# Council Work Session - June 9, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 9, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/935 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/935?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-06-09 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 43,765 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Council met on June 9, 2009, under the presiding leadership of Vice Mayor Gray. During this session, the Council addressed 29 agenda items, taking 14 motions and votes while hearing 2 public comments. The meeting resulted in substantial approvals across multiple departments and initiatives, including authorizations for infrastructure projects, housing programs, and various contractual agreements. Twenty-four agenda items were approved, covering areas such as streetscape improvements, wastewater treatment facilities, housing rehabilitation programs, and donations to social services. Additionally, the Council received informational reports on the Recycling Center Master Plan, the LFUCG Airport Board, and a LexTran update, while deferring action on the Services Committee Report and the South Limestone Streetscape Project to a future date. ## Attendance **Present:** CM Lane, CM Crosbie, CM Ellinger, CM Beard, CM Gorton, CM McChord, CM Martin, CM Henson, CM Myers, CM James, CM Blues, CM Lawless, CM Wallace, CM Ryers, CM Dullinger, CM Feigl, CM Stinnett, and Mayor Newberry **Absent:** CM Doug Martin **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions **Motion to approve the docket for the June 9, 2009 work session** [timestamp: 0:05:30] Moved by CM Lane, seconded by CM Crosbie. Passed by voice vote. **Motion to approve the summary of the June 2, 2009 work session** [timestamp: 0:06:00] Moved by CM Stinnett, seconded by CM Gorton. Passed by voice vote. **Motion to amend Budget Journal #33683 to $1,035** [timestamp: 0:07:44] Moved by CM Ellinger, seconded by CM Beard. Passed by voice vote. **Motion to amend Budget Journal #33194-95 to reflect $250,000 in the fund** [timestamp: 0:17:48] Moved by CM Crosbie, seconded by CM Ellinger. Passed by roll call vote, 9-6. Voting in favor: CM Lane, CM Crosbie, CM Ellinger, CM Beard, CM Gorton, CM McChord, CM Martin, CM Henson, CM Myers. Voting against: CM James, CM Blues, CM Lawless, CM Wallace, CM Ryers, CM Dullinger. **Motion to approve budget amendments as amended** [timestamp: 0:30:44] Passed by voice vote. **Motion to approve new business items A-X** [timestamp: 0:43:35] Passed by voice vote. **Motion to move the animal cruelty draft to full council with amendment to include adequate shade** [timestamp: 0:45:40] Moved by CM Ellinger, seconded by CM McChord. Passed by roll call vote, 12-2. Voting in favor: CM Lane, CM Crosbie, CM Ellinger, CM Beard, CM Gorton, CM McChord, CM Martin, CM Henson, CM Myers, CM James, CM Blues, CM Lawless. Voting against: CM Wallace, CM Ryers. **Motion to table the animal cruelty draft until revised** [timestamp: 0:46:11] Moved by CM Lane, seconded by CM Martin. Failed by roll call vote, 3-12. Voting in favor: CM Lane, CM Martin, CM Henson. Voting against: CM Crosbie, CM Ellinger, CM Beard, CM Gorton, CM McChord, CM James, CM Blues, CM Lawless, CM Wallace, CM Ryers, CM Dullinger, CM Feigl. **Motion to approve the Services Committee report** [timestamp: 0:56:23] Passed by voice vote. **Motion to add the Lextran budget to the June 11, 2009 docket** [timestamp: 2:59:56] Moved by CM Henson, seconded by CM Gorton. Passed by voice vote. **Motion to amend the docket for June 11, 2009 to include allocation of UDAG funds to Habitat for Humanity for waterline upgrades** [timestamp: 4:31:02] Moved by CM James, seconded by CM Myers. Passed by voice vote. **Motion to amend the docket for June 11, 2009 to include a resolution amending Section 2.102 of the Rules and Procedures to create an Economic Development Standing Committee** [timestamp: 4:27:15] Moved by CM James, seconded by CM Myers. Failed by roll call vote, 4-6. Voting in favor: CM James, CM Blues, CM Lawless, CM Wallace. Voting against: CM Lane, CM Crosbie, CM Ellinger, CM Beard, CM Gorton, CM McChord. **Motion to place on the docket for June 11, 2009 resolutions authorizing and directing the mayor to enter into agreements for the expenditure of Neighborhood Development and/or Redevelopment Bond Issue funds** [timestamp: 4:32:09] Moved by CM James, seconded by CM Lawless. Passed by voice vote. **Motion to approve the mayor's report with exceptions for Picnic with the Pops Commission and Social Services Advisory Board** [timestamp: 4:38:36] Moved by CM Lawless, seconded by CM Martin. Passed by voice vote. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed three financial matters: **Budget Amendment** An amendment to Budget Journal #33683 was approved to reflect the actual cost of computers, adjusting the budget by $1,035. **Spotlight Lexington Festival Donation Fund** The body established a $500,000 donation fund designated for the Spotlight Lexington Festival. **UDAG Grant to Habitat for Humanity** UDAG funds totaling $45,000 were allocated to Habitat for Humanity for waterline upgrades. ## Public Comment Two members of the public addressed the council during this meeting. **Mr. Cobb** [timestamp: 4:58:36] spoke on racial and social justice in Lexington. He urged the council to confront systemic racism and arrogance in the community, emphasizing the need for moral transformation, community unity, and respect for diversity to prevent societal collapse. **Ms. Clark** [timestamp: 5:01:36] spoke in support of the Tates Creek sidewalk project. She expressed strong support for the proposal, highlighting its long-awaited benefits for safety, connectivity, and community access. Ms. Clark noted concerns about tree preservation and the potential impact on historic properties as considerations for the project. ## Appointments The following appointments were made during this meeting: * **James Princeton Adams** was appointed to the Social Services Advisory Board. * **Dr. Stevens** was appointed to the Tates Creek Sidewalk Project. ## Contested Items **South Limestone Streetscape Project** Business owners and council members expressed strong opposition to this project, citing inadequate communication and lack of public notice as primary concerns. Opponents also worried about economic disruption resulting from street closures, despite acknowledgment of the project's potential long-term benefits. The lack of advance notification to affected stakeholders emerged as a central point of contention during the meeting. **LexTran Paratransit Fare Increase** A heated debate took place regarding a proposed $3 fare increase for paratransit service outside the three-quarter-mile boundary. Advocates against the increase argued that it would place an undue burden on low-income riders and would undermine the purpose of the tax referendum that had funded the service. The discussion reflected broader concerns about accessibility and equity in public transportation. **Animal Cruelty Ordinance** The animal cruelty ordinance generated significant division among council members. A motion to advance the draft ordinance to full council passed with a vote of 12-2, indicating majority support for further consideration. However, a subsequent motion to table the ordinance failed 3-12, demonstrating that while most members opposed postponing action, there remained deep disagreement over the ordinance's scope and drafting quality. The split outcomes suggest the council was not unified on how to proceed with this measure. ## Authorization of an Expanded Jurisdiction Contract with the Kentucky Department of Housing, Buildings and Construction [timestamp: 00:31:18] The council considered a resolution to authorize an expanded jurisdiction contract with the Kentucky Department of Housing, Buildings and Construction on behalf of the Department of Public Works and Development, Division of Building Inspection. CM Ellinger presented this agenda item to the council. The resolution sought approval for the city to enter into an expanded jurisdiction agreement with the state agency, which would extend the scope of the Division of Building Inspection's authority and responsibilities. The council voted to approve the expanded jurisdiction contract. The resolution passed without noted opposition or significant debate during the meeting. ## Authorization to Submit a Loan Application to the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority for the Downtown Streetscape Green Infrastructure Program The council considered a resolution authorizing the submission of a loan application to the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority and the acceptance of an assistance agreement for the Downtown Streetscape Green Infrastructure Program [timestamp: 0:42:34]. **Program Overview** The Downtown Streetscape Green Infrastructure Program includes green infrastructure funding made available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. **Key Participants** CM Lawless and Mr. Woolen were the primary speakers on this agenda item. **Outcome** The resolution was approved. ## Authorization of Change Order No. 1 to Contract with Strand Associates, Inc. Regarding the Legacy Trail Project The council considered a resolution to approve Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Strand Associates, Inc. for the Legacy Trail Project [timestamp: 0:43:35]. This change order provided for adjustments to the project scope and timeline. The council voted to approve the change order. No specific concerns or debate points were documented in the available meeting materials. **Outcome:** The resolution was approved. ## Authorization of Deeds of Acceptances for Permanent Sidewalk Easements and Temporary Construction Easements [timestamp: 00:43:35] The council approved deeds of acceptance for permanent sidewalk easements and temporary construction easements at three properties on Georgetown Street: 467, 567, and 697 Georgetown Street. These easements were necessary to facilitate the Georgetown Street Sidewalk Improvements Project, allowing for construction activities and utility work to proceed on the affected properties. The resolution authorized the city to accept the deeds related to both permanent easements for the sidewalk improvements and temporary easements required during the construction phase. This action enabled the project to move forward with the necessary legal agreements in place with the property owners. The council voted to approve this item. ## Authorization to Create Sections 15-1.3(1) Through 15-1.3(9) of the Code of Ordinances to Designate a Clean Zone for the 2010 Alltech FEI World Equestrian Games [timestamp: 0:31:18] The council considered an ordinance to create new sections of the Code of Ordinances establishing a Clean Zone for the 2010 Alltech FEI World Equestrian Games. The Clean Zone designation would restrict certain activities within a defined area during the event. **Key Speakers** CM Crosby and Mr. Terry participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Proposal Details** The ordinance would authorize the creation of Sections 15-1.3(1) through 15-1.3(9) of the Code of Ordinances. The Clean Zone would impose restrictions on activities including yard sales and temporary structures within the designated area. **Outcome** The council approved the ordinance. ## Authorization of an Official Merchandiser Agreement with Hands On Originals for Spotlight Lexington The council considered a resolution to authorize an official merchandiser agreement with Hands On Originals for Spotlight Lexington [timestamp: 0:40:10]. **Agreement Terms** The proposed agreement with Hands On Originals includes a 15% royalty on all retail sales to Spotlight Lexington. **Outcome** The council approved the merchandising agreement. ## Authorization of a Presenting Sponsorship Agreement with Saint Joseph Health Systems The council considered and approved a presenting sponsorship agreement with Saint Joseph Health Systems. [timestamp: 00:35:35] **Agreement Details** The sponsorship agreement provides Saint Joseph Health Systems with naming rights for the 4th of July parade and inclusion in all media related to the event. **Outcome** The council approved the presenting sponsorship agreement with Saint Joseph Health Systems. **Key Participants** CM Crosby presented this item to the council. ## Authorization of a Subscriber Agreement with Thomson West on Behalf of the Department of Law [timestamp: 0:43:35] The council considered and approved a subscriber agreement with Thomson West to provide legal research services in support of the Department of Law's operations. **Outcome** The resolution was approved. ## Authorization to Amend Section 21-5 of the Code of Ordinances on Behalf of the Department of Environmental Quality The council considered an amendment to Section 21-5 of the Code of Ordinances to update environmental policy, specifically related to stormwater management. [timestamp: 0:43:35] The council approved this ordinance amendment. ## Authorization to Submit Loan Application to the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority for the Radcliffe Road Drainage Improvements Project [timestamp: 43:35] The council considered a resolution to authorize the submission of a loan application to the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority for the Radcliffe Road Drainage Improvements Project. The council approved the authorization to submit the loan application. ## Authorization of a Deed of Acceptance for Acquisition of Property Located at 133 Northwood Drive The council considered and approved a deed of acceptance for the acquisition of property located at 133 Northwood Drive as part of the Northwood Drive Storm Water Project [timestamp: 0:43:35]. **Outcome** The council approved the resolution authorizing acceptance of the deed for this property acquisition. ## Authorization of a Change Order No. 1 to Contract with Strand Associates, Inc. Regarding the Town Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant Screw Pump Replacement Design [timestamp: 0:43:35] The council considered and approved a change order to the existing contract with Strand Associates, Inc. for design services related to the Town Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant screw pump replacement project. The change order modified the terms of the original contract with Strand Associates, Inc. to address modifications needed for the screw pump replacement design work at the Town Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant. The council voted to authorize the change order, and it was approved. ## Authorization of an Engineering Services Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. Regarding the Wolf Run Pump Station Expansion and Relocation Project [timestamp: 00:43:35] The council considered and approved an engineering services agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. for the Wolf Run Pump Station Expansion and Relocation Project. This resolution authorized the municipality to contract with HDR Engineering, Inc. to provide engineering services related to the expansion and relocation of the Wolf Run Pump Station. The council voted to approve the agreement, moving forward with the engineering services necessary for this infrastructure project. ## Authorization of a Sixth Amendment to Agreement with AmeriNational Community Services, Inc. The council considered a resolution to authorize a sixth amendment to the agreement with AmeriNational Community Services, Inc. for the HOME and CDBG Housing Rehabilitation and Homeownership Programs [timestamp: 0:43:35]. The amendment extended the city's partnership with AmeriNational Community Services, Inc. to continue supporting housing rehabilitation and homeownership initiatives funded through the HOME (Home Investment Partnerships) and CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) programs. The council approved the resolution. ## Authorization of a Substantial Amendment to the 2008 Consolidated Plan and to Accept Award for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) The council considered a resolution to authorize a substantial amendment to the 2008 Consolidated Plan and to accept an award for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to support community development initiatives [timestamp: 0:43:35]. The council approved the resolution, which allows for modifications to the existing Consolidated Plan and enables the acceptance of CDBG funding for community development purposes. The CDBG program provides federal funding to support a range of community development activities designed to benefit low- and moderate-income persons and neighborhoods. The outcome of the vote was approval of the agenda item. ## Authorization to Accept an Award from the Kentucky Department of Local Government [timestamp: 00:43:35] The council considered a resolution to authorize acceptance of a Neighborhood Stabilization Program award from the Kentucky Department of Local Government (DLG). **Outcome** The resolution was approved. ## Authorization to Accept an Award from the Kentucky Department of Local Government [timestamp: 0:43:35] The council considered a resolution to authorize acceptance of a Neighborhood Stabilization Program award from the Kentucky Department of Local Government on behalf of REACH, Inc. The resolution was approved by the council. ## Authorization to Accept a Donation from Alpha Delta Chapter of ADK on Behalf of the Department of Social Services, Division of Family Services [timestamp: 0:43:35] The council considered a resolution to authorize acceptance of a donation from the Alpha Delta Chapter of ADK to support the Department of Social Services, Division of Family Services. **Outcome** The resolution was approved. ## Authorization to Accept a Donation from Mike and Julie Balog on Behalf of the Department of Social Services, Division of Family Services [timestamp: 00:43:35] The council considered a resolution to authorize the acceptance of a donation from Mike and Julie Balog to support the Department of Social Services, Division of Family Services. The resolution was approved by the council. ## Authorization of Change Order No. 2 to Contract with Jarboe Construction, Inc. Regarding the Carver Elevator Project [timestamp: 43:35] The council considered and approved Change Order No. 2 to the contract with Jarboe Construction, Inc. for the Carver Elevator Project. This resolution authorized modifications to the existing construction contract. **Outcome** The change order was approved by the council. ## Authorization to Accept Donation from the Family Care Center Volunteer Board, Inc. The council considered a resolution to authorize the acceptance of a donation from the Family Care Center Volunteer Board, Inc. on behalf of the Department of Social Services, Division of Family Services [timestamp: 0:43:35]. The resolution was approved by the council. ## Authorization to Accept Donation from the Family Care Center Volunteer Board, Inc. The council considered a resolution to authorize acceptance of a second donation from the Family Care Center Volunteer Board, Inc. on behalf of the Department of Social Services, Division of Family Services [timestamp: 0:43:35]. The resolution was approved by the council. ## Authorization to Amend Section 7-17 of the Code of Ordinances Regarding Geographic Information Services (GIS) [timestamp: 0:43:35] The council considered an amendment to Section 7-17 of the Code of Ordinances to improve geographic information services across city departments. The amendment was approved by the council. ## Authorization of a Lease Agreement with Kentucky Medical Services Foundation, Inc. [timestamp: 00:40:42] The council considered a resolution authorizing a lease agreement with Kentucky Medical Services Foundation, Inc. for the benefit of the University of Kentucky, along with an associated asset transfer agreement regarding the Family Care Center Health Clinic. CM Crosby presented this agenda item to the council. The lease and asset transfer agreement would allow the University of Kentucky to operate the Family Care Center Health Clinic facility. The council approved the resolution. ## Services Committee Report The Services Committee presented its report to the council. [timestamp: 00:44:08] **Committee Action on Animal Cruelty Draft** The Committee moved an animal cruelty draft to full council for consideration. The draft received approval from the Committee with a vote of 12-2. A motion to table the draft was subsequently made but failed, receiving only 3 votes in favor against 12 votes opposed. **Key Participants** Council Members Ellinger, Lane, and Martin were the primary speakers on this agenda item. **Outcome** The matter was deferred for further consideration. ## Recycling Center Master Plan The Waste Management Division presented findings from a waste sort and analysis of the Old Frankfurt Pike site during this agenda item. [timestamp: 1:16:07] **Presenters and Overview** Cheryl Taylor and John Roderique led the presentation on the proposed Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) at the Old Frankfurt Pike location. **Key Findings** The presentation highlighted environmental and economic benefits associated with the new Materials Recovery Facility. The waste sort and analysis provided data to support the feasibility and advantages of the proposed project at the Old Frankfurt Pike site. **Outcome** This agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal action taken. The presentation served to inform the body about the Recycling Center Master Plan and the findings related to the potential Materials Recovery Facility development. ## LFUCG Airport Board Report Robert Owens and Eric Frankl presented the Airport Board report, which focused on reforms and improvements following findings from a state auditor's review. [timestamp: 1:45:57] **Key Topics Presented:** The report outlined leadership changes and new policies implemented by the Airport Board in response to the auditor's findings. The board also provided updates on progress related to ongoing construction projects. **Focus on Rebuilding Trust:** A central emphasis of the presentation was the Airport Board's commitment to rebuilding community trust following the audit findings. The reforms and policy changes were presented as part of this broader effort to restore confidence in the airport's operations and governance. **Outcome:** This agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal action or vote required. ## LexTran Update Rocky Burke presented updates on LexTran's budget and paratransit service policies [timestamp: 2:17:20]. **Key Topics Presented:** - Revised fare policy for paratransit service outside the three-quarter-mile boundary - Plan to reduce the paratransit fee from $3 to $2 **Outcome:** This item was presented for informational purposes. ## South Limestone Streetscape Project [timestamp: 3:38:10] Council members and business owners discussed concerns regarding the South Limestone Streetscape Project, which involves utility replacement and street closures in the area. **Concerns Raised** The primary issues centered on communication and public notification. Council members and business owners expressed concerns about inadequate communication regarding the project and a lack of public notice about its implementation. Additionally, participants raised concerns about potential economic disruption that could result from the street closures associated with the project. **Key Participants** CM Wallace, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Tate were the primary speakers during this discussion. **Outcome** The matter was deferred, indicating that further discussion or action on the South Limestone Streetscape Project was postponed to a later date. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve the docket for the June 9, 2009 work session - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve the summary of the June 2, 2009 work session - **Motion** — passed: Motion to amend Budget Journal #33683 to $1,035 - **Motion** — passed (9-6): Motion to amend Budget Journal #33194-95 to reflect $250,000 in the fund - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve budget amendments as amended - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve new business items A-X - **Motion** — passed (12-2): Motion to move the animal cruelty draft to full council with amendment to include adequate shade - **Motion** — failed (3-12): Motion to table the animal cruelty draft until revised - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve the Services Committee report - **Motion** — passed: Motion to add the Lextran budget to the June 11, 2009 docket - **Motion** — passed: Motion to amend the docket for June 11, 2009 to include allocation of UDAG funds to Habitat for Humanity for waterline upgrades - **Motion** — failed (4-6): Motion to amend the docket for June 11, 2009 to include a resolution amending Section 2.102 of the Rules and Procedures to create an Economic Development Standing Committee - **Motion** — passed: Motion to place on the docket for June 11, 2009 resolutions authorizing and directing the mayor to enter into agreements for the expenditure of Neighborhood Development and/or Redevelopment Bond Issue funds - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve the mayor’s report with exceptions for Picnic with the Pops Commission and Social Services Advisory Board --- ## Full transcript Thank you. All right. I'd like to call the meeting to order, please. Thank you all. Thank you, Council Member Court. With the permission of the council, I'll chair the meeting until the mayor arrives, which should be in about 45 minutes. Mr. Lane. Oh, thank you, sir. Thank you, thank you. This is the June 9th meeting of the work session of the Council. First on our agenda, comments from the public regarding issues that are on the agenda today. Are there comments from the public regarding issues on the agenda? All right. Hearing none. Second item on our agenda today is the docket approval. We'll hear a motion regarding the docket. There's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Approval of the summary is next on the agenda. Is there a motion to approve the summary? Second. Motion and a second to approve the summary. Is there a discussion? There is discussion. Council Member Crosby. Yes, I just would like on my council comments for it to reflect that, I mean, it says that there was a misunderstanding on my part from the services committee, and I would just like for it to reflect what it was about, the fact that they thought I would be making a motion on the tethering issue, which I was not. Thank you. So that's noted, Clerk. Thank you, Jeanette. Thank you, Council Member Crosby. Item 4, Roman number 4 on our – oh, that's right. Got a vote on that. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Council Member Ellinger. Rule number four on our agenda is budget amendments. I have a couple of notes here from Council, from Mr. Green. Vice Mayor? Yes, ma'am. We need a motion to amend Budget Journal 33683, which is on page 13 of your packet. We need to amend the dollar amount to reflect the actual cost of the computers being purchased. That was the note I was looking for. Yeah. It needs to change from $1,000 to $1,035, and they have funding to cover this. All right. Yes. So what action was required of us? We just need a motion to amend that journal to 1,035. Councilman Ellinger makes a motion seconded by Councilmember Beard. Is there any further discussion or is there any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the amendment, please indicate by saying aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. already there was another note what was nope that's it all right thank you any other budget councilman crosby yes i have a few questions please on journal entry 33194-95 which is this budget to establish a budget for spotlight lexington festival expenses and revenues if somebody Great house. Krista, thank you. Thank you. Can you please tell me, first of all, it's a $500,000 for the donation fund. Can you please explain to me, was this a donation or is this something we're taking? I couldn't find. I looked through the blue sheets and found several with items in here that I have questions under new business, but I could not find this in the blue sheets. Actually, today we have received $250,000. We will be receiving a $250,000 donation from St. Joe as a part of their sponsorship. This is actually the allocation where we will be able to receive additional sponsorships. So this is to set up that fund. Okay. So it will be going up to $500,000? It will continue to go actually above that. This was just to initially set up the fund. So I guess where's the other $250? I mean, we have a donation from St. Joe, and then where's the other $250? We're working on sponsorships right now. So if we set up a fund for $500,000 and we only have $250, shouldn't we reflect what we actually are getting to date? We can do that, or the other option is that obviously every time we receive a sponsorship contract, then we will need to present an amendment every time. So we were trying to. I think, though, then we would know what we're getting our sponsorship in and be able to see. I'm going to have some questions on the sponsorship a little later, so I don't. It's on page 14. It seems to me that we should be reflecting what we're truly getting versus what we're going to anticipate. And then you're saying we may go above the $500,000. You would still have to come back with an amendment. for that regardless if you plan on going over that. So I'm not sure how the other council members feel about this, but I don't know that we should be establishing a donation fund of $500,000. We only have up to this point $250,000. I don't see what the problem is with doing additional amendments as we get these sponsorships in. Anybody? Oh, Bill might. I would just like to point out that it's handled two different ways. On single donations, we bring them forth as they happen, and in programs such as Fourth of July, we go ahead and establish a budget based on an estimate and then recognize the donations up to that amount. And so this had the characteristics similar to a Fourth of July event, and that's why we chose to bring forward this interim estimate. It can be done either way. This was just basically the Fourth of July model versus the other model. I would like to make a motion that we amend this to reflect the $250,000 that we have in sponsorships. So moved. There's a motion and a second. Was it clear what the motion was? This discussion, Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So if we pass this motion, then the next time you get a donation, you would have to come back to us to raise the level in the fund. We'd be doing it each event, each time. And so that is an option. up to a total such as 4th of July, we've done it with an estimate just like, I shouldn't use this analogy, an estimated revenue, and because we know that we're going to have multiple donations for the specific purpose. And what's the timeliness on this? If you receive donations, then is there any problem with them waiting? I'm thinking of when the Council goes on its summer break, if you receive donations and we're not here to put them in the fund, is that a problem? I would defer to budgeting to help me with that answer. I think the paperwork will be behind, but I don't know the significance. It'll depend on when their expenses come up. If they aren't actively paying bills over those summer months while you are on vacation, it wouldn't be an issue. But if they have deposits they need to start making, you know, I don't know what their time frame is on those sorts of things. I do know one of the reasons we've set it up this way for the Fourth of July Festival is that a lot of their commitments are made, but the funds are not received until well after the event. And if we wait until the cash is actually in hand, it will be well behind when their bills are due. So I know on the sponsorship end of all entities like governments, events, the cash never comes in quite as quickly as the bills come in. This also, though, has a specific payment schedule that they would have to pay. Well, the current donation we have certainly does have a donation schedule. And that's not the way the 4th of July is set up. I don't believe it might have a due date, but I don't think we're also dealing with a quarter of a million dollars. I don't know how the donations for 4th of July timely are. But we do it that way for 4th of July because there are payments that are made at the date of the event or after the fact, and bills need to be paid beforehand. Okay, thank you. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I was just going to add that this is nothing out of the ordinary. We do this a lot, and this is just establishing a budget. If I'm not mistaken, we're going to see who gives us the donations anyway, and that will be blue-sheeted through a resolution, and we'll have to accept the donation. This is just establishing a budget number. This is not necessarily accepting the donation or not accepting. and we don't have to accept donations. We do it all the time. This is just creating the budget for them to be able to. If you got a $10 donation for this, we'd have to come back then and do $10, and that, to me, is not what we're trying to accomplish right with this amendment here. So I won't support the amendment. I'll keep the budget amendment as it is. So you would still have to blue sheet it regardless of the amount of the donation. Above and beyond, if it's $250,000 or $500,000, you would still have to bring it forward to us, whether it's $10, as Kevin says, or $250,000, correct? It is my understanding as long as there's a contract attached to that. Otherwise, it can be all put forth. So if there's no contract, like there is a contract with this one, then we would not see that? That's what you just said. No, I mean, normal protocol is you can look at our docket for this Thursday night. We accept donations, whether it be from any organization to this government, through a blue sheet on a resolution process. It's the normal process for anything. All this budget, this is a budget amendment, just establishing a budget up to $500,000 to be spent on this festival. That's it. It's not accepting the donations or anything. I don't think I said it was accepting the donations. I think what I said was it's reflecting what we actually have. And obviously, this is, I mean, you can vote however you want, but clearly this is a little different than a Fourth of July festival. Councilmember James and anybody else, if you'll key in. The monitor's working now. Thanks, Vice Mayor. My question has to do with Journal 33688, Division Enhanced 911. Whoa, whoa, whoa, I'm sorry. And I still have the motion on the train. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were speaking to the motion. No problem. No problem. We're still on that motion. So anybody else, any further comments or discussion regarding the motion? Did you have something else on this one, Casey? No, I have a question on another one. All right. So if there's no further discussion, then we can vote on the motion. Do we need to restate the motion? Yes, please. All right. The motion, as I understood it, was to adjust the declared ceiling for what's the item? Okay. Why don't you take the motion? The motion was to amend the budget in the donation fund for the actual amount of $250,000 for what we have in current sponsorship. And the effect of this would be, for the purposes of a budget, it could be amended at any time we receive the funding. Is that correct? That's correct. All right. Okay. So all in favor of the motion as offered, please indicate voting aye and opposed nay. What's the vote? Passes 9-6. Motion carries. Council Member Crosby. Yes, I have a few more questions regarding journal entry 33660 and also 33661. I'm not sure if the same person can answer these questions because they both have to do with fuel credits. 33660, we're showing. I just want to make sure I understand that. Mr. O'Mara seems to be approaching the note. He may be, cautiously, potentially. May be able to help out. Thanks, Bill. My understanding is this is allocating the actual fuel costs. in line to what has actually happened. And there's several of them, and there are different funds depending on where the vehicles are. So we have a million dollars in fuel credits for that budget item? The term fuel credit... Or fuel estimates? It's allocating the fuel budget, which is controlled centrally by fleet services, and then it's allocated out to wherever the actual vehicles reside. And so this is adjusting the budget to actual results. Am I saying that correctly? It's estimated. Estimated results. So we have a million dollars there and $104,000 in another one. And then 33662, we have another credit, or not credit, I'm sorry, revision. That's all correct. There's different amounts depending on what fund is affected by where the vehicles are. Okay. I'm going to let Council Member James go while I try and think of how I want to phrase my question. Thank you. Council Member James. Thanks, Vice Mayor. My question is on 33688-ENHANCE-911. related to the phone charges. Somebody, I see Commissioner Bennett headed down. Yes, ma'am. Can you explain what happened with the $98,230? Did we under budget? There's money in the 9-1-1 fund to cover this cost, and I'm going to ask Rama to explain a little bit about it to the extent you want to get into the technology. But 9-1-1 is in the process of implementing a new network system within it, which is designed over the next year or two to save a significant amount of money. The implementation of it with Windstream has been delayed slightly, or the implementation of it, which results in some Windstream charges, has been delayed slightly. now projected to be completed by the fall of this year. These expenses are necessary out of the fund to cover the costs that we're incurring between now and the full implementation of the network. As I said, to the extent you want to get into the technical details, I'll ask Rama to explain those because he's a lot better at it than I am. We can do it offline. I just wanted to make sure that we hadn't, that this is a new, so this is something new. It's not under budgeting for phone services now. Simply because we thought the network would be in place and we would have been saving the funds to cover the cost by now. I understand. That's not happened. Okay, thank you for that explanation. Sure. I have a last question. It's not for you, Commissioner. It's regarding Journal 33663, Water Qualities. Is the division, and it's the Sanitary Sewer Fund. I've heard the word personnel contingency, but I haven't seen anything dealing with it. So I wanted to, first of all, how much money is in the personnel contingency for sanitary sewer, and have we utilized it to do this in years past? I do not know how much is in it right now. I'll have to get back where they obviously don't have that exact figure in mind. But, yes, we have used this in the past. Sanitary sewer personnel are often asked to mobilize for ice storms. We do snow removal on a regular basis, plus the whole 24-hour, seven-day-a-week operation of sanitary sewers. So we have had to use personnel contingency in the past. I believe that line item is usually budgeted somewhere around $80,000 a year, and we have utilized it in the past for this purposes along back when there used to be reclasses. Okay. We used it for that purpose as well. Okay. Thank you. The bigger question, I don't know who's to answer this, but for some reason I had in my mind that we were no longer going to have personnel contingency accounts, and I don't know if that's something, I don't know who's to answer that. But when we look at, you know, budgeting for many divisions have to budget overtime and they have to budget personnel expenditures, and I don't know how do we move forward with personnel contingencies, how are we making sure divisions are as accurate as they can be. Hello, anybody? So it's not a division-specific issue. It's an overall government. So I see Charlie coming forward, but this is not a division issue. Let me take a stab at it. I'm not sure I'm answering your question. But, for instance, last week we talked about here is the budget. if everyone that is budgeted and funded is here for 12 months and every person is fully funded and is on board. That's the total cost of personnel cost for the government. That number is not what you see in the approved budget. The approved budget has a number that's less than that. And the illustration for the 2010 budget is $6 million. So that's how much we think we will not spend but has been authorized because of turnover, open positions, that type of thing. My understanding of what they're talking about here is they know they haven't spent all their personnel expense. They know they've overspent their overtime. So we're trying to move the dollars from personnel to cover the overtime. Maybe it's Or maybe not. I'm not sure. Yes. Okay, so to title that personnel contingency, it gives the kind of this interpretation that there's a line item number that they know their authorized strength is this and their actual is this. and we can, if we don't fill these vacancies and we keep this money there, and Charlie's nodding his head, but I'm saying this is the perception of, as we think about budgeting, that this is a pot of money that you can tap into for things like the seasonal and overtime at a later date, where we actually have divisions that have a line item where we're talking about overtime. and we budget for overtime. So is it a different fund? Is it personnel contingency separate from what folks should be appropriating for overtime? I don't know the technicalities within the budget document to accurately answer your question, so I will have to get back to you. And that would be fine to follow up later. It just seems like there's, we need, I need clarity, and I don't know if other council members need clarity on this, But thinking about budgeting and how we're trying to get everybody to be as straight and narrow as we possibly can, to think that there's a contingency that's not overtime money or not personnel money but can be tapped into at a later date for seasonal overtime, when we are eliminating that from other divisions doesn't feel comfortable to me as I'm approving budget amendments. And I know in our 600-page budget book, that $6 million that I'm talking about is somewhere in there. So I know it's identified. But exactly where and what light item, I'll have to get back with you. Okay. All right? Thank you, Bill. Thanks, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Thank you. If Commissioner Cole maybe could come up and I clarified the answer to my question with her off camera, but maybe if she could just, I figured I might as well make sure that it's clarified for everybody else as well as the viewing audience. Yes, you were questioning a couple different budget amendments that have to do with the vehicles. Two of them are credits to different funds because when we budgeted for the fuel cost last year, fuel prices were much higher than what they were later on in the year. So as we did kind of a true up adjustment before the end of the last quarter, it created credits in those various funds, and those budget amendments are recognizing that. The other one, which had to do, let's see, let me find the, 33,658, is actually an increase that we've seen in the maintenance of our waste vehicles. As those vehicles are getting older, there's been more maintenance than was anticipated, and this is recognizing that. So does that answer your questions? It does, and I guess I would just have a follow-up. I don't know if it's a question or more of a comment. that as we see with this year's or with next year's budget that we're working on currently, would somebody be making those same kind of forecasts regarding, say, fuel prices? Is that one person who does that across government or do the different departments? Because we see now that the prices are creeping back up, and we may have estimated lower based on this year, but now we might be going into another situation where we're going to have higher fuel costs. I mean, that's just a follow-up question. Yes, Dave Loney, who is the acting deputy director of fleets, is the one that prepared these amendments and has also prepared the budget that you're currently working on and has taken all the current information and forecasting information into account. Thank you. Thank you, Kimmer. Okay. Is there any more comments or discussion regarding budget amendments? Hearing none, we have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor of budget amendments as amended, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Jeanette, do we have the, We have the, is the electronic working or is it? Okay, thank you. All right, Roman number number five on our agenda is New Business, pages 24 through 63. There's a motion to approve and a second. Is there any discussion? There is discussion. Council Member Crosby. I have a question, several questions actually regarding the World Equestrian Games. The first is regarding the Clean Zone ordinance for the World Equestrian Games. First, I just want to make sure that the map that we have on page 39, that everybody realizes that that's the area we're talking about, correct, for this zone? yes that is correct oops sorry and then I have some questions as it relates to section 4 of the ordinance would would like yard sales farmer's market I mean things like that would this be included I guess farmers markets not in there but would yard sales people who are having yard sales for example would they be able to do this or they excluded from this ordinance during this time frame they would not be excluded no they would be excluded they would not be excluded they would not be excluded okay Okay. So also, for example, going to Section 5, you have it stated, temporary structures are prohibited unless the structure is in furtherance of the existing authorized licensed business activities conducted in the permanent structure on the same premises. Then it goes on to say if any such person or entity already authorized to conduct business wishes to sell event-related licensed merchandise, and then it goes on, it must, during any clean zone period, it must get prior approval of the World Equestrian 2010 Foundation. What about unlicensed, people who want to sell unlicensed things? Well, unlicensed is obviously counterfeit, and that's illegal to begin with. What about Section 6? So you'll be enforcing that, and will that be, I'll ask the question in a second. Section 6, you have a lot of businesses in some of this area. I know a lot of it's – let me turn back to my map here. I'm looking at the Leastown Road area, Parris Pike area, even Newtown, for example, some of the gas stations, McDonald's there. the banners or balloons or some of the things that those people may put on on a routine basis. I just want to make sure those two are going to be prohibited. I apologize. I wasn't able to hear the full question. Michael, do you want to? Actually, let me take a moment to introduce a few people. We have Joe Terry here, who is actually general counsel for the World Games 2010 Foundation. We also have Jamie Link, the CEO, and Mary Wathen, who I know many of you know as well, who's Director of Community Involvement. So we'll also allow them to address the questions as well. So, Mr. Terry, if somebody has a banner outside of their business, they would not be able to do it within this geographical area. If they have a business on Leastown Road or – If it's existing businesses and they have been able – they've been doing that in the past, they will continue to be able to do the posters or banners? So if they put up a new poster but it's something they've been doing all along, they will still be able to do it, even if it's advertising something new, like a special for the day? It'll be hard to stop them from doing that, I think. So we didn't prohibit that. We've grandfathered existing businesses in what they're currently doing. And just to be clear, you did say that the people who live within this area, for example, yard sales would not be permitted during this time. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. My next question regarding the World Equestrian Games and the sponsorship agreement that we have, I was unaware until I pulled the blue sheet. Let me find it here. With our $250,000 sponsor. I've got to find it. Here it is. that under three on section additional benefits of the sponsor shall receive in these contracts. That's why I was suggesting we review the contracts. The additional benefits are automatic presenting sponsorship of 4th of July celebration and parade, which includes naming rights of the 2010 parade, inclusion in all print, electronic, and verbal media, four backstage passes to red, white, and boom fireworks, VIP 10 access, and up to 12 passes to one of LFECG's public golf courses, and 3.6. Can you tell me what co-sponsorship of the CDC initiative training? Sure, and actually I'll also ask Commissioner Bennett to join me as well. Regarding 3.5, that is an automatic presenting sponsorship of 4th of July, and obviously I've worked with Penny Ebel, and with the understanding, 2010 is a very important year for us. So it was twofold. One was obviously trying to, sponsorships are very competitive right now, so we're trying to present the best possible package for a sponsor in obtaining the type of dollar amount that we're looking for. That was one of the benefits that was important to them that we could put in there to obtain additional dollars. So that's basically, we would then transfer part of that money over to the Director of Special Events account to secure that sponsorship for them. So if you get another, like you were suggesting you're going to be getting maybe more sponsorships perhaps. There's only one, so they all... No, they will not all receive that. They'll all be different. So you can only have one presenting sponsor naming. That's what I'm saying. This is the only presenting sponsor. That will be the only presenting sponsor for 4th of July. All of the sponsorship packages will be different. Can somebody please tell me what the CDC initiative training is? Sure. I will let Commissioner Bennett tell you briefly about it, and then, of course, obviously why it is important to this sponsorship. The CDC training is sponsored by the CDC, Centers for Disease Control, and it's really an emergency preparedness training program to train the community at large to prepare for an event. St. Joseph's in this case is actually going to also, in addition to sponsoring the 2010 games, going to sponsor the presentation of that workshop or that training to the community. So it is a benefit for us. It won't incur any additional cost in terms of training. So it's a benefit to us for them to be a partner in that training. It was important to them, I think, to show their commitment to the community since it is a CDC initiative, since it is an emergency preparedness training to show their commitment to the community and making sure that we're prepared. So I think it was a good partnership. And I'll be glad to get – I don't have the information with me, the information packet on the training, but I'll be glad to get that to each of you. So was that something that they approached us with, or is that something that we – I'll have to let Krista address that part of it. I'm somewhat familiar with the training, but as far as packaging the sponsorship and how that was agreed to, I'll have to let her address that. When we first learned about the training itself, it was obviously something that we thought was valuable considering what 2010 is bringing to us and obviously a legacy as a part of afterwards creating a resource network for disaster preparedness. We coupled this with their sponsorship, again, as part of we presented it to them as a part of what was important to their community overall package. Okay. Regarding the memorandum for Merchandiser for Spotlight Lexington, where, in summary, hands-on originals will provide the following. I think everybody has a copy of this. 15% royalty from all retail sales to Spotlight Lexington. It goes on and on. Was this put out to bid? Did this go through the procurement process? Yes, it did. We did receive three bids and went through the process. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Crosby, Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have one teeny tiny question about item X on new business. which is the agreement between the University of Kentucky and the city to run the Family Care Center Health Clinic. And I think it's for Commissioner Askew. It's a legal question. Or maybe is Commissioner Helm here? There you are. This is an easy question for you, I'm sure. No big deal. I just don't know the answer. Thank you for giving us the copy of the agreement with the University of Kentucky. And my very simple question is, I noticed in the use of the premises section that the health department will be staffing and operating the WIC clinic. And is that because by law they're the only WIC provider, or why is the University of Kentucky not going to do that portion? WIC is a program of the health department. They are currently a partner with us providing those WIC services, and the University of Kentucky has determined that it is a service that they wish to continue. So they have extended the offer to the health department to continue to do that, and they are going to provide space for them to do that within the clinic. Very good. Thank you very much. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. Yes, I have a question on item B of the new business is authorizing the submission of a loan application for federal funds for the streetscape. Is there somebody here from Commissioner Webb? Is that specific to, oh, hello, Ms. Gooding? Is that specific to any particular streetscape project of the downtown streetscape? It is Main Street, Vine Street, and maybe South Limestone. And so when will we know? I have a map upstairs. I can get you that map. I can go upstairs right after I finish here and get you that map if that would help. Yeah, it would help to know exactly what, because usually it says what segment it's for. We had trouble getting that, but I have a map, and I will get that to you. Thank you very, very much. I'm showing no one else on the monitor. I wanted to comment on new business. If not, we've got a motion and a second. Okay, we've got a motion and a second. So all in favor, please indicate by saying aye and voting. And all opposed, no. Motion carries. Okay. It's moving us down to item number, Roman numeral number six on our agenda, which is presentations. First on the agenda is the report from the Services Committee, Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. The Services Committee met on June 2nd. All members were present, including Dr. Blues and Council Member Stenet. We had one item that we dealt with for two hours, and it was on the animal cruelty ordinance. We asked Rick Curtis, who is the chair of the Animal Care and Control Advisory Committee, to give us a report on the recommendation regarding this issue. He stated that the animal cruelty is suggesting a complete change to the animal cruelty ordinance, which is including in your summary the attachment that, if implemented, would not only give ACC officers additional authority, but will enhance the overall care and treatment of all animals. Keith Horn, who is the attorney with the Department of Law, discussed the changes that were made to the ordinance. He stated that it parallels the state statute. Several committee members made comments and asked questions regarding the changes as well as adding horses to the ordinance. Chief Bowling, Animal Care and Control, spoke regarding the enforcement of the ordinance. He stated the enforcement will come fairly easy for them. Mr. Horn stated if the committee wants an anti-tethering ordinance, which was raised, than in an administrative process, then they should consider a separate anti-tethering ordinance. A motion that I will move forward was presented by Council Member Myers to move the Advisory Committee Animal Cruelty Ordinance draft to the full Council with amendment to include adequate shade, seconded by Council Member Beard, and passed with two nays. So moved. Motion and a second to accept the committee report. Is there any discussion? Council Member Lane. Yes, I was one of the council members that voted against that ordinance or the amendment to the ordinance because I felt like there's a lot of changes and modifications that will be required, and I think we're sort of rushing that through the pipeline. So I would just like to mention that to other council members. I would encourage you. As a matter of fact, I'll make a motion to table this resolution, put it on the docket. So moved. Okay, there's a motion to table and a second. Motion to table is not debatable. Motion to table. Yeah, tell us what the motion to table again, Mr. Lane, is. Mr. Vice Mayor, I'd like to withdraw my second. because this is a motion, Mr. Ellinger's motion is to accept, I think, the report of the committee, not necessarily the substance of the recommendation. Are you sure we're not putting that on the document? This would be the ordinance draft. This would be the ordinance. Are you actually putting the ordinance into a vote? Yes. Then I do second that. Thank you. Okay. So there's a motion to table and a second. I do have a question. Only on to the how long would you be tabling this for? I would just like to table it until we get a revised ordinance out of legal. Is everybody clear on that? Mr. Vice Mayor, maybe I should elaborate on this just a little bit. this ordinance is an animal cruelty ordinance. I don't think you can on a table. This is non-debatable. We need a voter up or down. Alright. Jeanette, can we get where we can see the screen? Can I have what Council Member Lane's table motion is again? My motion is to table putting the ordinance on the docket until we have a revised version from the legal department. Okay. I'm not showing where we can... Hold on just one second. All right. Thank you, Jeanette. All right. We can vote now. All in favor of the table, please indicate by voting. The motion to table fails. All right. I'll go ahead and reread the motion so everybody knows what we're voting on here. A motion by Council Member Myers to move the Advisory Committee Animal Cruelty Ordinance draft to the full council with amendment to include adequate shade. That was second by Council Member Beer. All right. Discussion? Mr. Martin? Thank you, Vice Mayor. I, too, voted against this motion in committee. I think Lexington needs a comprehensive animal cruelty ordinance. This ordinance does not address horses, for example, anything in the equine industry. And being that we are the horse capital of the world, I thought that was a very notable mission. And Council Member Lane certainly brought that to our attention and spoke at length at that. I also felt that this was an ordinance which needed more work. I felt that it sort of contradicted itself, its definitions, and it really didn't line up with the text. And some things seemed to apply to all animals, but the definition only applied to dogs. And I think we can do better. I think this is an ordinance where we can look to other cities that have drafted a comprehensive animal ordinance. And I think this is just a bit too much patchwork for what we need here at the city. So I just want to explain my vote. Council Member Stenet, then Council Member Lane, then Feigel. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I certainly appreciate Council Member Martin's comments, especially expanding the cruelty ordinance to specifically addressing horses. One thing that this pass-by-passing us today does not preclude us from doing that at a later date. Obviously, it needs to go back and look at that issue in particular. But this does today, if we can get this through, take care of the issue with our dogs and the cruelty of dogs and most other animals in general. We can always go back and be a little more pet-specific. We had a lot of discussion actually on the Animal Care and Control Board about changing all the language everywhere it said dog to animal. That runs into a lot more complications than what we really realized. I think if you want to address horses or anyone who has another animal they'd like to address, we can always bring that back and do some type of addition to the ordinance. But I think it's very important as we're entering the summer months to get this legislation passed. We looked at a lot of other cities, a lot of other states on this issue, and we've waited too long to do anything about our cruelty ordinance. This ordinance hasn't been changed ever here in Fayette County. I think now is the time to get something done. And on down the road, if we see a need to change it, then we can always come back later. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Martin wants to respond just quickly to that comment, and then Mr. Lane. Just very quickly. I think it would take just a minimum amount of work to make this a usable statute. It's just not well written, I think. and I think we can do better. I think to clean up some of the definitions and have them line up with the statement about animals because the definitions, you know, there's a broad rule in there that applies just, it seems to apply to all animals, but you go and look at the definitions and definitions only apply to dogs. And so I just think it would be, even if we could give it another week so we could just fix some of these very minor things, we could make it a lot more usable than it is. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lane. Yeah, just a follow-up comment, too. I don't think we should pass poorly written legislation just to get it on the docket as soon as possible and pass it as soon as possible. I feel like we could wait a couple of weeks and get a much better ordinance, and, you know, that's my concern. Also, there's really nothing much in there addressing the equine area, and we do have the games coming in, and it seems to me getting it all done and comprehensive. The final thought is I think even our legal department feels that the ordinance is drafted is not good, and they are ready, willing, and able to get that revised. Thank you. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think this ordinance is being presented at this point in time for a couple of different reasons. One is the cruelty issue, cruelty to animals, but also because in other communities they have found that this law actually reduces the amount of crime where dogs are being used to protect properties that are undertaking illicit activities. And I think that was one of the goals of this ordinance. So I think it is a two-fold kind of ordinance at this point. Possibly it did leave out the equine industry, but I believe that the equine industry really needs to have input into writing the provisions that specifically pertain to horses, and it might take some time to address all of their concerns and build them into this ordinance. So I'd like to see this one move forward, but look forward to an amendment at a later date to address the equine industry. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I, too, think that we need to move this legislation forward today. I just want to clarify one thing. The ordinance is not poorly written. The differences in opinion are that when you look at the ordinance, it has to refer back to state statute as well as our local ordinance. And that's where that difference in language comes in. It's not that it's poorly written. It's not that it doesn't do what it's supposed to do. that part of it addresses state law, part of it addresses local law. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. Thank you. I agree that we need to move it forward. We do have state laws that address the equine industry, and granted, I think ours probably need to be beefed up. I don't think it's perfect. It doesn't address the problems associated with chaining dogs as a lifestyle and the aftermath of that. So, no, it's not perfect, but it does address some of the problems that will give some relief to animals in our community and also help our Humane Society animal control care and control officers do their job. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I, too, I agree with Council Member Lawless completely. I don't think this is a perfect ordinance, but it's a step in the right direction. It's something that needs to be done to protect the animals that are suffering today. So I would vote to move it forward and hopefully add to it amended as we go along. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess I'm going to be a copycat. I do favor moving this forward. We're coming up. Our next council meeting is the 11th, and we'll be on break pretty soon, and we're talking about almost the rest of the summer without this in place. And, you know, one of the provisions obviously was the one that was added, the amendment that was added concerning shade. So there is some sense of urgency in getting this thing on the books as quickly as possible. Hopefully we'll be able to get a chaining and tethering ordinance sometime soon also. Thank you. That's all I'm showing on the screen, so we're ready for a vote. All in favor of accepting the committee report as presented, please indicate the motion to accept the committee report. Please indicate by voting aye electronically, and if you're against it, vote no. Motion carries. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And then finally, we heard from quite a few members of the community who are in favor of an anti-tethering ordinance. And as I said earlier, that might be brought back to the committee and looked at again to strengthen up this. But with that, we have one other issue that was deferred to a later meeting, underground utilities, and we adjourned at 3.02. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Councilman. Next on our agenda in presentations is a presentation on the Recycling Center Master Plan. And Commissioner Taylor, I'm sorry, Councilmember Lawless. Yes, this is a point of order, I suppose. on the new business item B. Okay. It was not described in there what we were applying for alone. I just got the map from Ms. Gooding, and it is the streetscape from Avenue of Champions to East Main down south Lyme, and it wasn't identified in that. So, of course, I support the streetscape, but I want to make sure that what we're putting on the agenda for Thursday's first reading is clear about what are the details and what kind of timeline and what kind of contract requests are going out, etc. So because it wasn't specific and I wondered if it was for that piece, I brought it up earlier. So I don't know what needs to happen there. But where's Council Member Stinnett, our parliamentarian? Well, I think you've made the observation that clarifying this, is that correct? correct? Yes. So I would think that somebody from the law, is Logan here or somebody representing? you want to help us with this? I can see you approaching quickly. Harold's back there to assist you, perhaps. He's right behind you. Harold, the question, do you understand the question? Okay. Council Member Lawless, why don't you, you want to explain it again? She's referring to item B. Under new business, I asked what specific part of the streetscape project this was for, and Ms. Gooding, just because it wasn't identified in this, and I just got the map. I thought maybe something was on my shirt, Harold. Okay, the grant, I'm going to do two things. One, I'm going to try to explain a little bit about the area, and then I'm going to ask Mike to come and explain a little bit about the grant, what the grant is, okay? So the area is for green infrastructure for that area there. So in terms of where it's going to go specifically right now, we can't say, because we know it could be used on the Main Street portion from Broadway to Limestone, Bynestreet from Broadway to Limestone, and then Limestone from Euclid to Bynestreet. And it's for the green infrastructure component of the master plan itself. And that will be identified as we move forward. Okay, I want to make, I would like details on that and what we are and are not voting on. and the details, the devil's in the details, I suppose. So if you could get that information to us before Thursday for first reading, maybe that would answer the questions. But I don't want to be voting on something that we're locking into a contract or a process which we don't know that we're not informed of. So I would like specifically what we're voting on and what it will lock us into. You don't have to give it to me now. If it's okay with the rest of the council members, if you could just – okay. You're welcome. Okay. I'm Mike Woolen with Strand Associates, a member of the design team for the Streetscape Project. And this particular resolution relates to, as Harold alluded to, green infrastructure. And as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we were basically awarded a $2.62 million sum of money for green infrastructure related to the streetscape project. And this particular resolution is a requirement that basically says that the city is willing to commit to entering into an agreement with the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority to accept these funds under the conditions that they have put forth relative to ERA, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. And the way this particular funding source works is that it is actually presented in the form of a low-interest loan. I think the interest rate is roughly 3%. Fifty percent of the principal is forgiven as part of the stimulus component. The balance of that would be payable over the term of the loan or could be paid off with other sources of funding. For example, if you were going to use bond monies or some other source of funding, that remaining principal could be paid off at any time. So this is just part of the process, and this is a requirement that the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority has asked of us in order to be able to basically be placed on their docket to authorize that funding source. Thank you. I understand all that part. What I don't understand and what I'm asking is because I just became aware of the fact that there was a plan to close South Lime from Euclid to Vine or Maine for a long period of time, And so what I want to know is in this loan application, obviously I'm very supportive of the Streetscape and the Streetscape master plan. But I want to know if we're entering into some kind of agreement that it will be done a certain way with certain parameters. Like that's what I want to know is the details of what we're agreeing to. Does that make sense? It does. And as Harold said, this particular sum of money is for green infrastructure that's literally spread throughout the project area, which would include South Limestone. We have gone to great lengths to make sure that that portion of the project is eligible for funding. We actually had a meeting with representatives from the Division of Water earlier, middle part of last week, to review this South Line project to make sure that we did remain eligible for this particular funding source. but it would include things like rain gardens. No, I understand what it includes. I want to know about what kind of parameters are out there with accepting bids from contractors, time frames. Is there a project manager? What's being done to keep that street open and accessible for as much time as possible because there are many businesses, small local businesses that employ lots of people, that are going to be impacted by this. And so those are the pieces of this I want to know. And I think the one point I would make is that I think the execution of the project really is not so much a function of the funding source. They're primarily concerned with utilizing, you know, complying with certain federal requirements, utilizing wage rates, that sort of thing. And there is a requirement that those funds have to be expended by a certain period of time. And I think there's maybe a two- or three-year sunset at which point those funds, if they haven't been spent, they will be pulled. So that would be, I guess, the primary concern that we would have if, for example, the project did not move forward in a reasonably timely fashion. Okay, you said just the word I couldn't come up with, and it is that it doesn't have to do with the execution of the project and the contract. Right. And that's what I wanted to know. Thank you very much. All right. Council Member Beard, do you all want to speak to this same issue? Yes. All right, Council Member Beard. Harold. Harold? While we're at it, and we've talked around it, so why don't we go straight to the heart of it, are we actually talking about closure of South Limestone for one year? No, we're not talking about closing the entire street for one year. One of the things, as we brought up at the media on Sunday, is we have out to bid right now a project for South Limestone. We've instructed the potential bidders to bring back to us a schedule that will show us how they will put the sewer lines, utilities underground, and the water main and gas connection that need to be improved. So they will bring to us how that process will work from Euclid to Vine. So that will be part of the documentation that we will review when the bids come back in. We estimate, just among the design team, that to do everything from putting the sewer lines in, utilities, the rain gardens, the sidewalks, that whole time period, It's probably going to take about 12 months to do that, July 1, 2010. We're looking at the possibility of trying to condense the time period, though, when we try to put the factors that are overhead underground and replace what's underground within four months. So that's what we're looking at in terms of that four-month time period. That's enough time to put everybody on limestone with the exception of McDonald's out of business, in my opinion. Okay. And that's not acceptable to me anyway. I assume you remember when limestone between Main and Vine Street was closed and heavy equipment was parked there for, it seemed like, years. Maybe only one year. And during the building of the courthouses. And it was a major traffic congestion. This is the main thoroughfare for a whole bunch of cars bringing people to downtown Lexington. I don't know what their alternatives are. You know, we gave up Rose Street to UK. so it's either Tate's Creek or it's Harrisburg Road, I assume, but people are going to have to win their way through me being one of those people, by the way, through the back streets to get over to one or the other. And it's just a major problem, and I don't know actually what can be done about it, But anything that could mitigate full closure of those streets would be great. And we had our first meeting Sunday with the group as a whole. And at that meeting, I informed them once the contractor was selected and we knew what the schedule was, we knew what they were going to do, we'd be having another meeting with them. because what we're trying to do is we have to keep one lane open for local access. We've got some residents who live along there. We do have businesses. We have the hospital, so we have ambulances traveling down that street. So we have to keep one lane open. So one lane will be open during the whole time, but hopefully the contractor will come up with methods that help us speed that process up. and what that process is right now, I don't know. We identified actually what we're dealing with underneath that street. I've heard stories that the sewer is right smack dab in the middle of the front. It's pretty much right. We've got one in the middle and one on the side. That, unfortunately, is the case. Great. Let me make just a question here to the council, Mr. Beard. I'm through. Okay, well. Thank you. But there are more questions regarding this, and I know there are members of the audience here that want to speak to this. And this is a question related to the agenda. And Mr. Stinnett, you might want to help us with this. Do we, would it be appropriate for us, do we want to change and shift the agenda, or do we want to stick with the agenda and deal with this issue, which is not on the agenda today in the public comment section? You know, my vote is going to be stick to the agenda because that's why we publish it. That's why a lot of other people showed up for the agenda and stayed with the agenda. All right. Is that okay with everybody? You want to clarify that? So you're, well, I guess for me, the agenda, no one, unless they were looking for it like I was combing through it, would have had any idea that this was about the streetscape project on South Lyme. And so how would anyone know that they were signing up to speak on something on the agenda when it's not in any way identified as being what it is? So that being said, also it is not, I think when you say, Harold, that after you all get the contracts and the bid accepted, you'll explain to the owners of these businesses what's going to happen. And that's not acceptable to me. I want, we need to have them involved and the council involved and informed before a bid is accepted, in my opinion, on a project of this magnitude that has this kind of impact on our social and economic fabric of our community. And so, you know, and also I would like to request that when these kinds of projects are happening in my district, I find out from you before I find out from a constituent. Thank you. All right. I have Council Members Crosby and Feigl on next. We'll go through these two comments. Is that good? I would just say that since it's going to be on the docket for the next meeting, I'll hold my comments for the council meeting. I think it's also going to come up in public comment today because we have members of the members in the. But we're not supposed to speak during public comment. Come up in council report. Right. Council member Crosby. Okay. I have a question. When Cleet first presented us with the streetscape plan, and I don't know if this is going to be a different phase, but he was very specific saying that it was Maine and Vine, and this is, I guess, the first just like Council Member Lawless that I've heard that it's been expanded. So is this a different separate phase, or what happened to where the first was going to be Maine and Vine? That's what we heard in I don't know how many presentations from the streetscape plan people that that's the first thing. And now we're hearing something completely different. Phase one, to my knowledge, and I believe Cleet was indicating that, was three, well, really four areas. Chiefside, Main Street from the Broadway area to Lime, Vine Street from Broadway to Lime, and then the Limestone component from Euclid to Vine Street. But the first priority, if I'm not mistaken, that we've heard repeatedly was Main and Vine. That was something that he talked a lot about because we had a lot of comments on Main and Vine. As I recall, he said that was a priority that we had to move that forward during his presentation. If we, on B, where it says if the assisted clean water state revolving funds under the American Recovery and Revestment Act, if we get these funds and accept them under this, are there any restrictions that might be contrary to what we have as part of our streetscape plan? I mean, are we going to be accepting money that puts limitations on what we can and can't do that's different from what we have planned? No, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thanks, Harold. All right. I believe we can move now to the Recycle Center Master Plan. And Commissioner Taylor will introduce the guests. Good afternoon. You all might recall last fall you gave us support to go forward with acquiring professional services to help us in analyzing the potential or current opportunities that we have for diverting landfill-bound waste into recycling streams. And we used an RFP process. Some of this is review for you. Council Member Blues was part of the selection, and we selected Gershman, Brickner, and Bratton, Incorporated. Last December, early January, I gave you some preliminary information about the waste sort that we did in December. But today we would like to talk with you a little bit more about some of the results of the two waste sorts that we completed. We also asked GBB to take a look at our current materials recycling center, the MRF, and take a look at the constraints on that center to help us understand where we might have opportunities. And then finally, we did ask them to take a look at the property on Old Frankfurt Pike that we're considering as a potential future site for a MRF and to do a fatal flaw analysis of that property and also an attribute analysis. So today I'd like to introduce John Roderick. He is the vice president of GBB, and he's going to give you a quick overview of some of the results. Thank you, Cheryl, and thank you, Vice Mayor. On behalf of your GBB team, I'm pleased to offer comments regarding the Council's consideration for increasing your recycling infrastructure. Cheryl mentioned the agenda of four things, highlighting results from the waste authority project, reviewing the existing MRF, review some solid waste management best practices, and review the old Frankfurt Pike site. I will skip a few detailed waste composition slides that are in the handout, but I could answer questions on them at the end. With me today is Frank Bernheisel, the GBB vice president, and Don Perry, and Mark Simpson, members of the GBB team. We just completed sorting your waste. In one week-long effort last December and one in April, we sorted 100 samples from residential, commercial, and industrial generators. Each sample was about 230 pounds. Materials were sorted into 80 categories for a high degree of detail. These pie charts aggregate several related categories for presentation purposes. Greater organic proportion in the single-family sector is driven by the presence of yard waste. Perhaps not surprisingly, there's plenty of recyclable paper, plastic, and metal in the disposed waste stream. Commercial and industrial waste streams look different. Commercial waste also contains plenty of recyclables. However, industrial waste contains a high quantity of pallets, crates, and other wood products, all highly recoverable materials, and they should be part of the overall recycling plan, We should send them to a facility set up especially for these materials. Okay. Your existing MRF on Thompson Road processes mixed paper and containers of plastic, aluminum, tin, and glass from your ROSE program. Also, some corrugated comes in from commercial sources. In 2008, 18,000 tons were processed from homes in Lexington. Another 2,500 tons was delivered by commercial sources and by other towns in the region. When comparing your recycling rate of about 11 percent of the total 170,000 tons collected by your program to the national recycling rate published by the U.S. EPA of about 32 percent, Lexington has a long way to go. Lexington has plans to expand the sorting capacity of this facility. However, the MRF cannot be expanded beyond its current site boundaries due to, on the west, a church property, to the north, residences, and along the east, an active railroad line and 55-foot-wide Kentucky Utilities Transmission Line easement, with the easement being the blue line. The building and equipment is well utilized, which is another way of saying that it is near capacity and could only accommodate modest increases above its current 80 tons within a 10-hour operating day. Three upgrades are being proposed. One, additional sorting equipment. Two, a temporary building addition in the front to increase the tipping floor, shown as the crosshash area. Three, addition of one loading dock. These modifications will allow residents to put glass containers with everything else in the rosy cart. For a true single stream collection, a change that will improve worker collection efficiency and safety. Now your recycling programs are strictly voluntary. Best practices are to have them available and required for all types of generators, residential, commercial, and industrial. Significantly more recycling would result, and if done right, can end up saving generators money, as well as providing environmental and energy benefits that our planet and country greatly need. There are communities across the nation that achieve as much as 50 percent recycling and more, in part by following these practices. Also, Lexington needs a permanent household hazardous waste facility and more opportunities to channel reusable materials, such as building materials, furniture, and fixtures to organizations such as Goodwill or Habitat for Humanity. So let's talk about why you need a new MRF. In the first column of this table, last year's quantities are listed. In the next column, additional quantities that could be collected and delivered to a Lexington MRF are presented as an outcome of the waste sorting project. Additional quantities will come from a number of initiatives. One, increasing participation from homes that already have the rosy carts through awareness building. Two, adding materials to the list of recyclables for set-outs, such as other types of plastics and additional metals. Three, adding the remaining 20,000 homes or so to the program. And four, offering consistent programs for all generators, including multifamily homes, commercial, industrial, and even the self-haul generators. These quantities would be a significant step towards a zero waste goal also. As Cheryl mentioned, it is the Administration's belief that the Old Frankfurt Pike site is the preferable site for a new MRF. It also houses waste reuse and electronics recycling center campus. The proposed site is located on the corner of Old Frankfurt Pike and Alexandria Drive within the existing industrial corridor. I have a few slides to present a site layout and artist renderings, but first let's identify what we would need to put inside the building. This process pictorial shows what we would propose. It could process 200 to 250 tons each day, double the quantities of your current MRF. A state-of-the-art facility would have processing technology for converting the materials into high-quality products to ensure their sellability. The plan could include constructing the MRF with one new processing line, and then after closing the Thompson Road MRF, moving the process line from it to the new MRF for a second process line. The next few slides show how the MRF would be situated on this site and what it could look like. Here we show it, shown on this site with the larger rectangle penciled in as the MRF, and then the smaller ones as households hazardous waste and related facilities. The analysis of the site by J.R. Miller and Associates found no fatal flaws. However, there is work to be done to decide the access approach and then have the zoning conditions reviewed in a public process. This site is convenient to the Waste Management Division where collection trucks are ready to start and end each day. Despite the positioning atop of the highest elevation, seasonal views of the buildings would be limited. The utilities necessary are available, and in the GBB team's opinion, this site can be permitted by Kentucky regulatory agencies. J.R. Miller and Associates developed artist renderings of the proposed facilities on the site. The property location and size will allow placement of electronic and household hazardous waste drop-off buildings on the south end. Those are in the foreground of this rendering. The architectural concept captures agrarian and equine themes common in Lexington. Keep in mind these are preliminary conceptual renderings. Added to this, aesthetic quality of the building would be sustainable design features in order to meet leads, Energy Star, and green building requirements. Bale material loading docks will be screened and semi-enclosed. the enclosed. This will keep the material handling from public view, provide noise buffering, and minimize litter. How will this facility look to those driving by the site? Let's look at a few photos. The artist rendering was superimposed on a photo taken on the north side of the railroad along Alexandria Drive. As you can tell, this photo was taken during taken during the winter. A little further down Alexandria Drive between the railroad and old Frankfurt Pipe is this super imposition. You can be the judge of what those driving by would think they are viewing. Direct access to primary markets will bring the highest price for recycled materials. End users such as Koch and Anheuser-Busch have made large investments to provide the the industrial infrastructure to support this research, this approach. This is true recycling. Old cans into new cans and old bottles into new bottles. Your recyclables are turned into products that you purchase every day. How much will it cost? Siting considerations and final design of a new MRF at the site would affect its capital cost, but we have a range we believe a new MRF would fall within. As we go through this slide, keep in mind that for every ton that is not sent to the landfill, you are avoiding a cost of $23 per ton, and that is not accounted for in our numbers. These costs, the capital costs and operations and maintenance costs are industry experience for similar MRFs, not specific to Lexington, but they do include everything to operate the facility, and including marketing efforts, which you are now paying the Bluegrass Regional Recycling Corporation to do for you. So the net cost range is close to zero at its midpoint. Also, these costs do not account for improvements to the collection system, especially as related to worker safety with a switch from the separate glass collection to completely automated recycling collection. As part of a holistic look at waste management, let's see some of the economic environmental benefits of recycling. The U.S. EPA's Waste Reduction Model, or WARM, was developed for waste managers to see how recycling would affect greenhouse gas emissions and energy use. Lexington's out-of-county transportation to the landfill was the biggest factor in greenhouse gas generation in your current system. The future row includes those greenhouse gas emissions and energy that could be saved by increasing the recycling system with initiatives that I have described. This is a high-level schedule for implementing improvements at the Thompson Road MRF and for developing a new MRF at the old Frankfurt Pike site. In less than a year from approval, Thompson Road can be changed to allow recycling expansion in Lexington to continue. This will serve you well during an estimated three and a half years needed to develop a new MRF. With a new MRF, the city could directly contract with market and increase revenue. By bringing in the multifamily residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, Lexington could increase services without necessarily increasing costs. Making materials ready for market right here in Lexington and controlling marketing ensures transportation is minimizing, helping to simultaneously hold down costs and the city's carbon footprint as well. So with a new MRF, Lexington could go from recycling 11% of quantities collected to double or triple that for the residential sector, with similar contribution by other sectors, for a big contribution toward that zero-waste goal. Landfilling is relatively inexpensive now, but no one is guaranteeing the price beyond your current contract. Recycling more materials ensures that the city will be less dependent on those landfills. We have a saying at GBB, recycle more and spend less. It's good for your pocketbooks and good for the environment. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions from members of the council? Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much for your presentation. I have a couple of questions, and the first one might actually be for Commissioner Taylor. Have we had conversations with the farm owners who expressed concern about the proximity of this? Yes, we've had conversations in some neighborhood meetings. Steve attended, I guess, Mayor Haven, and then both of us and the mayor also spoke with farm owners. And some of their concerns were about increased truck traffic, litter and noise and lighting. And we spoke with them and showed them some of the renderings. It would be our intent, of course, to have a facility that we could be proud of. It's certainly at a critical corridor to the city. The renderings, I think, are very doable, and we have architecture that is similar to that, really, just right up the road. And once we were able to explain that, I got a whole lot better response. The farm owners are continuing to discuss any of the concerns, but it's significantly reduced. They do plan to meet with us again in July and continue to discuss that, But I feel certain that we can accommodate those concerns that they have with the design. Okay, very good. Thank you. And then on your presentation, on page 11, you talked about the MRF economics and, in particular, the revenues. And I wondered, recently, probably within the last six weeks, there was quite a significant article in Business Week about the future collapse of the recycling market globally. and so I'm kind of concerned. I mean, I believe in recycling, even if we can't make money on it, but I wondered, given some of the things that I've been reading, whether you did projections and trends out into the future about revenues and the market for recycled materials. Thank you. The markets for recyclables tanked last fall with high levels of recycling, very successful programs all across the country, and yet a lot of recyclables are shipping out to China. But at the same time, manufacturing was slowing down in China and here and other countries. And so all of a sudden they had too many recyclables. recyclables. So there was a very bad situation for several weeks when they put an immediate stop. They restarted. Of course, the factories continue to use these materials, but there was too big of an inventory. And they have improved since then. Happily, Lexington, the Happily, Lexington's, the quality of their materials and the markets that you have been using through the Bluegrass Regional Recycling Corporation did mean that your recyclables were continued to be marketed, that there was no stoppage here of any consequence. The revenues that we showed here actually are the range from the good time to the poor revenues. They are averages over the year. So, and actually for the current fiscal year we're at $85 a ton and that reflects July, August, August and September and some of October before they went down a lot. I have to admit to that. They probably went below that on a monthly basis, but they have returned so that there's still some revenue coming in. We project that the price will rise again with the general economy. It tracks, to some degree, the general economy. They may not get to their superheated levels that we had in 2007 and 2008, but we do project them to increase. So this revenue number, did I understand you to say it's based on last year, the high and the low? Well, actually, according to the footnote here at the bottom of the page, which I did. It actually, we're using complete fiscal year average rates from fiscal year 2006, 7, 8, and then 9, 10 months of fiscal year 2009. And looking what the average was for each year, and the high number, which was probably $100 and $18 per ton, if I remember correctly, was in 2008, when the markets peaked. And the low ones were 2006 and 2009 in that $85 per ton range. So are your operations and maintenance costs, how far out are they projected, that $50 to $60 per ton? does that reflect what you think will be the cost for a few years or for next year or the first year? Those actually are current costs, this year-type costs. So in other words, the concept would be if the facility could be built and started up this year, This would be our expected range right now for the capital costs and also for the operations and maintenance costs, just to show you what it would look like on a current year basis. And the revenues are from past, based on our past revenues. Correct. Was there any way to project that into the future? Yes, we have not done that yet, but that will be part of the plan document that we are working on and will be done over the next several weeks. Okay, very good. Thank you. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Mayor. I will look forward to seeing those projected revenues. One of the questions I had, though, is on your slides of the exterior of the building. They're all from Alexandria Drive. And do you have any that you actually have looking at the building from Old Frankfurt Pike, which is one of the scenic roadways in our community? Yes, I do. I don't know if I missed it or if it's not in my package. I actually have a photo slide. It's the next to the last slide, and right now it is getting it. But I didn't show it because it doesn't show the building because of the trees. That's it. This photo was taken two weeks ago, about 1,000 feet south of the intersection from Alexandria Drive. So what you're looking at are the stand of trees right alongside Wolf Run Creek. Is that from Alexandria Drive? I'm sorry, from Old Frankfort Pike, about 1,000 feet up. Toward town. Towards town. It was relatively near the bridge for the Wolf Run Creek. And so unfortunately, from a view from a view, fortunately, the facility would be screened during the summer months because of that stand of trees. It's just a thin line of trees alongside the creek. There would be a view similar in some respects to what we saw along Alexandria Drive during the winter when the leaves are down, because those are deciduous trees. Okay, thank you. Council Member Bluce. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to thank you for your presentation. I don't have questions, but I think that what you have illustrated is to a large extent what we already know, especially the overheads of the present location of the recycling center, which is bursting at the seams and is on the very edge of a residential neighborhood. Our present location for this extraordinarily important operation is untenable. And unless we move forward with a new location, we're not going to be able to expand, and we're not going to be able to be a good neighbor. And I think that what you've illustrated is an operation that can be a good neighbor, not only because it's distant from residences, but is also visually, if not enticing, at least blends into the surrounding landscape, is a building which covers the entire operation. We have to do a lot of our current recycling outside, which is not only noisy, but it's also extremely expensive. So we're in a position now to move forward with a new location, important new equipment that will enable us to recycle more materials in less time and less expensively. And if we're going to move Lexington forward from what did you say? Was it 11% that we now recycle? That's correct. And the national average is somewhere around 32%. We can do so much better. And for those of us who even briefly went out to the waste stream sort when it was done, I made a point of going out there when it was snowing and muddy and cold and awful and saw just how much recyclable material that we now cart to the landfill at some $23 a ton. it struck home to me that we need to, at this crucial moment, move to the next level. It will cost money, but as you say, it will save money. And in the bargain, it will put us in a location, if we can follow these steps and move to the old Frankfurt site, that will be more spacious, be less intrusive, and more environmentally friendly. So thank you very much for the work you're doing, and I'm hoping that we can indeed move forward. Council Member Lane. Commissioner, you spoke with me a week or so ago about the number of trucks that go into the recycling plant. You quoted, I believe, an estimated number on a daily basis. I think that was an important number that had a major impact on me. Do you recall what that count was? I'm going to the expert to double check myself. Right now we have about 25? Okay, let's say 30 trucks a day that go into the recycling center. Some of them have more than one load a day, but the vast majority just have one trip. But the trucks actually start off at the waste garage up near the Bird-Thurman building, and then they go out, pick up their load, go back to the recycling center, dump it, and then in the end they wind up right back up at the Bird-Thurman spot, which is really right next to where we're proposing we put the new facility. So probably what your current traffic count is maybe would be just marginally increased on a daily basis? It would be marginally increased perhaps, and then, of course, as you grow recycling, there would be more trucks. But, again, all of those trucks would start at that location and wind up at that location just like they do today. So I guess ultimately you're not going to see increased traffic because the number of trucks that we send out are the number of trucks that wind up in that facility anyway every afternoon. Okay. Thank you very much. That's my question. Any other questions? All right. Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is a presentation by the airport board. Mr. Owens, if you and Mr. Frankel will step forward. Thank you, Mayor Newberry. Members of the Urban County Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I'm Bobby Owens, and I'm chairman of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Airport Board of Directors, and I'm here today with Eric Frankel, Bluegrass Airport's interim executive director, to give you an update on our progress since we received reports and recommendations from State Auditor Critt Llewellyn and aviation consultants. I also would like to share some thoughts on the lessons we in the entire community have learned from this. The auditor's report was thorough and sobering. Nearly all of the report's 22 findings boiled down to a single point. The airport's former staff leadership spent airport funds inappropriately, failed to document appropriate expenditures, and were very good at adding these actions from the Board. Let me be clear. The Board of Directors regularly asks for information about expenses, marketing, and everything else. Many of the answers we received simply were not true, and a lot of information was hidden from us. In fact, the airport's outside auditors, their professionals who told our board every year we have sound internal controls, relied on the same information from the same individuals. It's obvious now that the typical safeguards boards like ours have to prevent problems weren't enough to stop this. However, had current board members or even past board members seen any evidence about the financial abuses which occurred over many years, we would have acted upon it. A combination of deceit, collusion, intimidation of employees, and business success combined to present a picture of overall sound fiscal management where, in fact, there were pockets of excess and inappropriate spending. As you know, we've put an end to these problems. The four top managers no longer work at the airport. All airport credit cards have been canceled. The Board received and acted on the recommendation of a world-class airport industry consultant and of course the state auditor. The auditor's report has many helpful findings, a number of which were adopted immediately, and others in the process of implementation. The summary of these were distributed to the Council in advance, and you should have a copy of those in front of you today. New strict policies on travel, expense reimbursement, purchasing, and reporting have been established along with the Code of Ethics that applies to all current and future employees as well as Board members. In a moment, ERIC will provide you with specifics on how quickly and thoroughly these recommendations have been implemented. The Board has also secured the return of airport property and received reimbursements for many of the appropriate expenses. As you can see, an interim executive director is in place, and the airport's leadership structure was reorganized, and the rebuilding of our management team has now been completed. You should have a copy of the airport's new organizational chart in front of you as well. Bart Day is our new Deputy Director of Engineering and Maintenance. Don Seaver is our new Deputy Director of Administration and Finance. And Scott Lanner is our new Deputy Director of Public Safety and Operations. And it's important to know that during the past seven months, safety and customer service have remained paramount. Many people have taken flights to or from Lexington safely and with a high degree of satisfaction. Bluegrass Airport has held its own in an industry that's seeing a lot of fluctuation due to fuel costs and other economic pressures. Additionally, the Board has kept $66 million in construction projects on track during this unfortunate time. $66 million in improvements and, importantly, money flowing through the local economy that otherwise would not be. If you calculate the number of days left for the games, we're spending $140,000 a day, to give you an idea of the magnitude. You should also have a summary of these construction projects in front of you. The airport will be fully prepared to welcome our many guests for the 2010 All Tech FEI World Equestrian Games next year. Our facility will be world class and essentially new in all respects. we'll have an airport which every citizen of our community can take even greater pride in. The Board is moving forward with an extensive search for permanent executive director. We are confident that we will attract the best possible person for the job, and we're working with a local consultant to make sure the process by which we select a permanent executive director is fair, open, and thorough. I know people want to move fast on this, but I'm more interested in getting it done right than getting it done right now. I expect the board to name a hermitate director sometime late this year. Looking back, I think there are several lessons our community can learn from this experience. I would like to make five specific comments in this regard. First, we must all recognize our community boards, like the airport board, are being served by volunteers. Many of these volunteers have full-time jobs, families, and interests which consume their time. It is unreasonable to expect a volunteer board to spend time researching every transaction in an organization. That is the charge of the executive director. Certainly, oversight must be in place, and monitoring of these controls and procedures are necessary, but boards are in place to establish organizational policies, set goals and direction, and ensure those are being carried out by staff. An additional check provided are external auditors who are charged with examining detailed transactions for compliance with policy. Unfortunately, in our case, this check failed. This raises the issue of trust. Our society places inherent trust in our family, coworkers, friends, associates, and business partners. Our society would not function without trust. Sometimes that trust is violated, even to the point of leading to criminal activity. Volunteer boards must place a level of trust in their staffs so the organization can function. Even with this trust, it is appropriate to have checks and balances in place to prevent and discourage misappropriation. We thought we did. As Critt Llewellyn has stated, when you have collusion, misappropriation is sometimes hard to uncover. The second point relates to travel. As an organization's expenses are scrutinized by the media, it's important to think twice before we immediately dismiss spending on things like travel as wasteful. Organizations must visit their customers and markets. Many national conventions are scheduled in nice places and nice hotels to encourage attendance. In our case, airport staff must travel to attract air service to our community. Local hotels and restaurants depend on travel, conferences, meetings, and tourism. So do our local universities. So does the equine industry. So do government officials such as yourself. Let's all agree that while all expenses should be explained and well documented, travel is vital to our local economy and is a very necessary requirement for many organizations. It is unfair to characterize travel as inappropriate. The third point regards oversight and controls. Recent news reports show several municipal and non-profit boards need to make sure they have adequate controls and safeguards in place. While I'm certainly not happy the airport had to be the example here, I'm pleased that our Board moved very quickly to correct these problems and rebuild the community's trust. The community board training curriculum should be developed to define the responsibilities of being a Board member and how to perform the required oversight and monitoring of established controls. This would be very helpful for any person serving on a community board. If there's anyone here listening today who sits on a public or nonprofit board, my advice is simple. Get to know what fiscal controls that you have in place now before there's a problem. It's important to trust the people who work with you, but it's also important to know what the checks and balances are. Boards like ours must be ready to welcome scrutiny, even if the result isn't always comfortable. The fourth point I wish to make is that we cannot let the sins of a few discouraged volunteers on a wholesale basis. I fear that is what may result from this. As a community, we need the diversity of experience, culture, and opinions to run our organizations to its fullest ability. We, as a community, must encourage all of our citizens to serve our community in order to make Lexington a better place to work, to live, to raise a family. We must not let these recent problems discourage people from local board service, but result in encouraging many to get involved. Finally, I'm here to ask for your help. The airport board has moved quickly and decisively to address the challenges we face, but it's not enough. We need to make sure our partners in the local community understand these problems are now in the past. We all know we're in a difficult economy, and we know the airlines are more competitive than ever. They're being very selective about where to provide air service. News media continues to incorrectly report or mislead that the airport is under investigation. The airport is not under investigation by anybody. We also receive most of our revenue from user fees and airline charges, not local tax money. Inacurate reporting such as this continues to be misleading. Bluegrass Airport is critical to the region's economic growth. If it suffers, our community's businesses will suffer as well. The University of Kentucky study concluded the airport was directly responsible for 940 jobs and $27 million in worker earnings to our community. In fact, we had over 130 applications, 44 being CPAs for the recently failed Deputy Director of Administration and Finance. And just yesterday, Bluegrass Airport was recognized by the FAA in Washington with the 2009 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Advocate and Partner Award. Only three airports in the country received this award and we as a community should be proud of this accomplishment. So, we have many things going very well at the airport at the moment. We need to make sure everyone in the Bluegrass and beyond knows that we have a world-class facility with amenities you won't find in even many of the major airports. We need your help in spreading the message. We've been reading and talking about the problems at Bluegrass Airport for months. We painstakingly revealed the details and we thoroughly reviewed the solutions. We made deliberate decisions, and we're implementing the reforms. It's time to end this chapter and move forward. Now, I'll ask Eric to come forth and share some details, and after that I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. Mr. Franklin, you'll have a couple of minutes here to wrap up. I'll be as brief as possible, and thank you for the opportunity. I won't regurgitate many of the things that Mr. Owens has talked about, but I would like to just make a couple of comments that I think would add to it. Obviously, the first area I'd like to report on is the implementation schedule. You have that in front of you. We'd be happy to answer any questions that you have on that. The board has already adopted and the staff implemented the vast majority of these recommendations, I think somewhere around 64 percent as of today. It's worth noting that the Board active aggressively developing new policies in advance of the auditor's recommendation so that many of these recommendations could be and were adopted when they were presented on February 25th. We have developed mechanisms for the Board to continually monitor sensitive issues and new tools to promote better communication among the leadership staff and the Board, other than just through the Executive Director at monthly Board meetings. In fact, in the span of just three months, the board and staff working together accomplished an enormous amount of organizational changes already. From my experience at previous airports and in communities, I think the speed of this change is... truly been impressive. There are two sets remaining of the auditor's recommendations to be implemented. One set of these remaining recommendations are associated with the Board's annual budget process, which will be accomplished next week with the adoption of our fiscal 2010 budget. The Board has been deeply involved in providing guidance and oversight during that process. The final set of recommendations will hopefully be accomplished by the fall in conjunction with the financial audit of our fiscal 2009 accounting period. I'll just stop right there and be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Any questions for either gentleman? Council Member Lawless. I have one question. The Homeland Security fee that was attached to tickets after 9-11, is there a percent of that that goes to Bluegrass Field? No, it actually goes to Homeland Security, the TSA, Transportation Security. TSA, and so you all get no portion of that money. Okay. The Deputy Director of Operations and Public Safety, who did you say was appointed to that? Scott Lanter. Is Mr. Lanter the same person who was the Chief of Public Safety prior to this promotion? He is. And so who will be the Chief of Public Safety? We've actually combined those two positions. Through the reorganization, we took a component that was formerly under that department, and we moved it to the engineering department. And that really gave us the ability to combine both the director of operation and the chief of public safety into one position. And we think that's a more efficient use of resources. So on your organizational chart, there isn't a chief of public safety? That's correct. We have three assistant chiefs that will report directly to the new director of public safety and operations. Okay. And the whistleblower policy that you all have implemented, is there a body above the board that an employee can go to if they want to blow a whistle? Because to my understanding, there were some whistles blown, but they weren't heard. The way the current policy is written, and we work with an independent agency, if someone elects to use the hotliner in some way, utilizes the whistle-bowler policy, that is all kept confidential except for two entities. One is our human resource manager and also the board's attorney. So thereby, hopefully, through the board's attorney, the board would be made well aware of any particular issues or concerns. And one other thing now, I think some other people have some questions. Wasn't Mr. Lanter the one that failed to report the accident where Mr. Gobb was driving and knocked over the... I wouldn't characterize it that way, and that Mr. Lanter was on vacation during that whole incident. He did make a request to his immediate supervisor at the time, and that was denied. So there was another level in between there that really prevented that report from being filed, and now that level has been removed. Okay. So now he will report to the executive director there won't be a chief of public safety, and I'm assuming there will be some money saved by eliminating that position. Is that being put back into the public safety equipment training staff? Well, we have a budget that's not really broken down in that fashion. We're certainly happy to accommodate any of the needs from any of our departments, obviously depending on resources. I'll have to tell you that we have a very challenging budget year, as I'm sure you do, and many organizations do. That's one of the reasons we're going to enjoy this savings, but it doesn't mean that we have a lot of extra resources. Certainly we work with each department to develop what their priorities are and fund those as we get the opportunity. So you're budgeted and broken down by department? It's broken down by department, but from a capital improvement point of view, different departments compete with each other based on the availability of revenue. Okay. I'll have to think on that. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Gordon. A couple quick questions. Thank you for being here, Eric and Bobby. On the capital improvement update, the second page, I was just curious about your sanitary sewer system upgrade, which will allow for future growth. Do you know what kinds of future growth you're anticipating? To be honest, I'm not sure that we have. What had happened there is we actually redirected our – We're going to be redirecting where our sanitary sewer flows to, which will allow for future growth, versus the direction it currently is flowing to. So certainly we're going to be going through a master planning process again in a couple of years, probably after the runway is built, and we'll evaluate those future development plans. But it really just allows capacity, not that we have planned capacity right now. So you're thinking about future growth of the airport itself? I don't know that I'd characterize it that way. other than saying commercial development that may happen around the airport? Well, let me address that. It's really we're expanding the rampways with the new 927 addition, and that increases runoff. We already have a glycol restriction that we pump through our existing system because it doesn't have the flow or the capacity. So there are a lot of reasons that we need to go ahead and spend the money to expand the sewer line back into the main system. Okay. And then this, I noticed your baggage claim ticket area. And if I can use this opportunity to just pass something on to you that doesn't have anything to do with this. But I've, on a fairly regular basis, fly in and out of there. and the last two times I've seen people trying to get into the first floor smoking room. And I wondered if you're going to be removing that. We are. Okay, very good. Thank you. Any others? Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I'm not sure who this question would go to, so maybe if the board chair could come up. Logan, could you also come down, please? You know, I was the first one to call for the board to be reconstituted when all this hit. And I'm sticking by that. I still think that everybody that was on the board when this took place should be off the board and we should start over. I'm not going to belabor a whole lot of things. I just have one question, and I'm not sure if you can answer the question. And that is that there was a loan, or maybe you want to characterize what it actually was, because I've heard that it was a loan, that it was just a gift, it was a bonus, so I'm not really sure. But the previous director was given a $10,000 sum of money. And I noticed that you said that you were seeking reimbursements for different things. could you go through the list of things that you well, that's probably not the way to do it today could you provide us with a report of what you have been reimbursed for and what you have not been and what your action plan is for ensuring that the citizens are reimbursed but in particular that $10,000 I'd like to know from you would you characterize what it was, was it a loan, was it a gift, was it a bonus what was it? Well, specifically the $10,000 was a loan. Okay. Has he paid that back? To my knowledge, no. It's being negotiated right now. Being negotiated. Okay. My question then is, did the board have the legal ability to make that kind of loan with taxpayer money? And, again, I know you may not be the person that answered the question, but that's the question I want answered. and then when I hear the answer to that question, I want to know what the board is going to do to get that money back. And if he doesn't pay the money back, then I want to know ultimately who's responsible for paying the citizens back that $10,000. I think due to federal privacy laws, I probably shouldn't say much more about this. We are working hard to collect that money. It's my intent and the board's intent to collect it. And we're working hard to do that right now. Can I ask you one other question about it? And I do appreciate the fact that there are privacy laws in place. When you said you're negotiating, that would seem to suggest that you're looking to negotiate a lesser amount than the full $10,000. Can you answer that question? No, that really wasn't my intent. My intent is to get the whole $10,000 back. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Askew? I don't know who can answer that question as to whether or not the board had the legal ability to make that kind of a loan. So I don't know where to go with that question. So I guess I start with the law department. Can you do the law on that and find out for us? And then depending on what the answer is and depending on whether or not they get the $10,000 back, along with the other money, I'm really interested in the $10,000 more so than the rest of it, though. Who is legally responsible for then paying that back? If they didn't have the legal ability to make the loan, then who's responsible for paying it back? All right. Thank you, sir. That's all I have, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Allen, I have a question for you. A couple questions. Thanks for coming today. Sure. Thank you. What kind of organization is the airport? Is it a nonprofit? How is it set up? It's a corporation. It's set up as a corporation. So it's set up as a for-profit corporation? That's a good question. And I'm not a lawyer, and I can't tell you specifically what the code section that sets it up, but it is some type of a nonprofit corporation. This is your new director. Do you know whether you filed a new Form 990? I do not know that either. So you don't know whether or not you have a conflict of interest policy? Yes, we do. Do your board members sign an annual statement that they've read and that they conform to the conflict of interest policy? Yes, we have. Maybe in the nonprofit then. I think that's all I have for now. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Anything further? All right, Council Member Reyers. Mr. Chair, could you come up for just one second? Now that it's been established that that $10,000 was a loan, was there any contract or any kind of agreement signed, required by the Board to be signed by the Director in order to receive the loan stating that he would pay it back and under what terms he'd pay it back? Again, I think because of privacy issues, I really can't say a lot about that. I'm sorry. Okay. I'm sorry. I respect that. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Wallace. Thank you. First of all, I want to say there's nobody in Lexington that wants this airport to be all it can be and succeed more than I do. I enjoy flying in and out of Bluegrass Field and have for many years. One of the questions I have, I guess, and maybe it's a comment for Mr. Owens, The thing that strikes me and worries me the most about the board is that every time I've heard you or any of the board members speak, I hear about it was the newspaper's fault, it's behind us, it was this person's fault, it was that person's fault. And I haven't heard ever once any kind of board made a mistake. You know, I make mistakes. We all make mistakes. We learn from them. But unless we know we made a mistake, it's really hard to learn. So I haven't, the thing that worries me the most is on the whistleblower, there's some kind of hotline you said that only, and I'm pleased to hear that. But it would be hard for me as an employee to trust, and it's somewhat hard for me to trust that unless the board steps up and says, you know, we had oversight responsibilities that we neglected, and we're sorry about that. And we resisted an outside audit, and we're sorry about that. And we made a loan to somebody that maybe we shouldn't, and we're sorry about that. I haven't heard that, and that's the part that really disturbs me about the airport board. And that being said, it's also, I don't want to scare off volunteers, but when, I mean, we have so many wonderful volunteer boards that do do their job and have been frightened by this who have been providing oversight. So I guess one of the things that would be really important to me, both as a council person and just as a user and customer of the airport, is to hear the board acknowledge that they did not provide adequate or responsible oversight, and that was a mistake, and you're moving forward in a different way. Thank you. Well, I think we are moving forward, and certainly I have not denied publicly responsibility on this. I think the board has taken their actions seriously and deliberately, and we've made the changes. We feel as though we were misled. Plus, a lot of these transactions that occurred occurred prior to the existing board being people being on the board. And so I think that fault not only lies with our board, if you will, but it also relies with past board members who let these transactions occur on their watch. And so I think it's something that we were intent on getting cleaned up, and we have. Thank you. That's the last person I have on my list to speak. Is there anything further? Well, thank you very much for being here with us today. We don't have it on the agenda, but I know Mr. Burke is, and perhaps others are here from Lextran, I believe to address some unfinished business from last week. I guess I would just start, Mr. Burke, by saying if there are any updates from last week, and then we'll throw the floor open for questions. Thank you, Mayor Newberry and members of council. Last Tuesday's work session, we had a lengthy discussion regarding our budget and the need to get it passed and obviously the paratransit issues surrounding that. So last Tuesday night, our board of directors met at our work session and took this issue up. So what I'd like to do is read to you a statement that our board of directors has prepared. So if you'll bear with me, let me get through this. Mayor Newberry and the Urban County Council members, at its regular work session on June 2nd, 2009. Excuse me just a second. If you would, please keep the placards down where others in the back can see. Thank you. At its regular work session on June 2nd, 2009, the members of the board of directors, of the Transit Authority of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government, discussed at length the concerns raised at the Urban County Council work session on June 2, 2009 regarding the present $3 fare for paratransit trips that originate or terminate outside the service boundaries set at three-quarters of a mile, outside the fixed routes of LexTran. As promised, this is a report back to Council regarding this issue. The present fare policy was initiated in March of 2009 when the new contract for paratransit service was awarded to Red Cross. The $3 fare represents a premium of $1.40 over the normal fee of $1.60 for paratransit service. The Board took this action in response to a recommendation contained in a routine Federal Transit Administration audit report. The report noted the lack of a premium for search service as an exception to acceptable practice in light of deficiencies cited in the provision of services to paratransit patrons within the service boundary. The Federal Auditor recommended that either the service outside the boundary be terminated or the fare for this service be set at $5, so that resources could be focused on more effectively meeting the ADA standards for paratransit service patrons that live within the service boundary. The Board chose to respond to the recommendation by continuing fare transit service outside the three-quarter boundary and setting the fare for these services at $3. Before instituting this policy, the proposed change was widely discussed in consultation with representatives of the disabled community and at five public hearings. The Board then reported its action regarding the increased fare as part of its report to the FTA about remedial actions being taken to this and other audit exceptions. The Board understands the concerns raised by Council members about the impact of the increased fees on some users of paratransit service who live outside the normal service boundary. The Board is interested in responding positively to those concerns. In addition, members of the Board believe that total disregard of the FTA audit recommendation would be physically irresponsible and would represent an unacceptable risk that could possibly jeopardize future funding, especially considering that, one, the same deficiency was noted on two previous FTA audits, and, two, LexStrain has provided assurance to the FTA that the noted exception had been addressed. While local tax funding does provide major support for the operational expenses of LexTran, federal grant dollars for capital purchase, such as new buses. As a point of information, LexTran has received federal funding in the amount of $19,668,812 since the tax referendum was passed in 2004. Continuing federal support of LexTran is of vital interest to both the disabled patrons of paratransit and the larger Lexington community. Therefore, the Board has concluded that it will take formal action to modify the present fare policy in the following ways at its regular monthly meeting, scheduled for June 17, 2009. The fee for paratransit service outside the three-quarter mile boundary will be reduced from $3 to $2, effective July 1, 2009. This leaves a 40-cent premium over the normal fee of $1.60 for paratransit service, which reduces the burden on paratransit riders outside the boundary while not disregarding the spirit of the FTA recommendations. Two, data will be collected to allow for comprehensive evaluation of both programmatic and budgetary effects of the revised fare policy. The Board expects that new oversight procedures will result in improved service to the disabled community and will mitigate the federal concerns about the program not meeting the ADA requirements for effective service for those within the normal service area. Three, the revised fair policy will be reviewed at the end of the first six months of implementation in the context of the overall budget and the best allocation of resources in the context of transportation needs of Lexington. This change in fair policy will not require an amendment to the budget submitted by LexPlan for the coming fiscal year. The Board hopes that the intention to make these changes formally at its June meeting meets the concerns expressed and finally resolves the question of approval of the budget for the Transit Authority for the coming fiscal year. Thank you, Mr. Burke. Council Member Lawless. That was the last. Leftover. Council Member Lane. Just for a point of clarification, the three-quarter, if your service goes three-quarters out of your normal route, then you pay the premium. How far outside of your basic service can you go to pick up somebody? That's the three-quarters mile. We're allowed to go from where the service area would end on a fixed route service. We can go three-quarters a mile beyond that. That's as far as you can go? That's what the ADA Complementary Paratransit Service says. And what we've chosen to do is what we've always done, and that's continue with countywide service. But in this case, they'll pay the premium, which is 40 cents more. Okay. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Good job on that. I like the way you approached that. Thanks, sir. Any other questions? Councilmember Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Burke, I have a copy of the Chanty Administration's triennial review. Yes, sir. And in here, I'm struggling to figure out where it says that you have to charge more. There's an email here that you sent to the person who did the review asking how to come in compliance. And in that email, he recommends charging $5. In fact, he says charge as much as you can, and he recommends that you talk to some folks in Nebraska, I think it is, to see how they did that. But as far as the report goes, there's nothing in here that says that you have to charge for that. There's nothing in here that recommends that you charge for that. So when he completed the audit, that wasn't anywhere in the audit. And, in fact, it clearly outlines that you can provide extra service, but that their real concern is that you provide the minimum. And that's what it keeps going back to, to make sure you provide the minimum. So I don't quite understand why it keeps being presented as they want you to charge the $5, but you're only going to charge $3 or whatever it's going to be, because that's not what it actually says in the audit. So I guess the point is when the auditor was doing the audit, obviously my staff was with him daily as he was going through this. And the issue that prompted this, why are we providing service to those folks outside the three-quarter mile, and what effect is that having on the system? His point is, serving people that live outside the three-quarter mile or requesting its pickup, that is not considered complimentary ADA service. And what he wanted us to focus on was purely serving those folks who live and want trips within the three-quarter boundary and doing that to the best possible way that we can and directing all of our resources toward that because that's what the ADA law says that we have to do. So because of that, he said we need to look a little deeper, and that's when he suggested we ensure that we're doing assessments. And then also in that, when he talked about how to comply with this, that's where he came up with the premium fare for that, because it's not considered a complimentary ADA service. It's even beyond what we do for fixed route. So we only charge $1 for fixed route. we charge $1.60 for people that live within the three-quarter boundary and are entitled to it, which we have to provide. So those people who live without, he suggests that we charge a premium fare so that we could collect those fares and in turn provide the best possible service that we could for those folks that we have to charge in the ADA complimentary arena. So for further clarification, because I'll be honest with you, in some of the reports that he put together and some of the stuff, I wasn't exactly clear what he was talking about either. So that's why the emails went to him to please clarify for me how you want us to treat those folks that live outside of that three-quarter mile. So that's the reason I provided you with the email so that you also could see what his recommendation was. Okay. Excuse me. Thank you. Under explanation it says the DOT ADA regulations include detailed requirements for provision of ADA complimentary paratransit. These requirements include, and then it drops down and says type of service. It says the guarantee or the grantee, which is you, may provide a higher level of service. But if the grantee is experiencing capacity constraints, the reviewer should identify if the level of service provided exceeds the minimum requirements. Then it goes on to say service area. The ADA service area at a minimum includes all origins and destinations within corridors with the width of three-quarter mile of each fixed route. The grantee may provide additional service, but if the grantee is experiencing capacity constraints, the reviewer should identify if the paratransit service exceeds the minimum requirements. Everything in this audit goes back to making sure that you provide the minimum. Correct. And to me, the way that I interpret that email is, well, let me go one more section, corrective action, suggested correction action. It says, if the ADA complimentary paratransit service does not have adequate capacity to meet the peak demand, for service by ADA eligible riders. The grantee must increase capacity or take other measures to reduce demand. Example, consider eliminating service that exceeds ADA requirements or modify the six-route area or other characteristics. The grantee must track TRIP denials correctly. So that's the suggested corrective action. And to me, it seems like when you emailed back and said, give us more help with how we do that, I think that's when he said, well, one way to do that is to charge more money. The comments that I made last time you were here had to do with the separation of the federal tax dollars that you receive and the local tax dollars that you're receiving as a result of that referendum. What I was trying to get the board to understand and take into consideration that these folks are only making sure, only interested in you providing the minimum. This community, I think, wants more. I think that's why they voted for the referendum. So what I was hoping that the board would do was come back with a plan that would allow you to provide the services needed or requested by those folks that are calling in, requesting the service. and look at using those extra funds that you're getting from the referendum that the taxpayers here passed to provide that service without respect to the money that you're getting from the federal government, because all they're concerned with is that you're meeting the bare minimum of the federal law, and you can do that. So I guess my question is, he only responded with charging an increased fee when you said, basically, we don't know how to come into compliance. It seems to me that, you know, when I ask the questions and you couldn't answer them, and I know you couldn't answer them, and that's okay, I'm not criticizing you for that, with how many trips that you had last year, all those questions I asked along that was to try to ascertain how much money it would take to actually provide the service that's been requested so far to date, and then look at what resources it would need, because this corrective action says that you just need to make sure you have the resources there to provide that minimum service. So if you have money coming from this referendum and you can apply that towards providing this above and beyond the minimum, that's what I'd like to see you do. In the meantime, and even if you just did this for six months, and in the meantime you tried to collect enough data to find out what on an annual basis it's going to cost you to provide that service above and beyond that three-quarter mile. And if it's too much and your budget can't hold that, then I understand that. That's why I was reluctant to make a motion to amend your budget, because we have no idea what that cost is going to be at the end of the year. And I don't want to put you in that situation. But did the board, when it talked that night, discuss the idea of just providing the service without an increase in fee for six months? At the end of six months, look at your budget, look at what was requested and how much that cost. And then also look at some of these other things that you've done to implement the corrective action. for example, requiring the service provider to track the calls and to track the different things, you may find out that part of it was the fact that we were letting people ride based on a note from their doctor rather than really complying with what the federal law says. And if you eliminate that aspect of it, then you eliminate a whole lot of riders that apparently shouldn't have been riding based on the ADA law. And if you do that, that might end up making a situation where you can provide the service without raising the fee. That's why I asked you to look at that. So I understand that the board has already moved and they want to do a lesser fee increase than what you said last week. But I really implore you to take a look at that and say on behalf of the taxpayers that voted for this referendum, can you hold off six months, collect the data, and see what happens at the end of the six months and then come back to us with the recommendation to move forward? I know my board members are here, several are here, so we will. I mean, obviously we're hearing, and I'll take that back to them, yes. But I just would make the point, too, that please understand that we increased this paratransit budget by $460,000 this year. So we are taking taxpayer dollars and applying them to this. And with this new contract that we have with the Red Cross, we are doing those things that you suggested. We are having them track key performance indicators so that we know how many people are being denied trips, How many times they're calling and the phone is being busy and they can't get anybody to answer the phone? How many times trips are being canceled? How many times people are missing their trips and things like that? So we are doing that. The contract just started in March. Right. And those are all things that the auditor asked us to do. Right. And, again, the other piece of that was the increase fare. And so I understand. I applaud you for doing all those things that you're moving in the right direction to increase accountability to the service provider. and hopefully you're tightening that up. So at the end of the day, some of those folks that are writing on a doctor's note maybe shouldn't have been writing. We don't know how much of that there was. But obviously that's not what the federal law requires in order to meet the criteria for having that. But it is now. That's one of the things they ask us to do. That's what I'm saying. So I applaud you for doing all those things. But what I'm saying is, can you wait six months to determine if those things in and of themselves decrease the amount of service calls to the point that you don't have to raise the fee in order to take care of this? That's really what I'm asking. And I think, you know, the issue that we have is that, you know, the board obviously heard that you asked that question last work session. They considered that. And I think the fear that we have is the fact that if we don't implement these suggestions, then we can stand to lose this federal funding that we have. And as I mentioned, it's been $19 million in the last four years. Help me understand that because help me understand how you're in jeopardy of losing those federal dollars. Because when the FDA does the tri-enter review, they ask us to comply with the findings that they come up with. And there are many cases that can be cited where if a transit agency does not comply with the recommendations, then their funding is withheld until they come into compliance with the suggestions. For example, Mr. Fort, my assistant general manager, came from Gary, Indiana, and he gave me an example of that very thing happening there. Okay, can I ask you a question? Yes, sir. What you've proposed today doesn't, you haven't stopped providing the service, correct? No, we've not stopped, we have not taken service away from anyone. We still provide door-to-door service countywide. So all you're proposing is that you increase the amount of money that you're getting to provide that service. I'm sorry, say again, please. It seems to me that the only thing that you're presenting today is an increase in the dollar amount that you charge to provide the service, but you're still going to provide the same service. We're going to provide the same service, yes, sir. Okay, so if you're going to provide the same service, if you don't charge that extra amount of money for it, how does that in itself put you at risk of losing the federal dollars? Because you're still providing the service. It's just that you're collecting more money for it. So I don't understand how that puts you at risk. Because what he's done in his report to us, he's asked us to do many things to improve the service to those who are truly deserving of the ADA complementary service, which is people that live within that three-quarter mile. And he asked us to do lots of things. For example, monitor those key performance indicators that I was talking to you about. He asked us to make sure that we established an assessment system where people would go to a third party and not just accept doctors' excuses. And then the third thing, because of this service being considered premium, because it's totally outside our service area, it's beyond fixed route, it's beyond where the complimentary paratransit service ends, that we charge a premium fare for that and focus on providing the best possible service possible to those people who currently are deserving of the ADA complimentary service, which is within three-quarters of a mile. Okay, a couple things. First, I would say that it's a value judgment to say that certain people are deserving of this service. The federal government has put a standard of three-quarter mile outside fixed rate, a fixed route. I don't know that it's fair to say that someone outside that three-quarter mile is not deserving of the service. And I go back to say that that's why I think that people voted in this community for that referendum, is because we want to do above and beyond what the federal government's minimum standard is. So that's one point. The second point is, though, that if you were to say that you were going to take that extra money that you're charging for that service and then hire people to answer their phones so that you don't have missed calls and you don't have those other things that you're not in compliance with, I think we're going to be doing that. With that additional revenue that we collect, that's where that will go. It's not like it's coming back into a general fund to be spent wherever. Okay, well, I don't think that's really been explained to us. But let me ask you this. Even if you do that, is it still possible to take part of the money that you're getting from the referendum to do that very same thing? So basically use the referendum to subsidize that piece of your service. That could be done. But I think the issue that we have at hand, though, is the fact that we have an auditor's report that clearly tells us that until he comes back again or until things dramatically improve and we're serving those folks who live within three-quarters of a mile to the best of our ability and there's no missed calls, there's no missed trips, phones are being answered, then we have to comply with his recommendations, and that is one of those being towards a premium fare. Okay, I'm going to quit beating the dead horse. My final statement is going to be that that was not one of his recommendations. That's not in the audit report. That was a subsequent email when you asked him, give us more help on how to become compliant, and he responded to you with that. But that wasn't in the report initially that you need to charge a premium fare in order to be in compliance. Thank you. I do not have anyone else on the council who's indicated a desire to, okay, Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. A couple of questions, Rocky. One of the things that Council Member Myers read off as an option or alternative was expansion of the fixed route. Is that something that the board discussed? Yes, and fixed route service will be expanded some this year because we're just finishing a comprehensive analysis of the fixed route system, and there will be some service enhancements there, which means it will go in some areas right now where we don't currently go. So obviously with that, then the paratransit service gets expanded as well. Because everything that we do for fixed route, you have to complement that with the paratransit service. So yes, ma'am, there will be some service enhancements to the fixed route, so consequently there will be more service for paratransit service as well. Is that something you look at annually, or do you have like a five-year plan? It's like a five-year plan. The last time they did it was five years ago, so that's the track that we're on is every five years have them come in and do a COA. It's a fairly standard process in the transit industry. Okay. And for paratransit, how much of the money for paratransit comes from referendum money and how much of it comes from federal money? Break it down in percentages. I don't know what that number is right now, but what we typically do with the tax dollars that we collect, We typically use that for service. The federal money that we get is typically used for all of our capital projects, for example, buying buses and capital maintenance and buying parts and those things. So I think it would be a fair assessment for me to say that the vast majority of the money we use for paratransit service comes from the federal, or not the federal, but the tax dollars, the property tax dollars. Okay. Because that's not capital. It's operating dollars. Okay. And there are certain rules and regulations that say how you can spend capital dollars that you get from the FTA, and typically it's for capital. Okay. My next thing is just a statement. I was not here when the referendum began, so I'm trying to understand when I hear Council members say that it was supposed to be from border to border. I'm wondering when you have federal legislation, does what we expect trump what federal obligations are if our money is combined with federal monies, federal dollars? So that's what I'm trying to get my arms around is, is our expectation clear and is it laid out, lined out somewhere that we are to provide border-to-border service for all services or does federal law trump what we may think is what our expectation is? So if anyone has any clarification on that, I'd like to hear what we have in writing and what our expectations were when that referendum was passed. I wasn't around. I apologize that I didn't keep up with that when I wasn't on council, but be welcome to hearing that. Councilmember Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I can't answer that question completely for you, but what I would say is to look back to, for example, this audit, because what they keep addressing is the minimum standard. I don't think, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find that a federal law just allows a local community to provide above and beyond what the federal law requires as a minimum. And I think that's why in this audit it continues to say, make sure you're meeting the minimum. Make sure you're meeting the minimum. And it says in here clearly that you can provide above and beyond the minimum. And if you can do that here, I would think that you could do that anywhere else. But, you know, maybe Logan could speak to that, but I think it would be very hard-pressed to find that federal law prohibits a community providing more service for its citizens than what the federal guidelines require. And I don't think the audit says that because we're doing that. We're providing that service. It's outside that three-quarter mile. Yeah, I'm not saying you're not. I was answering her question. I'm sorry. I was answering your question because it sounded like your question was, would the federal law prohibit? No. No, I'm not saying would the federal law prohibit. I'm talking about if you have, when we passed something, when the referendum was passed, what did it say? You'll, like Trann, you have this money to add to what regulations are set forth by the highest entity, the highest governmental entity. And in this case, federal government, when it comes to, in this case, I guess federal trumps, if we have a federal law, typically it trumps whatever our local law is. If we have something that says the expectation is that we do border to border, and that's the reason why this referendum passed, that's what our expectation was, then I think that isn't easy. I mean, that's an easy thing that we can hand over, that we can put out and say this is it. But if someone's saying if there's a federal law and there's nothing that gives reference to we're not going with the federal law, we're telling you this is what we want and you've got to be clear to meet this, then that's point blank. If you don't have that, then in anything else, it's kind of like if you were at a WIC clinic or something, and you're lined up with WIC participants, and people need WIC. And your first thing that you do, they have to qualify by federal standard. And if you have a local law that says, okay, well, if you live in East End, you can come and get WIC. well, if you've got somebody from the south end that's there that doesn't meet the federal regulation, but someone from Easton that doesn't, can our local law say, well, we're going to do everybody in Easton first, take care of them, and then go out to the south end if we have anything left? Or do you have to look at the qualifications, criteria set forth by the federal law? I don't think anybody suggested that we do what you're saying. I think we suggested we do the opposite. What the federal law says is that you have to do the minimum first. You can do anything above that if you want to, but you've got to take care of the minimum. Right. And so no one has – That's three-quarters of a mile within the fixed route. Right. Outside the fixed route. So no one here is suggesting that we not do that, but we provide that service outside of that three-quarter mile. It's not an either-or. And to further answer your question, I would say that the document that Councilman Senate talked about last week was a document that we've been trying to get a hold of today and we haven't gotten a hold of yet. Right, that's what I need. And it is a task force report that coincided with the passing of this referendum. Last week, I think you mentioned that your board was going to take up when Councilman Senate asked what you've done on that list of things. You said your board was going to take that issue up as well. And I guess for me the easiest way to ask the question is the same thing I asked at the Chamber and asked of a whole lot of other folks that are in outside agencies giving money, and that is what have you done today? What are you doing today that you weren't doing before you got that referendum in place as a result of that referendum? And I think what Councilman Sennett was saying, that you bought six buses. So my question would be what has Lex Tran done differently? what are they doing for this community as a result of getting that extra money that they're getting out at referendum. Because when the referendum was passed from LexChance's point of view, one of the big reasons they wanted it was because every year they felt like this government didn't fund them adequately. And halfway through the year, they would have to come back to this body and ask for more money to continue on in the year. And so they said, if we go to a referendum, then we can circumvent that, and we can get the money straight from the taxpayer, and we don't have to come back and ask for, beg, borrow, and steal, and plead for the funding we need to do what we're doing. But with that, the community said, through that task force, here's some things that we, some expectations that go along with this referendum. So the question is, how close are we getting to meeting those expectations? It wasn't an ordinance. It wasn't anything put in stone that they had to do. But that's what the task force came up with as its final report. So where is Lex Tran with respect to realizing those goals in that task force report? I promised that I would do that, and I will. I'll come back to the Council with an update on where we are with the relative debt task force, as well as many other things that we've accomplished in the last, I guess, five years since the tax levy passed. And, of course, a lot of that's before my time, but a lot of my staff are obviously still here, and I'll be happy to show you all and explain what we have done and let you decide for yourself, you know, if it's something that meets your, I guess, expectations. Yes, sir. Well, and Councilman Myers, kind of with that is, I don't know if the task force recommendations came forward in an ordinance form and were passed by the council, but... No, I just said they did not. I'm sorry? I just said they did not. They did not. But that's something that could happen now. I mean, as a council, we could say we want border to border and resolve that and bring that forward to the Lex Tran board if that's the intent of the council to do so. I think until that time, it's just for me, and I'm on the Commission for Citizens with Disabilities. This has been a real struggle for me because I've watched, you know, paid attention during the whole selection of the paratransit service. One of our chair of our commission is very close with the issue, and we get the complaints about the paratransit, I mean, all the time. And complaints that are, complaints now that have to do with timing, and I think the performance-based contract that's out now, you're right, it will, I believe it will help some of that. But I think if we want to be clear about our intention, we just need to put that forward in the form of a resolution or an ordinance or something or go back in the language and figure out if we want border to border, they need that lecture and board needs to know that up front so that when they're doing their budget, they can appropriate it as such. But I think we need to have a clear understanding of, you know, what federal government requires them to do. And do we want them to at least meet federal standards? Because I think at bare minimum, that should be something. Or do we want to say at bare minimum, you meet local standards? So I think we need to be clear across the horseshoe of what we'd like to do, because otherwise it comes down to them feeling as if, whether it's perception or an email or whatever, that they could potentially lose funding for not being in compliance within an area where they're supposed to be top-notch at within the fixed route area and three-quarters of a mile. So I wouldn't feel comfortable with them expanding until the service is right, until they're doing exactly what they're supposed to do. When we stop getting the emails about the timeliness, then we can go to Georgetown or Nicholasville or wherever we'd like to go. I'm just not very comfortable with the expansion of a flawed program right now. Well, I think if you listen to what I said. I did listen. First, what I said was the reason I haven't made a motion, and I stated that, is because we don't know what the budget impact would be. And so I wouldn't ever want to make a motion to do something that we have no idea how many calls they get. We have no idea what the expense of that would be for a year. That's why I asked them if they would just look at that for the six-month period, look at these other steps they've taken in corrective action to see what gains that give us, and then at that time come back, and if they need to increase the fee, to get where they need to go than they do at that time. So, I mean, they're moving in the right direction. I'm simply saying, and I haven't said anything about border-to-border either. I'm just saying maintain what they're doing without charging an increased fee. What you're not understanding is that they're not proposing to not do border-to-border. All they're doing is saying if we're going to do that, we want to provide an increased fee for doing that. So what you're saying isn't going to decrease service. It's not going to not do border to border. It's just that they're charging an extra fee for doing that. All I'm simply saying is the needs there, people are calling for the service. Can we hold off and not increase the fee until we're sure we have to increase the fee to get done what we need to get done? Okay. My understanding is that the screens aren't working right now. So if you wish to address this issue, let me know. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Senator. Rocky, we've been talking about budgets since about 9 o'clock this morning, so you may have to refresh me. Did you tell us that you have a $3 million surplus in your budget? I don't believe I mentioned a $3 million surplus. No, ma'am. Do you have one? We have somewhat of a surplus that was a carryover from last year, yes, ma'am. What would that be? I'm not... Anybody know what our surplus was if you're a carryover? Two million. Two million. Okay, sorry. I was off. With that, you said you generate money from the dedicated tax and then also from the federal government. And I guess my question is, is your surplus a combination of those funds, or is the carryover mostly from the dedicated fee? It's a combination of both. Okay. And so you mentioned just a few minutes ago that you use mostly your – so you don't have to spend the federal dollars within the given year. You can carry that money over? Yes, ma'am. Okay. To a certain extent, and the funds do expire. I'm not sure what the time limit is. Each grant is a little bit different. Do you know what percentage of, and I'm looking back there just because, what percentage of your carryover would be from federal funds versus fees? Nikki, did you not answer that question? You didn't come in the mic, please. And let me explain one other thing. The carryover that we have from year to year, the reason that there is a carryover is that we actually have that budgeted for other buses. Because when you project out five years, when you look at our revenues that we get from the property taxes and what we're projecting to spend for increased service, we won't have that revenue, that carryover, in two years. That's where it runs out. So the reason that we have that is on purpose that we bring that forward each year because we know we have buses to replace. And we know with this comprehensive analysis that we've done, there's new service projected out for the next five years. So to do that, when you look at the tax revenue, we won't have that carryover anymore. But let me let Nikki answer your question about the carryover. The projected carryover at the end of the fiscal year 2009 will be around $2 million, but that is mainly due to the reduced cost in diesel fuel. We've saved that money because of diesel fuel going down and health insurance. So it was not budgeted to have that $2 million carryover. We have applied all of that carryover to the 2010 budget. So when we project out our budget, as Rocky was saying, there will not be carryover. There's not carryover projected to be at the end of 2010. Well, I guess my question was because you mentioned that your federal dollars go for capital projects and your carryover or the fee, excuse me, goes towards more service-oriented. So that's what I was trying to figure out, where the carryover came from, what it's going to be spent on, and whether or not if it's the federal dollars, are you dedicating that to the capital projects, or if it's the one from the fee, are they more service-oriented? and trying to find out what percentage, because it sounds to me like you have a carryover that comes from both, but yet you may be dedicating it. When you stated that you definitely spend your monies on one thing or the other, and then you're having a carryover that's a combination of both, you might possibly be combining them and spending it towards, say, a capital project or not. Right. When we say carryover in our budget, we're talking local funds, because we do, the way that the federal dollars work, a grant may be for a three-year period. So it would carry over of our fiscal budget from year to year. So to answer my question then, would your carryover be used not towards capital projects, or could it be, or will you be using it for service? It could be. It's budgeted to be used for service as well as the local match for the federal dollars because some of our grants require a 20 percent match. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I have Council Member Beard, then Council Member Henson, and we've got about a dozen people who have indicated a desire to speak on this particular issue. It will be up to the council whether we hear that now or hear that at the end in accordance with the schedule. So you might ponder that just a bit. Council Member Beard. Just a quick question, Rocky. Yes, sir. The task force recommendations. Yes, sir. Which was, I believe, in 2005. Do you have a copy of those? I do. You do? Okay, because I wasn't sure with the change of Terry Garcia Cruz leaving and you coming. I have that. As a matter of fact, Mr. Riggins pointed out that I guess it was in 2006 we actually made a presentation to Commerce Lexington on all the changes and the improvements and things that we've made. But we're not sure if it ever came to the council or not. But I do have that. Yes, sir. Okay. Well, I don't guess I was aware of that, even though I was a member of the task force. And I just wondered what had ever happened with that. Yes, sir. If at all possible, if you could email me that, I would appreciate it. I've gone through two moves, and it's in a box somewhere, but I have a member of that. I will send you the PowerPoint that Ms. Cruz put together that she presented that day. Thank you. Yes, sir. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I know, Rocky, that you and I have been very, very vocal on this issue. And I went over yesterday and sat down and talked to you face-to-face. And I said, I'm okay. I mean, I think the $2 is a good compromise. but I also told you while I was there that I think the citizens of this county voted for you all to have that dedicated tax to help provide a good quality service. So, and I can't say enough that correct those problems at wills, hold them accountable, and I know that they have a tough job. But do not penalize the individuals that need that service. Because then, as I told your secretary, you probably will through my teeth. Or my fangs, I should say. But I wanted to go ahead and make a motion that we move the Lexram budget to Thursday's docket. So moved. We have a motion and second to place the approval of the Lexram budget on the docket for next Thursday evening. Is there any discussion? Let me ask the council if the preference of the council would be to hear from these dozen or so people now or at the end of the session. Now. All right. Council Member Henson. I needed to add with the new fee. Yes, ma'am. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right, I'll just run through the list that I have here in the order that people signed up. The first one is Karen Caulfield. Ms. Caulfield, if you'll step to the podium. And the next person on the list is Susan Cox. Ms. Cox, if you would stand by so that we'll be ready to go. If you would give us your name and address, please. My name is Karen Caulfield. And you'll each have three minutes to speak to the council. I'm at Bluegrass Career Services, and I'm here on behalf of my clients. I am an employment consultant, so it's my job to get them jobs. And one of the things that the people that are disabled really want to do is be productive in this community. And in order to do that, they have to rely on this. But if you can't rely on the service that you're getting to get there on time, to get picked up on time, to be able to go to the doctor when you need to, then it's really hard for me to understand where we can increase money on something we haven't even fixed. So this is a big concern for our clients. You know, if you save that much in diesel, one particular client stated she was picked up in Hamburg, drove all the way around the interstate, then drove all the way around New Circle to go to Malibu Drive. Now, how much diesel did we use on that trip alone? Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Caulfield. Ms. Cox, if you'll step to the podium, and Melvin Berry. Yes, would you care to speak, Mr. Berry? If you would, stand by. Ms. Cox. My name is Susan Cox. I also work for Bluegrass Career Services, and I am an employment consultant like Karen. I help people with disabilities get jobs, and many of the people that I work with are very dependent on wheels. As far as the increase in fee is concerned, it may not sound like much, but when you work part-time and maybe get a small check, too, it can be a burden. And we keep hearing minimum service, minimum service, but they're not lesser citizens. I've even got clients who vote. And, you know, my clients, they are really well-liked at their jobs. They want to work. They do good jobs. And, you know, just having a reliable service from wheels that they can count on when they're going to be picked up and when they're going to be dropped off without having to be concerned about being late for work. And same thing with, like, doctor's appointments. You know, they need to be able to count on that. And so I just think that you should try to give the best service possible with the least increase as possible. And like I said, when you're on a real limited income, even a small difference in what you pay out can be a burden. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Cox. Jennifer Rourke is the next person on the list. If you'd come around. Mr. Berry. Mr. Frank, can you give us your address, please, and you'll have three minutes. My address is 1435 North Forge Road. I live with my younger sister, Gina Berry. I'm her older brother. And the sister tells me there's a lot of people who need jobs and so forth. So I have a job now. I'm working at Wendy's. And actually we just, actually I just said, my last night was Monday night at Wendy's. So, I'm their handyman down there. I have the manager at Wendy's, Mr. Harrell. He's the boss man. And we was trying to make sure we was getting on time because they are running a little bit late so far. We were trying to leave. I was trying to leave out of there real quick. So my other friend, he said, was trying to tell the wheel drivers, well, they're trying to tell them to be ready. I had one wheel driver he knocked on my door like at 722 my sister just walked out the door I told her I had to be over there at the Scurvy building and we are I was at the Scurvy program and I have a lot of clients over there and Tell them how you have to get there. Oh, how I have to get there? Well, I have to get there by wills. Go to work at 1, then I have to clock in at round 2, then I have to leave out the door at 5. So I'm finna get me a new job at Progres pretty soon. so all the great workers down there at Wendy's, Davis, get so happy for me pretty soon so I'm there I'll be leaving them pretty soon so I'm still around I'm the next speaker in line yes thank you thank you very much thank you Mr. Perry applause applause Ms. Rourke as you step forward I'd like for Carmen Watts. Ms. Watts, if you would step around, please. Council members, Mayor Newberry, my name is Jennifer Roark, and I am the Orientation and Mobility Specialist with the Kentucky Office for the Blind. And it is my job to teach persons that are visually impaired and blind how to travel with a cane and how to travel to the bus stops so that they can utilize Lex Tran to get to work and get to the doctor. I'd like to start out with saying that Section 37.131 of the ADA Paratransit Regulation states that outside of the core service area, the entity may designate corridors with widths from three-fourths up to one and a half miles from each side of a fixed route based on local circumstances. Therefore, the idea that you can only stay within three-fourths of a fixed route is arbitrary and should be based on the needs of the people that live in such areas. Now, that includes most of southeastern side of Maine-O-War. Linda Gorton is my council person in my area. I live off of Victoria Way. and in the back is Pickway Manor, which is income-based housing. There are very many people there that are elderly, that are disabled. To get to the nearest bus stop, they would have to walk a mile and a half to Walmart and cross Manowar and Nicholasville Road. Now, imagine trying to do that when you have arthritis, macular degeneration, and your elderly, which many of our clients are. One thing that has not been addressed, and I'll do this very quickly, is the idea of spending money for the individuals at Cardinal Hill to assess people at whether or not they are eligible for wheels. This is ludicrous and a waste of taxpayer dollars when the professionals within our office and the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation are qualified to do this for free and are willing to do so. We do this every day for people to apply for our services. So there's no reason to have to pay for that. I'd like to end with a quote because I find it absurd that the idea that mediocrity, when it comes to a human services field, is a goal. To meet the minimum when it comes to human services should not be a goal. Baseball player Buck Rogers said, There are countless ways of attaining greatness, but any road to reaching one's maximum potential must be built on a bedrock of respect for the individual, a commitment to excellence, and a rejection of mediocrity. Please do not allow the citizens of our city to be mediocre. Let them be excellent. Thank you, Ms. Moore. Ms. Watts, if you would be stepping forward. Our next speaker after Ms. Watts will be Amos Sindola. I'm not sure I'll recall a Jennifer's statement. Okay, thank you. I am, this is not all theoretical for me. I am an employee of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. I have gainful employment and I function well above the national poverty level. I utilize wills to get to work. It enables me to get to work every day. Fortunately, fortunately for me, since that is the case, and I'm not located in several, I think Jennifer pointed out previously, in several income-based housing facilities that are outside the service area. You know, I live within about a half mile of what's expected, or what right now is considered the minimal of services received. I think that the money actually, as we all are required to have higher levels of education to evaluate and assess standards that people have to meet to make them eligible as a person with a disability. They're spending a lot of money. just based on the information we were given today, $10,000 to serve the 400 individuals outside the area, the three-quarter area. So, I mean, we all have the education to do this. That's money wasted. How about we assess the effectiveness of their routing system? You know, how about training for the employees to best utilize that? I mean, I've been on the bus many times, and it has taken me across town. I think someone represented that previously. Across town to pick up two other people to bring me back within a mile of where I started out to begin with. You know, that's the ultimate ineffectiveness. So anyway, that's my statement. It's not theoretical for me. It's something I use every day, and I want that to continue. But, I mean, it has to continue effectively. because right now it isn't. It isn't functioning. That's all I have to say. Thank you, Ms. Watts. Mr. Sindola, if you would step up to the podium, and then the next speaker will be Michael Rick or Ricky. Ricky, if you would stand by, please. Thank you, Mr. Sindola. I have your address as being Center Parkway, is that correct? Yes. All right. Thank you, sir. You'll have three minutes. Well, my name is Amos Sindola. I'm visually impaired. And usually I use the bus, the blood strain, and wheels to take me to the doctor. and it depends on where I travel, where I go to get a doctor, to the doctor. And I think getting the bus is sometimes reliable because it depends on where I go and it puts me to where I want to go. But sometimes when you, but the problem, the wheels, it's all right, but, you know, they take you to where you want to go and so they put you to the particular area you want to get. But the problem that I have found with the wheels is that they are not always on time picking you up or sometimes getting you back to your apartment, your home. And sometimes if you want to pick you up from the doctor place to the doctor appointment to your house, it takes you about. Let's say if you pick me up after an hour, sometimes they will pick you up an hour and a half. So that's the problem. I wonder if the council can address that. This is my first time in the council meeting, anyway. But that's the problem I have, and I hope that you can. I know you're trying to increase the fees, but if you can address such issues, it will be better for the benefits of the rest of the disabled people. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sindola. As Mr. Rickey steps forward, the next speaker I have will be Nicole Dummett. Ms. Dummett, if you would stand by. Mr. Rickey, if you would give us your address. You'll have three minutes, please. Okay. My name is Mike Rickey. I'm actually a graduate student at the University of Kentucky, currently in the process of obtaining my master's in rehabilitation counseling. I'm doing a practicum with Office for the Blind. And so part of what I'm doing with my practicum is I'm kind of assessing individuals and seeing what they have functionally that might limit them to determine whether or not they're eligible for services. One of the aspects that we address is mobility. Are they able to get transportation? Are they able to get to where they need to go? And as you all are probably well aware, that transportation is a huge part of getting to work. So by imposing fees and by doing these sorts of things, you're ultimately creating a disincentive for individuals to want to obtain employment. And also, by encroaching on their independence, you're also causing a lot of problems for them psychosocially as far as they might experience a greater sense of depression, anxiety, those sorts of things. Of course, the adjustment process is phenomenological, but it's something to keep in mind. Whenever you're increasing rates or causing accessibility to transit services, you're ultimately causing – there's a whole lot of adverse effects that come in play with that. So I would just hope that you all would keep that in mind. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. And I also have a copy of the current ADA paratransit laws if you would like a copy of that. You can leave those with the clerk and she will pass them around. All right. Ms. Dummett, if you would be stepping forward. And the next speaker I have is Angie Dennis. Ms. Dennis, if you would stand by. Ms. Dummett, if you would give us your address. She'll have three minutes, please. My address is 4424 Walnut Creek Drive, and I apologize in advance because I'm a nervous person when it comes to standing in front of you. Sit me down, I'll talk my head off, but stand me up and I just want to freak out. Having said that, I'd like to sort of address the business people in the room. And let me ask you a question. if 3% of your customer base was causing such an undue amount of strife in finances, don't you think you would change the way you did business? But I don't want to make their point. I want to just say that I find it phenomenally difficult to believe that 3%, that Rocky last week said that he estimated that approximately 3% of the rides were going to or emanated from outside that three-quarter area. I find it very, very difficult to believe that that 3% of his customer base is so disruptive that it is creating some sort of undue burden on the rest of the wheels riders. Having said that, I just want to make it clear that you made a lot of great points, George, in talking about minimum standards and that it's clear to me that we're meeting the minimum standards. There's no reason why, if we possess a willingness to do so, that we can't serve beyond that. I think that your constituents that voted for this tax referendum showed an absolute willingness to do not the minimum. And I think they have an expectation of you, of the board of directors of LexTran, and all of us that are advocates for people with disabilities and anybody using LexTran. I think they're expecting us to make sure that we do far more than the minimum. I think one of the biggest problems that we've had for years as a service provider with the wheel services in town are that they are incredibly unreliable. And I find it astounding that anybody in this room would believe that somebody would choose to take LexTran over any other source of transportation like, I'm sorry, to take wheels? Instead of, other than taking, I'm butchering this. Why would anybody choose to take wheels? To schedule their life 24 hours in advance at a minimum, to wait two hours to get picked up, both before they go to whatever appointment or job they have, or to be picked up just to come back from the grocery store waiting two hours. Why would somebody choose that? Why would they choose to pay more? I don't believe that anybody or very few people are making a choice to choose wheels as a premium service over LexTran when clearly the spontaneity, the independence, and the reliability is far greater with LexTran. And I just would argue that these assessments are completely ridiculous. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Ms. Dennis, if you would step forward. The next speaker I have on the list is John Cottrell. Mr. Cottrell? Is Mr. Cottrell here? All right. Ms. Dennis, if you could give us your address. Council members, I appreciate your time tonight. I think it was fitting that the airport board was before this form because it reminded me how people have been assessed responsibility to this community and have completely ignored that or may choose to look the other way and not take it as serious. I think, once again, we're faced with that with the Lex Tran board and their decision. I agree with Mr. Myers. The minimum is not what the referendum was. I was a taxpayer then. I lobbied for it. I voted for it. I supported it. And I know that all the citizens who are not aware that this is buried deep in the agenda do not know that the minimum is all that we're thinking about. When they voted to give that extra money, they wanted to go above and beyond. The chamber is represented here tonight. When the chamber of Lexington, we want to go above and beyond to be recognized for that. The University of Kentucky, we're just not another university. We're a top 20. We want to be the best. And I'm sure that's what we expect when we pass that referendum. I work with disabled individuals. I'm also a parent of two disabled children. I find it appalling that you would think that we choose to elect to do this. This is not Lexington Country Club. This is not Idle Hour. This is not a choice. We don't choose to ride wheels. This is something that we have been given, and we are dependent on you to make sure that that is delivered to us. And even the minimum amount, when we have a surplus of budget, is just something as a business person I just find very – it's just hard for me to compliment that you all would think that that, with the people who have the least amount of money, with the people that have property, wanted to ensure that they would be taken care of. So I just strongly urge you, in the light of what happened with the airport board, to once again make sure that this board holds to the true value of what the community expects. And that's not to be the minimum, but to be the example of what is great and good. And that this is a service industry, and these people are dependent on you to speak for them and to do what is right for them. So I appreciate your time and appreciate your consideration on this issue. Thank you, Ms. Dennis. Mr. Cottrell, step forward. And the next speaker I have on this topic is Mr. Winokur, Jeff Winokur. Mr. Cottrell, if you'll give us your address, you'll have three minutes. Okay. I'm John Cottrell, and I like to keep wheels and keep my job. And this week I get paid all this week, pay dates this week, and that's all I've got to say. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Cottrell. Okay. All right. Mr. Winokur, if you'll step forward. And the last speaker I have is Anna Castor. Ms. Castor, if you'd step around. Mr. Winokur, if you'll give us your address. We only have three minutes. Jeff Winokur, I want to say thank you to Susan, what she's done for me. Susan, thank you. What's my address? 1642. What is it? I work out every day. I'm getting paid for Wills. Have I? No. I'm getting paid. No, I haven't. Wills have been late. Just upset about that. They've been late. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Winnicott. Ms. Caster. If we could get your address and you'll have three minutes. My name is Anna Caster and I live on Stephen Toster Drive. I was just, first of all, I'm from Brazil. I'm not from here. I've been living in the United States for six years, and I love this country. There's a lot of beautiful things in here. But there are some things here that I just don't understand. I just think it's just a cultural thing. It just doesn't get in my mind. And one of the things about the problems that I can see, that it's an extra cost on wheels. It's those people that maybe they need to go to a doctor's visit or they need to go to a grocery store. They do this once a month, and it's nothing, something that happens all the time. But there's a greater number of people that I know that they go to work at the same time every week. they work on a fixed schedule or almost fixed. I know a person that she works for embassy suites as a dishwasher for six years. And she had already received several awards of excellence. And everybody likes her because she works hard and she likes to talk a lot. A month ago I went to see her and I spent almost an hour with her and she wouldn't talk to me. And I could see that she was really, really, really upset. And finally, after one hour that I waited to see what was going on, she finally told me that she was deeply upset because that morning a driver had come to her to pick her up, and the driver didn't ask her name or didn't verify where she was going, and he just took her to a wrong place. There was two people that were supposed to be picked up on that apartment that morning. One was her that has been picked up to go to the same workplace for the past six years. And the driver that was supposed to pick another person accidentally picked her. He didn't verify who she was or where she was going. And he took her to a completely different place, what caused her to first be scared because she didn't know where she was going. and at least she had the understanding to figure out that she was going to the wrong place. And then she ended up getting late to work. She didn't get in trouble at work because her manager knows her for several years, but she was really upset because she's a dishwasher. So by lunch, she was supposed to have a lunch break at 11.30, and by 12.30 she was still working trying to finish her job so she could take a lunch break because the wheels had to take her weight. So my question is, those clients that always go to the same place and the same schedule, why there's not a way to set up, you know, not a route, but just to have an engineer battery so things like that don't happen and you can reduce your costs? Thank you, Ms. Castor. That's, I believe, the last person I have on the list to address this issue. I do want to, in double-checking the list, make sure, Ms. Clark, it's another topic. Correct. Okay. All right. Does anyone else wish to address the wheels issue? Very well. We have a motion on the floor by Council Member Henson to place on the docket for the June 11th Council meeting a resolution approving the Lexram budget with a $2 fee. Is there any discussion on that motion? Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I was in the back room when you first started talking, so I might have missed the opportunity, but my question was going to be do we have a chance to comment on some of the comments that were made before we vote? I think the floor is open for discussion on whether or not to put this issue on the docket, so any discussion on that topic would be appropriate. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Burke, could you come up just for a second, please? There were two things that I heard that I had a question about. And the first one was I read part of the language in the audit, and I stopped and I left out a piece that one of the young ladies in the back of the room read. And it was that under service area, it says that within the core service area, any small area not inside the corridor but surrounded by corridors also must be served. Outside the corridor service area, the grantee may designate corridors with widths of up to one and a half miles of each side of the fixed route based on local circumstances. Earlier I said it was a value judgment as to whether people outside of that three-quarter mile were deserving of the service, as you stated. Has your board or has inside your internal organization had any conversations about the ability to go outside of that three-quarter mile to the one-and-a-half mile and whether or not that's something that you wanted to do? As I've said before, we provide countywide service, so we're not restricting service to anyone. We did consider that. Again, it was one of those options that the auditor gave us was to discontinue that service for those folks outside that or continue to do it at the premium fair, and that's what we chose to do. Okay. If you look at the premium fair being added, did you guys discuss, since you're doing county-wide service now, did you discuss putting the premium only on those outside of the mile-and-a-half radius instead of using the three-quarter minimum radius as a standard? Mr. Murray, I'm not familiar with that. I don't know enough about the mile and a half to address that because that was not including in our audit. So I would have to go back and ask the question of the auditor about that piece of it because that wasn't addressed in the audit. Okay. It is in the audit, though. That's what I'm reading from. I'm actually reading from the audit. Okay. To answer your question, I can't answer your question right now. I don't know the answer to that. Okay. And I'll be happy, though, to provide you with more information about the mile and a half because I can't answer it today. Okay. Jared, do you know the answer to the question? My question was, did you guys discuss going outside of that three-quarter and using the mile-and-a-half as a standard instead of the minimum? Again, Jared is my assistant general manager. He may know how to answer the question about the mile-and-a-half. Thank you. Yes, we did see that, and that's something we considered. The issue was, though, we want to satisfy the mixture we got things excellent at the three-quarter area. Okay. And then, again, when we expand beyond that, we did the premium. But also, as you saw in the email, he said on a space-available basis as well. Okay. And then my second question, and I do, I want everybody to understand that I do respect the fact that you guys are working really hard to be excellent at that standard. It's the minimum, but you're still working hard to be excellent at it, and I applaud you for that, and I'm not discounting that at all. Thank you. The second question I have is the same young lady that read this part of the audit also mentioned that her organization provides these assessments at no cost. So there's an opportunity maybe for you guys to receive these estimates at no cost. I don't know if that's something you're aware of. Is that something that you guys now would be willing to go back and reevaluate whether or not you want to pay someone to do the evaluation if you can have it done for free? Mr. Myers, as a matter of fact, we issued a request for proposals so people could have volunteered to do that for nothing, and they would have probably been selected because we picked Cardinal Hill. They were the lowest provider. So there was a request for proposal that went out for qualified firms to do that, and we chose Cardinal Hill. Okay. Now that – and I'm not sure that the person that said this can actually speak for the organization either, I want to be careful here, but if there is an opportunity for that organization to do these at no cost, is that something that you guys could revisit or would be willing to revisit? We have a contract with Cardinal Hill right now. I'm not sure whether that's for a year, two years, three years or what it is, but certainly when the contract is up, we would consider that. Yes, sir. Okay. It started in March. Okay. Then you can't undo that, I wouldn't think. Okay. Those are my questions. Thank you, sir. Councilmember Crosby. Yes, thank you, Mayor. I think I'll direct my question to Ms. Cox because she seems to be closer to Ms. Cox. My question relates to, could you please just put into perspective for us, for people that you place, about what kind of income do they bring in, if it's easier to do it weekly or monthly or what would be the average? It's very small. It's typically like minimum wage or maybe a little above. And, I mean, some people work, you know, almost all of the people that I work with work part-time. And that could be, you know, two, four afternoons a week. I mean, I do have some that work more than that, but I'm just talking generally. So they don't produce, you know, a lot of income. And that's what I was saying, that even a small amount of extra money can be hard. And I think a lot of the comments we heard were based on service being late and some of those issues, but I know that some of the phone calls that I'm receiving has to do with more of the fact that the people are not making enough money and it's a hardship on the family. Have you received in your placement or from families this similar type of feedback regarding this? Yeah, I just, you know, just recently I had a young lady who got a job as a bagger at a grocery store. And, you know, I know her mother and I were discussing her catching wheels. And when she's at her parents' house, and she would have been here today, but she's working. When she's at her parents' house, whenever she, you know, goes to visit her parents or to or from their house, I mean, she's outside the limit, so she has to pay extra. And her mother, you know, told me, said, well, we're not going to have her, you know, catch wheels because it was just better for them to use a car than to have her catch wheels. Okay. My question was probably more related to work, to them being able to, because some of the feedback I've been getting is that it's creating hardships on families, being able to because they can't necessarily afford the fee increase for the service, but the joy of the person comes in with being able to work and be productive with a job, but yet as families or if they're by themselves, they're having to make decisions as to whether or not they will even be able to continue employment because the fee increase has been. I don't think I've had anybody yet that has left a job because of the increase, if that's what you're asking me, because they have to pay the additional fee. Is that what you're saying? I haven't had that happen at this point. But it can be hard, like I said, to even pay a little bit more when you're on a real limited income. Thank you very much. Okay, thanks. All right. The question is on adding a resolution to the docket on Thursday evening. Any more discussion? All of them in favor of adding a resolution to the docket approving the Lexram budget with a $2 fee for the wheel service. Please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you. That now takes us down to council reports. Unless something has changed, I think I need to get a show of hands if you wish to make a report, A report, and I'll start with Council Member James. All right. Council Member Wallace. It appears as though I've got the screen working now, so if you would like to punch in on the screen, please do. First of all, I'd like to remind everybody about Thursday Night Live. at Cheapside Park. It's been very well attended and people seem to be enjoying it. Also, the farmer's market is there on Saturdays at Cheapside Park and there is free parking at Fifth Third Bank parking structure and their farm tour, which will be June 20th. Tickets for that are on sale, and people really have enjoyed that. It gives you an idea of what it's like to be a farmer. The Mintel stroll will be Sunday the 14th from 2 to 5, and they received an environmental award last year for their Mintel stroll. So I also would like to recognize the passing of one of our great citizens, Dolly Galbraith, who was a great volunteer and a wonderful person in our community for many years. And so my thoughts go out to her family and appreciate it. And lastly, I'd like to bring up the South Limestone streetscape situation. My understanding was the council approved phase one. I worked hard to get council members on board with approving the moving ahead with phase one, which was main and vine and making short and second two-way as the first step of that. And then through information I received from a constituent, I guess it was probably on the 16th or 17th of May, I don't know, maybe June. At this point, I can't remember, that there was a plan to close South Lyme from the Avenue of Champions to Vine Street. And then lastly, item B of new business was to be placed on the docket. There was nothing in that that would have indicated that included that corridor in the request for an application for the Streetsgate infrastructure program. I want to say I'm extraordinarily supportive of the Streetscape project. I think it will make a better Lexington. And I don't think that there's anybody that I've talked to, any of the business owners, that are opposed to the Streetscape, and they all think it will be a great thing. And the problem I have with it is that the short notification that as a council person I found out from a constituent and that the information has not been consistent with there'll be a lane closed, there won't be a lane closed, and that we as a council approved that streetscape and that process, and nobody on the council knew that we were changing it to South Lyme and that my understanding is the bid process has already started. Is that correct? That is correct. That is correct. And that Mr. Tate said that as soon as the winning bid came in, he would have a meeting and let the business owners know what was going to happen. And that whole process is, I think, unacceptable. It's not going to be painless. But I think that we need to explore how it can be the least painful. This is a group of mostly locally owned businesses and being shut down for an undetermined amount of time, you know, without proper project management and knowing what we're doing before we do it is very upsetting to me. So that's what I have to say on that. Well, let me address that to a degree. Oh, and there are some people here that would like to speak on this issue and like to invite them to do so. Well, first of all, every time I've talked about Phase I for months, probably since we had a press conference in February, it has involved limestone without fail consistently. Second, there have been a series of meetings with business owners starting late last year and continuing through last week. I think four, if I recall correctly. I will grant you that some of those meetings have not been well attended. But the purpose of those meetings has been an effort to try to identify the operational concerns that the business owners have in the period of time when we're going to be clearly inconveniencing a lot of people given the magnitude of what is contemplated. contemplated. This particular project involves replacing sanitary sewers, storm sewers, replacing sidewalks, bearing aerial utility lines, and the contract, the contractor obviously hasn't been identified because the contracts have not yet been let. When the contracts are let, what we hope we will have as an outgrowth of the meetings that have taken place and conversations that are continuing is a list of concerns, operational concerns from the business owners that can be addressed with a contractor. And hopefully, many of those concerns can be alleviated. I'm confident all of those concerns won't be alleviated. But there has been a significant effort to try to touch base with folks. I don't think anybody was aware of the extent to which the closure would take place up until the last several weeks as the engineering work progressed. and that's what the purpose of the meetings has been about. We won't know definitely how long the closures will be required until we get the bids back and the contractors selected. Now, I don't know if that addresses all of your concerns, but that's my understanding of the circumstances and has been for months. No, it doesn't really address my concerns. with, and I'll go back to my notes. I know that this was part of the streetscape, but Maine and Vine were, well. Maine, Vine, South Lyme, and the Farmer's Market area have always been the Phase 1 project, without fail, without fail. So the second part of that is that it seems to me that sending out the bid, the request for bids, choosing a contractor, and then having the business owners talk to them about their operational concerns is backwards. Those concerns need to be expressed before the bid goes out. a project manager assigned to it, and I certainly will go back and try to refresh my memory on the order in which things were, I was under the understanding were going to happen. But at any rate, I would appreciate hearing about those things if there's a bid that's been sent out in my district. Well, I believe the bids were part of the council docket some time ago, within the last month or so. I'll have to go back and check on that. Well, if you would read item B on page 2, tell me, explain to me where in there I would have had any idea that limestone or main or any other would be part of that. That deals with the grant that is addressed in the letter that's been circulated to you. Yes, I see the grant. And the bid on the South Limestone piece of the work is one that has been pending for close to a month at this point. And it should have been in a council packet about a month ago or more. Like I say, it's in the new business items that we were presented with today, and nowhere on it does it say anything about the location of the streetscape project. So, you know, but I would like for us to be able to hear from the business owners that have sat here for many hours. Had it been identified as including limestone for approval, then they would have been able to speak to it earlier. Thank you. All right. I have two business owners that have indicated an interest in speaking. Mr. Jones, David Jones. And is it Mr. Sedlin? All right. Thank you. Mr. Jones. Mayor, members of council, thank you. The most important thing is that we're all here before any contracts have been signed. There's not a contract that we have to go back on or worry about penalties, so we have ample legal opportunity to make that contract palatable to all the business owners. I also want to dispel some myths that are circulating, and don't let anyone from any department fool you. Proper notice has not been given. I keep hearing about certified letters. I ask, where's my certified letter? I received a notice the week of the 25th of May inviting me to a meeting to discuss or participate in the process of completing a streetscape plan design. It mentions nothing about bids outstanding, and the stated reason for the meeting was to have a complete understanding of the current utility needs. Nowhere in that letter, and no other business owner that I know of has received letters talking about street closings. So I don't want anybody to be fooled that we've received proper notice to discuss this, and it was open and above board. Additionally, there's another myth. We went through this as a city when we did the courthouses. I keep hearing a myth that, oh, well, Lucy did fine. She's still around. Well, she did not do fine. She was here tonight, but I think she had to go on to run her restaurant. She almost went out of business. It took her business years to recover. So if you just say, well, she's still around and everybody can make it through, it's not like that. And we can learn from those lessons. And plain and simple, a vote to accept any contract which just completely closes the street without taking into account the needs of 35 businesses and several hundred employees, that's a vote to put many, if not most, or all of those businesses out of business. And that's all a vote to accept a contract which does not take into account those business needs. Will do. All of us support the end result of this project, and we all know there is a fair middle ground where part of Limestone can remain open at all times to public traffic. I keep hearing different departments of the city, when I can get an answer, say, well, a lane will always be open. Well, what they're not telling you and what they've told us is that lane is not open for the public. It's open only for local access, contractors, deliveries, et cetera, but it will be blocked off to public access. And lastly, it would have been real simple to give everybody notice. All public works or anybody would have had to have done was call the newspaper and say, South Limestone's going to be closed for a year. We're going to have a meeting, and there's 30, 40, 50,000 commuters that travel that stretch every day of the week. They may have to be rerouted. They may have to leave 20 minutes early for work. And they deserve to know, too, this is not a downtown issue. This is not a district issue. This is a citywide issue and a major artery. And the decision to accept this contract and fast-track it without having all the facts in without including business owners is a decision to put many or most of them out of business. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Is there anyone else that wishes to address this issue with the council? All right. Mr. Tate, you want to talk just a little bit about the meetings that have been happening? I just want to kind of give you all history. December 4th, we had our first meeting. A letter was sent out by Commissioner Mike Webb to the property owners and hand-delivered to the businesses. saying that we're wanting to talk about limestone. On January 21st, we had a meeting at CD Central to talk about the project. We had the drawings. We walked the strip with some of the business owners so that we could get their input from them at that point so we could continue with the design. On May 18th, we mailed out a letter. I mean, on May 12th, we mailed out a letter about an open house to start the review process. We hand-delivered those notices to the business owners as well. Our attendance was not getting what we needed. So we had another meeting on June 3rd. We sent out certified letters on May 22nd. And then somebody from my office also walked to each business, making them sign a piece of paper that they received a letter about the upcoming meeting. Because as I stated Sunday, communication is very important right now. The bid is out, but it's not received. We need to know now what the issues are from the properties and the business owners. And that's why we took that final step on that last thing to get that certified letter, get those signatures, so we could get those property owners and businesses to the meeting to start addressing those issues. As I stayed on Sunday at the meeting with the merchants, before we take anything back to council, we want to have everything from the contractor in terms of what they think the schedule is, so we can sit down with the merchants, talk to them about that schedule. No, it's not going to be easy. Lucy wanted to stay and talk about the process that she went through, which she had to go up to her restaurant too. And it's not easy. We have two sewer lines we've got to replace, or else we're all going to be in trouble on that street. And we had discussion Sunday, I think, about moving the schedule. I think some of the business merchants were concerned about that. If we do it, move it up, then you go into the Christmas business time. So there are a lot of issues. It's not going to be easy. You know, I think I thought it was interesting when we were in Madison, the mayor announced, you know, limestone is getting ready to come up, and it's not going to be easy, but the final product will be good. I think my issue, again, is that it seems to be being fast-tracked and that the information, you know, when I first heard about it, I called and you said, oh, there'll always be a lane open. and you didn't say there'll always be a lane open for ambulances and dump trucks. And whether or not it was number one, two, or three, it needs to be done, and we all know that, and I support that. But, again, for the bids to go out without a project manager, without having lessons learned from past streetscape changes and other communities, what works well, how do we do this with the minimal economic impact and traffic impact to the community. And you're right, Mr. Jones, it isn't just a third district issue, but it happens to be in my district. It is a community-wide issue. And so that is my concern, and it still is. Thank you. Yeah. I think everybody else that's on the list wants to give their council report. So, okay. We've got a couple more folks that want to speak to this issue, so let's go ahead and do that. Vice Mayor Gray. Harold could not agree with you more about the point you made about communication. Earlier today, you said that phase one of this project was what? Main vine and limestone. And cheap side, right? I'm sorry, cheap side. So what would you describe the scope that is currently out for bid? Currently what's out to bid is south limestone. Okay, so is that phase pre-phase one? It's all part of phase one. We've broken into four sections in order to make the bid documentation easier. So phase one is actually from Avenue of Champions to Vine. That is communication. And I think that's exactly what these people are talking about. you've got the documentation of how many meetings were held, but the question is how much communication occurred. And they said it on Sunday. When your translation of Lucy had, a la Lucy's, it didn't hurt their business, they got along, and that was raising an expectation. And that is where the anxiety lies. I know a little bit of something about construction, And I know that if the bids are out today on this scope of work, and it is not incredibly clear that this is a surgical procedure, then the bids will come in, and the expectations of the contractors and the expectations of the business owners and the city and everyone's expectations will be quite different. and that is the problem. You are absolutely dead right. It is communication and at least in my view, we're not getting it and that's why these people are upset and on the 19th, unless there is something done between now and the 19th when the bids come in, when the bids are due to illustrate the significance of the precision of this project and the way in which it's executed. That is, the sequencing of the project. That is, the staging of materials. All of this requires a plan, and if those contractors, if it's not in the general requirements very carefully and very precisely, then it's going to be miserable. I see Mike's back here. And Mike, I think you know what I'm talking about. I just got a letter from an email from a fellow who worked at Isle of Lucy's, a waiter there. He said he just got back from Krakow, Poland. And he said, Krakow is the only major city in Europe that suffered no damage during World War I and II. This is Louis Bickett, who worked through the Al-Aluses Dust Bowl, okay? It is a perfectly preserved Baroque city center that is as vibrant as Fifth Avenue. While I was there, they were doing major underground utility work and were renovating an ancient market building in the center of the square. There was no disruption. Every site of construction had a fence around it with a wonderful mural on it. Every trench had a wooden walkway built over it, and every business that could not be seen because of construction had signage pointing the way. All construction materials were neatly stacked, not an edge out of place, and every day the site was cleaned up. When the utility work happened in front of Isla Lucy's, where you'd said it wasn't that much of a problem, They not one time cleaned anything up. It was a dust pit, and it doesn't have to be that way. Now, I think what this is, is a wake-up call to us that we are not, in fact, communicating. And we're not trying to cause trouble. They aren't. I'm not. Diane's not. We want the project. But we believe the project can be accomplished without absolutely compromising and destroying the businesses that we're trying to preserve. Thank you. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Mayor. Harold, thank you so much for coming and answering our questions, even though this is not on the agenda. But I will take advantage of this opportunity. And I will tell you that I feel their pain, because this is exactly the way the project for the sidewalks on Tate's Creek occurred. Exactly. Exactly. There was no communication. This strategy was totally manipulated to come to an already decided conclusion. And I totally understand the frustration. And so I do want to take a look at this because I don't approve of projects being done in a clandestine way. but in any way what I want to ask you is when was the RFP sent out I'm sorry I don't have the exact date either but it was like May 18th somewhere around there and it was scheduled to open on the 12th and we have had numerous questions from contractors and we had an addendum go out today that's actually going to extend it until the 19th at 2 o'clock. Okay, so the original RFP went out on the 18th. Who wrote the RFP? It was a combination of efforts, truthfully. It was Public Works, Michael Webb, Charlie Martin, myself, KKG, Strand, Harold. All those people worked diligently trying to make sure that we addressed all the components. A contractor work plan is requested. traffic routing is requested for them to present that to us, alternate routes, message board signing and things of that nature in there so they can redirect traffic and possibly use that to notify businesses that are on that street and other locations and things of that nature. It may be something that we can do on that, but all those things are required in the submittal process, and it's things that will be evaluated because basically what we're saying is it's not really, it's the low responsible bidder on this. And so those are things that we'll look at. And if the plan's not an acceptable plan to everybody, including you all, then obviously we would move on. So the award won't take place until we're satisfied with the contractor that we have. Okay. I don't know the exact dates, but we just went to Madison, and we learned a lot about how they do things there. And one of the things I was very impressed with was the fact that when they sent out an RFP on the, I guess it was the reconstruction of State Street, they included in the RFP a component where the contractor was obligated to work with the businesses along the route, to meet with them weekly to give them an update on what was going to occur that week and to make sure that access to their businesses was always open. And I would have hoped that we would have learned something from that trip to Madison that we could do here. And I don't know that this RFP was sent out. I don't recall the date that we went to Madison. But what's the possibility of going back to the drawing board with this RFP and building in that component? I can speak to that. We have employed a project manager, and that's what that project manager will be doing, Mr. George Milligan. George, would you stand up? will be the person handling those communications directly with the businesses and liaisoning with the contractor and the businesses. They'll be in constant contact on any issues, problems, try to work to resolve those problems, issues surrounding traffic or pedestrian or vehicular or otherwise. So we did think of that. Okay. But he's the liaison for the city, or is he? Yes. Okay. Yes, he is. But that was not, the contractor didn't bid on any additional work that might be necessary to keep those businesses open and accessible. But that'll be part of George's responsibility is to make sure that we're doing those kinds of things. We've had a pre-construction meeting with those who are interested in bidding on the contract. They understand the precise nature of the work, and we've done everything that we can think of, but they may be able to think of other things to minimize the amount of time required to get in, get out, get the job done, and do it in an orally fashion with the minimum of disruption. But when the sewer lines run down the middle of the street and we're going to bury overhead utilities, which also requires a trench that will require a conduit to be buried so that utilities can go into that trench, it's going to be disruptive. And it requires getting the materials in, staging of the materials. It requires getting the equipment in, getting the trenches dug, getting the materials in and covered, and the street open as soon as possible. That's what we're trying to accomplish, and we'd like to get in and get the work done before bad weather sets in so we can get the street back open. We don't want another Loudoun Avenue kind of situation, do we, Council Member James? So working from both ends, starting at one end and at the other end and working toward the middle, keeping the cross streets open, working with other folks who do have parking in the area to provide parking so that the businesses will have places for customers to park when parking on the street is not going to be available. All you have to do is walk down the street. I walked down there again this morning. I walked it from one end to the other again. There are water lines, gas lines, two sewer lines. There are service lines that come off of those, all those services that go from the pipe in the street to the businesses or to the homes. They're all old. They're all subject to failure. And to not replace that stuff now would be like painting a rotten fence. It looked good for a while, but then it's going to collapse. Yeah. And I appreciate all of the difficulties that we're going to experience during this project. And what I want to ask is what is your formal process for working with the business owners? Is there a commitment to meet with a group of business owners once a week or once a month? And who is this group of business owners that you're going to meet with? Yes, ma'am. We'll be willing and want to meet with any and all who want to meet as often as necessary. We'll have a website set up. We're looking at the possibility of a camera so you can monitor the construction. You can see what's going on live at all times. And, you know, extreme communication is critical. There's no question about it. And under the best of circumstances, it's going to be difficult. And I think it would be, you know, to think that we would rather not do this. I don't know why anyone would think that we would want to disrupt these folks in the least, but we've also been, I think, encouraged to get the plans off the shelf and to execute and implement. And that's what we're trying to do. Well, all I'm looking for now, I know you don't want to disrupt, and I know you want to get the project done just as quickly as you can. We all want that. But what I want to make sure is that there is a process where you're going to meet with these folks one-on-one. I mean, it's great to have the information on a website where they can go to it and see the construction. But I really think that that communication is key, and it really needs to be one-on-one communication. And it will be. George will ensure that happens. He's a very skilled project manager. He has an engineering background, and he has great customer service skills. So that's why we asked George to serve as our project manager. The fewer complaints, the better for everybody. And the more we can communicate and the more that we can minimize the disruption, the sooner it will be done, and everyone hopefully will, at the end of the day, come out whole and we'll have something that we can really be proud of. I was looking at some old DDA minutes from 2002 this morning, and actually I think it may have been the first meeting of the DDA, and the discussion was around the college downtown connections and the need to improve those and to manage the development in such a way that the two became one. And our thinking is that the three become one, actually the fourth, when KCTCS gets out to Eastern. But, you know, this is, unfortunately, you can't just snap your fingers and have it happen. You know, it's heavy construction. It's why we want to get started, get in, get out before winter, if we can possibly do it. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you, Mayor. Thanks, Mayor Gray. Then Council Member Lawless. Anybody else? Joe, I appreciate everything you're saying about good intentions, and nobody disputes good intentions. Yes, sir. hear everything you're saying about trying to get in and get out. Yes, sir. If I were a business owner and I heard that, I would be very anxious with that language. I understand. The issue of weather in a constrained area like this is arguably a red herring. That work can be done under almost any weather conditions, and it should be planned for. This is a very restricted area. It's a very contained area. I said constrained. The word is contained. And it can be engaged. My concern is, and I'm saying it today, what is this, June the 9th? Yes, sir. that the contractors must understand that between now and the 19th, there's plenty of time to issue another heads up about the complexity and the precision that's required here, and that this is not just normal conditions, and that we ought to go beyond normal. Between now and the 19th, we ought to be able to be, We should be able to illustrate to the business owners the work plan, the beginnings of that work plan. We should be able to ask the contractors to give us a visual, detailed plan, not just a CPM chart, But something that these people can understand, how it hits where the plan of construction is scheduled and when it's going to occur in what areas, and then start working together with them. I could not agree with you more. That's what we hope to do. If the contractors come back and say, you know, we can't do this, or there is a better way to do this or there is a way that we can do this and lessen the impact. And, you know, all those things, that's, you know, we want to hear that. Yeah, right. My concern in a lump sum competitive bid environment and with the economic conditions we're in today, it's going to be very aggressive competition. Sure. And the likelihood of planning for the sort of precision and care that we are describing is not ordinary. That is not ordinary. They ain't going to do that. George, I see you shaking your head back there. I think you know what I'm saying. And so my concern is that we've got one expectation, one thing we're talking about today, but the competitive environment is sort of going to be immune to that. It's sort of noise out there right now to people who are trying to hunt for jobs, and that's the contractors. So my concern would be that we get bids in, and then we have the obligation, take the low bid, and we're going to say, oh, no, we're going to take the most responsible bid. That's not what we did. These guys aren't. They have to provide us with documentation, and they have to be experienced in working in this type of environment. And so, you know, we're trying to do everything we can to make sure we don't get people who aren't skilled working on this job. But we hear you and we agree with you. I do, just for the benefit of the business owners, I've got a couple of engineers that work with me who are taking a look at the bid documents this weekend and going to try to, And if we can share some ideas, if something emerges from that examination of the documents, we'll get back to you guys and with the business owners. We would appreciate that. Thank you. One comment. Mike, does the schedule, do the bid documents describe the sequencing coming at it from both sides? I mean, is that part of a, is that a bid requirement? That's not a requirement, Councilman Jay. I mean, gray, rather. It's okay. We've had some meetings where we've engaged. We had a pre-bid meeting. We engaged the contractors that were proposing to bid. We sort of explained what we thought was a logical progression. We've actually put the, I guess, put the onus on them to come back with their approach because it is such a complex project. It's going to require them to kind of detail out their unique ideas and give that back to us as part of their bid so that we can evaluate that in context with the pricing. Do you ask them for any sort of, I mean, just in terms of does their bid include anything more than price and unit prices? Does it include a schedule from them? Yes, we're asking for schedule information back from them, both, I think, CPM, bar charts. We're looking for detailed information about maintenance of traffic, that sort of thing. And you raised a point about lump sum. One of the things that we have done as part of this contract, it's being structured as a unit price contract, and part of that is to eliminate maybe some of the concerns about where there might be some exposure with unknowns. So we have the ability to actually define certain units. For example, the cleanup issue, that's certainly a valid point, and we need to make sure they understand the expectation level when it comes to cleanup on a daily basis. And those are things that can be well documented or well outlined using units and where we get actual unit prices for them maybe on a daily basis for something like that, for example. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Lawless, then Council Member B. And I'd like to thank Vice Mayor Gray and Council Member Feigl for weighing in on this. And I don't want to get in a debate as to what was phase one or whatever. I don't even have an issue with it being done now. What I have an issue with is the communication to me means very clear, accurate information that the average person would understand, i.e. one lane of traffic will always be open to someone like me, business and social work background. That means one lane of traffic will be able to get to and from the businesses. it doesn't mean you have to be in an ambulance or a dump truck. So, and that was stated to me, it was stated to me that Lucy's did well, and it was also on the document, which I read on Sunday at the meeting, and I said then, I'm not saying there's any deliberate misleading here, but I think the average person, you know, what is it, one at 30 out of 30, Martha's walking down the street, whatever that kids in the hall thing was, if you read this to them, they'd think they'd be able to travel down that street with one lane of traffic open. So communication is about, A, conversation, realistic expectations, and not glossing over what is really facing us. And that is my issue with it. Not that it's being done now, but that there hasn't been what I call communication. And so I hope that the RFPs can be adjusted, that we can speak with some experts in other communities that have done these kinds of things in their core downtown. I'm excited about the streetscape, but I'm also excited about having some businesses still operating as people drive down our beautiful street on their way to Center Point. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. A couple of three points, and I will lean on Vice Mayor Gray for a second. the precise surgical approach, the delta could be as much as a million dollars? No. Or more? Doing it right. Hmm? Did you say? No, I say the delta between doing it. Between doing it haphazardly and with precision? With precision. I don't know. What's the scope of this pre-phase one? What's the estimate on it? Three, four, two million, three million? I don't, you know, the answer to that, Julian, in the way that I work it, you know, we clean up every day. We clean up, and if we were doing this project, I would say we're going to very carefully examine these issues. But I don't know if the low bidder, you know, I don't know. But I don't, I don't, and I would not anticipate any necessary delta for it to be a sloppy job. versus a clean job. No. A safe job is a clean job, and it should be a clean job for these business owners, too. So that's... Okay. Harold, you need to grab hold of the podium when you stand up there, because I want to suggest something you thought would never come out of my mouth. Uh-oh. With the traffic constraints, what about two-waying Upper Street? Hey! I'm talking about. Believe it or not, you're not the only person who suggested that. I'm the last person, though, that people thought you'd have heard it from. It's a data site. I didn't think that came out of you. No, that is an option. I'm not saying that that is the solution, but that is an option that's been talked about. It's a partial solution anyway. Thank you, Mayor. Anyone else? All right. Brian, let me ask you a question. As I recall, there were some specifications in the bid that was, or the RFP that was put out, whatever the language is here, to detail the precise nature of the project. Could you describe that just a little bit? Well, one of the things that we've just recently added was a $10,000 a day penalty for not getting completed in time. And so that's something that we added in the addendum here. It was much less than that previously. But it's also, it talks to all the things that you've discussed here today, just the businesses needing to have access to those businesses, one lane remaining open at all times, four businesses and residents of that area. And it's really, I guess, required that the contractors present to us a plan. And I think that we can reiterate that with a follow-up addendum very clearly, that if your work plan and your traffic control plan is not adequate, then we're not going to accept your bid. I mean, that's something that we're going to look at and evaluate. KKG has done these projects before in other cities that dealt with basically the same thing. So we have a very good resource there to help us with all this management. You know, obviously it's very important at this time we communicate and we address all the concerns that are here today by June the 19th. And I think that we will meet. I've taken notes. I think all the things will be reiterated and that we will stress again the urgency of limited impact. But, you know, the thing about it is there's requirements that say, you know, we're putting in a huge duct bank. Sanitary and storm sewer has to remain six feet away from that at all times. That's very difficult to do without closing lanes and when you've got large pieces of equipment around. So there's several contractors that have dealt with these things before. We've asked for a statement of qualifications. Those will be evaluated based upon projects that they've done like this, projects of similar nature. We've also asked for the engineering component to show to us how they've handled projects like this in the past. So we've got a lot of things in there. Revisiting them will also stress the importance again of that. So we're willing to throw out an addendum for that, obviously. Thank you. Mayor, I just want to ask Brian, I guess, when you put in there, and I actually got an email from somebody that was watching this, and I was asked the question, did you look at possibly the time of when they do the work that wouldn't be during the business hours so we could minimize as much against the businesses as possible? We're still sort of discussing that, okay, and that's something that we probably should revisit again with the business owners. We're looking at 7 to 10 p.m. Obviously there's residents in the area and things like that. So we've talked about running two complete shifts, but then we get into noise and all that sort of thing. So within the legal limitations of what we can do, we're looking at 7 to 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday. That's what we're at right now. Now, we haven't finalized that. We plan on having some more discussions. Well, I'm glad we're doing this because I owned a business that went through this many years ago on Broadway when they did the underpass. And when the underpass went through, it actually took longer than the Golden Gate Bridge to build. So we were very fortunate to be able to survive all that, but it was four and a half years of not much fun and dust. So I hope that we can be a little more precise and not put the business through what we had to go through at that time. And if a contractor comes forth with a method that may lead us to extending those hours, that's obviously something that we'd want to bring back to you all to discuss to see if that's an option or not. Thank you, Brian. I have circulated a press release from back in February when we started talking about this. Yes, thank you, and I stand corrected. And again, it really isn't about the order in which these projects are done. It's about the clear communication. And I appreciate that, and I stand corrected. I thank you for acknowledging that, because there's not been any effort to try to hoodoo people over the fact that Limestone Street's included in this, ever. Yes, I apologize. I've just been pretty frustrated. All right. Council Member, I think we're ready to move along. Council Member James? Yes, thank you, Mayor. I have three items to bring forward today to council members, one of which you should have received in your inbox back on June 5th or so. And this has to do with the motion regarding standing committees. You may recall that during the link report out, I mentioned something to the effect about economic development should maybe exist as a standing committee. So thanks to the law department, we now have an amendment to the council rules to such. And so if you don't have that in front of you, I'd be happy to let you take a peek at mine. But I do have a motion. I move to amend the docket for Thursday to include a resolution amending Section 2.102 of the rules and procedures of the Lexington Fayette-Urban County Council to create an economic development standing committee. Second. I have a motion and second to add that item to the docket. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. No opposed. Motion fails. Can I get a count on that? Certainly, we can. Those in favor of the motion, please indicate by raising. Well, let's vote. Voting electronically. Put it on the docket for the June 11th meeting. And this would begin January 2010. So if anybody's thinking it's going to be this year, it won't be. Motion fails by vote of 4 to 6. All right. I have another one I'm going to try. This is, I'll give you a little background on this. There is a Habitat House being developed over on Lunetta Avenue, and it was determined that a fire hydrant needed to be placed in this area for fire department access. and as that was looked at, the fire hydrant, it was found that there was some poor street infrastructure there, so there needed to be a new water line, an update on the water line. Habitat sought out some assistance from some housing, affordable housing folks to try to gain some funds. The cost of the water line is actually more than the cost to build the house, And so they sought out some help. The water company did agree to pay for the cost of the hydrant itself. But as far as the water line is concerned, they needed to come up with that money. We brainstormed research a little bit and realized that we do have access to the UDAG funds, which you've seen some things come through as far as UDAG funding. and one of the approved funding would be for infrastructure. So I am bringing forward to you a motion which would be asking for an allocation for UDAC funds to put in that water line, which would not only serve just this one particular house, but that entire kind of it's less like an avenue and more like a cul-de-sac in this area. But any future development would also be able to tap into that water line. So I move to amend the docket for Thursday to include an allocation of UDAC funds of an amount not to exceed $45,000 to Habitat for Humanity for waterline upgrades in order to complete construction on affordable housing for three households on Lynetta. Second. I have a motion and second. Any discussion? Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. For the uninitiated, can you tell me what a UDAC fund is? Oh, I'm sorry. It was the, you'll have to help me with the acronym anybody, Urban Development Action Grant. And we've used these for, it can be used for infrastructure. I think we've used it for like an elevator at the Carver Center. I don't know, some other things that we've used it for. I guess, do we have the money? Yeah, we do have the money. We have cleared it. We have talked with the administration and the funds are there and available for use. Thank you, Mayor. Any further discussion? And those in favor of adding that item to the agenda, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you very much. And my last item, we've come forward the past few months with a lot of projects through the neighborhood development bond funds, and those things are wrapping up. The two items that I bring to you today are approved items. You've seen them before on our docket. What this motion will do will allow us to enter into agreement for the expenditure of the funds which we've approved for the approved projects. So I move to place on the docket for Thursday night's council meeting resolutions authorizing and directing the mayor to enter into agreements for the expenditure of neighborhood development and or redevelopment bond issue funds on the following. Number one, Cove Haven Cemetery Tree Maintenance and Removal Project in the amount of $14,000 with the Cove Haven Cemetery Incorporated. And number two, Isaac Scott Hathaway Museum Site Improvement Project in the amount of $11,000 with the Isaac Scott Hathaway Museum. I have a motion and second to add that item to the docket. Any discussion? Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member James, were both these approved by the Neighborhood Development Bond Committee? Yeah, these were both approved projects. We approved the funding for them and all. This is just the agreement for the expenditure directing the mayor to expend. How is this different than the other project? It's actually very similar to the fourth district project that we paid separately to the organization as opposed to paying directly to the contractors. So it's just a change. We expected to be able to pay to the contractors, and we're having to pay time. It's taking some time to do that, so we're wanting to get them paid, so we've got approval from the administration to do this. Thank you, Mayor. Any further discussion? All in favor then of adding that item to the docket, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. That's all I have, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Martin. My meetings have become moot. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Crosby. Yeah, I just would like to announce that this Saturday is the Great American Cleanup in Woodhill. It starts at 9 a.m. in Woodhill Park. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I'm in the same boat as Council Member Martin. There is a Red Mile Working Group meeting tonight taking place at 7 o'clock in a Red Mile clubhouse. And Saturday, 10 o'clock, Port Royal Neighborhood Association is having a Great American Cleanup. They received the 2500 Sustainability Grant, and this will be the first phase of implementing that grant. And Monday at 7 o'clock is the Gulfview Neighborhood Association meeting. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Myers. We'll give you a minute to get up here. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. There was an event over at the Kentucky Theater that started at 530 and was over at 730 that I RSVP'd that I would be at, but that looks like that's not in the cards. Actually, nothing more than the NDF list for this week. I move approval. Any discussion? All in favor of approving the NDF, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Ryers. Thank you, Mayor. I had two neighborhood association meetings I was going to announce that started at 7 o'clock, so it's probably kind of pointless right now. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. I had a neighborhood association meeting that began at 6 o'clock and another that began at 7. Could you give us absence excuses, please? I'd be glad to, Professor. Thank you very much. I want to make this suggestion. I think that the motion that Council Member James brought forward is one that we should consider, and I don't want to see it get lost. I was not in favor of bringing it to the docket, but I would like to see it considered and discussed in committee. So I'd like to move that it be placed in inter-gov. I have a motion and second to place the committee structure. Yes. Is that a fair way of describing it? Yes. Into the inter-governmental committee. Any discussion? Council Member James? What's that going to do, Council Member Blues? What would we be putting into committee to do? It would give us an opportunity to discuss it. and in the context of our other standing committees. I know there's some concerns about, what would be the word, reapportioning some of the duties in some of the other committees as well. It seems to me that it would give us an opportunity to thoroughly discuss the proposal and consider it in relation to other standing committees and our committee structure. So that's the rationale. Sure. Just clarification. This was not – my intention was not to address – There's already proposals for additional changes to other standing committees and restructuring and such, and this was a sole creation of an economic development standing committee, and I would prefer it not be bogged down with an entire discussion similar to what happened last year with the standing committees that were being proposed. So I will vote against this going into intergovernmental committee because I think this is a standalone issue and not a holistic restructuring issue. In that case, I withdraw my motion with permission of the second. All right. Farewell. Does any other council member wish to submit a report? I think that's all. I can't get to my screen. I think that's it. On the mayor's report, one has been circulated. I would ask for a motion to approve all but the last two items. We'd like to rework Picnic with the Pops Commission and the Social Services Advisory Board. So a motion to approve the Mayor's report with that modification would be in order. So moved. Thank you. Council Member Lawless has moved, and Council Member Martin has seconded the motion to approve the Mayor's report. with exception of the picnic with the POPs Commission and the Social Services Advisory Board. Any discussion? Yes, please. Council Member Crosby. I guess I'll just direct this. I don't have any problems with any of the appointees. However, repeatedly we've asked that these documents include. I have a hard time appointing somebody to a board that I have absolutely no idea anything about them, and we have asked repeatedly on for the entire Crime Stoppers, Bluegrass Crime Stoppers board nominees. There's just a biographical data sheet, but if you go through and look at the other nominees, they have to fill out these forms that have, you know, pretty – you at least get an idea about who they are, or why they're applying. On this entire board of appointees, it just basically has their address, their occupation, and their home address. And so we've asked, then if you go to like the health department, for example, they've got their CVs. Most of them are physicians or nurses, and they've included their CVs. So we also have a pretty good idea of those people. And I just I believe we've asked repeatedly to get the information on these appointees. My other question was relating to the Social Services Board. I'm not sure why we're holding it up. Perhaps maybe it's because we're appointing somebody who does not yet live in this state. But I don't know. I just had kind of a hard time with some of these. I can't say I have a hard time with the people, but just the fact that we have asked on numerous occasions to have this information included. I know I have three times at least. Let me speak to Social Services Advisory Board. Commissioner Helm may wish to elaborate on this, but in short, we wanted to reevaluate all of those proposals. I think there's one individual from Louisville, and we wanted to try to have a discussion about that entire board at some point in a little more detailed fashion than just approving this. So that's the reason, I think, on that front. And I'll ask Commissioner Helm to elaborate as she thinks is appropriate. The Social Service Advisory Board is a board that has been defunct for a number of years and we felt like it was important to bring it back into operation. We had a number of individuals who were nominated for the board that were invited to serve, that agreed, and it wasn't until just this week that I realized that some of them had not completed their paperwork, and I'd really like them to come forward as a total body. So we've asked the mayor to pull the listing until we can get some clarification. I think there is one individual who lives in Louisville, has a business both here and in Louisville, works in Frankfurt. We asked her to serve specifically because she is an entrepreneur, and we felt that she would bring a number of skill sets to the board. But we're going to go back and relook that one. We have one that has an address of Northport, Alabama. I understand they're moving here, but I think it's premature to appoint somebody who's James Princeton Adams. Yes, he is the new dean of the college. I understand who he is, but he states on here that he'll be moving to Kentucky mid to in June. So I don't know if that's in that he's just known you for about nine months. And so I'm assuming that this is, it's on his, I mean, here. So I guess that was more of my question or problem with maybe the appointees is that I don't care about necessarily somebody in Louisville who might be able to offer advice to you, but somebody who's not even here yet out of state, I just have a problem appointing somebody to a board who's not even a resident of our state yet, whatever capacity they're in. They probably will be an outstanding member of this board, but it's just seemed a little odd. And with some of the written comments at the bottom. The thinking was that it's important to have a representative from the university and specifically from the College of Social Work. And so the determination was made to extend an offer to him. We felt like it would be a mutual that we could help him understand some of the issues from our perspective. and he would be bringing a perspective. I'm not arguing that he's not qualified. I'm more arguing the fact that we're appointing or prematurely appointing people before they even, if he gets held up and you're planning on having meetings, say monthly meetings, and he's not here yet, we've appointed somebody to a board who's currently in Alabama. I'm just using that as an example. He's coming. We know that. But we do have people, he's not here yet. But my next question, I guess, would be, is this to Shay? Is it typical, I guess, because Commissioner Helm just brought up another point that I hadn't even thought to ask. She mentioned that she has asked these people to serve and they've agreed to serve. Is that something that we typically do? It was my understanding that they agree through maybe the website or whatever. but is it typical for people who are in charge of boards to, regardless of what board it is, to recruit for boards and whether or not they'll agree to serve first? I mean, is that something that's pretty typical or not? I'm pretty sure it is typical. And maybe I'm not understanding your question exactly, but part of the role of the mayor is to try to get people to serve on the boards. We have, as you all know, almost 100 boards, at least 10 members apiece. That's quite a few people. So it's not like we have people lining up at the door to serve on boards. So oftentimes we have to go out and ask people who we would like to appoint to serve on boards. And this is an area where Commissioner Helm is trying to reinstate this board. So, yes, it's typical. Will we be able, again, I guess maybe this is just more a comment. for the now fourth or fifth time, can we please get the either resume or what they have to fill out? This report is very inconsistent. If you look at this entire report from one board to the next and the information were provided on the nominees, it's not very consistent. So can you somehow provide us with some consistency so that we can? We have one form that all board members are supposed to fill out, or nominees. The ones for the Bluegrass Crime Stoppers, I agree with you. I don't know what that form is. And so I'm perfectly fine with you all pulling that off tonight. Well, and I guess I'll just add to... May I say one more thing? Yeah. We do not require, or we try to, in fact, we ask people to give us their resumes. and not everybody provides us with resumes. The 800 board members do not give us resumes. Some people for some boards don't have resumes. So they fill out this information. So if we want to require people to attach a resume or else we're not going to appoint them, then let's make that requirement. Because I don't understand what you're – I do acknowledge the Crime Stoppers section is different, But the other ones appear to be consistent in the form that we're providing you. And I also would say that I remember, recall, one of your requests was we used to come before you with reappointments and not provide this form. And you said we weren't here on the council when these people were first appointed. So we have been trying to do that. So can you help me understand what's not consistent, please? For example, if it says see attached, when we're trying to get information and they're filling out the form, and they put in their, and it's kind of a mute point because it's a social services person, but if they say on education or qualifications, see attached, then there's nothing attached for us to see, I would say that that is a problem. I would also say that if they can't take the time, if they're not attaching a resume and they can't take the time to fill out, for example, on the Black and Williams Neighborhood Center, any information where it says education and general qualifications to give us an idea of why they are capable of serving, they have an incomplete application. and there's nothing attached necessarily for us to know why these people are qualified to serve on these boards. And I think given the light, some of the issues we've had with our boards and commissions, that we would be trying to get as much information as possible so that we can make educated decisions when it comes to our appointments. and many of these people are not filling out these completely, or if they're saying C attached, we do not have the information attached to see what we're voting for. That is my point. If it says C attached, it should be attached. You're correct. And I would also say that I wouldn't submit somebody to us who has not taken the time to fill out their application completely. unless they have no general qualifications, then why are they being nominated for a board? Education really isn't an issue, but it is a question we ask. They may not have a membership in organizations and current positions. Not applicable. I mean, to me, these are incomplete applications. And again, given the fact that we've had so many issues with our boards, our commissions, I think that as a council member, and I'm torn because there are some in here that I really want to be able to approve. There's a Seventh District Parks representative I'd like to approve as a reappointment. However, if I'm out, I have to, I'm getting 30 plus people, however many people are on here, not that many, but I'm getting all these people and all this information to vote them in as a group and have incomplete information on a handful of them. I don't think it's necessarily fair to put us in that position. That's all. That's my only comment. If there are particular ones you would prefer not to vote on, that's perfectly okay, including the Crime Stoppers or others, or others, and then we'll get additional information for you. If there's some you wish to approve tonight, that's fine, too. I mean, I think there's several of them that are – I could go through the Agricultural Extension Board. There's an incomplete – there's no references listed. There's no education or general qualifications. That's an incomplete application. The first one with the Black and Williams Neighborhood Center, incomplete. All of Crime Stoppers and Sandy with the Board of Health. Sorry, because now I'm having to go through each one. We pulled out social services. That's it. That's three. So I'm not clear what you would like to go ahead and put it. Those would be the three that I would like to get, or all of Crime Stoppers, and then to get complete information or forms filled out on Black and Williams. I'm trying to avoid having to name specific people who didn't complete their application, if at all possible. Well, are there boards that you – Mayor, I move to call the question. I'm still – Well, without a motion for the previous question, the debate's still open. And I guess what I'm trying to find out is are there ones you'd like to approve tonight? Yeah, I think we could approve all of them except for the ones that are incomplete and the crime stopper ones until we get full information. Maybe you listed them. And that's what I was going through trying to list was it's the Ag Extension Board, Black and Williams. The Ag Extension and then the. Black and Williams. Yeah. The first person for an appointment listed on our application or listed on our memo has an incomplete application. I think everybody else is fine. So I would hate to pull out the entire group. on that one. All right. I don't know how to address this without naming names. Are you talking about on Black and Williams, everybody except Mr. Booker? The first appoint, yes. Okay. So do you wish to move to amend the motion so as to approve all except the Ag Extension Board, the Bluegrass Crime Stoppers and Mr. Booker on Black and Williams? Yes. Is there a second to that? So moved. Second. I have a motion and second to amend as specified. Any discussion on the motion to amend, Council Member Blues? I need to be clear on the recommendation here for Black and Williams because not all of these are incomplete. Right. It's only Mr. Booker's nomination that's being accepted here, set aside for the time being. All Crime Stoppers, all VAG Extension Board. Not for what they do, but lack of knowledge for what the, I guess just given what, like I said a few minutes ago, given the fact that we have had issues regarding a lot of our boards, and, I mean, there's just not much information. It's not consistent with what we get with the other forms. And I think Shay even agreed that that was something that was a little inconsistent, and if we could get them to fill out our consistent forms so we have it to look at. I mean, they could probably do that in a matter of for it to be ready by next week, I would assume. All right, the motion and second is to amend by deleting from the approval list the Ag Extension Board, the Bluegrass Crime Stoppers, and Mr. Booker on the Black and Williams Neighborhood Center. Any further discussion? Those in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. We now are to vote on the motion as amended to approve the mayor's report with exceptions we've just noted previously. Any discussion? Council Member Martin? Mayor, I just want to extend my appreciation for the thought of my participation on the picnic with the POPS Commission. I have found myself to be in too many meetings as it is, so I appreciate the mayor's consideration. Thank you. So we are now voting to approve the mayor's report with the following exceptions, Ag Extension Board, Black and Williams, Picnic with the Pops, Social Service Advisory Board, and Mr. Booker on the Black and Williams community. I still have a question. I'm not logged in. I'm sorry. Is there a process for council members to make nominations to these boards? There is periodically, and I think it's quarterly. Certainly, Ms. Harche from our office should be sending out a list of vacancies that are coming up so that to the extent you know someone who might be interested in serving on the Animal Care and Control Oversight Advisory Committee, you can make recommendations to us. I've had several citizens actually ask me how do they get involved in serving in some capacity. And if they don't have a specific interest but have a general interest in serving, if you'll just have them contact Ms. Harche. Mayor, may I make a point on that, please? Several council members do call us whenever to say a certain, you know, they have a constituent who wants to serve on a certain board. And to make it easier for you all, if you go, you can direct the constituent to our website under the mayor's page. There's a tab for boards and commissions. and they can download the file to fill out this application that needs to be updated, I guess. And so they can go ahead and fill that out and send it in to us, and you or your aide could let us know who the person is, and we'll have that e-mail in the file for when the appointments come up. Even if there's something that's not coming up, if they know they want to be on the Planning Commission at some point, they can go ahead and fill it out. You can let us know. will have it in the file for next year. Any further discussion, Council Member Dullinger? I know in the past we used to get, I think, a quarterly that would say that the appointments that are coming up, that if you have some interest and have some constituents, do we still get that? I think you should. I don't know when the last one was sent, but I would expect shortly after the 1st of July you should be receiving another one. Okay, thank you. All in favor of approving the mayor's report with exceptions noted, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. We're now down to public comment on issues not on the agenda. Mr. Cobb has indicated a desire to speak. He's been waiting patiently. Mr. Cobb, if you would step to the podium. First, give a round to the most high. Thank you, mayor. As the architects of the New Lexington, we have to be careful not to put new wine skins into old skin bottles. What Lexington was founded on was racism. What Lexington has been surviving on is arrogancy. This council, this horseshoe has opportunity to set a precedent. We got to kill racism. We got to destroy arrogancy. It's going to destroy us if we don't destroy us. I'm no better than nobody in this room. Ain't nobody no better than me. But we got to train up our kids to respect diversity, to appreciate differences. As the way Lexington stands now, Lexington is a white man's paradise. Your kids are being raised to think that it's just for them. How do I know? I'm out there every day. It's incumbent upon us. it's incumbent upon us to work together. These are the last days. We got to have a moral righteousness to be able to stand. I think somebody said if you're teaching men knowledge and don't teach morals, you're raising a minister to society. We got murderers, robbers, killing. We can construct new buildings, new streets, but we got to change the hearts of men. We got to change the hearts of women, that they respect and appreciate their role to society. My heart was moved when I seen those handicapped people, how they fight for their rights. They took it upon themselves to do something for themselves. People that want help, you got to take it upon yourself to get some help. You got to get involved. I'm not blaming nobody, but I'm just letting you know how it's going to be in these last and evil day. Just like I'm the last man speaking, I'm going to be one of the last men standing. While y'all sleep, I'm up at night trying to help somebody. Walking the street, saving a drunk man from crossing the street. Stuff y'all don't know about. All those stores on Limestone, all them cater to a certain class of people. All the restaurants across from the courthouse, they cater to certain people. Those days ain't going to be able to last no more. Y'all done ran out. Y'all done lived in excess too long. We got to humble ourselves. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cobb. And the last person I have scheduled to speak is Ms. Clark. If you'll step around. Hi, my name is Amy Clark. I live at 628 Castle Road. I'm here to speak in favor of the Tates Creek sidewalk proposal. I live about a block, actually a block, from Tate's Creek on the west side of the street. If you're thinking the sidewalks will begin on my side of the street about the Enclave, I actually live in the sidewalked area more nearly at Billy's Barbecue than at the Enclave. I've been waiting ten years for something this neat to begin to happen in Lexington, and it really is only beginning, but I'm glad of it. When I first moved to Lexington about 10 years ago, I thought I would go to Acton Park, which is just a quarter of a mile, half a mile away on the other side of Tate's Creek. And by the time I got there, I was terrified. It was perilous. I started out on the sidewalk on my bicycle. It's legal to ride your bike on the sidewalk, except in the downtown area. at the university within a designated area. And then I was riding on grass, and that was all right, and then it got really bumpy, and then there were branches in the way, and the traffic was going by. This is just Acton Park. The other place I've tried to go on my bike is shopping down at Lansdowne. I think for about six or seven hours now, we've been hearing a lot of discussion about connecting the dots, about being able to get from here to there without barriers, safely, with continuity. And I think Dr. Stevens' project here to have these sidewalks has been a wonderful example of a lot of community collaboration and planning over a long period of time to make something happen. I hope that you've read Kenzie Gleason's three-page fact sheet about the processes and the criteria and the planning that went into the sidewalk plan. And I urge you also to talk to Max Conyers that I talked with today at MPO here in the government because he can fill you in on what's really happened to help this happen. The lovely thing is the design process hasn't yet been completed. There's $80,000 to plan how these sidewalks can be well done. I think two things are really great about them, and then I have two concerns, and I want to tell you that I've looked into it, and I think people are addressing them well. The great thing about it is it will connect the dots to shopping, to traffic destinations. The whole point of this, it's within a federal grant for congestion reduction, less traffic. I'm hoping it will help school children get where they're going as well. I have two concerns. One is about green stuff and mature trees. And I've been assured that the design process will do its best to make sure that these are protected as far as possible, still giving pedestrians and bikes a path. My other concern is about historic preservation. Ms. Clark, your time has expired. If you could wrap it up pretty quickly. I appreciate it. I have waited a long time. You have indeed, and that's why I'm trying to cut you a little slack here because I think you're entitled. There's a property on the National Register that would be scheduled to have a sidewalk included in its front, and I've passed out photographs, and photographs were shown of that property, the top one on the list. I think you may agree with me if you just kind of give it a look, that there's probably more driveway than there would be sidewalk, and there's probably room for both without undue impact on the historic property. But the point is the design process is ahead, and I hope we'll all be a part of that. I'd like to make it happen for everyone and so that people are not hurt and upset that their little turf was taken for the greater good of all Lexington in the right-of-way. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Does anyone else wish to address the council? Is there a motion? We adjourn. I have a motion, and I think I hear a second from Council Member Vice Mayor Gray. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries.