Council Work Session

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Council met on September 15, 2009, with Mayor Newberry presiding. The meeting addressed five agenda items spanning a range of topics, including public comment on the South Limestone Project, budget amendments, new business, a parking issue in Chevy Chase, and a discussion of TIFF administrative fees. Over the course of the meeting, the Council took 13 votes and heard 7 public comments. Budget amendments and a broad set of new business items (A through T) were approved, while the Chevy Chase parking issue was referred for further consideration and the TIFF administrative fees discussion was deferred. The South Limestone Project agenda item was informational in nature, providing an opportunity for public input without a formal action outcome.

Attendance

The following members were present at the Council meeting on September 15, 2009:

• Mayor Newberry
• CM Lawless
• CM Beard
• CM Blues
• CM Crosbie
• CM Lane
• CM Gorton
• CM James
• CM Feigel
• CM Ellinger
• CM Stinnett
• CM McChord
• CM Webb
• CM Crowe
• CM Rayan
• CM P. King
• CM Allen
• CM Bastin
• CM Taylor
• CM Sheehy
• CM Hendrix
• CM Helm

Absent: CM Myers and CM Martin were not in attendance.

No members were recorded as arriving late to the meeting.

Votes and Decisions

The following motions were considered at the September 15, 2009 Council meeting:

• Extend speaking time for Joe Graviss (motioned by CM Lawless, seconded by CM Beard): Passed unanimously. 2:11

• Place resolution authorizing Location Parking Agreement with Fast Track Productions on docket (motioned by CM Blues, seconded by CM Crosbie): Passed unanimously. 19:22

• Place resolution ratifying the Department of Law's execution of a Settlement Agreement in PSC Case No. 2009-00141 on docket (motioned by CM Lane, seconded by CM Crosbie): Failed on a roll call vote of 6 ayes to 7 nays. 40:36

• Approve budget amendments (motioned by CM Ellinger, seconded by CM Gorton): Passed unanimously. 41:38

• Approve new business items A through T (motioned by CM Stinnett, seconded by CM Gorton): Passed unanimously. 42:09

• Go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.810(1)(c) (motioned by CM Stinnett, seconded by CM McChord): Passed unanimously. 1:13:00

• Return to open session (motioned by CM Blues, seconded by CM Ellinger): Passed unanimously. 1:14:03

• Direct the law department to draft an amendment to the ordinance disallowing slaughter of livestock without a permit (motioned by CM Ellinger, seconded by CM Feigel): Passed unanimously. 1:15:08

• Direct the law department to draft an amendment to Article 17-6: Permitted Signs In All Zones (motioned by CM Ellinger, seconded by CM McChord): Passed unanimously. 1:18:18

• Approve neighborhood development fund list (motioned by CM James, seconded by CM Ellinger): Passed unanimously. 2:14:53

• Schedule a confirmation hearing for Finance Commissioner nominee Linda Rumpke (motioned by CM Blues): Passed unanimously. 2:19:46

• Refer Chevy Chase parking issue to the Services Committee (motioned by CM Feigel, seconded by VM Gray): Passed unanimously. 2:29:53

• Discuss administrative fees for TIFFs at Committee of the Whole (motioned by CM James, seconded by CM Feigel): Passed on a roll call vote of 7 ayes to 1 nay. 3:01:45

Budget and Financial Actions

The Council addressed two financial matters during the September 15, 2009 meeting.

• Location Parking Agreement: The Council considered a Location Parking Agreement with Fast Track Productions, Inc. valued at $1,500. This contract pertained to parking location arrangements with the production company.

• Budget Amendments: The Council also took up budget amendments during the meeting. No specific dollar amounts, department allocations, or other details are available in the record for these amendments.

No resolution numbers or additional identifiers were included in the available meeting data for either item.

Public Comment

Seven residents and business representatives addressed the Council during public comment. Six speakers focused on the South Limestone Project, while one raised a separate concern about parking in Chevy Chase.

South Limestone Project 2:11

The majority of public comment centered on the hardships caused by the ongoing South Limestone Project. Speakers raised concerns about accessibility, financial losses, and the pace of construction.

• Beth Hannah 2:11 opened the discussion by citing accessibility issues created by the project and urged the Council to expedite the construction process.
• Lisa Henley Betts 5:59 reported a 15% drop in sales at her business as a direct result of the project, and requested that the city provide assistance with advertising and signage to help affected businesses remain visible to customers.
• Kathy Stein 7:42 echoed concerns about traffic disruptions and noted that businesses were not given adequate preparation time before construction began, calling for faster completion.
• Joe Graviss 9:19, owner of a McDonald's on South Limestone, described the financial strain the project has placed on his business and specifically requested that the city shift to 24-hour construction in order to shorten the overall timeline.
• Reese Reinhold 15:01 offered a more measured perspective, acknowledging the project's impact on the area while praising the cooperation and organization demonstrated by the construction team.
• Glory Vaught 18:22 also spoke to the financial difficulties facing business owners along the corridor, emphasizing the ongoing economic struggles caused by the disruption.

Chevy Chase Parking 2:24:14

• Bill Farmer 2:24:14 addressed a separate issue, requesting Council assistance in response to the removal of traditional parking meters in the Chevy Chase area. Farmer argued that the change has had a negative impact on local businesses and asked the Council to take action to address the situation.

Appointments

At the September 15, 2009 Council meeting, the following appointment was made:

• Linda Rumpke was appointed as Finance Commissioner.

Contested Items

Two items generated notable disagreement or opposition during the September 15, 2009 Council meeting.

TIFF Administrative Fees

The council was divided over whether developers should be required to pay administrative fees when submitting Tax Increment Financing (TIFF) applications. The split vote among council members prevented a resolution from being reached during the meeting. Rather than forcing a decision, the council agreed to defer the matter for further deliberation at an upcoming Committee of the Whole meeting, where the issue could be examined in greater depth before a final determination is made.

South Limestone Project

Business owners voiced significant concerns regarding the South Limestone Project and its effects on their day-to-day operations. Those affected urged the council to expedite the construction timeline and called for improved communication between the project's organizers and the businesses impacted by the work. The opposition centered on the disruption the project was causing, with business owners seeking assurances that the process would move more quickly and that they would be better informed going forward.

Public Comment on South Limestone Project

2:11

During this discussion item, several citizens addressed the Council regarding the South Limestone Project, with speakers including Beth Hannah, Lisa Henley Betts, Kathy Stein, Joe Graviss, Reese Reinhold, and Glory Vaught.

The comments centered on the project's impact on local businesses in the area. Key concerns raised by speakers included:

• The pace of construction and its ongoing disruption to business operations
• Requests that the project be completed as quickly as possible to minimize harm to affected businesses
• A call for improved communication between project officials and the business community regarding timelines, progress, and any changes to the construction schedule

The item was informational in nature, and no formal action was taken by the Council as a result of the public comments.

Budget Amendments

41:38

The Council took up a resolution addressing various budget amendments during this portion of the meeting. CM Ellinger and CM Gorton were the key speakers on this item.

The resolution covered multiple budget amendments, though the specific line items and dollar figures debated were not detailed in the available record. The Council discussed the proposed changes before moving toward a vote.

The resolution was approved by the Council.

New Business Items A-T

42:09

The Council took up a series of new business items, designated Items A through T, covering various authorizations and agreements. The items were presented as a consolidated block for Council consideration.

CM Stinnett and CM Gorton were the key speakers during this portion of the meeting. The Council moved through the items, which included multiple authorizations and agreements, though the specific details of each individual item are not reflected in the available record.

The full slate of Items A through T was approved by the Council.

Chevy Chase Parking Issue

2:24:14

The Council took up a discussion regarding the parking situation in the Chevy Chase area, focusing on the impact of removing traditional parking meters from the neighborhood.

Key participants in the discussion included CM Feigel and Bill Farmer, who addressed the implications of the meter removal and its effects on the area.

The outcome of the discussion was a referral of the issue to the Services Committee for further study, indicating that the Council determined additional review and analysis were needed before any final decisions could be made.

TIFF Administrative Fees Discussion

3:01:45

The Council took up a discussion regarding administrative fees associated with TIFF (Tax Increment Financing) applications, debating whether developers seeking TIFF designation should be required to pay such fees.

Key participants in the debate included CM James, CM Lawless, and CM Blues, who engaged in discussion over the merits and structure of charging developers for the administrative costs associated with processing TIFF applications. The conversation centered on the question of whether the burden of those administrative costs should fall on the applicant developers or be absorbed elsewhere.

No final policy decision was reached during the meeting. The Council determined that the matter warranted further deliberation and agreed to defer the issue for continued discussion at a future Committee of the Whole meeting, where the topic could be examined in greater depth outside of the full Council session.