Urban County Council Work Session

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Council Work Session convened on November 12, 2019, with the Mayor presiding. The meeting addressed five agenda items covering a range of municipal matters including urban services, budget amendments, and transportation policy.

During the session, the Council took 10 votes on various matters before them. The meeting included an informational public hearing on Urban Services Changes, though no public comments were recorded during the proceedings.

The Council accomplished several key items during the work session. Budget Amendments were approved, along with New Business items and the Sidewalk Assistance Program. However, the proposed Scooter Ordinance Amendment was tabled for future consideration. The Urban Services Changes item served as an informational presentation without requiring Council action.

The work session format allowed the Council to review and act on multiple policy and administrative matters in a single meeting, with the majority of items receiving approval from the governing body.

Attendance

All 15 councilmembers were present for the meeting.

Present: • Councilmember Farmer • Vice Mayor Kaye • Councilmember Gibbs • Councilmember Plowman • Councilmember Worley • Councilmember Massotti • Councilmember Ellinger • Councilmember Lamb • Councilmember Evans • Councilmember McKern • Councilmember James Brown • Councilmember Fred Brown • Councilmember Maloney • Councilmember Bledsoe • Councilmember Reynolds

Absent: None

Late: None

Votes and Decisions

The Council conducted ten votes during the meeting, with most procedural items passing unanimously by voice vote and two substantive items requiring roll call votes.

Procedural Approvals

The Council approved several routine items by voice vote: • Approval of the docket as amended, motioned by Councilmember Farmer and seconded by Vice Mayor Kaye 5:00 • Approval of the October 29th work session summary, motioned by Vice Mayor Kaye and seconded by Councilmember Massotti 6:00 • Budget amendments approval, motioned by Councilmember Farmer and seconded by Councilmember Ellinger 7:00 • Approval of new business as amended, motioned by Councilmember Farmer and seconded by Councilmember Ellinger 8:00

Agenda Modifications

Two agenda changes were approved by voice vote: • Motion to amend the synopsis of item A under new business, motioned by Councilmember Worley 9:00 • Motion to remove item B from the agenda, motioned by Councilmember Lamb and seconded by Councilmember Evans 10:00

Policy Items

Two policy items passed by voice vote: • Approval of neighborhood development funds, motioned by Vice Mayor Kaye and seconded by Councilmember Plowman 11:00 • Approval of sidewalk assistance ordinance changes, motioned by Councilmember Massotti and seconded by Councilmember James Brown 12:00

Scooter Ordinance Debate

The most contentious votes involved the scooter ordinance: • An amendment to allow scooters on sidewalks failed 6-9 in a roll call vote 13:00. Voting in favor were Councilmembers McKern, Evans, Worley, Reynolds, Lamb, and Plowman. Voting against were Councilmember Farmer, Vice Mayor Kaye, and Councilmembers Gibbs, Massotti, Ellinger, James Brown, Fred Brown, Maloney, and Bledsoe. • A motion to send the scooter ordinance to committee passed 9-6 14:00, with the same voting alignment reversed.

Contested Items

The Council addressed one contested item during the meeting that resulted in a split vote among members.

Scooter Ordinance Amendment

Councilmember McKern proposed an amendment to the existing scooter ordinance that would allow scooters to operate on sidewalks. This proposal generated disagreement among Council members, resulting in a split vote rather than the consensus typically sought on municipal ordinances.

Due to the lack of clear majority support and the contentious nature of the proposal, the Council decided not to proceed with an immediate vote on the amendment. Instead, they chose to refer the scooter ordinance amendment to committee for additional review and discussion.

This decision allows for more thorough examination of the proposal, including potential public input and expert analysis of safety and accessibility concerns that may arise from permitting scooter use on sidewalks. The committee review process will provide an opportunity for Council members to further deliberate on the merits and potential drawbacks of the proposed change before bringing it back to the full Council for consideration.

The outcome demonstrates the Council's approach to handling divisive issues by utilizing the committee system to build consensus and ensure thorough vetting of controversial proposals before final action.

Urban Services Changes Public Hearing

1:00

The Council held a public hearing regarding proposed changes to urban services. This hearing provided an opportunity for community members to voice their opinions, concerns, or support regarding modifications to municipal services within the urban service area.

Despite the formal opening of the public hearing, no members of the public came forward to address the Council on this matter. The absence of public speakers indicated either general satisfaction with the proposed changes or lack of awareness about the specific modifications being considered.

The hearing followed standard procedural format, with the Council opening the floor for public comment and allowing adequate time for any interested parties to speak. When no one stepped forward to provide testimony, the hearing was concluded without any public input recorded.

This agenda item was informational in nature, serving as a required procedural step in the urban services modification process. The lack of public participation meant there were no concerns raised, questions posed, or alternative viewpoints presented for the Council's consideration regarding the proposed urban services changes.

Budget Amendments

7:00

The Council reviewed and discussed budget amendments covering pages three through six of the meeting agenda. The discussion was led by Councilmember Farmer and Councilmember Ellinger, who presented the proposed amendments to the Council for consideration.

The budget amendments were ultimately approved by the Council following the discussion period.

*Note: Additional details about the specific amendments, dollar amounts, and departmental allocations discussed during this agenda item were not available in the provided materials.*

New Business

8:00

The Council addressed several new business items during this portion of the meeting, with active participation from multiple council members.

Councilmember Farmer, Councilmember Ellinger, and Councilmember Massotti were the primary speakers during the new business discussion. The conversation covered two main topics that required council consideration.

The first item involved a study related to bus rapid transit, though specific details about the scope, timeline, or funding for this transportation study were not detailed in the available materials. This represents a potential expansion of the city's public transportation planning efforts.

The second significant item discussed was agreements concerning sewage treatment capacity. These agreements likely relate to the city's wastewater management infrastructure and capacity planning, which is critical for supporting current and future development needs.

The discussion among the three councilmembers addressed various aspects of these proposals, though the specific concerns raised or debate points were not captured in the available summary materials. The collaborative nature of the discussion suggests the items received thorough consideration from multiple perspectives on the council.

Following the discussion period, the new business items were approved by the Council. This approval indicates that the council members reached consensus on moving forward with both the bus rapid transit study and the sewage treatment capacity agreements.

The approval of these items demonstrates the Council's commitment to both transportation infrastructure improvements and essential utility services for the community. Both initiatives represent important investments in the city's long-term infrastructure planning and development capacity.

Sidewalk Assistance Program

12:00

The Council discussed updates to the Sidewalk Assistance Program during the meeting. The discussion focused on proposed changes to the existing ordinance and funding mechanisms to support low-income residents with sidewalk repairs and maintenance.

Key speakers during this agenda item included Councilmember Massotti and Councilmember James Brown, who presented information about the program updates and led the discussion on the proposed modifications.

The discussion centered on revisions to the sidewalk assistance program that would expand access for qualifying low-income residents. The Council examined changes to the ordinance governing the program and reviewed funding options to ensure adequate resources are available to assist eligible property owners with sidewalk-related expenses.

The Council approved the updates to the Sidewalk Assistance Program following their discussion of the ordinance changes and funding provisions for low-income residents.

*Note: Limited transcript details were available for this agenda item. The summary is based on the structured data provided, which indicated this was a discussion item that resulted in approval of program updates.*

Scooter Ordinance Amendment

13:00

Councilmember McKern proposed an amendment to the city's scooter ordinance that would allow scooters to operate on sidewalks outside the business district. The proposal aimed to modify existing regulations governing where electric scooters can be used within city limits.

During the discussion, several council members weighed in on the proposed changes. Councilmember Gibbs and Councilmember James Brown participated in the debate alongside McKern, though the specific details of their positions and any concerns raised were part of the broader council deliberation.

The amendment generated sufficient discussion among council members to warrant further examination. Rather than moving forward with an immediate vote, the council determined that the proposal required additional review and analysis.

The item was ultimately tabled and referred to committee for more detailed consideration. This outcome suggests that while there was interest in potentially modifying the scooter regulations, council members felt the proposal needed more thorough vetting before a final decision could be made.

The committee referral will allow for a more comprehensive examination of the proposed changes, including potential impacts on pedestrian safety, business district operations, and enforcement considerations. The amendment will likely return to the full council at a future meeting following the committee's review and recommendations.