maintained, that's the end game, or otherwise we're gonna get sued again by somebody. Um, but we also have got to be willing to invest the capital necessary to maintain what we're responsible to maintain. S- so once again, this puts into writing not only private property, such as private retention basins, private streams, but also any easements that we have on private property will have to abide by this too. 'Cause we do own retention basins, LFUCG does, that we maintain. Will we have to abide by that too or is that not covered under this change? Well, i- it's, it's certainly my intention that we're going to maintain the stuff that we, that we own and that we're responsible for. And, and the ones we give away via easement, this is what applies to those things as well. Right, right. Exactly. Okay. I mean, it's my intention and that's what I'm trying to propose in the Storm Water Management Fee is that we have a program that we maintain our infrastructure, all the way from that curb inlet that's on the corner of, of your street, all the way down to where it discharges into the waters of the United States. That's what we're supposed to be doing. Well, we gotta be aware of what that is before we can actually determine what that fee is and what offsets and such that, uh, might be involved. But as, as Mr. Stennet said, is that what we started from is, this is what we've been doing for- Right. ... five, six years basically. This is what we have been doing. Um, are, are we, are we ready to go out and start doing heavy-handed enforcement with, with various residents? I don't think we are. I mean, obviously we have to ramp up our enforcement thing, but just to give you somewhat of a preview, I mean, what we're looking at is, is enforcement schedules. We're looking at, uh, a lot of different mechanisms that allows people to return to compliance rather than simply just collecting fines from people. Um, the, the objective is, is returning people to, returning ourselves to compliance, not collecting money. Well, I just wanted to be sure we weren't, um, put into a box here and, uh- No, I, I don't think so. Like I said and, and that's why I wanted to make sure I kind of couched my comments on that, that we're, we're proposing this ordinance because that's what the consent decree requires us to do. And so we've- ... we can say we've met that milestone. Uh, I will ask the, the council to give this careful and, and swift consideration, but deliberate consideration. Because there are others in the queue coming at us. Yes, yes, absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Meyers. Thank you, Mayor. Just quickly, I, I agree with everything that you said, Charlie, and the significance of this is, is that when you talked about transferring back and forth from the property owner to the government, but nothing really happens, that's the signif- significance of this. The reason that the property owners now own that property is because the government didn't take care of it. And so in order to mitigate the grass not being cut, because they didn't l- have the legal right to go cut the grass, it was deeded to the property owners. What I'm hearing you say is that your stormwater mitigation or your stormwater management fee can be used once we determine what this ordinance is gonna really say at the end of the day to mitigate those issues. So what I want to do is make sure that I doesn't get narrowed down to the point that, you know, the first few neighborhoods or whatever get their easements done and turned back over to the city, the stormwater management fee covers those, but the need got to be too great and so those others didn't, th- the city no longer accepts those easements because they don't want to take over that responsibility. And so at that point, everybody else is kind of shut out. So I, I think you're on the right path. The stormwater management fee is what needs to happen to cover these issues and if we'd had that in place four or five years ago, actually it's probably six or seven years ago, then these property owners wouldn't have had to take over that property in order to maintain it. The city would have done it through this fee. That's why I think it's important to put this in the committee and hash those things out before we move forward with it. Thank you. Council Member Fleck. Very quickly, um, I am glad this is going into committee. I think that's the best place for it. But, um, saying that, uh, I have one other question. Aren't there some environmental limitations associated with cleaning out, um, drainage channels in terms of disturbing the environment and habitats and that type thing? I, I've been told that's the case. In certain cases, there will be. I mean, in, in these, these basins, the detention basins, I mean, they were designed basically to be stormwater quantity or flooding type of things. Um, you know, obviously we don't want to go in there and disturb the, um, the embankment or create an erosion problem and all that. Getting into a stream, you're right, is a much, much different- Mm-hmm. ... element of things. Um, we've, we've struggled with that sometimes as far as getting clear answers. What is maintenance if there's a bunch of tree limbs clogging the culvert versus, and just taking those out, versus going in and doing something that's dredging. Uh, we think we've got greater clarity here recently as far as what the fine line of it is, but there's a lot of work that needs to be done. So you are correct. There are environmental considerations if you get into a waters of the commonwealth, I guess. I, I, I would think that that kind of information might be helpful as we consider this ordinance, uh, in, in our planning session. So if we could get some of that information along with this, uh, I would appreciate that. Okay. All right. The question is on the motion to refer item D to the planning committee. Uh, any further discussion? Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. Charlie, uh, once again, as I understand this, what we're, uh, doing here in considering putting this ordinance on the docket is that we would, uh, codify, clarify what is already implicit in our code. I wouldn't say it's implicit in our code as much as it, it is part of the way we conduct our business through policy. Okay. Better, better said. And that, that this is a key, you know, a key step to define the reality of the need to, uh, the need of property owners to, to, to, uh, deal with this stormwater situations on their, on their property. That can then also the question of, of, of the extent to which government can a- assist, should assist, uh, can be and those discussions can be predicated on this, uh, on this piece of legislation. Okay. It's, and it's for that reason that I think we should go forward, uh, with, as Council Member Stennet says, it's already been, uh, you know, part of our process for quite some time and that there is no need to put this in committee. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember James. Thank you, Mayor. Just in response to Councilmember Blues, um, I -- I have -- I've been a councilmember for, um, two years and a month or so, and even I don't necessarily know what all the stormwater control structures are. I don't think our residents know what that term necessarily means. I think there's language here that we need to be clear to identify for our residents that may be impacted, um, by this, and we don't have another opportunity for discussion. Because if this were to move forward right now in the current process, it doesn't -- it just kind of jumps to a first reading, second reading, and maybe even somebody will try to suspend the rules and do second reading at that time. So I think -- I hope that you're -- by your comments, you're supporting the standing committee discussion, um, because I think that will open it up for more folks than would have been able to catch this on GTV3 today, and that are -- we have, um, six people that are sitting in our chairs, maybe nine, and half of them are government employees, or more than half, so I don't know that we're gonna get the conversation today that we need. So, I hope that you are in support of the standing committee and -- and, um, maybe I'm not clear on your comments, but I do hope that you all will support this going to, um, standing committee. Thank you. Councilmember Gordon. Uh, just one final quick comment. I, um -- I tend to agree with both Councilmembers Stennet and Blues. However, I think Councilmember James brought up the good point that we can have full discussion of this in the committee and the planning committee could hear this at its February meeting and so that we wouldn't have to delay it more than from February. All right. I think the question now is on the issue of whether we should refer item D to the planning committee. Uh, those in f- if there's any further discussion, we'll hear that. If not... Here. Councilmember Lane, I'm sorry. Thank you, Mayor. Um, one other benefit of referring it into committee is that I think we should outreach to the neighborhood associations and to the shopping centers, schools, churches, um, anybody that's gonna be im- just about everybody will be impacted because everybody's gonna be paying, so that they could be a little bit more knowledgeable about it. Whether we do it now or later, but I think earlier on is better than later so that we can address any of the issues that may be coming forward. 'Cause I feel like this is a new, uh, fee, and it is gonna be a little bit controversial, and the – the more we talk with the constituents and they understand the program a little bit better... I'm not talking about this ordinance, I'm talking about the stormwater fee. These link in together, uh, is- is the way I see it. Any further discussion? Then those in favor of referring the item to, um, the planning committee, item D to the planning committee, please indicate by voting aye. Those opposed vote nay. Thank you very much. The matter is referred to the planning committee. That takes us back now to the original item on the agenda, which was approval of the new business items. And the question now is on the approval of new business items A through C. Any discussion? Those in favor of approving those new business items, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed no? Motion carries. We're now down to presentations, the first of which is from the planning committee, and Commissioner Bennett, if you'll come on up, uh, we'll be ready to go on the pension fund report. Councilmember Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. The planning committee met on January the 20th, and I appreciate, uh, the confidence of the committee to elect me chair and Councilmember Blues is the vice chair. The first item of business was the electrical inspector fee schedule, which came back to the committee for a second time, and, um, Acting Commissioner Webb and Dewey Crow of Building Inspection, um, helped us with our discussion of this fee schedule. The law department is working on changes to the existing contract, um, and we also heard from purchasing on this item, and it will be kept in committee for further discussion. The second item that was discussed is the Newtown Pike Design Ordinance. Uh, Chris King, Director of Planning, and Andrew Gru- Grunwald, um, gave us a presentation on the Newtown Pike extension commercial design and property access standards. As this Newtown Pike extension goes forward, um, this proposed ordinance would, um, address urban and pedestrian character, building scale, off-street parking, and access management of the Newtown Pike extension. So, the next steps in the project are education and feedback from property owners along that, uh, pathway for the extension, and then a final development- a final ordinance will be developed and reported back to the planning committee. And so, the timeline on this is that Mr. King suspects that by March or April of '09, um, we will have that, uh, final ordinance to, uh, consider. And then the last item which was discussed in planning committee was the land bank. ... for, and the abandoned delinquent property tax rate -- tax ordinance. Um, as the land bank program, according to Kentucky Revised Statute goes forward, um, there has to be an inter-local agreement between the L- among the LFUCG, the school system, and the state. And so this is the first step which is being acted upon for the, um, the ordinance, and there was discussion about bringing the inter-local agreement directly back to the planning committee. The planning committee did not feel that it wanted to slow the progress of this, because, um, they're very close to having the inter-local agreement signed and agreed upon. So the, uh, motion, uh, which the committee approved was to ask the law department to bring the inter-local agreement directly back to the blue sheet process, rather than to the planning committee. And I will simply put that forward as a motion so that everybody agrees we should bring it directly to the full council. Is there a second? Council member Beard has seconded Council member Gordon's motion. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Oppose, no? Motion carries. And that completes my report. Thank you. Turn the, uh, podium over to Commissioner Tim Bennett, who's here to give us an update on the police and fire pension fund. Commissioner Bennett. Thank you, Mayor. Excuse me. I'd like to give you a very brief update, uh, this afternoon on, on the activities that have been going on over the last several months with respect to the, um, unfunded liability in the Police Officers and Fire Fighters Retirement Fund. As most of you probably know, some of the new ones may not, uh, the f- the most recent actuarial report, which was June 30th of '08, um, estimated that the fund had an unfunded liability of roughly 250 million, 246 million dollars. We, over the last several months, have been trying to devise a plan to most effectively deal with that, to most, uh, to, to get the fund funded as quickly as possible, and as inexpensively for the taxpayers as possible. Two, uh, kind of parallel tracks have been going on. We've been working on, on a plan internally, as well as a task force that the vice-mayor appointed, uh, last fall has been working, um, kind of in, in parallel with us. The mayor has made a proposal to the task force that a- attacks the problem on both fronts. Both funding the past service liability, the, uh, the unfunded liability as exists today, as well as looking into the future and trying to make sure that the fund and the government don't get in the same shape again, 10, 15, 20 years down the road. In a nutshell, um, th- the plan would be to begin funding the unfunded liability through a series of bond issues. You may recall last spring, as part of the budget, um, recommendation, the mayor proposed in this current fiscal year, that we would issue approximately 70 million dollars in bonds. Uh, deposit the bond proceeds into the pension fund in an effort to begin eating away at that unfunded liability, substantially eating away at the unfunded liability. Then over the subs- the next five to six years, we would issue a, an additional series of bond issues each year, uh, until we fully fund the fund over that period of time and at the end of that period of time, the fund would be whole. We would c- have to continue to make our normal contributions going forward, but we wouldn't have to make any mortgage payments, if you will. Uh, we would ha- uh, so the fund would be whole. The government however would have to continue over the next period of years, uh, depending on how we structure the bonds, 15, 20, 30 year period, to make debt service payment on those bonds. The alternative that has received much discussion and, um, was voted on at the November Pension Board, uh, meeting, was that we could just contribute over the next 23 years, 46% of salaries. Now the upshot of that is it take, would take 23 years to fully fund the fund. The other piece of that is, it's substantially more expensive to fund the fund that way, because even though you're contributing a flat percentage rate, 46%, as salaries go up, your 46 is appli- 46% is applied to a higher base, and your contribution to the fund is gonna go up each year. As oppose to the bond issues which give you a level pavement over the, the life of the bonds, very similar to your home mortgage. You have a flat rate, you pay the same dollar amount each year. That's, that's dealing with the unfunded liability piece of it. Looking forward, what the mayor has recommended is that we adopt, for our new hires only, both in police and fire, sworn personnel, retirement benefits equivalent to, uh, or that mirror, is the term, uh, the mayors use. That mirror the benefits in the county employees retirement system for hazardous duty personnel. Effectively having the same benefit levels, same benefit structure as all other police officers and firefighters in the- all other police officers and firefighters in the state. As well as what we have for our own corrections personnel here in Fayette County. They're currently part of the CERS system. Uh, so that, that gets us on an even playing field in terms of recruiting talent moving forward. Um, it gets us a, a stable level of benefits moving forward that we think is sustainable, um, as we look to the budget challenges that we're gonna have in the coming years. So two, two very simple pieces. Um, i- it's a complex issue making them fit together, but conceptually it's fairly simple. Borrow money, go ahead and pay off the, the unfunded liability now, change the benefit structure for the new hires moving forward, uh, so that it becomes a more sustainable obligation for the government. Key component is, and, and let me repeat, new hires only. No proposal to make any change in benefits for existing retirees or for existing employees when they retire. So we, we would hold those folks harmless. Um, mayor's recommendation has been made to the task force. The task force has not concluded its work yet. Uh, the next meeting is next Wednesday, a week from tomorrow, uh, and I would anticipate an effort to try to wrap up those deliberations at that time, because we're coming up into the 2009 General Assembly session, which starts next week. Uh, it's a short session, so it's gonna t- it's gonna take some work to, to get anything through that, that we can reach agreement on. Uh, but I think it's important that we go ahead and deal with both of these issues simultaneously, to the extent that we have the ability to do that. Um, a lot of information in a very short period of time, and I understand that, and I'll be glad to follow up with, with each of you individually, as you like, show you some of the calculations, show you the, the, the plan on paper. Uh, but just wanted to give you a very quick update today. Be glad to answer any questions you may have. Um, one other, other piece of information I'll add. Not only has the mayor made his proposal to the task force, but he's also had a series of meetings with both police and fire, uh, personnel, had explained it to them, answered their questions too. So, uh, w- we've gone, um, to some, some extra lengths from what we might otherwise have gone, to try to get the message out, to try to, to help people understand what is being proposed, as importantly as what we're not proposing. So... All right, Council Member Lane. Uh, thank you, Mayor. Uh, commissioner- Yes, sir. ... um, do we have a- a- any kind of a go-ahead from the pension, the Police and Firefighters Pension Fund, that they are in agreement with this plan, so that they would be supportive of any legislation that would be going into Frankfurt for approval? The board clarified its expectations at its January meeting, uh, the meeting a couple weeks ago, um, and in- indicated that ex- its expectation was that we would contribute the amount we otherwise would be obligated to contribute this year, but that that contribution could be made either with bond proceeds or with a direct general fund appropriation, or a combination of the two. So as long as the contribution is made, uh, th- the pension fund, pension board members, at this point, are not concerned with the origin of the funds as long as, as they are deposited, um, into the fund, as we're required to do. W- well, m- my, my question pretty much so... Don't we have to rely on a state statute to- Yes, sir. ... modify the benefits and the new, to, you know, match up with the county employees' retirement- Yes. Yes, we would. ... fund? And do we have the support of the Police and Firefighters Pension Fund Board supporting that position, so when we go to Frankfurt, we would have our delegation, uh, from the area and, and representatives from the government and representatives from the pension board, that would be supporting that position, so that we could get this approved by s- you know, by the General Assembly? The board, to this point, has not taken a position on the proposal to change benefit for the new hires. And, and frankly, I'm not sure that that is a position the board needs to take. The board's responsibilities are to administer the fund, administer the funds in the fund, um, according to the benefits the statute provides. So it, it's really not the board's role, necessarily- Mm-hmm. ... uh, to propose or support a benefit change. Now, o- one thing we have been trying to gain is the support of the rank and file police officers and firefighters. Mm-hmm. And tha- that's the reason we've made the effort to go to several of the roll calls. Uh, for police, we've had several sessions at the fire training center that we televised on our internal cable system, uh, so the folks at the station could hear it. Uh, we've been to FOP meetings, we've been to retirees association meetings. So we've tried everything we could to, to get the word out, to help them understand what we're proposing, uh, and, and to also help them understand the wisdom, in, in our opinion at least, of what we're proposing. So yes, the effort is to, to, to get some broad support for this. All right. Well, I mean, I, I think we have a very serious issue in taking care of the, the funding. I think the mayor's plan is good to use the bonding approach, and that would allow us to catch that up, and I think we need to, you know, go to the current statewide benefits program so that it would be comparable with every other police and firefighter organization in the state, and they would be financially, uh, reasonable as a longterm burden on the s- taxpayers to- Yes, sir. ... cover that benefit, so I would be supportive. Uh, thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Beard? Thank you, Mayor. Um... Commissioner, a- as I remember, there was a, a short comment made by Commissioner Cole concerning the unfunded liability for medical insurance. Do we have to address that or is that... Is, is that being addressed, or what are we... W- what are we doing about that? She may want to address this and she may not, but the... Currently, we have to disclose that unfunded liability on our financial statements. There is no obligation to pre-fund it. We're currently under a statutory obligation to pre-fund the pension benefits side of the, of the house, but there is no statutory obligation to pre-fund the health insurance benefits. We can continue to address those, at least in the near term, uh, on a pay-as-you-go basis, as we have been. So, with medical costs rising at 10 to 12% a year, this sounds like maybe more of a, a liability to the city, uh, uh, than the original pe- pension fund, or it could outstrip the, that number. And I... She threw a number out of 170, 80 million- Yeah, roughly 180 million is what the actuary has, has estimated. So, we are behind the eight ball already. Th- the prefunding d- doesn't n- necessarily take care of anything, does it? I mean, we don't know when the trigger's gonna be pulled and we're gonna be required t- to start paying for, uh, uh, m- medical care of one form or another. We're already paying for medical care- Well, I know we are. ... for the, for the retirees. Yes. But again, we're, we're, at this point, we are able to do that as, as we have in the past years, on a pay-as-you-go basis. Whatever the obligation is this year, we pay it this year for the benefits for the retirees. There's no obliga- unlike the pensions, the pension side, there's no obligation that we prefund those, uh, benefits for future years. But would it be prudent to do so or to, uh, start addressing, uh, the liability at some point? I, I think it would, I think it would be prudent to at least investigate it, and I, and Commissioner Coe is doing that as we speak. Uh, we have, we have had some sessions looking at some alternatives that we might be able to employ, uh, to begin addressing that. 'Cause when you add that to the 258 million or whatever and take into consideration the fact that those numbers I assume are a- as of June 30th. Mm-hmm. And everybody knows what's happened to the stock market since then. Uh, that aggregate number could be huge. Much huger than we've been talking about. That's correct. But again, I would cau- Well, I just wa- I don't wanna leave everybody with that good news. Yeah. Uh. Even though, even though there have been obviously declines in the stock market and asset values in the fund, I would caution you though that, that even the actuary is taking a long-term look at the fund. Um, he's not necessarily measuring what's happened in the last six months. He's trying to project, project what's gonna happen over the next 20 to 23 years. So, you know, projections are, yeah, losses this year, recoveries in future years, so that on average, um, we can meet the, the projections over the next 20, 23 years. Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Commissioner Bennett- Ma'am. ... I was just wondering, uh, y- you threw out a lot of different numbers and statistics and y- obviously it's a very complicated subject, and normally we get a, um, copy of the presentation, and I know it wasn't very formal, but is there any way that we could get a copy o- of what you're proposing so that we can have it in front of us while we're looking through it? Particularly, I know in the area of new hires, um, their disability changing and all their- Mm-hmm. ... benefits and everything. I know that that's quite a significant change and I'd like to be able to look at that a little bit- Sure. ... more in depth. So. Be glad to. The goal really today was kinda give you an update on what the mayor had proposed, uh, again, remembering that the task force has not completed its work, so we didn't wanna really get crossways of that. Uh, but at least- And I've probably heard it three different times and still can't remember it. Sure. So I, I actually attended, I think, the, uh, uh, pension meeting- Mm-hmm. ... Pension Fund meeting and everything and I... it's just a lot of information. So if we could- Right. ... possibly get a copy, that would be great. Sure. Thank you. Be glad to. Council Member Stennet. Council Member Stennet. Thank you, Mayor. Just to have one, one clarification. Can you give us, um, the, uh, written proposal of, of everything you mentioned here to all the council members, kind of an outline? Yes. About the CR, and also, y- with that, the disability definition. Yes. About what we're talking about there. Yes. Because I don't think you've mentioned that, uh, in terms of what we're looking at on that definition. There, there really is not a whole lot of difference between our definition of disability and the CERS definition of disability. There is a substantial difference in the calculation of the amount of the benefit. Uh, but yeah, I'll get it for, I'll be glad to get you that information. But, but, aren't, aren't we also, uh, uh, then you also propose to the pension board or the pension task force to change that definition? The proposal would be to change, to, to use the CERS definition for the new hires. Yes. So can you give us that- Yes. ... what that, what that new definition. Yes. Thank you. Yes. Any further questions for Commissioner Bennett? All right. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Uh, is this for council report? All right. Uh, Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Um, two items. The first is many of, uh, the folks in government know Melinda Milburn, who works in the council office, and I just wanted to publicly congratulate her. She ran the, uh, Phoenix Marathon on January the 18th, and she, uh, made a personal best. She ran it in four hours and 23 minutes, which is awesome. Um, for those of us who don't run, I don't know how long it would take us, but that's, that's really good, and I wanted to congratulate her. And then the second item is the Storm Water Fee Task Force. Uh, we met January 22nd, and we had a very extensive discussion of the costs and expenses which are projected for the, uh, to be covered by the storm water fees. And, um, I wanna thank, uh, Charlie Martin and Commissioner Taylor who did a lot of preparation for that meeting. Um, I wanna thank Council Member Feigl who has attended, I think, maybe all but one of our task force meetings. Even though you're not on the task force, thank you very much. Council members, I'd like to invite each of you, um, to the next tax, task force meeting. It's on the 29th, which is this Thursday. It is from 2:00 to 4:00 PM in the central library in the basement, and the total time will be dedicated to discussing the credit program. And I have been including all council members on packets of information. I think i- if any of you can attend and hear the discussion, we have wonderful discussion that's full-blown opportunity to ask questions, and I would welcome all of you to attend on Thursday. I don't know if... Kev-- Kevin, you've been a big, uh, support on this and are on the task force, and if you had a comment on the task force also. Well, I, I just wanna say, you know, and re-emphasize what you just said, invite all the council members to show up and come and take an active role, whether or not you can actually be there in person and reading the minutes and summary, because, um, this issue's gonna come to us here as a group in this room very soon, and a lot of us have put in a lot of time and a lot of work into knowing this issue and understanding the ins and outs. I know Council Member James asked some great questions that a- all of us are gonna have to follow up on on the task force. We're down one council member with Council Member Blevins, um, no longer being a, a council member obviously. So, um, I appreciated the discussion earlier, the 40 minutes we took to discuss item D today, but hopefully we can bring that enthusiasm to this task force and get this thing wrapped up because, again, uh, I know the mayor did his State of the Merge Government address today, and we're all hopeful there in Budget and Finance Committee that we're gonna balance this year's budget. But if we don't get something in place by the first, uh, of the fourth quarter of '09 fiscal year, we're gonna be a million dollars in the hole by the time we get to the end of the year. So, that's not something we all wanna just show up at the doorstep and have to face. We need to... if we're not gonna get a fee passed before then, we need to start making other adjustments in government. I'm not advocating we have to by then, but we sh- we really need to keep within that timeframe, uh, and get our work done. And so, I... it would be very helpful if everyone would... could show up or stay on top of this task, uh, of the task force in trying to get this fee ironed out and all the details. Thank you. So January 29th, two o'clock to four o'clock, central library basement. Thank you, Mayor. Thanks. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Council Member Gordon, if I can ask a question real quick of that... of your report out about the stormwater fee. Uh, a few of the citizens that attend have asked, um, at what point, and maybe you've covered this and we've missed it, a public hearing or public input. The meetings are open to the public, and I believe at... towards the end, there's given opportunity for kind of public comment, but they've really asked for kind of a... which I think is a good idea, just a public hearing or comment on what people think about everything related to stormwater. Um, do you have anything like that proposed in the agenda? Well, um, thank you for bringing this up. Um, yes, we do... we do, first of all, have a time at the end of every meeting when public questions are taken. And we've had, I think, really good participation from the public. At some of the meetings, we've had 65, 70 people, which is rare for a task force. Uh, that's why we're meeting in a large venue. We have, uh, thanks to our IT and computer folks, we've got all of the agendas and summaries on our website, and you can go on there and access that. And I think that, uh, we will certainly have a public meeting where we hear from the public. In fact, I... you know, since this does involve a proposed fee, um, I don't ever remember a time when we have, um, had a fee come forward that we have not had a public meeting. So, that would be my intention, that we do that. Okay, great. I just let... I told those folks that I would mention that and- ... this was probably a good venue since others watching may be- Sorry. ... concerned as well. Um, I do move to, um, approve the Neighborhood Development, um, Fund list. Second. Thank you. Council Member James has moved to approve the NDF. Council Member Gordon has seconded. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no? The motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. And I also would like to, um, let council members and other government staff know that, um, if you're not familiar with our Waste Buster program, um, it is coming to, um, LFUCG is gonna have to be a little bit accountable. Um, very soon, on Wednesday, February the 18th, there will be a waste audit conducted at our own recycling center, and that will be accessing the waste from several, um, city buildings, including, um, this building, the Government Center, the Phoenix Building, the Correctional Facility, the Parks and Rec Facility, and some police and fire facilities. Um, uh, we have our own... we have an LFUCG Green Team that is kind of doing this, um, how can we be green. You probably read about it in Employee Extra. And so, with, with, um, Bluegrass Pride and LFUCG's Green Team, they're gonna go through this waste audit and, um, in hopes that we can become part of the Waste Buster program. Um, so, just... this will just kind of give us a, a glimpse of how well LFUC... well, hopefully, I hope is the good, um, way to describe it, how well we're doing with our current recycling methods and where there's room for improvement and to try to tackle that. So, I will be happy to report out to you all the result- results of that, and I'm sure you will be hearing of some changes or seeing some changes around the Government Center and the other buildings that I listed, um, based on that audit. So look for that. Thank you, Mayor. These waste studies are periodically referred to as dumpster dives, and if you haven't had the opportunity to participate in one, it is a... an interesting experience. So, I wa- I would encourage you to participate if at all possible. Thanks, Council Member James. Council Member Stennet. Thank you, Mayor. I first wanna congratulate yourself on the third of your, uh, four upcoming State of the Merge Government addresses. Uh, we appreciate the comments a- about the council, uh, today, and uh, look forward to our retreat on Friday and making work, uh, of what you outline going forward. So, thank you for your address today. Uh, also, wanna, uh, put out there, Mayor, if we could... I don't know if, um... I don't see Mike Webb here, but we're getting several calls and emails into our individual offices about particular streets, can we go ice it? Are you, uh, gonna be doing an update this evening about the weather and, uh, the... how we're gonna be tackling these, uh, neighborhood streets? 'Cause some people are having difficulty getting in and out of their neighborhoods, via some hills. I know we're hitting the main arteries hard, but, uh, there's some individual streets people are starting to request we salt that we haven't salted yet. Are we gonna announce anything on that? Let me try to answer in a general way, and then we'll talk about the specifics. Um, as I'm sure everybody on the council knows, we have a snow removal plan that prioritizes our streets. Generally speaking, we try to get all the priority one streets plowed and salted, then we move to the priority two streets, then to priority three and so forth. If, however, we get into a situation as we were this morning, where we might plow the priority ones and be working on priority twos, and all of a sudden we get hit with additional sleet, ice, snow, whatever, we'll go back and start working the priority ones again to make sure we have those cleared. Therefore, um, we're trying to work through the streets on, on the bases that are outlined in the snow removal plan, and that's on the website in case you have constituents that want to take a look at it, then go to Lexington ky.gov and should be able to locate it. Um, to the degree there is a hill or, um, some other area that is creating an abnormal problem, then I would encourage all of you to, uh, let Commissioner Webb know and, and we'll get the folks in Streets and Roads to try to address that as promptly as possible. Thank you, Mayor. Again, I just want to reiterate to people watching that, uh, even though we are trying to get to priority three and four streets, now we're having to circle back to priority one this evening because the weather once again will be changing. And it's not that we're forgetting anybody, it's just that we're having to hit the main arteries and going back again and again. So thank you for that update, Mayor. And one last thing I have is our sixth district annual president's meeting tonight has been canceled. Mayor, thank you for offering to be there, but we'll reschedule for the 23rd of February and we'll get the details of that ironed out. Thank you. Thanks. Council Member Blues. Thank you. Mayor. I just have a, a couple of, uh, neighborhood association meetings coming up to, uh, to announce on Monday, February 2nd at 6:00 PM the Georgetown Street Neighborhood Association will hold its monthly meeting in the ... Center in Douglas Park. Uh, several important issues and updates at that meeting, so I encourage the, uh, the neighborhood to, uh, uh, to come out and to, and to participate. And we appreciate at the last meeting, the mayor being there with several of, of his team, and that was very helpful to the, to the neighborhood. Thank you. Uh, and same evening, Monday, November 2nd , let me, uh, update that. Monday, February 2 at, at 7:00 PM the Green Acres Neighborhood Association will hold its monthly meeting in the community center in Green Acres Park on LaSalle Road. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you. Mayor. The mayor had a task force that looked at Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and they've come back with a report and I met with them and we thought the best way to bring it to the council, especially the new council members, and I sent an email to everybody, was to have a workshop. And we, we have tentatively scheduled, um, for February 10th at 5:00. And I, I, I heard back from a few council members and I didn't hear any that couldn't be there, so I'm gonna make a motion at this point that we have a workshop on February 10th at 5:00 in the fifth floor. Second. Council Member Ellinger has moved that we schedule a workshop on February 10th at 5:00 PM for purposes of dealing with Affordable Housing Task Force, uh, Report. Any discussion? All in favor please say aye. Aye. Oppose no? Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member McCord. Thank you. Mayor. Just very quickly, I wanted to thank those, uh, those folks who work in our Streets and Roads division, uh, for the work that they've been doing, uh, all day today, and I'm sure all night tonight. Uh, their work is very much appreciated. Uh, the oth- other thing I'd like to mention is, is that on Thursday and Friday of this week, again, we've got, uh, the folks from Columbus, uh, the Columbus Downtown Planning Commission coming in to, to Lexington to talk to us a little bit about how they do, uh, planning decisions in their downtown. I would encourage my colleagues to, uh, schedule time with Renee Jackson on Thursday and Friday with these folks, uh, as we move forward in, in so- making some of our decisions for downtown. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you. Mayor. I, um, first I wanted to say that I appreciate the work the Stormwater Task Force is doing. I, uh, I have been reading the minutes thoroughly and, um, and I know, uh, from what I've read you're doing a fantastic job, so thank, um, taking your time and covering all the bases, so I appreciate the work you're doing and I would like to come to the meetings, but un- I'm unable to. Um, there is a Cardinal Valley neighborhood meeting next Tuesday the third at 7:00. They sent out their newsletters and there was an error. Um, I believe that it said it was on February the 5th, but it's actually February the 3rd. So, um, thank you Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Feigl. Um, just, uh, wanted to let you know that the meeting that had been scheduled for last night with the Chevy Chase Neighborhood Association, excuse me, the Chevy Chase Merchants Association regarding the parking authority was canceled because of weather and is rescheduled for, um, February 3rd. And it says 6:00 at Buddy's in Chevy Chase. Thank you. Does any other council member wish to report? Well, let me, um, l- let me just say a couple things. First of all, our, uh, police officers and our folks in Streets and Roads is, as Council Member McCord mentioned a moment ago, have been working very diligently. And I am, uh, very grateful for their efforts. I heard one story that I wanted to relay to the members of the council, because I think it speaks volume to the level of dedication of the folks in Streets and Roads. Uh, as you know, we had a little dusting of snow yesterday morning, and, um, we had planned on starting our 12-hour shifts yesterday morning at 8:00. Well, at 4:00 in the morning, a number of, uh, folks from Streets and Roads were calling in to see whether or not they needed to come in early to deal with the, the light snowfall that we had. And I thought that spoke a lot about their level of, um, commitment to their job, and I'm very appreciative of that. They've been working hard. Unfortunately, we've got about a 30... We're in the middle of a 30-hour period of precipitation here, and, um, will keep them pretty well occupied tonight and into tomorrow, but, uh, they've done a great job so far, and I'm, I'm appreciative of their efforts. And our police department has been out working hard. I see Commander Henderson back here. Uh, please express my appreciation to everybody there, because, um, uh, their work doesn't stop when it starts raining or snowing or sleeting or having freezing rain, and, and we're very grateful for, uh, the work that all of our police officers have done. Now, finally, let me, um, uh, let me respond to something Council Member Stennet said a moment ago. I, I feel very strongly about what I said about the 17th council today and at the swearing-in. Those of you who were involved, uh, in 2007 and 2008 got an enormous amount accomplished for our community, and I am very grateful for your cooperation. I really believe that, um, one of the reasons for our success was the fact we took some time in January of 2007, and, uh, talked a little bit about some things we wanted to work on together. And as you know, we've... We're scheduled to do that again this Friday. Uh, we have reserved some space at the, uh, um, ballroom at the Tates Creek Country... The clubhouse at Tates Creek Golf Course, so it'll be here in town. It will be a, um, um, low-cost operation by design, so, um, I hope all of you will be able to participate. It will be, uh, a good time to kind of exchange some ideas, and I, I hope to see you there on Friday. Hopefully, uh, we'll start at 9:00 and finish by 3:00. That's the game plan. Maybe a little earlier if we, if we're able to move along a little faster, but thanks for your cooperation again. That's good. That's all I have. Is there anyone who wishes to address the council on issues not on the agenda? We're open for public comment. I see none. Could we have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Have a motion by Council Member Beard, a second by Council Member Stennet to adjourn. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Oppose, no. Motion carries. Thank you.