Urban County Council Work Session

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council convened on May 24, 2016, at 3:00 PM in the Council Chamber of the Urban County Government Center in Lexington, Kentucky, with Mayor Gray presiding. The meeting addressed four agenda items, including public comment on agenda issues, approval of meeting summaries, budget amendments, and new business items. Council members took five votes during the session, with all substantive agenda items receiving approval. The meeting included one public comment period specifically for issues on the agenda, allowing community input on matters under consideration. The session successfully completed its business with the approval of budget amendments and new business items, demonstrating the council's continued work on municipal governance and fiscal management.

Attendance

All council members were present for the May 24, 2016 meeting.

Present: • Mayor Gray • Farmer • Kay • Scutchfield • Lamb • F. Brown • Mossotti • Bledsoe • Akers • Stinnett • Henson • Evans • Gibbs • Moloney • J. Brown • Hensley

Absent: None

Late: None

Votes and Decisions

The Council took action on several items during the May 24, 2016 meeting, with most passing unanimously.

Routine Approvals

The Council unanimously approved three routine items at the beginning of the meeting [timestamp: 00:01-00:03]:

• Approval of the docket for the May 12, 2016 Council meeting, motioned by Farmer and seconded by Kay
• Approval of the May 3, 2016 work session summary, motioned by Scutchfield and seconded by Farmer
• Approval of budget amendments, motioned by Farmer and seconded by Lamb

Tabling Motion Withdrawn

Councilmember Akers made a motion to table item K (0497-16) until the Council Meeting on Thursday, May 12th, which was seconded by Scutchfield 0:04. However, this motion was subsequently withdrawn before a vote was taken.

People's Bank Budget Amendment

The most contentious vote involved adding the People's Bank budget amendment back to the list 0:05. Kay motioned and Gibbs seconded this item, which required a roll call vote.

The motion passed 13-2 with the following breakdown:

Voting Yes (13): Kay, Akers, Farmer, Stinnett, Scutchfield, Henson, Evans, Lamb, Gibbs, Bledsoe, Moloney, J. Brown, and Hensley

Voting No (2): Mossotti and F. Brown

This was the only item that generated opposition during the meeting, with the majority of Council members supporting the reinstatement of the People's Bank budget amendment to the agenda.

Budget and Financial Actions

The meeting addressed five financial authorizations totaling $195,236.60 in new contractual commitments.

Technology and Infrastructure Contracts

Resolution 0496-16 authorized the execution of an agreement with VeBridge for OnBase and GIS integration services at a cost of $35,975.00. Additionally, Resolution 0513-16 approved Contract Modification #3 with CDP Engineers, Inc. for $21,658.00.

Human Resources Services

The largest financial commitment came through Resolution 0512-16, which authorized initiating a Statement of Work with CPS HR Consulting for promotional processes. This contract carries a value of $136,500.00.

Community Programs

Resolution 0514-16 approved an agreement with UEDUCATEU for the Adopt-A-Spot Roadway Cleanup Program, representing the smallest monetary commitment at $1,103.60.

Partnership Agreement

Resolution 0516-16 authorized executing a Memorandum of Agreement with Lexington Center Corporation. This agreement was noted as having no budgetary impact on the city's finances.

The combined value of contracts with specific dollar amounts totaled $195,236.60, with the CPS HR Consulting agreement representing approximately 70% of the total financial commitments approved during this session.

Public Comment

During the public comment period, one community member addressed the council regarding a proposed sports complex project.

Joshua Hicks spoke about the Sports Complex Proposal 0:06, expressing concerns about the economic impact and feasibility of the proposed development. Hicks urged the council to carefully consider who would ultimately benefit from the project, raising questions about the project's overall viability and its potential effects on the community.

Contested Items

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

People's Bank BA

The primary point of contention involved a motion to add the People's Bank BA back to a list, though the specific context and nature of this banking agreement was not detailed in the available materials. The disagreement among council members was evident in the voting pattern, with the motion ultimately passing by a vote of 13-2.

This split vote indicates that while a strong majority of council members supported reinstating the People's Bank BA to whatever list or agenda it had previously been removed from, two members maintained opposition to the measure. The 13-2 margin suggests the opposition was limited but notable enough to prevent unanimous approval.

The nature of the disagreement and the specific concerns raised by the two dissenting members were not captured in the available meeting materials. Similarly, the arguments presented by the majority in favor of adding the People's Bank BA back to the list were not documented in the extracted data.

The outcome resulted in the People's Bank BA being restored to its previous status on the relevant list, with the majority prevailing despite the minority opposition.

Public Comment - Issues on Agenda

0:00

The council opened the floor for public comments specifically related to items listed on the meeting agenda. This portion of the meeting provides an opportunity for community members to address the council about matters that will be discussed during the session.

No members of the public came forward to speak during this comment period. The council received no comments, questions, or concerns from residents regarding any of the agenda items scheduled for discussion.

This agenda item concluded with no public input provided.

Approval of Summary

0:02 The council considered approval of the summary from their May 3, 2016 work session. Council members Scutchfield and Farmer participated in the discussion of this agenda item.

The council voted to approve the summary of the May 3, 2016 work session without any recorded debate or concerns raised during the meeting.

Outcome: Approved

Budget Amendments

0:03 The council considered various budget amendments during this agenda item. The discussion was led by key speakers Farmer and Lamb, who presented the proposed amendments to the council for consideration.

The budget amendments were presented to the council as a package for approval. While the specific details of the individual amendments were not elaborated upon in the available materials, the council proceeded to review and discuss the proposed changes to the municipal budget.

Following the presentation and discussion of the budget amendments, the council voted on the matter. The budget amendments as presented were approved by the council, allowing the proposed changes to move forward and be implemented in the municipal budget.

The approval of these budget amendments represents the council's formal authorization to adjust spending allocations and financial planning as outlined in the amendments package.

New Business

0:04

The council addressed new business items during this portion of the meeting. The primary discussion centered on a map clarification issue involving an alley located near Rose Lane.

Key speakers during this discussion included Farmer and Fred Brown, who participated in addressing the mapping matter. The specific details of the map clarification were not elaborated upon in the available materials, but the item required council consideration and action.

Following the discussion of the alley mapping issue and any other new business items that may have been raised, the council approved the matters presented under this agenda item.

The new business discussion was brief, taking place early in the meeting at approximately the four-minute mark. No additional concerns or extended debate were noted regarding the items presented under new business.