Let's go ahead and call the, uh, meeting to order, if we could please. Yep. Madam Clerk, will you call the roll? Mr. McCord? Here. Mr. Meyers? Here. Mr. Stennet? Here. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard? Present. Mr. Blues? Here. Ms. Crosby? Oh. Mr. Alengar? Here. Miss Vigel? Let's hear it. Miss. Gorton? Here. Mr. Gray? Here. Miss Henson? Here. Miss James? Here. Mr. Lane? Here. Miss Lawless? Here. And Mr. Martin? Here. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have a quorum. Uh, due to last-minute cancellation by our minister this evening, ask, uh, Deacon Artie Green to step in tonight. Artie? Let us pray. Heavenly Father, we thank you for allowing us this opportunity to be about the people's business. We ask thy forgiveness and mercy upon us, as we are, uh, falling short of the things that you would have us do. But we pray that you give us strength and guidance, that we may continue to keep in focus the things that our citizens would need. And, and help each council member and councilwoman here, bless their homes, and bless our effort here tonight. In the name of Christ Jesus, we thank you and pray. Amen. Thank you. Like Ms. Gill, if you would, to step up to the podium with me here, for just a moment. Wow. Oh, thank you for having me. It is my pleasure tonight to, uh, present to you someone I consider to be a very special member of our, uh, community. This is a person who's been a teacher for 18 years, although I know that looks, uh, hard to believe. 16 of them have been at Henry Clay High School. This is Karen Gill, and during her career, she has shared her knowledge and love of science, particularly physics, with high school students, hundreds of high school students at Henry Clay. And through that, she has, uh, contributed significantly to our community and particularly to the economic development of our community as we prepare our young folks for, uh, further studies and, and, uh, science. Karen and her husband, uh, Scott, who also teaches science, in his case, at Teaks Creek High School, have, uh, been terrific members of the Fayette County Public Schools faculty. But, uh, Karen has recently received a very special recognition, and I wanna read to you a, a little commemoration I've prepared. Whereas, Karen Gill, a physics teacher at Henry Clay High School, was named the 2009 Kentucky Teacher of the Year by Ashland, Inc. and the Kentucky Department of Education, and will represent Kentucky in the 2009 National Teacher of the Year competition. And whereas, the intensive process used to select the Kentucky Teacher of the Year includes submission of an application, evaluation of classroom teaching, and oral interview with candidates ranked on creativity, originality, communication skills, education, contributions, accomplishments, professional development, and community involvement. ... and whereas Ms. Gill earned two bachelor's degrees at Transylvania University, a master's degree at the University of Kentucky, and rank one certification at Georgetown College, and whereas Ms. Gill has taught physics and other science courses for 18 years, including 16 years at Henry Clay High School, and whereas Ms. Gill is a physics teacher research agent, national board certification candidate and mentor, chair of the Henry Clay Pathways Committee, and a presenter at modeling instruction program workshops, and whereas Ms. Gill is the recipient of various honors, including an Engaging Kids to Learn grant, a Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching, an Ashland Teacher Achievement Award, and two Fayette County Merit of Excellence Awards, now therefore, I, Jim Newberry, mayor of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County government, on behalf of all Fayette Countians, commemorate the accomplishments of Karen Gill and recognize the significant impact she's had on the lives of hundreds of students and through them, upon our entire community in 18 years of teaching. Congratulations on that. Thanks. I'm not sure what to do. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, everyone. Well, I have to say, um, they name the teacher of the year in October, so I've had this honor since October, and I still have not gotten used to it at all. Um, I think it's difficult for a lot of teachers. We're around so many people. Um, the mayor said my husband is also a teacher, so I see firsthand how hard so many teachers work. Um, so many teachers go above and beyond the call of duty. We're not really sure what the call of duty is. It's everything, so... um, but to see so many people work so hard, it's hard to accept any special e- recognition for what I do, um, except that I realize the point of naming a Teacher of the Year is not really to say this is the best teacher, because I think we all know that any teacher who works with students and gets through to students is really the best teacher. But it's to name someone to promote education and to promote teaching, so I've been honored to have the chance to do that for the past few months. Um, I just want to say, I know that you all know how important education is. Um, part of the Teacher of the Year ceremonies, I got to go to Washington, DC last week. I got to meet the President. I got to meet the First Lady. Did not get to see the dog. They did not have the dog. Um, but it was quite an honor, and the President assured us that he believes in education, that he feels that education is important. Um, I just want to say that we want to make sure that our actions reflect that belief, that we do believe in education, and we believe how important it is. Um, education is the best hope we have for dealing with the complexities of an ever-changing world. We want to save the future one child at a time. We want to make sure that all of our children receive an education in which they are challenged, and that they are achieving at the highest of their ability. We want to save all of our children, but we want to make sure that those children have high levels of skills and abilities, not just to lead a happy life, but ultimately so that they are able to save the world. And if you think about the state of the world, you know, there's lots of things that need savings, and we need these children not just to be okay with themselves, but to be able to do real things and make a real difference. Um, every day, teachers work incredibly hard, sometimes in very frustrating conditions, to give students a better future, to give us all a better future. Teaching is a very important job, but I want to say to anyone who's ever tried to teach, there is no perfect way of teaching. Um, I know I am certainly far from perfect. My husband may be perfect. I won't claim for him. Um, every teacher, no matter who they are, struggles with trying to reach every student. Every one of us knows there's always something we could do differently. There's always something we could do better. There's always something that someone could ask more of us to do. Um, we just try not to get discouraged. We keep trying, we keep learning, and we keep doing what we think is best for our students. Teaching is very complex and very demanding, and while there is no perfect way of teaching, there are many ways to do it well. So lots of different personality types can be excellent teachers. Um, students depend on their teachers to create a strong, nurturing learning environment, but teachers depend on everyone else. If class sizes are too large, if teachers are overwhelmed by paperwork or extra duties, if they can't give enough time and attention to their students, if they don't get the training that they need, if they're forced to switch into survival mode, then teaching is not the fulfilling career that it should be, and when that happens, our students lose our best and our most caring teachers. So please, just everyone do whatever you can to make sure our students have the best learning conditions, which means our teachers need to have the best working conditions. Um, I also want to encourage everyone, um, to nominate a teacher for the Kentucky Teacher of the Year. It is a rather daunting process once you're nominated, but I was so thrilled to be nominated that I would do whatever they asked me to do after that. I didn't want to let down whoever had nominated me. So if you go to the Kentucky Department of Education website, you can nominate a teacher and really make that teacher's day. Um, and finally, I want to say that after talking to teachers across the country, I have been so impressed by what we're doing here in Lexington. Um, we are really on the forefront of education. We're doing a lot of really good things. We are really among the best in the nation. Our schools are full of opportunities for students, but we have to make sure that our students take advantage of those opportunities. We have to make sure students understand that the chance to get a strong education is an amazing gift. The more they learn, the better they understand how to learn, and the more options they will have for their lives. ... um, "My mother always told me that your education is the one thing that no one can take away from you." So that just shows that children really do listen to their parents. So if we'll keep telling them that, it gets in there whether we think that it is or not. And I thank you very much. Congratulations. ... Sure. Where do you want this? Head injuries could take your education away from you. Well, not the degree though. Thank you all. Um, I don't think we can ever say thanks enough to our local school teachers and for all the contributions they make to our community. Uh, Scott and Karen are two wonderful examples of, of that and we very much appreciate your alls being here and congratulations again. Having said all that, Ms. Clerk, if you will proceed with reading of ordinances entitled Second Reading. Ordinance number one. An ordinance changing the zone from a two family bit residential R2 zone to a downtown center business B2B zone for 0.4789 net, 0.5895859 gross acre. And from a high density apartment R4 zone to a down cent- downtown center business B2B zone for 0.9066 net, 0.9846 gross acre for property located at 200 West High Street, a portion of 318 South Mill Street and 323 and 327 South Upper Street. Subject to certain use restrictions imposes conditions of granting the zone change. Trustee of the First United Methodist Church of Lexington, Kentucky. Number two. An ordinance submitting articles 17-8, 23A, 27, and 28 of the zoning ordinance to expand the allowable signage in and near downtown and some mixed use zones and to relocate all assigned regulations to article 17. Number three. An ordinance amending articles 1-5 and 4-7D9C of the land subdivision regulations for waivers regarding infill and redevelopment and sidewalks and to update the subdivision plan and procedure listing. Number four. A w- an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the Kentucky Department of Education, Division of School and Community Nutrition to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application and to accept this grant if the application is approved which grant funds are in the amount of $147,210 federal funds are for the 2009 Summer Food Service Program, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Urban County Government for the expenditure of funds appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 130 and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number five. An ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a donation from the School for the Creative and Performing Arts in the amount of $350 for the ReForest the Bluegrass Project in appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 131. Number six. An ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a donation from Kentucky American Water Company in the amount of $3,933.25 for the ReForest the Bluegrass Project in appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 132. Number seven. A, an ordinance res- amending certain of the budgets of the Lexafed Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for funds in the amount of $775 for the Division of Historic Preservation from Neighborhood Development Funds for historic preservation week activities and appropriating and reappropriating funds schedule number 133. Number eight. An ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet which grant funds are in the amount of $301,664 FHWA planning and $40,000 Federal Transit Administration Section 5303 federal funds are for the Division of Planning Unified Work Program FY 2010 the acceptance of which obligates the Urban County Government for the expenditure of $56,562 FHWA planning and $10,000 Federal Transit Administration as a local match subject to sufficient funds being appropriated in FY 2010 and appropriating funds pursuant to FY 2010 schedule number four and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. There's a motion- Excuse me, Madam Clerk. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Ma'am. Um, I would like to move that ordinance number nine on the docket for second reading concerning budget amendments schedule number 134 be amended to remove budget journal number 32490 in the amount of $7,100. Traffic engineering no longer has sufficient funds to cover this change as proposed. Amendment is not a material change and the ordinance as amended may be given a second reading. Do I hear a second? Second. Have a motion and second to amend item number nine as specified. Any discussion? Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Beard, did you say they no longer have the money available? Yes, that's what I was told, yes. If we had appropriated money, I'm trying to... Mayor, do you, do you know, does anyone from the administration, can they explain a little bit further 'cause if we- Sure. If they had budgeted money, I'm trying to figure out where the money went. Either Mr. O'Meara or Mr. Webb, I expect, can come up and shed a little light on it. Hi, Mr. Mayor. Good evening. Um, are you familiar with this motion? Not at all. Okay. You didn't look like you were. Um, well, I just think we need some further explanation if we've appropriated funds for something and then we're saying we're gonna pull it because we don't have the money anymore. I just think we need a little bit more information on that. I, I don't disagree. I'm starting from ground zero and I will work very hard to get further along the food chain to get an answer for you. Okay, thank you. Councilman River, who gave you that motion? Mr. Green. Okay. RD, do you have information on that? Okay. Commissioner Webb, are you familiar with this particular situation? Mayor, I'm, I'm not pre- I am not- Okay. ... prepared to answer it right now. Um, you raise a valid point. My impression from the motion was that we were asking to amend their budget in a fashion that they didn't have sufficient amount of money in their, their account to warrant that change, but I think we need to, uh, postpone that item until such time as we got somebody here who can answer it. So, um, I would entertain a motion to table item number nine. Th- that would be fine. I would so move. Any dis- Well, if no discussion on the motion to table, all in favor of tabling item number nine, let it be known by saying I. I. Oppose, no? Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I think council, Councilmember Ellinger seconded the motion. Yeah. Can we hear back, um- Sure. ... before the next work session on that? Well, I imagine at the next work session we'll have somebody, um, present to discuss that. Thank you. Madam Clerk. So number nine is going to just remain on the docket for second reading? I think probably that's- The mot- Okay. All right. Number 10, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fayette, Irvin County Government to reflect current requirements in the council office for funds in the amount of $2,125 from neighborhood development funds for the senior intern program and appropriating and reappropriating funds scheduled number 135. Number 11, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, which grant funds are in the amount of $348,000 federal funds are for the ITS/CMS Intelligent Transportation System Congestion Ma- Management System Traffic Improvements Project. The acceptance of which obligates the Irvin County Government for the expenditure of $87,000 as a local match, appropriating funds pursuant to FY 2010 schedule number five, and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 12, an ordinance amending section 21-33 and 21-34 of the Code of Ordinances allowing employees to use their accumulated vacation and sick leave in a, any increment amending sections 21-33 and 21-37.1 of the Code of Ordinances- Oh. ... providing that employees may use accumulated com- compensatory and holiday time- ... with verbal approval. Amending sections 21-33A, 21-34A and 21-38B2, converting leave time accruals from days to hours. Number 13, an ordinance amending section 22-59 of the Code of Ordinances providing that seasonal employees shall no longer accrue vacation and sick leave or be eligible to purchase health insurance, providing that part-time employees shall work 24 hours continuous months in order, 24 continuous months in order to accrue vacation and sick leave and shall no longer be required to work 80 hours for two consecutive pay periods in order to be eligible, providing that part-time employees shall work 24 continuous months in order to be eligible to purchase health insurance, providing that part-time employees shall accrue vacation and sick leave at the rate of five hours a month for each, providing that part-time employees may use vacation and sick leave in any increment, providing that supervisors shall no longer be required to keep records relating to leave time accruals and expenditures, providing that part-time employees may obtain verbal approval to use up vacation time and deleting section 22-59C. Number 14, an ordinance amending section 21-52 of the Code of Ordinances changing the job title of one position of nutritionist grade 113N to one position of nutrition coordinator grade 113N in the Division of Family Services. Council- Excuse me. Councilmember Gorton has a motion. Uh, yes. Um, Mayor, I had distributed this afternoon to, um, council members and copied you and various people about three proposed amendments I wanted to make to the, um, water quality fee, the draft water quality fee, and so I wanted to make that motion. Um, and I think that every council member received this by email and by hard copy this afternoon. I move that item number 15 under ordinances second reading be amended to provide that the first formal audit and review of the water quality management program be performed on or before January 31st, 2013, to provide that the incentive grant program be funded annually in the amount of 10% of the revenue generated by the fees- ... and be reviewed as part of the audit and to provide that the water quality management fee should not, shall not be implemented before January 1st, 2010. And these are all based on public input, which we received from citizens in the business community and this would be a material change, so it would require a new first reading. Have a motion by Council Member Gordon, a second by Council Member Blues to amend item number 15 as was specified. Is there discussion? And I see Council Member Feigl. Um, eh, yes, thank you Mayor. Um, and I, I had, uh, intended to make a motion tonight to actually send this back, um, to committee, uh, for review. There have been a number of a, of changes that have been proposed at the last minute today. And, uh, I, I have a number, uh, I think the, the chairman of the committee has submitted some, and we had only received those today. And I really think that it, in fairness to the council that, and in fairness to this document, that we need to take some time to be able to, to, uh, read very thoughtfully through these changes before we begin to insert them one at a time. And I was gonna propose that we meet, uh, immediately and have this ready for the next council meeting. And so I really am very, um, opposed to trying to, uh, reconstruct this whole document tonight. Are, are you moving to refer it to a committee? Well, there's a motion on the floor. But that would take precedence, if you'd like to do so. I, I would, I would, I would move to refer this to a Committee of the Whole on, um, May 12th and to have it ready to come back to the next council meeting. Have a motion by Council Member Feigl and a second by Council Member Elinger to refer item, uh, 15 and all proposed amendments to the Committee of the Whole for consideration next week. Any discussion on the motion to refer? Council Member Crosby. Um, would we be doing that, like, after our work session in... It's immedi- well, I was proposing that we meet, uh, immediately after the work session for a Committee of the Whole and, uh, actually review all of the, the different, uh, versions that have been presented us today. Thank you. All right. Any further discussion? Council Member Gordon. Um, I'm not sure what all different versions are referring to. One was placed in front of me tonight. I have seen no others. Well, in yours. Yes. Which, which I just got today. Which came this afternoon. Are there others? Well there ha- ed- there has been other input, which wha- which is really what we asked for when we, when we had our, um, first and second, uh, first reading. We did ask for input and we have gotten input. So are there, do you know of other council member proposals? Um, I had heard of a motion that was going to be made, but I don't know for, I mean, that council member has not talked to me. Well Mayor, I would just like to speak against the motion. Um, the three, um, I, I think what we're asking council to do then is to work again on something that several council members in good faith have worked on for several months. And the three proposed amendments which I was proposing are very, um, they're actually very simple amendments, which more or less codify things that people said all along to make it in the ordinance. And, um, I think if we refer it to council next week, um, I think we will be slowing down a draft proposal that has been brought to us with much work and has been vetted through many, many, many people. And, um, I think we have a good product right here. Um, I'm not sure, you know, I, there was a proposal laid in front of me. I'm not sure where that has been, but, um, some of us have been asking for this kind of input all along for months, and so I'm prepared to vote no on this simply because I think we have a very good proposal before us, um, with three potential changes that can make it just better and tighter. Any further- I- Any further discussion? Is it possible for me to respond? Okay. Yes, Council Member, um, Feigl. When this was brought up at, at work session and at the first reading, I was very quick to point out to folks, having served on the task force and spent time studying the issue, that this was our proposal and that it would be submitted to the council for, for their recommendations or for their, um, any kind of ideas that they might want to add to it. I did not come with that document in hand saying, "This is a perfect document." Uh, in fact, there were some changes that had been proposed that I had tried to build into the task force recommendations. And, and the fact that the council, I mean that, and, and, and no disrespect meant at all, but the fact that the chairman of the committee is now recommending changes to that document that we recommended to the council, to me, makes it even more critical that we take some time and thoughtfully go through the additional changes that have been suggested. Thank you. Council Member Crosby, then Martin, then Council Member Meyers. Um, I was just gonna respond to, to the fact that there are s- several motions. I'm one of the council members who, who have several motions, uh, amendments to make to, um, this ordinance, and you did get them from me today, later in the day. Part of that was because I was working on a lot of them until late yesterday, after going through with the first reading last week and talking to many different community leaders and business leaders and trying to determine, you know, where my thoughts were on this and, and kinda their thoughts. And, um, just to respond to the fact that I have multiple additions and they are pretty in-depth and, um, also very detailed, and I'm happy to go through those one by one tonight if that's what we wanna do, or if we wanna do it in a committee, that's fine. I'm open to anything. But I, I do have several and you all do have them in front of you. You have a copy. It's, it's, it's not anything that we can't figure out, because some of them have already been discussed as ideas and thrown around. However, I do know that I've heard other council members also say that they have motions that they have not formally given to us, but they are prepared to make tonight as well, so, um, who also served on the task force. Um, so with that being said, I think that we may be surprised with even more motions coming out and we might wanna consider, uh, spending a little more time on this, um, since at the last minute, we are getting a lot of additions. Thank you. Oh, and the other, um, question I have i- is, what you read or what you said, um, I didn't see in your motion, Council Member Gordon. Um, maybe I, I was trying to read along with you, but I guess maybe I missed what you, what you said and what was on the paper. I'm not sure if I heard the same thing. So it's the motion... It's not on there. Oh, it's not on there? Oh, I'm sorry. I'll wait till we get back to that. Sorry. The, the issue on the floor right now is the motion to refer it to Committee of the Whole. Council Member Martin. My bad. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. This is the council and this is the night. We need to move forward to get this done, so I'm gonna speak in favor of the amendment and against the, the motion to, uh, to refer. Uh, this council has suffered from indecision for decades, and that's why we're in the pickle that we're in on water quality. It's gonna cost us tens of millions of dollars to fix this. We have the political will, this council has the political will here tonight to get this done. It's not gonna be perfect. We're gonna continue to work on it. We'll tr- continue to talk to stakeholders and to other folks who have an interest in this, but we should get this done tonight. We have the ability to do that. Uh, Council Member Gordon's motion, as I understand, will extend this until next week, and so we will have the ability still to meet as a Council of the Whole to consider this, and if necessary, to make additional amendments next week. But getting this done tonight will allow us to move forward, get the database started, and, uh, a- and to get a, a start on this, and so that it's not if we're gonna do it, but when and how we're gonna do it. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Meyers. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I see both sides of this issue. I think that all of us at the end of the day want the very best piece of legislation that we can put forward. Um, this ask- this issue has been before us for several years, um, so that's an argument to move forward tonight. Another argument can be made, it's been several years, one more week's not gonna hurt anything. Um, what I say is that, um, Council Member Gordon's proposal came to us today. My computer happens to be broken. It's in Computer Services right now getting worked on. So I didn't get a copy of this till I got here today at 4:30. There's another proposal I think that's out. I got it about the same time. If we're gonna look at one and consider one person's amendments, then I think that we should l- consider everybody's amendments tonight. So either we need to do that, in my opinion, or we need to go ahead and refer it into Committee of the Whole on Tuesday. Either one is fine with me, but I think that we oughta look at, if we're gonna do it tonight, all of the amendments and go through 'em all one by one. And, uh, I've read both of 'em. I think that there's a lotta good stuff in both of 'em. I do agree with, with, uh, Council Member Cheryl Feigl, who's also on the task force that this was intended to be a document that came before the council to be vetted and voted upon and changed if needed. I don't think that the task force intended that we would just rubber stamp that when it came out and that that was the very best product that was available. That's one reason why we had the public meetings. That's why we asked for more input, and I think that both of these two iterations are a result of those public meetings and input from the business community, as well as the private citizens that have came and spoke before us. So, um, I'm gonna vote first with, uh, Council Member Feigl to refer this, uh, because I support that avenue of doing this. If that motion doesn't pass, then I'm gonna support the next motion that says let's look at everything tonight. So my goal is to get the very best bill passed forward. That's what I like about working on a council instead of being an executive branch, no offense, Mayor , but that we have 15 colleagues here to work together, and legislation isn't completed until it's gotten to final reading and passed. And I think so many times we hear people say, "Let's go ahead and give it first reading 'cause we always have second reading and we can make changes then." And so, um, if we wanted it tonight, that's fine, but what I want to do is look at both of these different iterations and make sure that we consider both of 'em equally. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Beard. Uh, thank you, Mayor. Um, I, too, agree that, uh, this body's got the w-will to get this legislation passed. Uh, I don't think, however, that we need to sit down here for hours, and it could be hours, to sort our way through the, uh, th- the various, um, a-amendments that are... Have come or will come, uh, before us. Uh, it is not going to impa- impinge upon anybody's time as far as getting this thing done because we're gonna have to have a first reading again anyway. So, um, I'm gonna support, um, uh, Councilwoman, uh, uh, Feigl's, uh, suggestion that we meet, uh, next Tuesday after work session and hammer this thing out rather than, uh, to, uh, uh, try to do that all right here in front of, um, uh, the cameras. And, uh, it will... We'll put everybody in the room to sleep by the time we get through through with this thing, and, uh, I may be one of the first ones to go. Th- uh, thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Um... I don't have anyone else on my screen right now. Does anybody else wish to address the motion to refer to the Committee of the Whole? All right. Seeing none, we'll proceed to vote. Madam Clerk, if you could clear the screen and allow us to vote electronically here, that would be my preference. The, the vote... The, the motion that should be on your all's screen should be Ms. Feigl's motion. Is it not? It's not on mine. At the... Oh, I... Excuse me. I do have motion by Ms. Feigl, second by Councilmember Elliker. Yes, sir. Okay. But can you arrange it where we can vote now? Yes, sir. All right. Those in favor, please vote aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay electronically. The motion to refer to the Committee of the Whole fails by a vote of ten... Ten to five. We're now returned to the motion on the floor, which is Councilmember Gorton's motion to amend- Read it. Uh, you might read it again for everybody's, uh, health. The... And if I might say, the three points which were highlighted in my memo are regarding the proposed fee not being implemented before January 2010. The incentive grant program, we would require it to be, um, funded at not less than 10% of annual revenues, and the first audit and rate review would be after three years. So, I move that item number 15 under ordinances second reading be amended to provide that the first formal audit and review of the Water Quality Management Program be performed on or before January 31st, 2013, to provide that the Incentive Grant Program be funded annually in the amount of 10% of the revenue generated by the fees and be reviewed as part of the audit and to provide that the Water Quality Management Fee shall not be implemented before January 1st, 2010. And that's a restatement of the motion that was previously on the floor for discussion, and it remains on the floor now. Um... Hang on just a moment here. Councilmember Meyers, do you wish to speak now, or- No. All right. Could, could you clear the speakers, um... Councilmember Beard, you've already... You don't wish to speak at this time, do you? Okay, uh, right now I'm showing Councilmember Beard, then Councilmember James, Councilmember Martin, Councilmember Crosby. Everybody okay with that? All right, I think we're... We're back in sync now. Councilmember Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Um... I have absolutely no problems and, uh, favor all the proposed suggested, uh, uh, changes, but at the same time, I got this late this afternoon. I got, uh, Councilmember, uh, Crosby's, uh, five minutes before we, uh, uh, came, uh, into this, uh, chambers, and, um, I'd have no idea whether, uh, there's some good ideas in there and whether there are any that are contradictory or supportive or whatever. I just don't know at this point. And so I can't support the, uh, uh, the motion of, uh, Councilmember Gorton as much as I'd like to. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember James. Thank you, Mayor. Um... Thank you, Councilmember Gorton and Councilmember Crosby for submitting. I did not... I didn't know that this one was from, um, you, Councilmember Crosby, was here at the... Um, he was here, and I, I heard, I had heard about Linda's by email or by Rebecca or Sarah earlier. Um, I do feel like as far as Councilmember Gorton, I'm pretty clear on the amendments based on the information from the hearing, so I can... I can see, um, each one of the, the line items here, each thing that you've listed and can see and do appreciate you taking the time to go back and review that after because I wondered what that process was gonna be. I talked about that when we gave it first reading. I was concerned about it moving forward and wished that council hadn't voted, um, to go on and give it first reading and move it to the docket because we did need to take time. So I wish that we, at that point, had stopped that vote if there were more information that needed to take place, but the process is moving. It's moving forward, but I wanted to ask, legally- At this time, would it be appropriate if there are other amendments, um, law department, um, if there are other amendments that either Casey Cros- or Council Member Crosby has listed, um, and anything else, could this be a time to ask for those? Can we vote on separate amendments to this ordinance? Um... Well, I have to say that parl- parliamentary procedure is not my forte. And I think we're talking about parliamentary procedure here in terms of a motion being on the floor, ready for a vote, and whether or not that motion gets amended by other motions. Yeah. I, I will, subject to our parliamentarian's input, suggest to you that at, at this juncture, it would be appropriate for us to entertain as many motions to amend item number 15 as people wish to make during the course of the evening. And they can either be done in groups, as Council Member Gordon has proposed, or- Sure. ... or they can be done as individual matters. Okay. And then, so going back to what Council Member Baird said, this could be a lengthy thing, but this is what we do. Um, so now's the time, now's the time to talk about this. So if there's something, I'm really ... It's pretty lengthy what you've given us, Council Member Crosby, but I'm, I'm very interested in hearing explanations as to the proposed amendments, so I hope that you will utilize tonight as an opportunity before it receives second reading. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Morton. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Council Member Gordon, I, I would ask a, a, a, I guess a friendly amendment to your motion, that you would amend your motion to clarify that you are, that your motion is to amend it per the, the, uh, the, the ordinance, uh, with, with black lining that you have passed out, so that the language that has been carefully drafted in this actually makes it into the final motion. Thank you. I think that is a good idea. Council Member Crosby. Um, thank you, Mayor. And I wanted to say, obviously, with as much information, I have so many papers in front of me it's hard to keep up with everything, but, uh, obviously, Councilmember Member Gordon has three, uh, three, um, items under her amendment, and I have a lot, but under, um, the second one, the incentive grant program will be funded annually and not less than 10% of the total revenue, revenues generated by the fees, that is also in mine. So I think right now might be an appropriate time. However, mine reads a little differently. Um, and if you'll refer to page 12, it might be just easier for me to, to have you turn to where I have mine. I have added 10. None is, "Program shall be funded annually at a minimum of 10% of the total amount generated by the stormwater quality fee." And then, number 10 would be, "No less than 83% of the total incentive funding annual- annually should be awarded to non-residential properties for the purpose of the incentive program." And what that does is, 10% only generates ... Well, it generates 1.2 million for the incentive program, and so what that pretty much guarantees is that you have a million going to non-residential and about $200,000 going towards residential. And so if you look at the breakup of who is contributing to the stormwater problems and who can be i- incentivized for, for it, it's a breakup of who's actually contributing and, and a fair assessment of how to be incentivized. That's all. So I just added that in. Thank you. So I don't know if it, now would be the, uh, I don't know if Council Member Gordon would be up for a friendly amendment to add that in, or if I'm gonna have to go through it later and try to get it added. Well, let me, let me suggest procedurally that, if that's acceptable with Council Member Gordon as a friendly amendment, and with Council Member Blues, who seconded the motion, we could do it in that fashion. So maybe that's the threshold question, is that something you're willing to accept? Um, I vetted all of my three points through law, through water quality, through environmental quality, um, and so I would have to ask, since I haven't vetted that through our finance or water quality folks, what the impact of, from their perspective would be, and I would also like to hear from law before I accept that as a friendly amendment. Well, I would just say it doesn't change the dollar figure. The dollar figure doesn't change at all. It's still $1.2 million if it's 10%. So you're not changing the actual dollar figure. You're just changing, you're, you're just basically giving a percentage to, to either non-residential or residential. So you're just defining what percentage ... You're making it clear on how it's gonna be broken up within the ordinance, rather than it just being an open-ended 10% is gonna be in this program. You just clarify who it goes to. So- I understand that. I would like to- So- So I guess the dollar figure doesn't change, so- Let me try to clarify things procedurally here. With Council Member Gordon's motion on the floor and, and in light of the fact she's not willing to accept a friendly amendment along those lines, Council Member, Council Member Crosby would be in order to move to amend Council Member Gordon's motion to reflect those changes, and we could take those up and focus our discussion on those particular issues right now. If not, we'll continue to, to debate the merits of Council Member Gordon's proposal, so. S- so what's the question? Is she- is she n- is she not accepting the friendly ame- amendment? Yes. Or is she wanting a... She wants a opinion from law, I guess, on- ... whether or not... I guess I'm a little lost. I'm here. Hello, I'm here. Oh. Excuse me. Excuse, excuse me, just a minute. I think- I was asking- ... we're not in a position now- I- ... where we can accept a friendly amendment. Okay. So to the degree- We'll just do it later. Excuse me. Oh, w- please let me finish. To the degree you want to put that proposal forward now, you need to do so by way of an amendment to the motion that's on the floor. If you don't wish to do that, you, you may have the opportunity to do that later, um, in the meeting or, um, as part of a, of a larger set of amendments, depending upon how you wanna proceed. Okay. All right. Thank you. Council member Feigl. Do you support? No, you support. Um, I w- I withdraw my request to support. Excu- excuse me just a second. Council member Crosby, did you have a motion? I was gonna... I g- I guess based on what you were telling me was that now would be the time if I was gonna try to make a motion to amend- Right. ... since it was not going to be a friendly amendment, that now would be the time to make a motion to amend. Right. So may I f- finish and make a motion to amend with no less than 83% of the total incentive funding annually should be awarded to non-residential properties for the purpose of the incentive program? So moved. Thank you. Second. Okay, we have a motion by council member Crosby and the second by council member Ehlinger to amend the incentive program. And I didn't write down the language. Council member Crosby, if you could give that to me again, please. Y- yes, sir. Um, no less than 83%- May I ask you a question? ... of the total incentive funding annually shall be awarded to non-residential properties for the purpose of the incentive program. All right. We need to confine our bate, our debate to that specific issue right now. Do we wish to amend? Council member Stennet. Council member Crosby, wh- where did you come up with 83% number? I mean, it's a odd percentage. I mean... 80. Um, that i- that was actually a number that I came up with after consulting with many business leaders and community leaders. Um, b- basically, gen- it w- it was a, a number that came up on the fee that's generated from businesses who are paying into it versus residential properties that pay into this fee, and coming up with a fair assessment of how the, like I said earlier, how the in- incentives should be paid out for those who contribute to the fee. Did I answer your question? Mm-hmm. Thank you. All right, council member... Uh, excuse me, council member Blues. Thank you, Mayor of... I'm gonna vote against this, uh, this motion, because of... It sets up a, uh, a, a, a serious... a, a, a serious question about proportionality here that, that I, I think really does require some, some substantially more time and, and thought than we can, than we can give it at the, at the 11th hour. Uh, Council member Gordon's amendments were, uh, straightforward, clear, uh, had been discussed earlier, were, were provided to the council earlier. And I think that that is sound for this moment, but to try to parse through, uh, details so fine here, uh, is going to get us into, in, into trouble, if we try to, uh, uh, to get into th- such detail at the horse shoe here this evening. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council member Lane. I, uh, just have a question for council member Gordon. Council member Gordon, I have a question for you. Um, c- is there a definition of the term incentive grant in your, um, definitions? Someone describe what an incentive grant is. I'm not sure what that would be Point of order, Mayor. Was the discussion to be on council member Crosby's- Yes. ... motion at this time? Yes. It is. Um, you're correct, that point is well taken. Now, to the degree, Council member Lane, you wanna make a point to add in to council member, um, um, Crosby's pending amendment? That would be order. Okay. Uh, that's fine. Let me just ref... Wait until we discuss this and I'll ask Council member Gordon at that time. Very well. Uh, Council member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. Council member Crosby, I'm a l- I'm... Ask the same question as Council member Stennet about the 83%. I, I just wanna understand it. Could you explain it a little? I'm, I know that leaves 17%, so just... 17% is residential, 83% is non-residential. So that means businesses would be entirely- Of the 10%. Or- Of the 10% that Council member Gordon- Right. ... of her motion that are, tha- and which is roughly $1.2 million, 17% of that is residential- ... 83% would be non-residential. And non-residential, if you look at it is- Commercial. ... commercial, I, I would assume. Churches, e- e- ev- all, ev- everything else that falls into- Okay. ... non-residential. Thank you. Thank you. Council member Gordon. Well, I I understand the value of possibly putting in a percentage. I will say that, if a year comes that we need 90% of this money to go to non-residential incentives, we will bind ourselves with an 83% limit on non-residential. And I am expecting that our businesses and our non-residential entities, our, our commercial will want to use these incentives. So I'm going to vote against this, because I w- I can see a year when we may wanna put more than 83% in. And I, I really, I understand it's a good intent, but I think it will limit us, because it will hold us fast to a percentage. And it might be that the previous year shows that we need a greater percentage of that 10% for non-residential, so I will vote against this. Council member Stennet. Thank you, Mayor. Just wanna clarify something. Right now, what we're talking about is there's a million dollars in the fee for non-residential. There's 200,000 for residential. This motion says we're gonna only give non-residential 83- 830,000, the other 170,000 goes nowhere. It just sits there. So I think we need to understand that point. So unless that's gonna be amended to change what it's talking about, right now, in the fee, there's one million dollars to non-residential. There's 200,000 to residential. Not 1.2 million for anybody. So we understand that. And so that would, that would limit it now to $830,000 for non-residential, and that's not what the original ordinance intended, nor is that what Council Member Gordon's motion is, because it, 10% right now is 1.3 million for non-residential. It's actually a lot more than what was written in the original ordinance if we pass the 10%. So non-residential now gets 1.3 million if we pass this tonight, and residential still gets two, so that's 1.5 million. Just wanna clarify the numbers so we're all on the same page. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Um, thank you, Mayor. Um, in defense, uh, uh, for Council Member Crosby, it says, "No less than 83%", so it s- could be more than 83%. Nowwithstanding that, I, I, I'm speaking out a- against this motion, mainly because by specifying, uh, a, a minimum threshold, it could be that we get, we don't receive enough applications in a particular year to satisfy the minimum threshold. And if that's the case, th- then as the way I read this, we would not be able to use those extra funds for the incentive program for residential. And so that's, that's the hamstring that I'm concerned with. Um, I think that we should give, um, Commissioner Taylor and Charlie Martin, uh, and the, the, the, the, the committee that supervises this incentive program the authority to make good judgments. We can continue to monitor this. If we need to impose, uh, a, a, a, a threshold in the future because there's not enough going toward one program or another, we can do, we can still do that. But at the outset, I, and particularly with a new program, I'd be concerned about, um, um, not getting enough applications on one side of the equation or another, and basically losing those incentives. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Cosby. Well, um, just to clarify too, um, in with my motion and with all the different changes I make, um, under 16-408, which is a different section, there is a water quality fees board. And, and with some of the changes I make in there, that board would have some of the ability to be able to also review, um, review these percentages, and also be able to make changes, uh, when necessary. So, um, again, i- i- it could be like Council Member Gordon said, if it needs to be 90% one year, not another year, there is flexibility within the ordinance. It's just so happens it's in another section with a fee board. Thank you very much. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak on Council Member Crosby's proposed amendment? Seeing none, I think we're prepared to vote. Those in favor of Council Member Crosby's amendment, uh, to est- provide not less than 83% of the incentive program be devoted to non-residential members, please indicate by voting yes. Those opposed vote no. Motion fails. We now return to the original motion, Council Member Gordon's motion. Does anyone wish to address that motion further? Council Member Lane. All right. Um, Council Member Gordon, I just had a couple questions regarding the definition of incentive grant, and, you know, how those, what those gr- what that means, and, you know, how those grants are awarded. I don't know that... Is that covered in the, in your ordinance, or- On page 10 of the, uh, newly revised proposed ordinance, section 16-410, Storm Water Quality Projects Incentive Grant Program- There are about, uh, 10-- uh, eight-- excuse me, eight items that, um, are under that section, having to do with the incentive grant program. And I-- you know, Mr. Gardner's here if you need any legal, uh, legal answers. Okay, that answers my question on that, so I think that's pretty clear. Thank you. Thank you. Any further discu- discussion of, uh, Council Member Gordon's motion? One question, please. Council Member Feigl. Um, part of your motion is to, um, to not implement the fee before January 1st. What was the original date that we had planned to? Well, there was no original date built into the ordinance, and we heard over and over from people who testified at the public meetings and in emails that they wanted us to wait. Now, as the original ordinance was written, if the data-- if the database work and all of the work had been completed by November, the ordinance could have gone forward. So, I felt that it would be a good idea to put this in, so that even if we finished the work before January, this can't go into effect. That was my thinking. Okay, there- there are two things here that probably do impact, um, the revenues that will be generated by this. Number one is delaying the, um, the collection of those fees. Number two would be, um, ensuring that 10% of all revenues go to the incentive program. So, were those built into the models? Uh, the cost model, um, the thinking of our, uh, consultants and the people in Environmental Quality and Water Quality as we went through our work was that probably the work couldn't be finished in time to implement before January, but that was a probably. So they built this in, built into the cost model is revenues coming in in February of 2010. There are no revenues built in before that. Um, so revenues are predicted to come in in February of 2010, and that's built into the cost model. Um, what was your second question, Council Member Feigl? Well, just, um, the fact that we are now, uh, guaranteed that not less than 10% of total revenues generated by fees will go to incentives. Uh, how does that affect the- the model? I mean, I guess- I would ask, if- if you don't mind for me to ask, uh, Charlie Martin, who has all the detail. I've discussed this with him, um, in terms of... I didn't want to put this forward if it had a negative impact in the cost model, so he could answer that. The, uh, five-year revenue projection ranges from 12.9 to 13.2 million over the course of five years, with projected increases in the amount of ERUs, or equivalent residential units, that are available in- in the service area. And so what we had originally talked about was $1.2 million. Essentially, we're $100,000 different than what we were before. And, um, you know, we have wat- capital money that is in water quality capital. If I can spend that money in incentives, we're getting to the same place we wanted to get to in the first place. So I felt like, you know, as far as from a comfort level, if we have a round number that's in the, um, uh, in the ordinance that we're going to reserve that for incentives, we're still getting the same place. So I- I wasn't uncomfortable with it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Ma'am. All right. Does anyone else wish to speak to, uh, Council Member Gordon's motion? Seeing none, we appear to be ready to vote. Again, I'd like to get everyone to vote electronically. Those in favor of Council Member Gordon's motion to amend, please indicate by voting, uh, "Aye" electronically. Those opposed, vote nay. The motion to amend is carried by a vote of 13 to 2. Are there other motions? Council Member Gor- uh, Martin. Thank you, Ma'am. I'd like to make a motion, uh, that there should be a stormwater credit program created by the Commissioner of Environmental Quality with consent of the Council within 24 months of the date of implementation of the water quality management fee. Upon approval by the Council, the credit program shall be available to non-residential entities pending funding for privately construct- constructed infrastructure to improve water quality, retention, and run off above current standards. Yeah. Uh, Mr. Gardner- Just for clarification, that is a- a motion to amend the ordinance, Mr. Martin? Yeah. To include that? Yes. Okay. Second. We have a motion, and second by Council Member... Uh, second one's by Council Member Feigl. Any discussion on- Can you restate the motion? Uh, yes, that would be appropriate. The essence of the motion is for the administration would prepare a credit program within two years, subject to council approval. Is that- That- that's correct, Mayor. This is a, um, um... And they took my notes, so I need my notes back for a second. Thank you, and we'll- I'll send it down. This is essentially a placeholder for consideration of- of a credit program. Um, it- it allows Commissioner Taylor and the Council- ... to study this and also allows Commerce Lexington to endorse our stormwater fee ordinance tonight. And I think that's important. I think it's important that we, that we, uh, sort of have a gesture of good faith to work with Commerce Lexington. This does not authorize a credit program itself. What it does, it, it puts it in the ordi- ordinance that within 24 months, we would try to develop a credit program. It's gonna have to come back to the council. It's gonna be within the council's, uh, vote to turn it down if the council doesn't want to do it. Uh, but I, I like bringing, um, consensus to, to, to issues. And this would allow us to, uh, have a gesture of good faith to work with Commerce Lexington to, uh, um, to, to, to try to s- to see if there are common ground in which to, uh, adopt a, uh, a credit program. All right, uh, Council Member Stivet. Thank you, Mayor. I certainly appreciate Council Member Martin's efforts in, in trying to bring a, a credit program. This is an issue that, uh, you know, I, I originally during the task force was, was very much in favor of. But after you start looking at credits and looking at other cities around the country, just to name a couple, let's take Northern Kentucky for instance. Only 1.44, 1.44% of the people in that community eligible for credits actually apply for them. They have five people on staff to administer a program where only 1.44% of people actually take advantage of. Across the country, I can give you other examples where credits are available, but many people aren't taking advantage of the credit program and here's why. Take a 25 by 100 lot of parking space. That's 2,500 square feet, you're paying $4.32 a month on it. You go spend 10 to $20,000 to make that a retention basin, put in pervious pavement for 8 or 9,000, whatever it takes. Are you ever going to recoup $50 a year for hundreds of years just to save 50 bucks? You're not going to do it and that's why a lot of people are not taking advantage of the incentive for, or the credit programs. That's where we shift it to incentives. Government comes in and says, "I'll go ahead and repair that parking lot for you, make it pervious with our million, 1.3, whatever it is. We'll do it today. You still save the 50 bucks, but it's our capital money that we're partnering with you to pay that." That's why we went the incentive route. It's much quicker, much easier, and a lot less to administer on the front end. Now, the current ordinance doesn't say we can't have a credit program. We can establish one at any time. I'll vote against this motion because it says we have to within 24 months and that's not what the spirit of the original, uh, work of the task force and the people that have worked on this for, for years, um, chose to go with. We, if there's a cre- I've asked for credit, show me examples of credit programs that work. There's been one example shown to this body to date. One. Just one example. And we're going to minister a whole program on one type of credit. We need to have several, uh, in the toolbox before we go spending man hours and hiring employees to administer a credit program so I'll vote against it. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I, I would just say that, uh, uh, you know, in response, I think that, uh, um, uh, uh, as a point of, uh, order, uh, councils can't bind future councils. So we are, as a council, aren't required to adopt this within 24 months. It, it, it merely requires us to consider this, uh, it requires us within a 24-month period, um, to study the issue with Commissioner Taylor, um, and to present it to the council, uh, for an up or down vote. Um, and as a part of that vote, we could simply, uh, strike the, strike the provision from the ordinance and, uh, and take care in that way. I, I, I do think that this is an issue that has come up, uh, continuously. Uh, it is something of vital importance to the business community. I personally don't understand it, but I l- I welcome the opportunity to, to study it in the future and to, uh, have this sort of gesture of good faith to work with, uh, the business community to, uh, to see if it's viable. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Yes, Mayor. Thank you very much. Um, I've been a huge proponent for the credit program too. Um, obviously after talking to many business leaders within our community, this is of utmost concern to them as well. Um, I have a little concern with the wording of this motion obviously because it's very open-ended and, um, words like try to develop and, um, good faith and things like that, if it's not clear-cut within the ordinance now tonight, um, you know, obviously it doesn't have to happen. And you're right when you say we don't have to, we c- we can't bind future councils to do something. So it brings me to my point then, what good is it? Uh, I, I can't support this motion, um, with the way it's stated. I, I am, I, I would be very supportive and I actually do have in, in, in a motion for a, uh, credit program, but, um, it would be very clear-cut. You got, you all have it in front of you. It's outlined in detail. Um, something that's this broad and vague and isn't binding, I could not support. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Excuse me, Council Member Gordon. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mayor. Um, well, Council Member Martin, I really appreciate your intent because I think you are trying to be responsive to the business community. Um, w- we did learn in our months of work that a credit program is very top heavy in administrative cost and what my thinking is and what we discussed in the, uh, task force is that in the future, and I would think a good time to do it would be after we've had this first audit in three years, is to look at how the incentives are working and then consider putting into place a credit program. When you put into place a credit program, you have to re-crunch all the numbers and those people who get the credits and pay a lower fee, then we have to readjust the fee for everybody else. So it is not a simple project. It's a complex project and I'm, I would certainly favor in the future after the first audit considering that, but I think after 24 months is a little too soon. So I am not going to be supportive at this point. Thank you. Council Member Blues. I would agree with, uh, Council Member Gorton on this that, uh, once a, once a water management quality f-fee is in, is in place and it's been, uh, on the books and working for a couple of years, if a credit program at that time seems to be desirable to, to look into, then a council might very well recommend doing so. T- uh, w- the reason that the task force, uh, did not, i- did not, uh, go forward with the credit program, in addition to the reasons that Council Member Stennet mentioned, is that the fee would be higher essentially to pay for, uh, m-much more expensive administrative costs for very little, uh, little, little benefit to the, uh, to the ratepayers. So, again, I appreciate this, uh, you know, this gesture, which I, and I, and I think it is important to, to, to look at all aspects of the, of the fee once it's, once it's operational, and this, and this would be one of them, but this is not a motion that I can support at this time. Thank you, Mayor. The, the, um, motion that's on the floor right now is Council Member Martin's motion dealing with the, uh, credit program. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I'm inclined to support this because I do believe that it is, it doesn't commit this council to anything other than to take a little more thoughtful, in-depth look at the possibility of a credit program. Uh, if, at some point, the credit program d-does not seem to pay for itself with administrative costs, then this council or i- a future council would not have to adopt it. Uh, however, I think that when we went out to the public in the very beginning, when we talked about assessing a stormwater fee, the idea or the concept of a credit was out there, and a lot of people are certainly expecting that there will be a credit program. And for us to not even look into the feasibility of a credit program seems to me an injustice to the folks that, uh, are there to help us solve this problem. Uh, so I would support this motion because I don't think it really binds this council to anything other than doing a study and coming back to, uh, after, a- at a, at a point of two years, 24 months, to come back to the council with some kind of a recommendation, and if, in fact, uh, we want to tie this to the audit at three years, which we have now changed from five to three, if, if it looks like it's a proposal that the council could accept, then you could e- easily tie it into whatever happens after the, uh, third-year audit, whether the fee's... Uh, a- and one of the reasons that we asked for the audit was to see if that fee needed to be adjusted one way or the other, and we would certainly have an opportunity to do that at the same time that we considered a credit program. Thank you. Council Member McCourt. Thank you, Mayor. First off, you know, what we're talking about really is a, an issue of education. You know, this, this community is, all of a sudden, you're gonna have to learn a lot of new, um, new things, and it starts with this process and this task force. Uh, I, I compliment you again on the work you did, because, uh, to drill it down to ins- a, a policy decision between credit programs and incentives and the whys and the wherefores, um, you know, I asked for that information specifically because people ca- came, coming to me asking for, "Hey, we want a credit program." Uh, and to see the, the number of folks who don't take advantage... In fact, the other night, I found it kind of interesting that one of the, the key folks that spoke about credit programs mentioned Charlotte and how, how big things had gotten because they'd gotten 20 new applications, t- 20 new applications in all of Charlotte. Wow, that's, that's big. And, but, uh, even with that said, there's a very specific example of, of someone in my district, a very large, um, uh, person, or an entity that's gonna be affected dramatically, uh, who had done millions of dollars' worth of infrastructure improvements on their property, um, that probably could benefit from a credit program. So I, I have a, uh, a little bit of... I can see both sides of this, and what I think i- I'm gonna support this motion, and here's why, is because it comes back to education, and if our businesses are gonna bear the brunt end of this, then I want them to be at the table for the next two years, because I think ultimately what you're gonna see is, is like the task force found, it doesn't make a lot of financial sense, and it's a whole lot better to ramp up the incentive side. Uh, but we need to have those folks at the table and not be seen as necessarily, "Hey, we're just, we're gonna do this, and we didn't even really ask or listen to you." I hear the business community loud and clear. I think, from a business decision, uh, what I find interesting is these are the s- a lot of the same folks that I have conversations with about government getting bigger and not wanting to see government getting bigger. I think once you see the top heaviness of a credit program, uh, as Council Member Stennet said, where you spend nearly a million dollars for, uh, five or six people to manage a program that a very small percentage actually take advantage of and there's economic benefit too, I think business folks are gonna see that and realize the wisdom of, of a, um, of an incentive program and, and the wisdom of this body, but I think they oughta have the opportunity to, to educate themselves and learn that and have a seat at the table, so I will support, uh, Council Member, uh, Martin's motion. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Um, credit programs as I see 'em and understand them, it's like solving, um, simultaneous equations, if everybody remembers those from, uh- ... their school days. Um, we're gonna have to build an infrastructure to take care of the potential storm water problem that we have. And we can't take into consideration the fact that maybe in one area of, of, of the county or of the, uh, the city, that, um, there are credit programs at work so that we can downsize and we don't have to spend the money that we might normally have to spend. Um, and the, then, uh, cr- uh, I'm sure that credit programs over time, uh, are going to need to be reinforced, because nothing lasts forever. Um, I, I, I see no way without some huge bureaucracy keeping up with a credit program over, um, any length of time whatsoever. And I really don't know where you start and where you drive the, uh, the, the, the stake in the ground to, uh, start one. So I got, I'm afraid I can't, uh, support it. I, I, I do understand, uh, some of the concerns of the business community, but, uh, uh, what I see here is that the business community would, uh, uh, le- lessen what they would have to pay and shift that burden over to a bunch of folks that maybe can't afford to pay it at all. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I just would, would, would clarify that, uh, th- uh, this motion w- was to apply to non-residential, and one of my concerns with the credit program is that folks who are paying 50 bucks a year would be, you know, spending $1,000 to, to, to, to try to work a credit program. But there are folks who are paying and are likely to pay tens of thousands and hundreds of thousand dollars under this program. I don't think it's inappropriate to, to at least, uh, uh, study what a cre- uh, credit program would do and to allow the council as a whole, uh, to maybe be educated by, uh, Commissioner Taylor and, and folks who have taken a look at this, uh, to see wh- uh, over a two-year period whether or not this would be viable. Thank you, Mayor. Vice Mayor Gray. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I just want to confirm, uh, Council Member Martin, so the, your motion is that we would, through ordinance, require, um, in two years an examination of the credit program within two years require? Is that correct? That, that the cre- credit program w- would be created by, um, the commissioner of water quality with the consent of the council. And so that means we have the opportunity, um, to- ... study it and to determine whether or not we think it's viable and to vote it up or down. It's, it, it, this is not a, a requirement that we have a credit program, it's require, requirement that we look at it and that we vote on it. I think that would be our obligation. And, and this, just as a point- Okay, the reason in that. Yeah. I was gonna say, just as a point of, of clarification, this is, this is, uh, uh, a proposal from Commerce Lexington, and I think that, that, uh, they in representing their business members, uh, uh, feel that this would be a, uh, you know, sort of a, a, a vote of good faith to work with them to- Yeah. ... to look at a credit program. Yeah. Which, okay, the reason I was inquiring is in looking at Council Member Crosby's, uh, suggestions, I, I feel likewise about the Water Quality Fees Board, that it has merit, okay? And I don't know whether that was a suggestion of Commerce Lexington or not. But re- really regardless of who it's a suggestion of, suggestion C- Council Member Crosby, respect that, respect if it came from anybody else and that seems to have merit. I'm not prepared to vote on it tonight. I'm sort of like the, I, I feel, uh, about this issue the way that, um, the, uh, Karen Gill, who was here earlier, she said, you know, "We never, I'm never gonna be a perfect teacher and there's always a better way." But there seems to be a good sense among, within this community and within the council that it's time to get on with it. And yet this notion of, uh, uh, I like what you're suggesting here, 'cause this notion or this idea of continuously examining, um, and putting a deadline on it, that ha- that makes sense to me. Um, but I'd also like to say, like to expand that to include a structural issue or the opportunity to examine the, um, the governance board. Um, so I'd ask if there was a f- if could add a friendly amendment to that. That would be the Water Quality Fees Board at the same time, in other words, within those two years. You, you're, you're, you might ex- sort of clarify what you're asking for. That within that two-year frame, within that two-year time period, it also would create the Water Quality Fees Board. Yes. Oh, that's o- exactly on this? Yeah. Okay. All right. That was a change. You're taking it out. No, no, no, no. No. Uh, Vice Mayor, I, I, I think- But- ... at this opportunity I, I, I probably would not- You're right. ... make a friendly amendment. I know. Now I'm just saying- Mainly because- He's done an amendment. Okay. ... this doesn't a- adopt anything and, and, um, and so this is sort of an opportunity to study it. The makeup of the board was changed, that's right. All right. I withdraw the suggestion. Thank you, sir. . Council member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I r- I really appreciate the work that the task force hath done, and I know that they looked at the credit programs. Um, and I, I've just felt like it could be very, very costly administratively to implement and oversee it. But, um, I would b- l- be more in favor if the three years when we have the audit, if we take a look at the progress we're making and the projects that are completed and how many more are left on the books to do, and possibly reduce the fees of businesses rather than minister a credit program that's gonna cost us even more money. So, um, that was my thought on it. I think, um, a water resources committee can monitor this ordinance as things go forward. And I just feel like this is something we need to go ahead and do. We, we need to go ahead and pass this ordinance as is. Thanks. Thank you. Council member James. Thank you, Mayor. Um, where I thank Council member Martin and others that support this, um, amendment. Well, I think it's a really great idea. I actually think economic development should always be considered in everything that we do in government, and that relationship should be there already. Um, so we should, as legislation's going forward, that communication between Commerce Lexington, our Economic Development Office that we have, um, with Anthony Wright here in government, that should be just something on a check-off list, um, so that we know how folks are impacted. I do not believe that it needs to be included within the ordinance. It should be our practice. We learned from Austin that economic development is a part of everything that you do in government. And, um, we need to understand that, and we don't need to insert it in particular ordinances just to make nice with folks. It's a process where we are partners with Commerce Lexington through our Economic Development Office, and this should be a given. It should not be an amendment. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council member Figal. Thank you, Mayor. Um, one of the points that I had failed to make earlier was that I do think that economic development is, is critical to our community. Uh, that's where we will get additional revenues. And if we are spending as much money as we spend on economic development, we're sending a conflicting message to possible new businesses to come into our community, because now all of a sudden, you know, w- they're going to be told that they have to pay this fee, and that there is no option for a credit. And I think that what this amendment does is basically just holds out the opportunity for us to study this and consider a credit as a possibility. That's all we're looking at. And I would even be willing to make it a, a, a friendly amendment to make it 36 months to tie it directly to the audit. Um, so I would like to make that motion, that, that we extend this from 24 months to 36 months to tie it directly to the audit. Yes, sw- All right. Um, and I can't recall who had the second on that motion. Council member Figal? All right, we'll make it 36 months. Council member Stennet. Was that a motion to amend or a new motion? It's a frien- friendly motion, which I understand has now been accepted to Council member Martin's motion. Amended from 24 months to 36? To 36 months. I, I just want to reiterate that all I'm saying is, we should not put this in the ordinance right now. We can study anything we want, we can put it into a committee. The Water Resources Committee can take it up starting Tuesday. I agree with everything you said. I think most people agree with, we need to look at it, and we should, but putting it into the ordinance changes that. I, I, I think we can do that without that. We can do it by motion o- on a Tuesday to, uh, Water Resources Committee. I certainly agree with working with the business community. I wish we were more part of the business community's discussion on this very issue. A lot of us didn't get those emails that were circulating about this issue. But, uh, nonetheless, we're still partners, and, uh, we still should look at it, just not through this ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Any more discussion on Council member Martin's motion? Yeah. Council member Martin, it would probably be helpful now, just before we vote, if you could, uh, restate your motion as now friendly, uh, with, including its friendly amendment. Thank you, Mayor. This is, uh, an amendment to, uh, item number 15, uh, on the ordinance's second reading. There shall be a stormwater credit program created by the Commissioner of Environmental Quality with consent of the council within 36 months of the date of implementation of the Water Quality Management Fee. Upon approval by the council, the credit program shall be available to non-residential entities pending funding for privately constructed infrastructure to improve water quality, retention, and runoff above current standards. All right, you've heard the motion. Let's proceed to vote. Um, Madam Clerk, if you could, um, set the, the panels. Those in favor of Council member Martin's motion, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay. The motion fails by a vote of five to 10. ... further, uh, motions with regard to, uh, the proposed fee? Yes . Uh, um, I think there's actually a council rule prohibiting that. Sorry. Who's ahead of me? Someone's ahead of me. No. Uh, Council Member Crosby. Okay. Um, thank you, Mayor. Phew. Um, at first I just wanna say a few things before I actually make my motion. Um, you know, I just wanna say, uh, uh, th- there is absolutely no question that we're faced with a problem. Um, based on all the discussion we've had and all the months that we've spent on this, we obviously have a problem. Either reach an agreement with the EPA, or be subject to further litigation and penalties. There's also no debate that our city has neglected the problems with stormwater runoff in many neighborhoods for decades. While our newer neighborhoods have better engineering and design characteristics, we have failed to find adequate solutions in many of our districts. We do not have a consent decree signed off yet. And in large part, this is due to a court deter- that the court determined that the fund that LFEUG negotiated and agreed to was not fair to our citizens. In short, it was too punitive. Everyone has a viewpoint on this issue of paying the tax. I know to a lot of people that I talked to, the 432, that's their Starbucks every day. I know to other families, the $50 a year, it's more than they spend on school supplies for their kids. In addition, I've spoken to business and nonprofit leaders who have not acknowledged the problem we are facing, but believe the current, current ordinance fails to respect or recognize their efforts by being part of the solution, acting and investing proactively. Just as the council work group exercise common sense in excluding our agricultural farms from facing disproportionate taxes in this proposal, I think that the council should also s- show some wisdom in affording credits to those commercial and noncommers- or nonprofit property owners who have been proactive in addressing this issue. Otherwise, we send the public message that is more beneficial to delay constructive and necessary changes to their property and wait for the government to mandate such improvements. This mentality discourages innovative and private sector involvement. It is the same mindset that permeated the view and behavior of many who allowed our downtown historical buildings to dec- decay to the point of code enforcement, demolition, and condemnation. I've also heard tonight the twofold argument th- echoed that credit programs in, in many communities that they're just not used, and fees, if fees are reduced for one group, it only means that another group will pay more. These are not consistent in my point of view. Either the credits are being used and less taxes are being collected, or they're not being used and the taxes are not impacted. More importantly, we have the ability to raise and lower this rate depending upon known and actual need. Presently, most of the information that we have is only tentative. We're relying on very liberal cost estimates. We're also relying on participation rates of other communities to estimate the future utilization of a credit program. Just as we can adjust this tax in the future if it is determined to be excessive, we can make revisions to a credit program after it has been established. The council has publicly stated that those who are in opposition to the current ordinance should bring solutions to the table. I believe that rev- the revised ordinance that I provided for you does exactly that. In my opinion, even if these proposed revisions are adopted, I still have several concerns and maintain my consistent position that, that those additional projects that were included in closed door sessions should have been disclosed and discussed openly. Some of those projects would ultimately have received funding, but as it stands now, all we have is a list compiled over the years by a respected staff member, and we are using that to justify these additional expenditures that not, have not been actually vetted or specifically identified. I have an issue with that process. I think all of y'all know my issues with that process, and I don't believe that legislating under the cover of litigation is appropriate. However, we are here, it is part of t- part of the consent decree, and we have to do something. I hope tonight that I'm offering somewhat of a compromise, and I hope that y'all will consider what's left of what I have to offer . Um, I've, I've scratched out many things on my motion because we've talked about a lot of 'em, but with the revisions that I have, there are a few more things that I, I would like to propose. And I think that if we can at least go through 'em, I think that it would be a nice signal to the public that we actually did listen to the various community, um, leaders, whether they're business, nonprofit, our neighbors, whoever it is who've called us, emailed us regarding this issue, and, and just take it into consideration. So with that, just be patient 'cause I've had to cross off many things that we've discussed here. I move that item number 15 under ordinances second reading be amended to provide that no event shall any parcel pay less than 432 per month and must approve by the water quality fees board to provide that the water quality fees board shall make recommendations on any necessary adjustments to the ba- base fee based on relevant data, to provide for the water equi- excuse me, to provide for the water quality fees board to review and approve, disapprove or modify denials of request for adjustment of sanitary sewer fees, excuse me, user fees, decisions on applications for adjustment to water quality management fees, and recommendations and applications related to water quality projects, to prov- to provide that the board shall be composed of five members appointed by the mayor with consent of the council, to provide for staggered terms for members in describing, in describing... ... the qualifications of members and to provide all board proceedings shall be officially reported and records shall be public, to provide for appeal of decisions on applications to the Water Quality Fees Board in Irvin County Council, to provide for an adjustment to fees for properties on which the rate, quantity, and/or quality of stormwater ru- runoff exceeds baseline standards provided the maximum reduction shall not exceed 80%, to provide that baseline standards, to provide that properties may not receive a reduction unless all three baseline standards are met, to provide an application and appeal process, to provide for a prospective determination as to whether a proposed project will qualify for re- reduction, and to provide for board review of reductions every five years, to establish a Stormwater Quality Program Review Board and prescribing its duties to review and report on the Water Quality Program, to provide that that board will be formed within one calendar year of implementation of the Water Quality Management Fee, to provide for annual funding, to provide that ... Excuse me. To provide for a annual funding, to provide that the board shall be composed of seven members appointed by the mayor with the consent of the council, to provide for staggered terms for members and describing the qualifications of the members and to provide all board proceedings shall be officially reported and, and records shall be public, and to provide that the Commissioner of Environmental Quality shall serve as a non-voting technical advisor to the board. So moved. Second. Council Member Crosby has moved to amend the fee ordinance as, uh, indicated. I don't know how to summarize that, but I know you have circulated a document previously- Yeah. The, um, the motion, um, was prepared to me by Mr. Gardner and it's all in here. I'm not sure if the clerk has a copy, but, um- I thi- I thi- ... I guess what I can do is maybe go through ... It's everything ... No, it's not the whole thing. Uh, Council Member Crosby- Mm-hmm. ... it might be helpful, uh, for the clerk if you could simply, um, g- give her a copy of showing what you'd marked out 'cause she does have a copy of the motion that I had prepared. Copy, Your Honor. A- And it might, it might be helpful if we could just make some photocopies of that and distribute it for the members of the council because I, I gather there are a lot of ... Is it fair to say there are a number of changes from the draft that was circulated earlier? I can make each piece of copy. All right. I can make ... Let me, um- It ... I was gonna say the changes that were made were just made as we've been going through discussing 'cause many of the motions were made, like- Sure. Let- Um, law prepared ... What you got and then also the motion, and the motion is basically this, if I'm not missing any- The motion was prepared based on the requested amendments that Council Member Crosby had made. And so sh- they basically should have all been included with, uh, in the motion. Yeah. Now with the exception ... She has taken out at least part of what was in the motion, which would consequently come out of the ordinance assuming it got passed. Not having seen wh- what you, what you have in front of you right now, I guess I'm wondering is would it be worthwhile for us to make 15 copies of that and distribute it where we could have a- I don't think so. Okay. All right. Let me, let me suggest we take... Madam Clerk, you tell me. 10-minute, five-minute? Three. Okay. Fi- let's take a five-minute recess. We'll reconvene at 8:45. And in the meantime, we'll try to get copies, uh, circulated. Let's reconvene the meeting, if we could please. Council Member Crosby. C- Council Member Crosby. Um, yes, sir. If you would please, uh, kinda walk us through what we now have in front of us as a result of, uh- Sure, I'd be happy to. ... both sessions. And, uh, probably the easiest way to do this is to, um, i- if everybody has the ordinance, um, the packet that I handed out earlier, and now the copy, everybody has the updated motion with the revisions and, uh, that's what I'm gonna get to. The first... If you look at the motion, in the underlined, um, first underlined change with the fees board... and, uh, eh, water quality fees board is on page nine. And probably the biggest material change that most people are interested in is under section two, and it's the makeup of the board, A and B. I can read that, if you want me to. I, uh, I already said that the m- the mayor shall appoint, with approval of the council, that's pretty standard, but they'll have staggered terms in A, which I, uh, I don't know that I need to necessarily read that. Um, but on B, one member of the board shall be regi- a registered civil engineer, environmental engineer, or hydrologist. One member of the board shall be a representative of a neighborhood association. One member of the board shall be an owner of a business propert- property located in Fayette County, selected from a list of three persons provided by Commerce Lexington. No member of the board shall be an employee, agent, or contractor of Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. No more than one member of the board shall reside in any council district. And then, number three is just, again, for transparency, all proceedings before the board shall be officially reported and records of proceeding shall be public record. Um, this was just added. There's already a fee board in place in the ordinance. This just changes the makeup of the board and makes it an outside, more of an outside, um, board and, um, it's a diverse board. ... um, with an actual knowledge on, uh, storm water issues. And the original board was made up of three citizens. It didn't really define who those citizens had to be, and then it was a council member and a citizen's advocate, just for point of reference, if you wanna know what the original board makeup was. So, um, that's, that's the, that's the first change. That's it. That .......................... That, that, that's what I'm requesting that we amend. That was ... And I believe that the original ordinance stated three citizens, a council member. No. You amended it. What was the ... I'm sorry. All citizens. All citizens, but there's no definition of what those citizens, I'm sorry. Of, of ... And that the, and also that they had to be from different council districts. I'm sorry. And I, I believe Council Member- No, no, no, no, no. That was amended last week, that it would just had to be all citizens- Okay. ... from different districts. This, yes, this is part of the motion that I've already made. I'm just going through it piece by ... Can we take it one at a time? Yes. Yeah, sure, we can do it one at a time. And, and there was one other point you made on page 12, I think, the deletion of paragraph 10. Is that correct? Oh, on page 12, um, uh, all I did was I just crossed out number 10, because that was ... You'll find it o- on your motion sheet, where we crossed out in your copy. That was the 83% that you already voted down, so that is taken out. That's, that's been crossed off of this ordinance, revised ordinance. So if y'all just wanna draw lines through there. All right. Um, Council Member Feigl has raised the, the potential of dividing this motion into separate pieces. That ............................ Okay? Yeah, I don't, I mean, and I would be fine, I don't even know that we, I could go through and just do each one separately. It's pretty easy to divide up without having to do a formal motion for that, if, if that's procedurally- I think, I think for purposes of trying to keep the, our clerk in good order here, it would be helpful for us if- We want her happy. ... we divided the motion into however many pieces may be appropriate. And Council Member Feigl, do you wish to, to move to divide the motion for purposes of discussing the membership of the board separately? Thank you, Mayor. I would move that we divide the motion, uh, for purpose of discussing each segment separately. Second. Well, let's- That's not what I, that's not what you said. Uh, you said, "Each, each segment." I, I guess, for the moment, we wanna talk about the Appeals Board, right? Right. Okay. Let's, let's deal with that one first, and if there are other carve outs, we'll deal with that. I have a second from Council Member Myers. So the motion on the floor is to divide Council Member Crosby's motion by segregating out the discussion of Appeals Board. Okay. Uh, any discussion on that motion, council? I, I, I know there's several people on the screen here, but I'd like to try to focus on our discussion on the, the motion to divide. Council Member James. I just had a point of clarification. When Council Member Crosby originally read the motion, was it ever a seconded, second? Did it get a second, second? It was. It did get a second? Okay, it didn't show on the screen. I think it was Council, Council Member Ellinger. Okay, thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any, any further discussion on the motion to divide? Those in f- favor, then, of dividing the motion, let it be known by saying, "Aye." Aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. I'm sorry. I missed you. W- we're dividing the subject of the board only? That's correct. Because I've, I've gone through here. There's 16 different motions embedded in this one, and, uh, maybe they all need to be divided. That would be appropriate at a later time. Okay. But, but the motion for the, for the moment was- I'm sorry. ... just to divide the Appeals Board. That, that's fine. That cuts me down to 15. All right. Uh, the, the issue on the table now for discussion is the membership qualifications of members of the Appeals Board, and the floor is open for discussion on that point. Um, I have several folks who indicated a desire to speak on the screen, so I'm just gonna go down that list and if you don't wish to address that issue, then check off or just tell me when I call on you. Council M- Council Member Blues. Well, thank you, Mayor. Uh, I think my, my comment on, on, on this particular motion on the makeup of the board would be the same as on, on the others, that this normally is what a, a council committee or a task force does. And it seems to me ... ... uh, unproductive and, and inappropriate to be attempting to work through an, uh, a draft ordinance that we've not seen before the beginning of this meeting, point by point, attempting to do what the kind of thorough vetting that, as I say, a, a, a committee normally does and then brings to the council, or what the- ... task force has done over, over four months and has brought to the council. So I will, uh, I will oppose this motion. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I would ask Ed Gardner, have, you have reviewed this, and what do you make of, uh, 1D? What's the meaning of that? Uh, I'm sorry, I was working on trying to get things in order. Which, which specific provision? I- uh, applications by property owners rega- regarding- ... prospective projects resulting in the property exceeding the criteria set forth in Section 16411. If you could just explain that, page nine- Okay. ... a little bit since- Just one second. Page nine? Which section? Section, uh, 16-408, at the bottom, 1D. Okay. Th- that would relate als- actually to another provision, 1411, I mean, 411, which says, if I recall correctly, and Council Member Crosby can correct me, that, that there's an ability, would be an ability, assuming this all went into effect, for someone that wanted to do a project for a credit, they would come to the board and say, "If I do this, will I get a credit?" So this isn't just an appeals board? N- no, not under this, not under this provision. So this board would have the authority to approve? It was my understanding that credit, if there is a credit program in the future, or with the current incentives, that will all be worked administratively through the Division of Water Quality and the Department of Environmental Quality. So why would that need to go to a board... I don't know- ... if it's approved through the- ... that it does, but it- ... if it's approved through the administration? Certainly can, it, it, it would under the, it, it's the, the will of the council to, it would under this amendment, if, if this was all approved. So all those applications would go before this board? No. Oh. They would go before the board. If they were denied and there was an appeal, or if somebody- Okay. ... wanted to go to the board first, you correct me now, um, Council Member Crosby, if I, if I mistake something, my understanding of it is that if they wanted to go to the board first to get a determination that if they do a specific kind of project that will result in, in some kind of credit, that this is, that is what is provided for here. Do you know, and maybe you don't know this, um, what would be the reasoning for making a part of this go to a board first rather than go through the administrative procedure that everybody follows? I don't know that. Do, what would be the thinking on why we would take that outside the administration? I think it's, um, it's, it's similar to, um, just like we have a Board of Adjustments and, um, you know, other boards like that that are making decisions when it r- as it relates to property and property improvements and, and things like that. And if you read, just to go back to your point before, under one, the board shall review, approve, disapprove, or modify, and you kind of have to read through the top part to get to D. Now, D, if, if, I guess D would not be in effect if Section 16411 does not... Obviously, it's contingent on the passing of s- of 16411. So, I mean, if that doesn't pass and this would not e- it would be a mute point, because you wouldn't even have that, you wouldn't have that program for them to even administer. Thank you. My next question is, uh, the next page, number two. Um, this says, "The board shall meet quarterly." Um, what if the board has no business to attend to? I guess I'm wondering why we would mandate a certain amount of meetings. Uh, the Ethics Commission, for instance, meets when they have a, an ethics complaint to hear and that's built into their ordinance. It seems to me this would be, um, perhaps we would want to say, if we pass this, the board shall meet when cases come before it, which could be once a year. And that would be fine. I mean, I- That wouldn't be a problem. I don't... As needed? A- as needed wouldn't be a problem. Quarterly or as needed. That, that- I, I have to point out that the, the current version that's on for second reading without amendment does provide for quarterly meetings. Okay. That language was taken directly out of an old different- The current. ... appeals board that was set up- Mm-hmm. ... to deal with sewer user appeals. We are re- and the last provision of the, of this ordinance is to repeal that section and create this new board. So the quarterly language- We'd have to change that. ... is already in the ordinance. So if that stays in there, I, I guess the process then would be just to cancel the meeting if there's no business. Th- that's correct. Okay. Thank you. Let me make sure I understand the end result of that discussion. We're leaving the proposal as originally made by Council Member Crosby on the table without changing the quarterly to something else, correct? I didn't, I didn't hear an amendment to that effect, but I wanna be, be sure. All right, that's my understanding, so we'll roll forward. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I just need some clarification. I know in the original, um, ordinance that the committee proposed, there was a appeals board. And I'm wondering, is this Water Quality Fees Board different than the appeals board or is that the same as? Sorry. Um, it's, it's similar that they would take appeals and they would also... I mean, just as Mr. Gardner said, they would be taking appeals. If you read, um, um, A, B, and C, that they, they would take appeals. If they were denied, um, they would be handling those. They could also approve, disapprove, or modify, um, any of those different situations. So it, it's basically taken from the ordinance and just modified, um, as he said. Well, okay, additional clarification is needed then for me. Um, as Councilman Gordon said, why don't... Why would they not go through the original or the process that was designed before they came to this board? I think, um, I... Maybe I didn't clarify my answer. I, I, I believe that, that we have other boards in place. I use, I use the Board of Adjustments. Um, uh, I've drawn a blank on the board I'm trying to think of right now, but, um... And I'm looking at you, but, uh, there, there are different boards and the Board of Adjustments is the only one I can, um, think of off the top of my head that they go through before it gets to the administration for approval. And it, it kind of takes... Um, it, it, it, it, it's, it's a third party outside being able to objectively look at, I think, a denial that has been made by our government perhaps, so- Okay, so then it is appeals board. Yeah. If someone has had a denial, then they would go this- They can a- they can appeal through that board. Okay, so this is the same as the appeals board. Yes, they can... They can appeal to this board. Is that, is that not what... To approve, disapprove, or modify, they can go to this board and appeal the process. It's the same as in the other ordinance. I'm sorry. Okay. Actually, I do have another question. Okay, uh, I thought you were... I, I thought I was through too. Okay. Um, so the, the second half of then, this then is to make up... Uh, to, to describe the, um, the composition of this board, correct? The second half of this- That is correct. ... is to ma- is to create the- Yeah, 2A is, um, that basically is the staggered terms of the board. Um, c-calling for, you know, to get them staggered and then the 2B is basically who the representation of the board going from what Dr. Blues presented last week to this. Okay. Uh, and, and I would be inclined to support describing the composition of the board, um, because I do believe that we need, and I, and I mentioned this even in the, um, taskforce committee meetings, is that I really do believe that we need some expertise to be on that appeals board because I, I know that there will be folks who will hire... If they were going to appeal to this board, they will hire some expert, uh, professionals to help them create their, their argument and unless we have someone on that appeals board that can analyze those arguments with some expertise, then we would only be accepting, um, the, the paid professional's, uh, opinion on, on the value of that, rather than having somebody with some expertise to ask questions and refute things, so I would support the makeup. Thank you. Council Member Stennet. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Crosby, I'm just curious because we haven't introduced section 16-411, how can we even approve this at all instead of talking about the other one first? Wouldn't you rather pre- present the other one first so we can... Because this, D refers back to that ordinance. If we don't approve that, then we can't approve D. Well, we can introduce section... We, we can do it- I'm just saying I ask law, I mean, how can we approve D if we don't approve... Well, you could approve it. It would have no meaning unless you adopt- I mean- ... uh, 411, but the better course probably would be to discuss them in tandem. So if we didn't approve 411, then D would just- Then D's just not- Fair enough. Thank you. Thank you. For purposes of, of facilitating the debate, you know, I'd entertain a motion to divide by including 411 in the discussion now if you'd, if you'd like, but that's up to you all. I don't see anyone else wishing to speak at this particular time, so the motion on the floor is to, um, approve the recommended changes in the appeals board. Again, Madam Clerk, if you would set the electronic voting for us. Uh, Council Member Martin, do you wish to speak? Mayor, I just have a question. So the amendment, the proposed amendment to 16-402 is not under consideration here. Is that correct? Hang on just a moment. On page three. That is correct. Thank you. We're -- we are presently voting only on, um, section 16-408 at the bottom of page nine. Everybody with me? So, question on the floor now is if you wish to adopt the proposed changes in Section 16408? If so, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed vote nay. Motion, uh, fails by, fails by a vote of 12 to three. For those who may be interested, uh, Council Members Feigl, Ellinger and Crosby voted in favor of the motion. All other council members voted a- opposed. Now, what's remains on the floor for further discussion are the remaining portions of the ordinance subject to Council Member Beard's desire to make about 15 motions, I think he said a moment ago, so, um, I don't know if there are other motions that you wish to entertain. Uh, a-any other portions of the, of the ordinance that you wish to divide or whether you wish to d-deal with the rest of the issues in, in toto. In the absence of a motion to divide, the motion on the floor is to adopt the changes as reflected in the ordinance that was circulated. Um, just a second here. Let me see. Okay, Council Member Myers and Council Member Lane. I'd, I'd go ahead and move to, uh, separate the remaining as individual motions. So moved. Uh, what... I'm, I'm not clear what we're doing now. Well, I guess if we're using this document... So the next motion looks like... Well... Uh, I- I'm getting mixed signals here is the motion to consider something more than Section 16411 as Council Member Crosby suggested just a moment ago? I... I would move that we separate them out individually. Okay. You want me to ask... You want to ask me how to do that? Yeah, and what I'm trying to figure out is what, what it is we're separating out. Yeah, I guess the problem is we have two different documents, so it depends on which one you look at. I think for purposes of our discussion, it would probably be better to focus on the ordinance document just because it provides more detail. Okay then I had divided the other one out, the short form, so I'll re- I withdraw my motion. All right. Mayor? Council Member Crosby. Just to clarify, I'm also kind of going off the short one and it appears that, that we would be down to under the crossed off, um, portion, which would be now the 16-411 on page 12. Your Honor, Mayor? Yes sir, Mr.- If I, if I might, I might help, might not. Uh- I'm... I would welcome- Okay. ... all offers at this stage of the game. A-as Council Member Crosby identified, down to the... after the marked out portion where it begins to provide for an adjustment, all the language after that, which is in the form of this motion relates to section, uh, 411. Even, even though it doesn't mention it by section. So- All right. So you are correct that the only thing really left is 411. So I, I think Council Member Meyers you wish to move to s- divide by, by segregating section 16411 for purposes of discussion now. So moved. Second. Have a motion by Council Member Meyers, a second by Council Member Beard to divide the motion to address section 16411 in the ordinance. Any discussion? All in favor pl- please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion fails. And I also have to correct myself because there is a provision for a separate board that is also in there and that's a separate section. That would be 412. So 411 and 412, but- The motion on the floor then is still Council Member Crosby's motion, all relating portions of it... R- all, all, all portions of her motion other than those relating to section 16408 which we just dispensed with a moment ago. Mayor? Also... Council Member Crosby. Uh, uh, just on s- since 16411 failed, on 16412 and I may have to ask Commissioner Taylor if this would meet the definition. And I know she doesn't necessarily have... She, she does not have this in front of her, which may not be a fair question, but under, um, the consent decree, um, with the MS4, do we have to have a... I, I can ask this question. Um... I'm sorry. I, I think she can use it. I'm sorry. Do we... Oh, that's okay. Um, do we have to have an outside oversight, um- ... um, board, uh, as part of the MS4- MS4 does, well, and the SWMP- Uh-huh. ... actually does require that we have a stakeholder's advisory committee. Thank you. And it doesn't really specify how that composition is or what, but it, it does need to include citizen input in, in what we do. So- Thank you very much. Okay. And I'd just like to point out at this point, our ordinance does not have that con- that, that committee in it. Thank you. And, and, and- And, and let me make sure I understand. Are you talking about the- Um, 16-412. Thank you. All right. Yes. And so this would, this could, this, this, um, was added in as, and you can read it, um, this is to help evaluate deadlines mandated by the EPA consent decree. Um, there can be flexibility of the makeup of this, but it could also help us, uh, be in compliance with the consent decree since we actually, um, with the, with it we're supposed to have an outside oversight citizen board looking at this, and we have not done that by ordinance as we should, it, the way our current, current ordinance stands. So I would at least cons- ask you all to consider at the very minimal creating some kind of oversight committee, whether it's not in this form, but in some kind of form, um, for that. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Crosby. The motion on the floor is all portions of Council Member Crosby's original motion, other than section 408. Council Member Gordon. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Taylor, do you mind to come back to, uh, answer a question about that MS4 permit- Yeah. ... and the required board? And Commissioner Taylor, it may be handy for you just to stay up here handy. Thank you very much. Uh, what specifically does the MS4 permit require in terms of a board? Not that we have a lot of details. There, there isn't one. Okay. I'm just making sure. Well, what it does say is you have to have the stakeholder advisory, uh, board, but it doesn't really specify a lot of information about the composition, how we choose members or anything. It just says that you have to have that board, or stakeholder advisory group. Mm-hmm. And, um, so it really leaves it up to the community. Um, and just to kinda clarify, the consent decree, of course, requires us to comply with the SWMP or the acronym that we use for the Storm Water Management Quality Plan. Mm-hmm. And in the meantime, our MS4 permit will be, um, made, it prob- we'll probably get this by the end of May. That's what the state has said, although there's no promise. But, but that'll also reinforce the same requirement. So we'll have in the permit and also later in the consent decree the requirement to have a stakeholder advisory group. Now, is the advisory group to be outside of government? That's the intent, yes. It, so there is that requirement. Does it say outside government, do you remember exactly? I, I don't remember. Okay. ???? It uses the term stakeholders. Mm-hmm. How I would describe it is this, is that it, it, there are program elements, measurable goals that are required under the Storm Water Quality Management Program, and this stakeholder's advisory committee is supposed to evaluate how we go about doing those to ensure that we're implementing our requirements to the maximum, maximum extent practical. Mm-hmm. Which is what the law requires. Um, it doesn't address the, um, the storm water or the water quality management fee. That's not mentioned in the Storm Water Quality Management Program at all. Mm-hmm. That doesn't not allow us to do that. Um, but we are expected to have a stakeholder's advisory committee, but it's really focused on that Storm Water Quality Management Program and how we are able to implement the details of it. For the MS4 permit. MS4 permit. Well, the reason I was asking is, um, uh, so, so is it your assessment that it would need to be something different from the Water Resources Oversight, which already reviews consent decree compliance? It would need to be something different? I believe it would be. Uh huh. 'Cause, 'cause the stakeholders, you know, you want people- Mm-hmm. ... who are engaged in environmental issues, the business community, every, it's, it's a community where everybody has a seat at the table and has a voice. Yes. Okay. I appreciate that. Um, well, I would like to speak then, um, against the motion on the floor to approve the rest of this, um, and then I would, um, l- like for the council to look at, um, a stakeholders board as required by the MS4 permit, um, and to have that crafted so that it could, this is not a motion, it's just my comment, um, so that we could look at that in the future and devise it for that purpose. I think that the, um, I was concerned that, um, when the chamber of commerce, Commerce Lexington brought this idea forward, that it would be yet another administrative layer. Uh, because we already have an EPA consent decree where we have to follow specific compliance issues, and they are tracking it in the administrative side, and then the water quality, or, or the Water Resources Oversight Committee gets a report every month as to what the compliance is, what issues they've attended to. And so we've already got that part layered in. So I felt like that would be maybe almost an excessive layer, and so I would, um, support moving forward at some point, maybe next week on the MS4 permit board, but I'm speaking against this right now. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Uh, thank you, Mayor. Uh- I have a question for Council Member Crosby. On, on page three of the, uh, proposed ordinance, the section 16-402 sub 3, um, who would determine whether a parcel discharges storm water within the borders of Fayette County? Well, they would have to go before, uh, probably, uh, Charlie Martin and their department to determine. And I guess then if there would have been an appeal, they would have gone before, um, the f- the, uh, the, uh, the actual board. But, um, uh, the m- the, the purpose of that was that not all properties in Fayette County are connected to the city's system. So basically, why charge them if they're not connected within the system was just the point of that but... If, um, i- i- if someone has a house and, and they can come in and argue that, that none of the water runs off their property into the street, would they get a ... would they, they appeal their fee or what would they do? They would, they would appeal their fee. Um, and so this would, this would- But they'd also have to be able to prove the, show the burden that they, they aren't and, I mean, I would imagine that's a pretty heavy, heavy burden, uh, to be able to prove but there are some that can do that as well as ... Um, I, I heard that concern from some, uh, farm owners actually, um, who border, uh, other communities and that was of concern to them as little that was before they realized they were only paying 432 per parcel which kind of takes them out of the mix a little bit. But we do have, for ex- example, um, uh, Blue Grass Depot and some other pretty big... A question for either Commissioner Taylor or Charlie Martin, um, what would be the cost of making these types of determinations? I'm assuming you would have to map out a watershed and, and understand whether a property would be flowing one way or the other and, um ... Uh, Council Person Martin, it would be difficult to determine that, to be quite honest with you. It would be very, very difficult. Um, the, there are topog- topographic maps that establish, you know, drainage basins and sub-drainage basins. To be able to prove whether or not the, the discharge actually occurred in the borders of Fayette County or they occurred in the borders of Scott County, I'll use the Horse Park as an example since it borders two counties, I don't know, that would be a tough one. I don't know- Is it con- ... I'm not so sure how I would, I would make my appeal to that. Is it conceivable that this is gonna be a, uh, um, a- a- possibly a heavily litigated part of the, uh, of the ordinance? I can see a lot of debate 'cause like I said, it's, I, it, l- it, it caused us to scratch our head back there as far as how we would figure that out. Um- Y- you think it might be ex- I mean, w- would someone would have to go out and do some engineering, wouldn't they? I think clearly that would have to be the case. I mean, first of all, you'd h- obviously have to verify, let's say, let's use the Horse Park as an example, if they had a, their own stormwater collection system on the Horse Park itself and they say, "Well, no, that pipe actually discharges into the waters of the commonwealth outside of Fayette County," we would have to go out there and look at that. And then arguably, the way this is written is, is that if it, if they moved their discharge point far enough downstream into Scott County, then it would not be within the borders of Fayette County and that that would then potentially exempt them from this. Who would have the burden of determining whether it's within the borders of Fayette County or whether it's discharging? Well, uh, clearly the, uh, the appellant normally would be expected to be the one that would have the burden of proof, but clearly we would have to go out there and validate it one way or another, um, you know, uh, within reason. So if I got a nice rain barrel and I made the argument that, that, uh, m- my rain stays on my land and gets soaked up in my front yard, would you guys have to come out and do a study of my yard? Yeah, we'd probably have to come out when it was raining really hard. I, I think this is a, a, a loophole the size of Mammoth Cave and so I'm, I'm not gonna be able to support this. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, with all due respect, Mr. Martin, I, I would just like to say too that it could be arguably litigated even if it is taken out so either way it can be, I mean, I think it's an unfair statement just to say because it's in there, it's b- it causes you pause to scratch your head. I mean, anybody can litigate if they don't believe that they're, they're discharging. That, that is a point that it wouldn't have been brought to my attention, I believe, if, if it's not a point that someone believes could be litigated, period. It's already a loophole. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Uh, thank you. I just wanted to add one more thought. What if your property is, runs along the edge of the Kentucky River and the water runs into the river that's not in the Fayette County? So, uh, I'll just share that thought with you. Any further discussion? The motion then that is, uh, before the council for consideration is the remaining portions of, of Council Member Crosby's motion other than Section 408 that we have discussed. Everybody with me? I think we're prepared to vote if I don't see any further debate. One- Yeah. Are we including, uh- What Council Member Martin mentioned, the, uh, 16-402 in the motion? Everything. Everything. E- everything? Everything. Not just 411 and 412? Everything- Correct. Everything. All right. Madam Clerk, if you can refresh our screen for us. I'd like to vote electronically, so that ... Those in favor, please vote aye. Those opposed vote nay. Motion fails by a vote of 2 to 13. Are there any further motions with regard to the stormwater fee ordinance? Madam Clerk? Uh, well, let's stop for just a second. Um, Mr. Gardner, at some point I guess we need to give first reading tonight to the motion as now amended. Well, uh, I was just consulting with the clerk. I don't believe there's been a vote on Ms. Gordon's motion. These were all subsequent motions to hers, but I don't believe hers ever passed. Or, oh, it did? Okay. Then, then, then we're ready f- for a new first reading. You're right. Then Madam Clerk. Should ask the mayor. I don't ... I'll defer to everybody on that. I don't ... Council Member Stennet, you- Uh, I think the appropriate thing to do would be to go ahead and vote on all the second readings that you, we just had, and then have a new first reading for this one 'cause it's a material change, correct? Yes, it will require- We've done the second readings- It'll require a new first reading, so now or with first readings, either one. Well, we've gotta vote on the second readings before we can go to the first. Okay. Then I think we're through... We're through with all the ordinances entitled to second reading. Is there a motion to approve, uh, items one through 14? So moved. So moved. Council Member Blues has moved to approve item- She, she has not read them all. She stopped before 15, I believe. Okay. Yeah, but City Manager Castor- But I thought she just amended, so- Right, but you need to read the rest of them. They're different. So moved. My, my rec- my recollection- So moved. Okay. Yes. My recollection is we'd read through 14 and 15. The one we've been discussing is the last one. Right, it is the last one, so we just verified that, so- So Council Member Blues has moved the adoption of items one through 14, and Council Member Myers, I think it was, seconded that motion. So now the, the motion before the council is to approve ordinances one through 14 that have received their second reading. Is there any further discussion? Then those in favor, please ... Council Member Martin? Sorry. Thank you, Mayor. I, I need to r- recuse from, uh, items one and two. I am a member of the First United Methodist Church in Lexington, and so I will not ... I recuse, recuse myself from item number one. And, uh, item number two, my, my former partner, I think, has a client on that, and so I'm gonna recuse from number, item number two as well. Thank you, Mayor. Thank- thank you very much. Those recusals are duly noted. And I will recuse on item number one as well. Clerk will note that recusal. Any ... Uh, Council Member Feigel, Council Member Myers has correctly noted a, we're supposed to offer some explanation. Um, I'm also a member of the First Methodist Church, and if there is any, um, perception of impropriety, then I would rec- recuse. Thank you very much. I think we're now ready to vote. Those in favor of approving ordinances one through 14, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed vote nay electronically. And Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Meyers? Yes. Mr. Stennet? Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Blues? Here. Ms. Crosby? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Ms. Feigel? Yes, except for one. Right. Ms. Gorton? Aye. Mr. Gray? Yes. Ms. Henson? Yes. Ms. James? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Yes. And Mr. Martin? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Those ordinances are unanimously approved. We're now ready to move to ordinances entitled to first reading, including ordinance number 15 as, uh, as amended. Okay. I can read number 15 as amended for first reading. An ordinance creating article 14 of chapter 16 of the Code of Ordinances to establish a system of water quality management fees, defining terms relating to the water quality management fees, imposing a water quality management fee on every parcel of land in Fayette County, except undeveloped parcels, railroad tracks, state and federal roads, uh, urban county government streets and roads, and private streets used exclusively for access to single-family residential properties, providing that class A properties, single family and farm properties shall pay $4.32 per month for each parcel, and that the charge for class B properties, all other parcels, shall be based on an amount of impervious surface expressed in equivalent residential units, ERUs, determined to be 2,500 square feet of impervious surface multiplied by 4- Dollars and 32 cents per month, but in no event shall any, any parcel pay less than $4.32 per month, providing that water quality management fees shall be adjusted annually each fiscal year beginning July 1, 2011 in accordance with the consumer price index for all urban consumers, providing for f- monthly billing and providing that the owner, tenant, or person responsible for payment of water service and or sewer service charges is also responsible for payment of the water quality management fees, providing for allocation of fees among multiple occupants for shopping centers, apartments, condominiums, et cetera, with the owner remaining full, re- fully responsible for payment of all water quality management fees, providing for collection of fees including establishing a penalty of 10% and interest of 1% per calendar month on bills remaining unpaid for more than 30 days and authorizing and directing the Department of Law to institute legal proceeding for a collection of fees, establishing a 30% discount program for qualifying senior citizens and disabled citizens, to establish a grant program providing for qualifying customers to receive a 50% adjustment to their bill for water quality management fees, providing that all monies collected through water quality management fees shall be separately identified and that- accounted for and all expenses relating to the Irvin County Government Stormwater Program shall be separately identified and administered, providing an appeal process for persons who consider that few- fees applied are inaccurate, establishing a water quality fees board to review denials of requests for adjustment of sanitary sewer user fees and decisions on applications for adjustment to water quality management fees, providing that the board shall be composed of five citizens appointed by the mayor and an ex officio member from the Department of Law and providing that no two citizen members may reside in the same council district, providing that a formal review and audit of the water quality management fees shall be performed on or before January 13, excuse me, January 31, 2013, and every five years thereafter and providing that at least one public hearing shall be held every time the review and audit is performed, establishing of stormwater quality projects incentive grant program to provide cost-sharing assistance for eligible projects that will improve water quality to be funded annually in an amount not less than 10% of the total revenue generated by the fees, providing that the fees will not be implemented before January 1, 2010 and repealing section 16-63C relating to the sanitary sewer user fee appeals board. Now I can continue on with the other first readings. Ordinance number 16 for first reading, an ordinance omitting article 6-4C to authorize the Planning Commission to review variances and conditional use permits associated with zone changes at the zone change public hearings. 17, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to accept a grant from the Kentucky League of Cities which grant funds are in the amount of $922.50 under the 2009 Safety and Liability Grant Program are for the purchase of personal protective safety jackets for traffic technicians, the acceptance of which obligates the Irvin County Government for the expenditure of $922.50 as a local match, appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule number 137 and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 18, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the Governor's Highway Safety Program in the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application and to accept this grant if the application is approved, which grant funds are in the amount of $65,000 federal funds are for continuation of the traffic safety program for FY 2010 the acceptance of which obligates the Irvin County Government for the expenditure of $65,000 as a local match, appropriating funds pursuant to FY 2010 schedule number six and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 19, an ordinance authori- eh, an- amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington Fayette Irvin County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures and appropriating and reappropriating funds scheduled number 138. Number 20, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Office of Highway Safety for- which grant funds are in the amount of $15,000 federal funds are for participation in the Maine 2009 Click It or Ticket Safety Belt Enforcement Mobilization Program, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Irvin County Government for the expenditure of funds appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 139 and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 21, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute an amendment to contract with Meta Formers Incorporated in- for additional services related to the implementation of PeopleSoft at a cost not to exceed $1,343,168 and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 140. 22, an ordinance submitting certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for funds in the amount of $2,800 in the Division of Parks and Recreation from the Council Capital Funds for installation of trees in Martin Luther King Park and appropriating and reappropriating funds schedule number 142. 23, an ordinance submitting certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Irvin County Government to reflect current requirements for funds in the amount of $10,000 in the Division of Parks and Recreation from the Council Capital Funds for playground equipment and trail construction in Masterson Station Park and appropriating and reappropriating funds schedule number 143. 24, an ordinance submitting certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Irvin County Government to reflect current requirements for funds in the amount of $975 from neighborhood development funds in the Division of Streets, Roads, and Forestry for the purchase and installation of trees in the Bella Woods Park and appropriating and reappropriating funds schedule number 144. 25, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Dev- Department of Juvenile Justice, which grant funds are in the amount of $241,845 Commonwealth of Kentucky Funds are for operation of the Day Treatment Program for the Division of Youth Services, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Irvin County Government for the expenditure of funds appropriating funds pursuant to schedule to- FY 2010 schedule number seven and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. 26, e- An ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the Bluegrass Area Development District, to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application, and to accept this grant if the application is approved, which grant funds are in the amount of eight-- $84,660 federal funds are for operation of the Senior Citizen Center in FY2010. The acceptance of which obligates the Irvin County Government for the expenditure of $151,910 as a local match, appropriating funds pursuant to FY2010 schedule number eight, and authorizing the mayor to transfer and encumber funds within the grant budget. And number 27, an ordinance approving and adopting substantial amendment to the 2008 consolidated plan for the use of funds from the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Housing Reprogramming, and authorizing and dir- directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application, and to accept this grant if the application is approved, which grant funds are in the amount of 849,668 federal funds are for operation of the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Housing Reprogramming, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Irvin County Government for the expenditure of funds, appropriating funds pursuant to FY2010 schedule number nine, and authorizing the mayor to transfer any encumbered funds within the grant budget. And there's a walk-on, sir. Thank you. Council member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on the docket for tonight's, uh, meeting an ordinance amending certain of the budgets to reflect, uh, current requirements for funds in the amount of $50,000 for the Street Sales Program, schedule number 149, with funds to be spent by June 30th, 2009, budget journal, uh, number 32957-58, as per the request of the administration. So moved. Thank you. Council member Myers seconded Council Member McCord's motion. Let me just, uh, mention to you, this is, uh, as well as the item earlier tonight, i- i- these are issues from community development that have been brought because of the abbreviated schedule, meeting schedule. We have some grants that are time-sensitive. Uh, the idea tonight is to go ahead and get this on the agenda for first reading tonight. To the extent folks have questions about it, we'll have them here prior to second reading next week. But this is a, a grant application that has a May deadline. So, I would appreciate your support. Any discussion of the motion? All in favor of adding that item to the agenda for first reading this evening, please indicate by saying "Aye." Opposed, "No." Motion carries. Madam Clerk. Ordinance number 28, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the legislator of county government to reflect current requirements for funds in the amount of $50,000 for the Street Sales Program, and appropriating and reappropriating funds schedule number 149. Thank you very much. If there are no motions, Madam Clerk, if you'll give, uh, second reading to the resolutions entitled to second reading. I will, but I also want to reflect that, uh, I want to reflect the current vote on, um, Mr. Martin voted no on that motion, so the- the record will be shown. May I apologize? I did not hear the, the original motion. I was talking with Commissioner Taylor, so, um, I'll just leave it at that. Thank you, Mayor. Very well. Is, is that... Did I state that correctly, Mr. Martin? Okay, thank you. All right. Resolution number one, a resolution accepting the bid of Univar USA Incorporated establishing a price contract for liquid chlorine for the Division of Water Quality. Number two, a resolution accepting the bid of Mary's Cleaning Service establishing a price contract for custodial services Central Kentucky Job Center for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number three, a resolution accepting the bid of National Workwear, establishing a price contract for work shoes for the Division of Waste Management. Number four, a resolution accepting the bid of E.C. Matthews Company Incorporated in the amount of 181,460 for the Versailles Road Corridor Enhancement for the Division of Community Development and the Mayor's Office in authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute any necessary agreement with E.C. Matthews Company Incorporated related to the bid. Number five, a resolution accepting the bid of E.C. Matthews Company Incorporated in the amount of $20,939 for a wheelchair lift replacement for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management, and authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute an agreement with E.C. Matthews Company Incorporated related to the bid. Number six, a resolution accepting the bid of Churchill Magee LLC in the amount of $261,750 for the Masterson Station tr- tack barn for the Division of Parks and Recreation, and authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute an agreement with Churchill Magee LLC related to the bid. Number seven, a resolution accepting the bids of VF Image Wear Incorporated, Kentucky Uniforms Incorporated, Galls and U.S. Cavalry, establishing price contracts for uniforms for the Division of Community Corrections. Number eight, a resolution accepting the bid of Bluegrass Mailing Data and Fulfillment Services, establishing a price contract for distribution of fund guide for the Division of Parks and Recreation. Number nine, a resolution accepting the bids of Lawman's and Shooter's Supply Incorporated, Galls, Kentucky Uniforms Incorporated, and Bluegrass Fire Equipment, establishing price contracts for fire recruit equipment 2009 for the Division of Fire and Emergency Services. Number 10, a resolution accepting the bid of Mary's Cleaning Service, establishing a price contract for custodial services public safety for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number 11, a resolution accepting the bid of Bluegrass Towing Incorporated, establishing a price contract for towing services for the Division of, Divisions of Police and Code Enforcement and the Department of General Services and the Parking Authority. Number 12, a resolution accepting the bid of MAC Tire Recyclers Incorporated, establishing a price contract for tire loading, es- transporting, and recycling for the Division of Environmental Policy. Number 13, a resolution accepting the bid of Pro-Tek Security Sales, establishing a price contract for ballistic shields for the Divisions of Community Development and Police. Number 14, a- A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an amended and restated grant agreement with the Cabinet for Economic Development, the State Property and Buildings Commission, and Belcan Engineering Group Incorporated to include additional terms and to replace the original grant agreement, as approved pursuant to Ordinance Number 325-2005, and amended by Resolution 697-2008 at no cost to the government. Number 15, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a trail design agreement with CDP Engineers for design of the Veterans Park mountain bike trail at a cost not to exceed $22,354. Number 16, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a trail design agreement with Third Rock Consultants, LLC, for design of Masterson Station Trails at a cost not to exceed $40,930. Number 17, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the Kentucky Division of Emergency Management and to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application, which grant funds are in the amount of $133,720 federal funds under the Federal Emergency Management Ha- Agency's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and are for recycling the generator and, excuse me, for replacing the generator and upgrading the electrical service at Fire Station One. Number 18, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a agreement with the University of Kentucky for space in the University of Kentucky Hospital emergency room for use as a clinical practice area for the sexual assault treatment program at a cost not to exceed $3,000. Number 19, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the US Department of Justice and to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application which grant funds are in the amount of $119,587 federal funds under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program and are for reimbursement of costs related to the incarceration of an undocumented criminal aliens. Number 20, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a deed of easement with Kentucky American Water Company for permanent and temporary construction easements across the property located at 2500 Flying Ebony Drive, 810 Starshoot Parkway, for a waterline for the sum of $19,778 for the permanent easement and $275 per month for the temporary construction easement. 21, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute agreements with Lafayette High School Baseball Boosters Incorporated, 575, Lexington Tree Foundation Incorporated, $600, and Henry Clay Memorial Foundation, $950 for the Office of the Urban County Council at a cost not to exceed the sums stated. 22, a resolution ratifying the probationary civil service appointment of TJ Taylor, Sewer Line Maintenance Superintendent, grade 116E-20040640 biweekly in the Division of Water Quality, effective April 13th, 2009, ratifying the permanent sworn appointments of Kenneth Raglan, Fire Captain, grade 316N in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective March 1, 2009, Jeremy Wheatley, Fire Lieutenant, grade 315N in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective March 1, 2009, Sean Braun, Fire Major, grade 318E in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective March 1, 2009, approving the unclassified civil service appointment of Harry Ashby, Public Service Worker, grade 106N, 13.287 hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective April 27, 2009, Darrell Owens, Public Service Worker, grade 106N, 11.560 hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective April 27, 2009, Eric Higgins, Junior Public Service Worker, grade 106N, 11.460 hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective April 27, 2009, Marshawn Cowan, Public Service Worker, grade 106N, 11.560 hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective April 27, 2009, Brendan Scott, Public Service Worker, grade 106N, 10.364 hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective April 27, 2009, Ernest Baity III, Public Service Worker, grade 106N, 10.862 hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective April 27, 2009. Number 23, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet and to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application, which grant funds are in the amount of $113,154 Commonwealth of Kentucky Funds under the Kentucky Household Hazardous Waste Management Grant Program and are for support of a one-day household hazardous waste recycling event for Lexington-Fayette County. 24, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a submit- and submit a grant application to the Kentucky Energy and Environmental Cabinet and to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application, which grant funds are in the amount of $14,035 Commonwealth of Kentucky Funds under the Kentucky Recycling and Household Hazardous Waste Grant Program and are for support of a partnership of for- with Habitat for Humanity to establish a program to collect, bulk, and resell leftover latex-based paint to generate revenue and reduce hazardous landfill-bound waste. 25, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute change order number one to the contract with Todd Johnson Contracting for Phase 2D for the- of the Meadows-Northland-Arlington Public Improvements Project, increasing the contract price by the sum of $7,978.86 from $666,372.41 to $674,351.27. 26, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a memorandum of agreement with Kentucky State Police for reimbursement of overtime expenditures for lab personnel for conducting forensics examinations for the Cold Case Squad Project at a cost not to exceed $4,000 in grant funds. 27, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an amendment to agreement with the Ok- Kentucky Office of Homeland Security for extension of the Metropolitan Medical Response Systems Project through June 30th, 2009, at no addition- at no cost to the Urban County Government. 28- ... a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf there of county government to execute an agreement with the Inoccon Group, LLC, for development of an all-hazards disaster preparedness plan for the 2010 World Equestrian Games at no cost to the, at a cost not to exceed $22,000. Number 29. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf there of the county government to execute a letter of agreement with Montjoy and Bresler, LLC, for performance of professional and financial auditing services for, of all of FY2009 urban county government funds at a cost not to exceed the 115,450 dollars. Number 30. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf there of the county government to execute a statement of work agreement and, with Metaformers Incorporated for infrastructure performance management support for suppo- projects synergy at a cost not to exceed $60,000. And number 31. A resolution amending section one and two of r- resolution 544, 2006, which authorized and directed the mayor on behalf there of the county government to execute agreements for various public projects for the office of the ho- Urban County Council, deleting the allocation to Hollywood Mount Vernon Neighborhood Association Incorporated $10,000. Mayor. Before we vote on that, I have a question. Yes. Um, it's related to, um, number 22 and I just saw this, um, so I apologize, but on number 22, there are two positions there that have hourly rates that are below living wage. And I just, I thought that we had talked sometime during budget time last year about living wage being a standard, and I, I just wonder if I could get an explanation as to why those are below. Uh, we did talk about that, and I had not noticed that previously. I'm looking specifically at Brendan Scott and Ernest Beatty? Yes. Those are the two. I believe. And, um, what I would, what I would suggest to you is, I'll be glad to go back and figure out what the issue is there, because my recollection was, last year in the budget process, we got everybody up past $11- 15. Yeah. -and change. I can't remember exactly- Mm-hmm, 11, 15, I think. ... what it was and, and my goal is to keep folks there. So, um, if you want to approve them, then we'll undertake an effort to get them back on the agenda shortly to adjust that. If you want to take them off and come back around, I'm fine with that too. Um, I don't want to hold up the process for them, so I would support moving ahead with this, and, um, definitely would be in support of them acquiring a living wage, um, and would look forward to that information at the next latest- I apprec- ... or at the earliest. I appreciate you bringing that up and, and I'll ask Mr. O'Mara to, uh, circle around with folks in HR to get that straightened out. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for bringing it up. Uh, Council Member Beard. Yes. Council Member James. Uh, w- which version of living wage is it? I, it looks like maybe there might be some more people on that list that are below living wage. At least some of the living wage calculations I've seen were in the $13 or plus range. The one, for reference, that I, I'm just recalling this is 11, 15, but I don't know from what index that was based. That, that was a number made available to us, I think, by the Community Action Council, if I recall last year. I believe that, I also believe that's correct. And, and that's where we tried to grab this one as well. Okay, 'cause there are other calculations by other entities and- You're, you're correct. ... I was wondering. All right. Anything further before we entertain a motion to approve those resolutions? Do I hear a motion? Do I hear a motion we adjourn? Oh. Oh. All right. All right. I have, have a motion from Council Member Gordon and a second from Council Member Lane to approve those resolutions receiving, um- Is that a motion to adjourn? Oh. Yeah, the motion to adjourn is building some favor over here, but- ... w- w- we've got a little more work to do before we go home. There's no discussion. We'll proceed to vote. Um, those in favor of approving those resolutions, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay electronically. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Mr. McCord. Yes. Mr. Meyers. Yes. Mr. Stennett. Yes. Mr. Beard. Aye. Mr. Blues. Yes. Ms. Crosby. Not yet. Mr. Ellinger. Yes. Miss, Ms. Feivel. I. Ms. Gordon. I. Mr. Gray. Yes. Ms. Henson. Yes. Ms. James. Yes. Mr. Lane. Yes. Ms. Lawless. Yes. And Mr. Martin. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Those motions are unanimously approved. Um, Madam Clerk, if you'll give sec- first reading to the resolutions entitled a first reading. Resolution number 32. A resolution accepting the bid of Marilla Design and Construction in the amount of $354,226.55 for the McConnell Springs Wetland Demonstration Area for the divisions of community development and water quality, and authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf there of the county government to execute any agreements related to the bid. Number 33. A resolution accepting the bid of Galls, establishing a price contract for soft body armor for the division of police. Number 34. A resolution accepting the bid of Tactical Medical Solutions, establishing a price contract for gunshot trauma kits for the divisions of community development and police. 35. A resolution accepting the bid of Independent Concrete Pipe Company Incorporated in the amount of $319,000 for Vaughn's Branch Flood Hazard Mitigation Project, materials only, for the divisions of community development and water quality. Number 36. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf there of county government to execute a memorandum of agreement with Blackburn-- Blackburn Correctional Complex for the provision of emergency response assistance to Blackburn Correctional Complex at no cost to the Irvin County Government. 37, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf there of Irvin County Government to execute an agreement with Previstar Incorporated for software application services at a cost not to exceed $2,500. 38, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf there of Irvin County Government to execute an agreement with The Chaucer Group, LLC, for completion of analysis of impediments to fair housing choice at a cost not to exceed $19,000. Number 39, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf there of Irvin County Government to execute a professional services agreement with Susan Newell as a sexual assault nurse examiner to provide on-call forensic examinations of the sexual assault nurse examiner program at a cost not to exceed $40 for each scheduled on-call period, $230 for each completed forensic examination, $50 per case for professional testimony in court, and the reasonable cost of medical liability insurance. Number 40, a resolution changing the street name and property address number of 459 and 457 Beltline Avenue to 600 and 602 West Fifth Street, of 5886, 5840, and 5888 Jacks Creek Pike, 23785, 3885, and 3990 Ravens Run Way, uh, 3229 Ironworks Pike to 3401 Sports Horse Lane, and 3677 Newtown Pike to 3232 Spy Coast Lane; changing the property address numbers of 447 Campbell Street to 449 Campbell Street; of 743 through 745 Charles Avenue to 745 Charles Avenue; of 372 Glen Arvin Avenue to 370 Glen Arvin Avenue; of 1588 Hill- Hillview Place to 1586 Hillview Place; of 214 through 230 Jefferson Street to 218 Jefferson Street; of 1800 Mason Headley Road to 975 Mason Headley Road; of 505 through 507 Newtown Pike to 505 Newtown Pike; of 712 to 714 West Third Street to 714 West Third Street; of 540 Toner Street to 539 Toner Street; of 130 West Vine Street to 108 West Vine Street; and of 134 through 166 West Vine Street to 110 West Vine Street; and changing the street name of 209 Todds Road, Units 10101, 10102, 10103, 10104, 10105, 10106, 10107, 101- 11101, 11102, 3103, 4102, 7106, 8101, 8102, 8103, 8104, 8105, 9101, 9102, 9103, 9104, 9105, 9106, 9107, and 9108 to 209 Old Todds Road Units 10101, 10102, 10103, 10104, 10105, 10106, 10107, 1011, 1011, 1102, 3103, 4102, 7106, 8101, 8102, 8103, 8104, 8105, 9101, 9102, 9103, 9104, 9105, 9106, 9107, and 9108, all effective 30 days from passage. Number 41, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf there of Irvin County Government to execute an amendment to Agreement with the Fayette County Commonwealth Attorney's Office for reduction of the funding for a fast track prosecutor for the Street Sales Drug Enforcement Project from four to ni- $49,331 to $31,331. Number 42, a resolution acknowledging the work of Destination 2040 project participants and expressing the Irvin County Council support and adoption of the value statements derived from the work of D- Destination 2040 visioning process. 43, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf there of Irvin County Government to execute agreements with Surgery on Sunday Incorporated, $1,000, and Lafayette High School Girls Booster Club Incorporated, $1,000 for the office of the Irvin County Council at a cost not to exceed the sums stated. 44, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf there of Irvin County Government to execute a certificate of consideration and accept a deed conveying a temporary construction easement from Robin Holler for the property located at 1400 Higbee Mill Road for the Clays Mill Road Improvement Project and authorize the payment in the amount of $5,625, plus usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 45, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf there of Irvin County Government to execute a certificate of consideration and accept a deed conveying a temporary construction easement from Velma and William Anderson for the property located at 3474 Clays Mill Road for the Clays Mill Road Improvement Project and authorize the payment in the amount of $575 plus usual and oppro- appropriate closing costs. 46, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf there of Irvin County Government to execute a certificate of consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sidewalk easement and temporary construction easement from Clarence and Mary Bledsoe for the property located at 548 Georgetown Street for the Georgetown Street Sidewalk Project and authorize the payment in the amount of $325, plus usual and appropriate closing costs. 47, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf there of Irvin County Government to execute a cons- certificate of consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sidewalk easement and temporary construction easement from Cullered Orphan Independent Home for the property located at 644 Georgetown Street for the Georgetown Street Sidewalk Project and authorize the payment in the amount of $250, plus usual and appropriate closing costs. 48, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf there of Irvin County Government to execute a certificate of consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent Senate- sidewalk easement and a temporary construction easement from Larry and JL Hanley for the property located at 681 Georgetown Street for the Georgetown Street Sidewalk Project and authorize the payment in the amount of $100 plus usual and appropriate closing costs. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute a certificate of consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sidewalk easement and temporary construction easement from Larry and JL Handley- ... for the property located at 689 Georgetown Street for the Georgetown Street Sidewalk Project and authorizing payment in the amount of 250 dollars plus usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 50. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute a certificate of consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sidewalk easement and temporary construction easement from Corrine Warfield for the property located at 695 Georgetown Street for the Georgetown Street Sidewalk Project and authorizing payment in the amount of 125 dollars plus usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 51. A resolution ratifying the probationary civil service appointments of James Bush, environmental program manager, grade 117E20020872 biweekly in the Division of Environmental Policy, effective May 18th, 2009. Robert Smith, maintenance supervisor, grade 115E20038184 biweekly in the Division of Water Quality, effective April 27th, 2009. Ratifying the leave of absence of Laurie Roland, ƒsucons, ƒsusunco, telecommunicator, grade 111N, request 30-day council-approved leave without pay from April fourth-- April 18th, 2009 to May 24th, 2009 in the Division of Emergency Management 911. Approving the unclassified civil service appointments of Elizabeth McKinney, probationary officer, grade 110N17.195 hourly in the Division of Community Corrections, effective April 27th, 2009. Charles Morton, public service worker, grade 106N12.182 hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective April 28th, 2009. Number 52. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute change order number one of the contract with GRW Engineers Incorporated for the investigation and design of the expansion area to a pumping station and force main, increasing the contract price by the sum of $45,000, from $380,000 to $425,000. 53. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute an agreement with ser- for services with Wallace and Roberts and Todd, LLC, for the Complete Streets Manual Project at a cost not to exceed $150,000. Number 54. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute change order number one of the contract with Kentucky Utilities Company for Town Branch Treatment Plant redundant power, increasing the contract price by the sum of $60,356.61 from $275,160 to $335,516.61. Number 55. A resolution autho- adopting a process flowchart for conversion of any one-w way street into a two-way street. 56. A resolution authorizing a feasibility study of Short Street and 2nd Street for possible conversion into two-way streets. 57. A resolution authorizing and directing the Division of Traffic Engineering pursuant to Code of Ordinances Section 18-86 to install multi-y stop controls at Beaumont Center Lane and Rus- Roswell Drive and Malone Drive. Number 58. A resolution authorizing and directing the Division of Traffic Engineering pursuant to Code of Ordinances Section 18-86 to install multi-way stop controls at Providence Lane and Colony Boulevard. Number 59. A resolution pursuant to Code of Ordinances Section 18-66 designating the speed limit of, on Kidville Lane as 35 miles per hour and authorizing and directing the Division of Traffic Engineering to install proper and appropriate signs in accordance with the designation. Number 60. A resolution approving the following neighborhood developments and/or redevelopment bond issue projects. Green Acres Park upgrades, door replacement, Meta Thorpe and Marlboro tree planting, Martin Luther King shelter new roof, Highlands Bike Stop, Woodland Projects tennis court in Gateway, Douglas Park path sidewalk replacement, Douglas Park signage, dirt bowl memorial sign, Gainesway Projects construction, Roland rail guardrail on Roland Drive, Deep Springs Neighborhood Association signage beautification, Cove Haven Cemetery tree maintenance and removal, Isaac Scott Hathaway site improvements, Lansdowne med- median beautification, and Art in Motion artistic bus shelter. Number 61. A resolution reducing the scope of the contract with Launch Construction, LLC for the Bluegrass Espindell Collector Street Phase Two to eliminate the remaining street construction between Third Street and Midland Avenue. 62. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute a facility usage contract with the Fayette County Board of Education for use of the Tates Creek High School track at a cost not to exceed $355. 63. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute a special warranty deed conveying a certain tract or parcel of land known as the Bryan Station Middle School property to the Board of Education of Fayette County, Kentucky in consideration- ... of the payment in full of school building revenue bonds issued by the Irvin County Government for the construction of improvements to said property. 64. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute agreements with Meadows Loudon Neigh- Neighborhood Association Incorporated, 500 dollars, Lafayette High School Girls Booster Club Incorporated, one thousand dollars, Mash Services of the Bluegrass Incorporated, 750 dollars, LFUCG Division of Streets and Roads and Forestry, 975 dollars, Highlands Neighborhood Association Incorporated, 500 dollars, Merrihaven Mo- Homeowners Association Incorporated, 400 dollars, Townley Park Homeowners Association Incorporated, 400 dollars, Hillandale Neighborhood Association Incorporated, 500 dollars, and Bryan Station Alumni Association Incorporated, 600 dollars, for the Office of the Irvin County Council at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. 65. A resolution authorizing and directing the ma- uh, excuse me. A resolution authorizing and approving the transfer by the Lexington Centre Corporation of a portion of property along Cocke Street to the Commonwealth of Kentucky and declaring a surplus property and authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute a deed and certificate of consideration transferring the property located at 906 West High Street to the Commonwealth of Kentucky for the Newtown Pike Extension Project. Number 66. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute a trail design agreement with CDP Engineers Incorporated for the Town Branch Trail phases three and four at a cost not to exceed $195,739. 67, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute change order number one to the contract with Herrick Company Incorporated for the Town Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant chlorination equipment replacement, increasing the contract price by the sum of $9,843, from $248,500 to $258,343. And number 68, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute change order number two to the contract with Arnold, Dugan and Myers for West Hickman Wastewater Treatment Plant aerated sludge holding tank improvements, increase in the contract price by the sum of $60,829, from $600,462 to $661,291. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Are there motions? Council member, Council Member McCord? Thank you, Mayor. I, I, uh, ask that we suspend the rules and give second reading to 45 and 46 for, excuse me, 44 and 45. Uh, these are Clays Mill Road construction easements that, and those were, um, one of the last two construction easements so we can move the project forward. And then also on number 66, um, and this has to do with the, the, uh, shortening of timeframe that we've got to work with to, to design and build the Town Branch Trail. So moved. Do I hear a second in that motion? Second. We have a motion and second to suspend the rules for purposes of giving second reading. Are there others that we can add on? Council Member Stennet? Thank you, Mayor. Number 63, so they can, uh, begin this project over at Brown Station Middle School. And number 64, there's one of the organizations that's been waiting for funds for a couple of months now due to some errors within our accounting system. I just wanna get that money to them a lot faster. Others? Council Member Blues? I'd like to add number 32 please, so that we can move forward on the, uh, McConnell Springs Wetland project. Thank you. Others? Council Member James? I have quite a few, Mayor. Um, number 38 was the request of administration, uh, numbers 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 60 are all related to the same project, Neighborhood Development Bond Fund Project. Number- H- H- Hang on just a second. Sure. Did you, did you say 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 60? That's correct. All right. Number 61, I would also like to a- ask for a suspension of the rules. This is a project that's been going on quite a long time, and there are, um, the holdup of this item, the process of this item is holding up other developments that need to occur, um, in that Hope VI area, 3rd Street. And I would also like to add 55 and 56. Both of these are related to the two-way conversion process. Would you like for me to recap the ones I just named off? I, I think I've got them all. Go through them all, and if I miss one- Thank you. ... l- let me know. Thanks. All right. Ha- have I missed anyone else? Council Member Meyers? Thank you, ma'am. I'd like to suspend the rules and give second reading to number 62, uh, to get this done before, um, school's out. Thank you. Thank you. Any others? Council Member Martin? Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to suspend the rules to have a second reading, um, item 43, uh, in order for... These, these folks are, are, um, uh, waiting for their funds so they can get on with their program, and I... Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. All right. My list reflects that motion is to suspend the rules to give second reading to, uh, the following resolutions. 32, 38, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, and 66. Did, did I miss any? All right. Those in favor of suspending the rules to give second reading to those items, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Madam Clerk. Resolution number 32, a resolution accepting the bid of Tactical Medical Solutions, establishing a price contract for gunshot trauma kits for the divisions of community development and police. Number 38, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute an agreement with The Chaucer Group LLC for completion of an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice at a cost not to exceed $19,000. Number 43, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute agreements with Surgery On Sunday Incorporated $1,000 and Lafayette High School Girls Booster Club Incorporated $1,000 for the Office of the Irvin County Council at a cost not to exceed the sums stated. Number 44, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute a certificate of consideration and accept a deed conveying a temporary construction easement from Robin Holler for the property located at 1400 Higbee Mill Road for the Clays Mill Road improvement project, and authorizing payment in the amount of $5,625, plus usual and appropriate closing costs. 45, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a certificate of consideration and accept a deed of conveying a temporary construction easement from Velma and William Anderson for the property located at 3474 Clays Mill Road, for the Clays Mill Road improvement project and authorize in payment in the amount of nine... uh, $575 plus usual and appropriate closing costs. 46, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a certificate of consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sidewalk easement and temporary construction easement from Clarence and Mary Bledsoe for the property located at 548 Georgetown Street, for the pro- Georgetown Street Sidewalk Project and authorize the payment in the amount of fi- $325 plus usual and appropriate closing costs. 47, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a certificate of consider- consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sidewalk easement and temporary construction easement from Cullered Orphan Independent Home, for the property located at 644 Georgetown Street, for the Georgetown Street Sidewalk Project and authorize the payment in the amount of fi- $250 plus usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 48, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a certificate of consideration and accept a deed conveying as a permanent sidewalk easement and a temporary construction easement from Larry and JL Handley for the property located at 681 Georgetown Street, for the Georgetown Street Sidewalk Project and authorize the payment in the amount of $100 plus usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 49, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a certificate of consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent s- s- s- sidewalk easement and temporary construction easement from j- Larry and JL Handley for the property located at 689 Georgetown Street, for the Georgetown Street Sidewalk Project and authorize the payment in the amount of $250 plus usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 50, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a certificate of consideration and accept a deed conveying a permanent sidewalk easement and a temporary construction easement from Corrine Warfield for the property located at 695 Georgetown Street, for the Georgetown Street Sidewalk Project and authorize the payment in the amount of $125 plus usual and appropriate closing costs. Number 55, a resolution adopting a process flow chart for conversion of any one-way street into a two-way street. 56, a resolution authorizing the visi- visibility study of Short Street and Second Street for possible conversion into two-way streets. Number 60, a resolution approving the following neighborhood development and/or redevelopment bond issue projects, Green Acres Park upgrades, door replacement, Meadow Thorpe and Marlborough tree planting, Martin Luther King Shelter new re- roof, islands, backstop, woodland projects, tennis court and gateway, Douglas Park pathway... Douglas Park path, sidewalk replacement, Douglas Park signage, dirt bowl memorial sign, Gainesway projects construction, Roland rail guardrail on Roland Drive, Deep Springs Neighborhood Association signage/beautification, Cove and Hanes set- Cove and Ha- Cove Haven Cemetery tree maintenance and removal, Isaac Scott Hathaway site improvements, Lansdowne median/beautification, and Art and Motion artistic bus shelter. Number 61, a resolution reducing the scope of the contract with Claunch Construction LLC for the Bluegrass Espindale Collector Street Phase Two to eliminate the remaining street construction between Third Street and Midland Avenue. 62, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a facility usage contract with the Fayette County Board of Education for use of the Tates Creek High School track at a cost not to exceed $355. Number 63, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a special warranty deed conveying a certain track or par- or parcel of land known as the Bryan Station Middle School property to the Board of Education of Fayette County, Kentucky, in consideration of the payment in full of school building revenue bonds issued by the Irvin County government for the construction of improvements to said properties. Number 64, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute agreements with the Meadows-Loudon Neighborhood Association Incorporated, $500, Lafayette High School Girls Booster Club Incorporated, $1,000, Mash Services of the Bluegrass Incorporated, $750, LFUCG Division of Streets, Roads, and Forestry, $975, Highlands Neighborhood Association Incorporated, $500, Merhaven Homeowners Association Incorporated, $400, Townlink Park Homeowners Association Incorporated, $400, Hillandale Neighborhood Association Incorporated, $500, and Bryan Station Al- Alumni Associations Incorporated, $600, for the office of the Irvin County Council at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. And number 66, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County government to execute a trail design agreement with CDPG- CDP Engineers Incorporated for the Tron- Town Branch Trail phases three and four at a cost not to exceed $195,739. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Is there a motion to approve those resolutions? Stennett. I have a motion by Council Member Stennett and second by Council Member Blues. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll proceed to vote. All in favor, please indicate by voting "Aye" electronically. All opposed, vote "Nay" electronically. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Mr. McCord. Yes. Mr. Meyers. Yes. Mr. Stennett. Mr. Beard. Aye. Mr. Blues. No. Miss Crosby. Yes. Mr. Ellinger. Yes. Miss Feigel. Aye. Miss Gordon. Aye. Mr. Gray. Yes. Miss Hinson. Yes. Miss James. Yes. Mr. Lane. Yes. Miss Lawless. And Miss m- Mister Martins, sorry. Thank you. Those resolutions are approved unanimously. You have, uh, one communication from the mayor for your approval. Is there a motion? Move approval. You have a motion by Council Member Gordon, a second by Council Member Beard to approve the communication from the mayor. Any discussion? All in favor, please say, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, "No." Motion carries. Um, announcements? Yeah, Mayor. Council Member Ehlinger. I wanna wish, um, our council member, George Myers, a happy birthday. Happy birthday, George. What a way to spend an evening. Thank you, Council Member Ehlinger. I appreciate that. Thank you. Uh, Chief Hendricks. Good evening, Mayor, Council, the, uh, in the matter of Captain Charles Pendleton, um, who's charged with, uh, being absent without leave from regu- regularly scheduled work hours, um , he has, uh, indicated his concurrence, uh, with a written reprimand and, uh, offer that to you. Move approval. Second. I have a motion by Council Member, uh, Gordon to approve the recommended discipline. Uh, Council Member Crosby has seconded the motion. Any discussion, questions for Chief Hendricks? Council Member, uh, Wallace. Um, when somebody is, um, absent, what was it that he did? He, uh, did not report to work for 40 minutes. For 40 minutes? Correct. And, and also, per the contract, failed to notify his supervisor within 30 minutes, uh, of that shift start time. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? Those in favor of approving the recommended discipline, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Those opposed, "No." Motion carries. I know the hour's late. I got two or three things I wanna say. First of all, I apologize for the confusion earlier tonight. What I have asked, uh, Mr. Green to do is to not bring to you any items for changes on the docket in the absence of having somebody here who's in a position to discuss that. And I don't, I, I want clear, I don't blame Artie. He's doing what others have asked him to do, but expectation going forward is if you get something, there's gonna be somebody sitting out here who's prepared to talk about it. So, I apologize for that. Um, tonight's a pretty significant night. I know there's another vote to be taken, but I think tonight, the Council demonstrated a willingness to deal with a, a major issue in a very effective way. And I first wanna say thanks to, uh, Council Member Gordon for leading the task force. And for those of you who served on that, you put in a lot of time, energy, and effort. And I know it went longer than anybody anticipated, but I thought the end result was very good and I appreciate your efforts. On our end, I would say to, uh, Commissioner Taylor and Charlie Martin who left a little bit ago, you all have done a great job and I appreciate your hanging in there and, and getting this in place. And I'm very grateful for the over and above effort that you've put forward. As far as the Council as a whole is concerned, I thought the debate tonight was first-rate. Um, it was not one of those wild and crazy kinds of discussions that has, in years past, sometimes been, uh, evident here. I thought the, the motions that were made were thoughtful, the questions that were asked were thoughtful, the debate was good, and everybody had the best interests of the community at heart in terms of trying to, to go forward. That's a pretty good night. And we need to periodically stop and recognize when things go right, because from time to time, things will go wrong. And, and we will have sessions where we're not particularly proud of the way things worked out, but tonight was one of those instances where we ought to be very proud of the way in which the whole thing went forward. And, uh, last, I'd say to the public, who has been very actively involved in this process through years and years of discussion, through, uh, most recently, the involvement with the task force and the public meetings we've had here, uh, the debate was superb. I mean, if you were here for the, for the public meetings, it was outstanding. And I'm very appreciative of the tenor of that debate and the fashion in which this issue has been dealt with. So, thanks to, to everybody here and, and everybody that's been involved in the process. Any public comments for the Council? Mr. McCarthy. Your Honor and Council Members, I would like, since CenterPoint seems to have stalled at least for the moment, I would like to renew one of my previous suggestions that you should buy a couple of strips off of that property for the purpose of widening Upper Street and widening Limestone. And how much you need to widen them depends on whether or not you are bound and determined to go ahead with converting them from one-way to two-way. If you're going to convert them to two-way, we need a much more drastic widening. Like each of those needs to be about five lanes wide all together. Whereas, uh, if you leave them one way, maybe take four feet more land to add a bike lane on Limestone and take 16 feet of land to add one car lane and one bike lane to Upper. And regarding Resolutions 55 and 56, I object across the board to changing our one-way streets to two-way, although I will admit that Short and 2nd are relatively lightly traveled. ... and that's probably less harmful than many of the others, although it would be more practical to, if you're wanting to convert something, convert the pieces of 3rd and 4th Street between Newtown and Jefferson, because those are such a relatively short portion of the overall length of those two streets. If nothing else, converting those segments would at least make the streets consistent. And to a large degree, consistency matters a heck of a lot. I mean, it's crazy to come down 3rd Street to the intersection with Jefferson and have traffic coming at you head-on. And it's kind of wasted pavement space on 4th, where one, one half of the street's width is leading one direction on one side of the intersection, the other side, direction on the other side. And finally, on number 61, if you are canceling the street, I have a problem with that now that you've already torn down a block of houses. On the other hand, if you really think that firing the contractor and hiring a different contractor will get the street finished quicker, then that's legitimate, and by all means, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. McCarthy. Does anyone else wish to address the council? Seeing none, a motion to adjourn really would be in or- So moved. Councilmember Crosby has m- made that motion. Councilmember Meyers has seconded. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The motion carries. Thank you.