Council Work Session

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government held a meeting on July 7, 2015, at 3:00 PM in the Council Chamber at 200 E. Main St, Lexington, KY 40507, with Mayor Gray presiding. The meeting addressed 10 agenda items covering various municipal business including zoning matters, budget amendments, and administrative approvals. Council members took 15 votes during the session, approving most substantive items including requested rezonings, budget amendments, new business items, and continuing business presentations. No public comments were recorded during either of the designated public comment periods for issues on the agenda or issues not on the agenda. The meeting concluded with adjournment following the Mayor's Report and Council Reports.

Attendance

The following members were present at the July 7, 2015 meeting:

• Kay
• Farmer
• Scutchfield
• Stinnett
• Mossotti
• Gibbs
• J. Brown
• Akers
• Henson
• Lane
• F. Brown
• Lamb
• Bledsoe
• Moloney

Absent: • Scutchfield • Evans

No members arrived late to the meeting.

*Note: The attendance records show Scutchfield listed as both present and absent, which may indicate a data recording inconsistency.*

Votes and Decisions

The meeting included 15 motions, with 14 passing and one failing. Most votes were unanimous, with one contested roll call vote.

Procedural and Administrative Motions Several procedural motions passed unanimously: • Motion by Kay, seconded by Farmer, to remove the Planning & Public Safety Report Out from the June 23, 2015 work session agenda • Motion by Scutchfield, seconded by Farmer, to extend speaker time • Motion by Farmer, seconded by Akers, to approve the June 16, 2015 summary • Motion by Stinnett, seconded by F. Brown, to adjourn the meeting

Docket and Meeting Items The council approved several items for the July 2, 2015 Council meeting docket: • Motion by Stinnett, seconded by Farmer, to approve the docket (passed unanimously) • Motion by J. Brown, seconded by Henson, to place ordinance #3 on docket without a public hearing (passed unanimously)

Failed Motion The only failed motion was by Kay, seconded by Mossotti, to remove the Design Excellence ZOTA from the Planning and Public Safety committee and place it on the July 2, 2015 Council meeting docket. This roll call vote failed 4-9, with Kay, Mossotti, Gibbs, and J. Brown voting in favor, while Akers, Farmer, Stinnett, Henson, Lane, F. Brown, Lamb, Bledsoe, and Moloney voted against.

Financial Matters Three unanimous motions by Stinnett addressed declarations of official intent for capital expenditure reimbursements regarding various capital improvement projects, the Town Branch Waterway, and historic Lexington Courthouse restoration. Additional financial motions included approving budget amendments (Farmer/Scutchfield) and adding $600,000 for the Police Body Camera project (Lamb/Mossotti).

Other Business The council unanimously approved new business (Stinnett/Scutchfield), adopted a needle exchange resolution (Farmer/Henson), and approved the Mayor's report (Stinnett/Scutchfield).

Budget and Financial Actions

The meeting addressed numerous financial items totaling over $4.4 million in expenditures and agreements.

Major Contracts and Services: - Engineering Services Agreement with Palmer Engineering for Town Branch Trail Phases IV and V totaling $666,502 (L0861-15) - Professional Services Agreement with Bluegrass Greensource for environmental education services worth $580,000 (L0916-15) - Engineering Services Agreement with Strand Associates for Town Branch Trail Phase VI at $286,600 (L0862-15) - Purchase of Service Agreement with the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission for $251,830 (L0823-15) - Two-year natural gas contract with Twin Eagle for $245,470 (L0849-15)

Economic Development and Partnerships: - Purchase of Service Agreements with eight partner agencies for economic development activities totaling $1,771,600 (L0921-15) - Memorandum of Agreement with Bluegrass Community and Technical College for a new classroom building involving $1,000,000 (L0919-15) - Incentive agreement with Belcan Engineering Group for $100,000 (L0905-15)

Infrastructure and Public Works: - Change order with Lagco, Inc. for the Meadows/Northland/Arlington Public Improvements Project adding $88,620.04 (L0870-15) - Engineering Services Agreement with EA Partners for Town Branch Trail Mid-Block Crossing at $81,500 (L0853-15) - Purchase approval for JR Hoe and Sons for cast iron manhole sets worth $63,000 (L0832-15)

Technology and Equipment: - Purchase of Onbase software module Enterprise Application Enabler for $50,000 (L0894-15) - Renewal of agreement with Omnisource Integrated Supply, LLC for WebEOC coordinator services at $138,800 (L0866-15)

Property and Lease Amendments: Multiple lease agreement amendments were approved for various park properties, including agreements with Edmon Chaney ($1,887.30), Gary Newman ($2,012.34), and several other lessees for amounts ranging from $550.44 to $2,105.58.

Several items had no budgetary impact, including memorandums of understanding with IRS-CI and Kentucky Housing Corporation, and various ordinance modifications.

Contested Items

The meeting featured one contested item that resulted in a split vote among council members.

Design Excellence ZOTA Committee Assignment

A significant procedural disagreement arose regarding the handling of the Design Excellence ZOTA (Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment). A motion was made to remove this item from the Planning and Public Safety committee's jurisdiction and instead place it directly on the docket for the July 2, 2015 Council meeting.

The motion failed by a decisive margin, with only 4 council members voting in favor while 9 members voted against the proposal. This 4-9 vote indicates substantial opposition to bypassing the committee review process for this particular zoning amendment.

The disagreement centered on the appropriate procedural path for the Design Excellence ZOTA, with the minority faction apparently seeking to expedite the item's consideration by bringing it directly to the full council rather than allowing it to proceed through the standard committee review process. The majority of council members preferred to maintain the established committee structure for reviewing this zoning matter.

The failed motion means the Design Excellence ZOTA will remain under the purview of the Planning and Public Safety committee for further review before potentially advancing to the full council for consideration.

Public Comment - Issues on Agenda

During the July 7, 2015 meeting, a public comment period was held to allow community members to address issues listed on the meeting agenda. This agenda item provided an opportunity for public participation in the governmental process by inviting input on matters scheduled for discussion or action during the meeting.

No specific speakers, comments, or topics were documented for this public comment period in the available meeting records. The item was designated as informational, indicating that it served as a forum for public input rather than requiring any formal action by the governing body.

This type of public comment period is a standard component of government meetings, designed to ensure transparency and community engagement in local decision-making processes. Citizens typically use these opportunities to express support or concerns about agenda items, provide additional information to officials, or request clarification on proposed actions.

The outcome was recorded as informational, meaning the comments received were for the record and consideration by officials, but did not result in any immediate decisions or changes to the agenda items under discussion.

Requested Rezonings/ Docket Approval

The council addressed the approval of the docket for an upcoming council meeting, which included consideration of various rezoning requests. Council members Stinnett and Farmer were the primary speakers during this discussion.

The agenda item involved reviewing and approving the formal docket that would guide proceedings for a future council meeting. As part of this process, the council examined multiple rezoning applications that had been submitted for consideration.

While the specific details of individual rezoning requests and the nature of the discussion between Stinnett and Farmer were not detailed in the available materials, the council ultimately moved forward with approving the docket as presented.

The outcome of this agenda item was approval, allowing the proposed docket to proceed for the upcoming council meeting and enabling the various rezoning matters to be formally considered during that session.

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

Approval of Summary

The council considered approval of the summary from the previous meeting. Council members Farmer and Akers participated in the discussion of this agenda item.

The council voted to approve the summary of the prior meeting without recorded objections or amendments. This routine procedural item allows the official record of the previous meeting's proceedings to be formally accepted into the municipal records.

Outcome: Approved

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

Budget Amendments

The council considered and approved several budget amendments during the meeting. The discussion involved multiple council members examining various budget adjustments.

Key participants in the budget amendment discussions included Council members Farmer, Scutchfield, Lamb, and Mossotti. The amendments covered multiple areas of the city budget, with particular attention given to a Police Body Camera project amendment.

The Police Body Camera project represented a significant budget consideration, reflecting the council's commitment to enhancing police accountability and transparency measures. This amendment was part of the broader budget adjustments being made to accommodate various city needs and priorities.

Council members engaged in discussion regarding the various amendments, though specific details of individual concerns or debate points were not detailed in the available materials. The deliberative process involved the aforementioned council members reviewing the proposed budget changes and their implications for city operations.

Following the discussion and review process, the council voted to approve the budget amendments. This approval encompassed the Police Body Camera project amendment along with other budget adjustments that were presented for consideration.

The successful passage of these budget amendments demonstrates the council's collaborative approach to fiscal management and their willingness to allocate resources for important city initiatives, including public safety enhancements through technology improvements like body cameras for police officers.

New Business

The council addressed new business items during this portion of the meeting. Council members Stinnett and Scutchfield were the key speakers who participated in the discussion of these matters.

The council ultimately approved the new business items that were presented, though the specific details of what was discussed or the nature of the items considered are not available in the meeting records.

Outcome: Approved

*Note: Specific transcript timestamps and detailed discussion points were not available in the source materials for this agenda item.*

Continuing Business/ Presentations

The council addressed a resolution regarding the establishment of a needle exchange program during this portion of the meeting. Council members Farmer and Henson served as the key speakers for this agenda item.

The discussion centered on the proposed needle exchange program, which would provide clean needles to individuals struggling with substance abuse as a harm reduction measure. While specific details of the debate and concerns raised are not available in the meeting record, the item was presented as a resolution requiring council action.

Following discussion by the council members, the resolution for the needle exchange program was approved by the council.

*Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item. Readers seeking additional details about the discussion should refer to the complete meeting video or official meeting minutes.*

Council Reports

Council members provided reports on various topics during this agenda item. This was an informational presentation with no specific action required.

Due to limited available information in the meeting records, specific details about the individual council member reports, topics discussed, or key speakers cannot be provided. The agenda item was categorized as a standard informational presentation where council members typically share updates on their committee work, community events, or other matters of municipal interest.

No specific concerns were raised or outcomes recorded for this agenda item, as it served an informational purpose for the council and public.

*Note: Detailed transcript information and specific timestamps were not available for this agenda item.*

Mayor's Report

The Mayor presented his report to the council during the July 7, 2015 meeting. The presentation involved key speakers Mayor Stinnett and Scutchfield, though specific details of the report's contents were not provided in the available meeting documentation.

The Mayor's Report was categorized as a presentation item on the agenda and was ultimately approved by the council. However, the transcript timing and specific discussion points from this agenda item were not captured in the extracted meeting data.

This represents a standard mayoral report presentation that is typically included in municipal council meetings to provide updates on city operations, initiatives, and other matters of municipal interest to the governing body.

Public Comment - Issues Not on Agenda

The meeting included a public comment period for issues not listed on the agenda. This agenda item provided an opportunity for community members to address the governing body on matters of public concern outside of the scheduled discussion topics.

No specific speakers, topics, or comments were documented in the available meeting materials for this public comment period. The item was designated as informational in nature, meaning no formal action was taken by the governing body in response to any comments that may have been received.

This type of public comment period is a standard component of government meetings, allowing for community input and ensuring public participation in the governmental process. The absence of documented comments may indicate that no members of the public chose to speak during this portion of the meeting, or that any comments made were not recorded in the available summary materials.

The outcome was informational only, with no decisions or formal responses required from the governing body regarding this agenda item.

Adjournment

The meeting was brought to a close with a motion to adjourn. The key speakers involved in the adjournment process were Stinnett and F. Brown.

The adjournment motion was approved, formally ending the meeting proceedings.