Council Work Session

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Council convened on August 17, 2010, with the Mayor presiding over the session. The meeting addressed two agenda items: an informational presentation on Ad Valorem Tax and a vote on an engineering services agreement related to the Distillery District. Over the course of the meeting, the Council took 2 votes, received 1 formal presentation, and heard 1 public comment. The Distillery District Engineering Services Agreement was approved, while the Ad Valorem Tax item served as an informational briefing with no action required.

Attendance

All members were present at the August 17, 2010 Council meeting. No members were recorded as absent or late.

Present: - Council Member Myers - Council Member Stennett - Council Member Ellinger - Council Member Gordon - Council Member Beard - Council Member Crosby - Council Member Lawless - Council Member James - Council Member McCord - Council Member Blues - Council Member Lane - Council Member Martin - Council Member Henson - Vice Mayor Gray

Votes and Decisions

Two votes were taken during the August 17, 2010 Council meeting.

• Authorization for Legal Representation: Council Member Gorton moved, seconded by Council Member Blues, to authorize Judge Roger Crittenden to represent George Myers in a lawsuit. The motion passed by voice vote. 1:21:40

• Distillery District Public Improvements Resolution: Council Member Blues moved, seconded by Council Member Gordon, to place on the docket a resolution accepting the response of Strand Associates Inc. for the distillery district public improvements. The motion passed on a roll call vote of 8–5. 2:32:22

• Voting in favor (8): Council Members Blues, Gordon, Beard, Crosby, Lawless, James, McCord, and Henson.
• Voting against (5): Council Members Myers, Stennett, Ellinger, and Lane, and Vice Mayor Gray.

Budget and Financial Actions

The Council considered one financial action at the August 17, 2010 meeting involving a contract for engineering services.

• Engineering Services Contract – Distillery District Public Improvements: The Council took up an agreement with Strand Associates Inc valued at $508,000 for engineering services related to public improvements in the distillery district. No resolution number was included in the available meeting record for this item.

Public Comment

One member of the public addressed the Council during the public comment period at the August 17, 2010 meeting.

• Mr. Leach spoke regarding the Lexington Distillery District Project 2:09. He raised concerns about the Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) process that had been used for the project, characterizing it as deficient. Mr. Leach called on the Council to pursue a rebid of the project, suggesting that the existing process did not meet the necessary standards.

Appointments

The Council took action on two appointments during the August 17, 2010 meeting.

• A member was appointed to the Board of Adjustment.
• A member was appointed to the Planning Commission.

No additional details regarding the individuals appointed to these bodies are available in the meeting record.

Contested Items

Two items generated notable disagreement during the August 17, 2010 Council meeting.

Distillery District Engineering Services Agreement

The council was divided over a proposal to approve a feasibility study contract with Strand Associates related to the Distillery District. Members raised concerns about the procurement process used to select the firm as well as questions about whether the study itself was necessary. The item was decided by a split vote, indicating that a portion of the council was not persuaded that the contract met the appropriate standards for approval or represented a justified expenditure.

Lawsuit Against Council Member Myers

A procedural dispute arose concerning a lawsuit filed against Council Member Myers in his capacity as chair of the Special Investigative Committee. Because the suit targeted Myers in an official rather than personal capacity, the matter raised questions about the council's authority to respond and whether the body had an obligation to provide or arrange legal representation on his behalf. The situation prompted discussion about the appropriate procedural steps the council could or should take, given the legal and institutional questions involved.

Ad Valorem Tax Presentation

1:27:36

Ryan Barrow delivered a presentation to the Council on Ad Valorem tax rates. The presentation covered options available to the Council regarding tax rate adjustments for two funds: the General Services Fund and the Urban Services Fund.

Barrow outlined three primary approaches the Council could consider:

• Maintaining the current rate — keeping the existing Ad Valorem tax rate in place
• Compensating rate — adjusting the rate to compensate for changes in property values or revenue needs
• Maximizing the rate — setting the rate at the highest allowable level

The presentation was informational in nature, providing the Council with the framework and options necessary to evaluate the appropriate tax rate going forward for both the General Services and Urban Services Funds. No formal action or vote was taken as a result of this item.

Distillery District Engineering Services Agreement

2:16:39

The Council took up the Distillery District Engineering Services Agreement, which centered on the procurement process and scope of work for the Distillery District project.

Brian Markham and Council Member Blues were the key participants in the discussion. The item involved consideration of engaging Strand Associates to conduct work related to the project, with the discussion addressing how the procurement process had been structured and what the scope of the proposed work would entail.

Following the presentation and debate, the Council approved a motion to move forward with a feasibility study with Strand Associates.