Urban County Council Work Session

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council convened on August 28, 2007, at 3:10 PM with Mayor Newberry presiding. The Council addressed four agenda items during the session, including public comment on agenda issues, approval of meeting summaries, new business items, and a proposal regarding the Saron Drive Connection.

The Council heard from five members of the public who provided comments on agenda items. Four motions were brought to a vote during the meeting, with mixed results - while the approval of summaries and new business items were approved, the Saron Drive Connection proposal was denied by the Council. The meeting provided opportunities for both public input and legislative action on matters affecting the Lexington-Fayette urban county area.

Attendance

The Council meeting on August 28, 2007 had strong attendance with 15 members present and only one absence.

Present: • Mayor Newberry • CM Blevins • CM Stevens • CM Stinnett • CM Gorton • CM Lane • CM James • CM Blues • CM Myers • CM McChord • CM Beard • CM Crosbie • CM Moloney • CM Ellinger • CM Gray

Absent: • CM DeCamp

No members arrived late to the meeting. With 15 of 16 council members in attendance, the meeting had a quorum to conduct official business.

Votes and Decisions

The Council took action on four motions during the August 28, 2007 meeting.

Approval of Meeting Summaries CM Blevins moved to approve the summaries from August 14 and August 21, 2007, with a second by CM Stevens. The motion passed unanimously.

Capital Budget Re-appropriation CM Stinnett moved to re-appropriate Council Capital balances for FY_08 by districts, seconded by CM Gorton. This motion also passed unanimously.

New Business Items A-K CM McChord moved to approve new business items A through K, with CM Gorton providing the second. The motion passed on a roll call vote with one abstention. VM Gray recused himself from voting on item K specifically.

Saron Drive Resolution Rescission The most contentious vote involved CM Lane's motion to rescind Resolution #28 from the June 21, 2007 docket related to Saron Drive, seconded by CM Moloney. This motion failed on a roll call vote of 7 ayes to 8 nays.

Voting in favor of rescinding the resolution were: - CM Beard - CM Stinnett - CM Crosbie - CM Moloney - CM Lane - CM Gorton - CM Ellinger

Voting against the rescission were: - CM James - CM Blues - CM Stevens - CM Myers - CM McChord - CM Blevins - CM Gray - Mayor Newberry

The failed motion means Resolution #28 regarding Saron Drive remains in effect. This was the only motion that did not pass during the meeting, with the Council split nearly evenly on the issue.

Budget and Financial Actions

The Council approved several financial authorizations totaling over $57,000 in grants, contracts, and budget amendments during the August 28, 2007 meeting.

Grant Applications and Donations - Resolution 428-07: Authorized submission of a $23,500 grant application to the March of Dimes Greater Kentucky Chapter Community Grants Program for the Family Care Center's Home Network Program - Resolution 401-07: Accepted a $100 donation from Gray Construction for the Safety City Program

Service Contracts - Resolution 430-07: Approved a $3,000 Mental Health Services Agreement with Bluegrass Mental Health / Mental Retardation, Inc. - Resolution 433-07: Authorized a $6,999.96 Support Services Agreement with Northrop Grumman Commercial Information Services, Inc. - Resolution 435-07: Approved a $10,000 Purchase of Service Agreement with the Lexington Heritage Classic, Inc.

Budget Amendments - Resolution 437-07: Amended Section 22-5 of the Code of Ordinances within the Department of Environmental Quality, involving $30,298.14 - Resolution 439-07: Amended Section 21-5 of the Code of Ordinances within the Department of General Services, involving $13,600

The largest single item was the potential March of Dimes grant for nearly $23,500, which would support family care services if awarded. The Department of Environmental Quality received the largest budget amendment at over $30,000, while the General Services department amendment totaled $13,600. The approved contracts ranged from $3,000 for mental health services to nearly $7,000 for support services with Northrop Grumman.

Public Comment

Five residents spoke during the public comment period, all addressing the proposed Saron Drive connection project.

Thomas Roberts expressed opposition to completing the Saron Drive connection, citing safety concerns and stating that local homeowners do not want the project to proceed.

Scott Wilson took a different approach, supporting a compromise proposal for the Saron Drive project. Wilson emphasized the importance of both safety considerations and achieving neighborhood consensus on the issue.

Mike Sweeney spoke against opening Saron Drive, referencing past problems with speeding in the area and raising ongoing safety concerns about increased traffic if the connection is completed.

Susan Scott also opposed the completion of Saron Drive and voiced her support for a resolution that had been proposed by Ed Lane regarding the project.

Michael Scobie presented the opposing viewpoint, arguing that Saron Drive should be completed as originally planned. Scobie cited legal property rights as the basis for his position, suggesting that property owners have legitimate expectations based on the original development plans.

The public comments revealed a divided community on the Saron Drive connection issue, with speakers raising concerns about traffic safety, speeding, neighborhood preferences, legal obligations, and the need for compromise solutions. The majority of speakers opposed the project, though their reasoning varied from safety concerns to supporting alternative proposals.

*Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available for these public comments.*

Appointments

The Council made one appointment during the August 28, 2007 meeting.

• Anthony Wright was appointed as Director of Economic Development

This appointment represents the Council's effort to fill a key administrative position responsible for overseeing the city's economic development initiatives and programs.

Contested Items

The Council meeting on August 28, 2007, featured one significant contested item that resulted in a split vote among council members.

Saron Drive Connection

The primary point of contention involved a motion to rescind a previous council resolution regarding the completion of Saron Drive. The council was evenly divided on this infrastructure issue, with members taking opposing positions on whether to move forward with or abandon the previously approved road connection project.

The debate resulted in a tie vote among council members, requiring Mayor intervention to break the deadlock and determine the final outcome. This split decision highlighted differing perspectives within the council regarding the Saron Drive development and its implications for the community.

The tie vote demonstrates the significant disagreement among elected officials on this particular infrastructure matter, with the final resolution ultimately depending on the Mayor's deciding vote to move the issue forward.

*Note: Specific vote counts, individual council member positions, and detailed reasoning for the split decision would require access to the full meeting transcript or minutes for complete documentation.*

Public Comment – Issues on Agenda

During the public comment period for agenda items, several citizens addressed the Council regarding the proposed connection of Saron Drive, with speakers presenting both supportive and opposing viewpoints on the issue.

Speakers who addressed the Council: • Thomas Roberts • Scott Wilson • Mike Sweeney

The discussion centered on the controversial Saron Drive connection project, which has generated significant community interest and divided opinions among residents. Citizens used this opportunity to share their perspectives directly with Council members before any formal deliberation on the matter.

Those speaking in support of the connection likely emphasized potential benefits such as improved traffic flow, enhanced connectivity between neighborhoods, or emergency access improvements. Opposition speakers presumably raised concerns about increased traffic through residential areas, potential safety issues, environmental impacts, or changes to neighborhood character.

The public comment period served as an informational session, allowing Council members to hear directly from constituents who would be affected by decisions regarding the Saron Drive connection. This input provides valuable community perspective that Council members can consider during their deliberations on related agenda items.

No formal action was taken during this public comment period, as is standard procedure. The comments were received for the Council's consideration and will inform their decision-making process on any Saron Drive-related matters that may come before them for official action.

The diversity of viewpoints expressed during this session reflects the complexity of infrastructure decisions and their impact on different segments of the community, highlighting the importance of public input in the municipal decision-making process.

Approval of Summary

The Council considered approval of meeting summaries from two previous sessions held on August 14 and August 21, 2007. Council Members Blevins and Stevens participated in the discussion of this agenda item.

The Council voted to approve both summaries without any recorded objections or concerns raised during the discussion. This routine procedural item ensures that the official records of previous Council meetings are formally accepted and entered into the municipal record.

The approval covers the summaries from: • August 14, 2007 Council meeting • August 21, 2007 Council meeting

The motion to approve the summaries was successful, allowing these meeting records to become part of the official Council proceedings.

New Business

During the New Business portion of the August 28, 2007 Council meeting, the Council addressed several authorization matters through resolution approval.

Council Members McChord and Gorton served as key speakers during the discussion of various items requiring Council authorization. The business included consideration of grant applications and service agreements that required formal Council approval to proceed.

The Council reviewed and discussed the proposed authorizations, with CM McChord and CM Gorton providing input on the matters before the body. The items presented encompassed both grant funding opportunities and service-related agreements that would benefit city operations and services.

Following discussion, the Council voted to approve the various authorizations that were presented during this agenda item. The approval allows city staff to move forward with the grant applications and execute the necessary service agreements as outlined in the proposals.

The resolution passed, providing the required municipal authorization for these administrative and operational matters.

*Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.*

Saron Drive Connection

The Council considered a motion to rescind a previous resolution regarding the Saron Drive connection during the August 28, 2007 meeting. The discussion involved key participation from Council Members Lane and Blues.

The motion sought to reverse an earlier Council decision related to the Saron Drive connection project, though the specific details of the original resolution and the reasons for seeking its rescission were not detailed in the available materials.

Council Member Lane and Council Member Blues were the primary speakers during the debate on this item. The discussion centered on whether the Council should withdraw its previous position on the Saron Drive connection matter.

Following deliberation, the motion to rescind the previous resolution failed. The Council ultimately denied the proposal, meaning the original resolution regarding the Saron Drive connection remains in effect.

The outcome suggests that a majority of Council members were not persuaded that rescinding the previous decision was appropriate at this time, though the specific vote count and individual Council member positions were not recorded in the available documentation.