City Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the Danville City Commission meeting. This is a regular called meeting. Today's date is Monday, July the 27th, 2026, and the time is 4.30 p.m. I want to thank you for your attendance tonight as you'll get a chance to see your local government once again at work. We're going to start off our meeting tonight by having a by being led in prayer by Commissioner Peek, and then we'll ask you to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag with us after Commissioner Peek does a prayer. Commissioner Peek?

Lord, as we come together tonight, I would ask that you would guide our thoughts, our actions, our comments, and our decisions, have us work together for the betterment of our community, and help the community in the best way we can.

Amen. Thank you, ma'am. Please stand. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you all. The chair would like to entertain a motion to approve the agenda with one addition. Number 17A should be added, and it's entitled Pickleball Shade Procurement. Pickleball Shade Procurement. Number 17A. So the chair will entertain a motion to approve the agenda as amended.

So moved.

Thank you, ma'am. Is there a second? Seconded. Thank you, ma'am. Any questions or comments? Hearing none, all those in favor of approving the agenda as amended, please say aye. Aye. Those opposed, motion carries. Thank you all. Next on the agenda is our first here to public. This commission has always given the public two opportunities to speak to us at our regularly scheduled meetings, and this is the first opportunity, and you may raise your hand, be recognized, and you may talk to us at this point about items that are on our printed agenda. So is there someone willing to speak to us about items on the agenda? Yes, ma'am. Come up and identify yourself.

We're talking about any agenda.

Yes, ma'am.

OK. Can you all hear me? Yes, ma'am.

OK.

So I'm a little nervous. So I'm going to get my thoughts together here. I've done a little public speaking, but it's been many, many years ago.

Thank you, eighth grade civics class.

And I'm among friends that I know here, so that's good. So good evening, mayor and commissioners. My name is Lori Harris, and my husband, John Harris, and I reside 26 years on Brook Cove. I am here to respectfully ask you to uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision regarding the proposed development. I was concerned at the last city commissioner meeting to hear objections from the city engineer, city manager, and city attorney. While I respect their roles, I believe the Planning and Zoning Commission carefully considered the evidence listened to the residents, and made a thoughtful and balanced development with the interest of the existing neighborhood. Reversing this decision would make a lasting impact on our community and would undermine the work and the public input that went into that planning and zoning process. I respectfully ask you to support Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation allowing the decision to stand. Doing so demonstrates respect for the public process and for the residents who participated in good faith. Thank you for your time and your service and thoughtful consideration. And you all weren't so scary, so thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. You did a great job. See, I say, reflect back to eighth grade. You know, I say to my eighth graders, they know everything. They can shout it out loud. Good job. Is there someone else? Yes, sir.

I'm also here speaking in support of- And you are? Sammy Brashears, so. Sammy Brashears. 109 Brook Cove, in support of planning and zoning recommendation to keep Brook Cove a dead end street. It's been said the street was always meant to be connected, but there was no easement provided. And people owned that, if they had wanted access to it, they had provided an easement to it. And there's one other thing I would like to bring up. I've lived on Brook Cove for 31 years. And I'm also a retired ocean emissions instructor. And a lot of my stuff, I've worked in mining and blasting and stuff like that. And all that's farmland, all that's, when they opened Colonial Heights, they done a lot of blasting over there. And we called and it vibrated the house and shook the structures and knocked people, pictures off the wall and hanging, and I want to bring this to your attention. Who's responsible for making sure there's not blasting going on? You got a lot of KRS regulations 350 and 405, KAR 1630 sets requirements for blasting in existing structures. I want to bring this to your attention and I've got some copies I want to give out to each one of you to make sure when somebody comes in or they have to open, start doing construction on that property that they know what the laws and regulations are. And who's responsible for doing that? So I would like to give that to you and provide you with that information. And if that's all right. Yes, sir. I think I've got about 10 copies here, so you all can pass them down. All right.

Thank you.

If they do start doing blasting, and you've got to do pre-blast surveys, give 30-day notice, and anybody within a half a mile of that blasting has to be notified. And I want to make sure people know that.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Well, thank you, too, for... Speaking of peace tonight, and I want to thank you both because I didn't remind you about the three-minute limit, but you both did real good about being less than three minutes, so I appreciate that. Okay, let's move on. Oh, in case since you all are both new to this process, we say we hear the public. We do exactly that. We just hear the public. We don't respond by giving the answers out. Okay? But, sir, if there is some blast that you have concerns about, there are some guys called city engineers that you can call in the

seek out that other information, okay? Okay, thank you now.

That's why I don't respond, but I just want to give you that information, okay? All right, anyone else about items on the agenda? Hearing none, so let's move along. Next item is approval of the minutes of the previous meetings. The Chair will entertain a motion to approve our minutes.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as presented.

Second. Thank you all. Any corrections, additions, or deletions? Hearing none, all those in favor of approving the minutes as presented say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. Thank you all. Next item is the first reading of Orders Number 2072, Zone Change at 115 East Walnut Street. Madam Clerk, you want to read that ordinance for us, do the first reading for us?

Yes, this is the first reading of ordinance number 2072, an ordinance changing the zone from multifamily residential RM3 to central business CB for approximately 1.502 acres, more or less of real property located at 115 East Walnut Street in the city of Danville, Kentucky.

Thank you, ma'am.

My fellow commissioners, is there a motion? Move for approval of first reading ordinance 2072.

Second.

Thank you all.

Ms. Gray, you want to make a comment or two?

No, I do. I did provide you all with the staff reports and the applications for all of the items on the agenda today, just in case you all needed some more information about any of that.

All right. Thank you, ma'am. So, Madam Clerk, roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Caudill. Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Peek. Yes. Mayor Atkins. Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Holland. Yes. Commissioner Sayers. Yes.

Thank you all. Next item is first reading of Ordinance Number 2073.

Mayor, I'm going to have to legally recuse myself from the item to ensure impartiality of the review, and I have been instructed this legally.

Thank you, ma'am.

We'll step out, and someone please don't forget me.

Okay? Just maybe. Hey, you know what? I got a grocery list from Kroger's. You want to go out to Kroger's and shop for me while we do this? No, I'm just joking. Okay. Madam Clerk, you want to read this one for us? Yes.

Yes. This is the first reading of ordinance number 2073, an ordinance changing the zone from agriculture AG to single-family residential R1C, two-family residential RM2, and general business GB for 48.592 acres, more or less, of real property located along Kentucky Highway 33, Shickertown Road, which is north of the Streamland subdivision and south of Kentucky Highway 2168 in the city of Danville, Kentucky.

Thank you, ma'am.

My fellow commissioners, is there a motion? I move for approval of first reading of Ordinance 2073. Is there a second?

I second. Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Gray, you want to make any comments?

No, thank you.

All right. So Madam Clerk, you want to do a roll call vote?

Commissioner Peek? Yes. Mayor.

I think we have more items to discuss on this, Mayor, before we proceed with the vote.

I don't know exactly how to frame it. So at the last meeting, we were not necessarily arguing for or against the conditions to be attached to the zone change or not. We were discussing the idea of whether or not those types of conditions are correct or appropriate for land use I guess, decision, which is what the zone change decision is, typically you see those conditions during the site plan process, part of the discussion. That said, after the meeting, when we go back to our offices, we went to planning and zoning and looked for some of the plats because the question really when it comes to, and we know the developer we can see is here. they're willing to adhere to whatever planning and zoning is asking them to do. The question that we were asking ourselves during the meeting was those conditions typically, the condition that you would see for the zone change is whether or not you're gonna have a, sometimes you'll affirm that you're gonna do the traffic engineering study or not, that kind of thing. In this case, what we suggested was that if you did the traffic engineering study, we have to defer to what the state says because Bergen Road is a state road as it relates to access, not knowing what that would be. So then what we discovered when we went through the process was in fact that in the process, 87, when the Brook Grove Platte was originally approved, the access where it currently is located on Bergen Road was specifically not approved to be permanent. proved to be temporary in nature. And my, I guess, initial question is, did planning and zoning consider that? I don't know if they did or not. But the plat is attached on your desk, and it's got some of those conditions. And so I don't know exactly how you handle that knowledge. But the original plat was intended to tie into the property on the north. When that property developed, the entrance that is currently used is clearly identified as a temporary easement that is to be abandoned once the neighboring property develops. And so that it actually, according to the plat, was intended to be a one-way dead-end street going the opposite direction. So it was never necessarily intended to be a through street. It was always intended to be a cul-de-sac. But it was just the opposite direction of the cul-de-sac. I don't necessarily know legally at this point how what with how that process plays out. But ultimately, for me, it played into this idea that we've got to do some training with, that is, I don't know necessarily what training Planning and Zoning's gotten. There is some confusion with these conditions and things like that. So I want to give the floor to the city attorney. Let him talk about what to do with how I don't necessarily know how to sure.

I think our our concerns that were raised last meeting were process related concerns. You often hear from me that my concerns are always that the process be fair and in contemplation of the legal requirements that are impressed upon us as a governing body and that for which the General Assembly has given us proper authority to assess or to exercise. And so when there are deviations from that, it's my role to point them out to you, such as when an action of the Planning Commission is in deviation from the city's adopted transportation plan, you need to be aware of it. It doesn't mean that you can't take the instruction that the Planning Commission offers you or the recommendation. However, you do need to be aware of it, that it does contravene something that has been previously approved before you're put in a hypocritical situation. Furthermore, I'm charged with the task of making sure that due process is adhered to and that the process in which decisions are made is consistent. The result of the process is irrelevant to me. What you decide is what the people have elected you to decide, not me. I have no opinion on the decisions that are rendered. However, I have a strong position on the process employed to reach those decisions and the conclusions thereby. And so what we have seen is, and this is not unique to Danville-Bull County planning and zoning, but statewide what we are seeing are more and more conditions being employed through the zone change process that frankly are not consistent with local regulation, state preference, and due process. The sole objective of a zone change is to determine whether or not the proposed classification is appropriate or inappropriate. They do so with a comprehensive review of the plan, future land use map, transportation plan, and everything in the middle of it, with the goals and objectives being the primary source of decision-making authority. It does not have to be a complicated process. It has become so because it's difficult to make hard decisions when you have interested neighbors and community members before you who might or might not like the decision that you have to make. And that complication is not lost on me. However, in adhering to the strict letter of the law, which is what I'm employed here to do, it's my duty to remind you when that process is not adhered to or when things contravene other matters of city regulation, which is what we have done. The entrance to Brook Cove, I can wholeheartedly say on the record, is irrelevant to me. The decision you decide makes no distinction on the value of my day. But what is important to me is that the process that you employ is consistent and that it is done so after the exercise of due diligence. And so my comment to the Planning Commission is prior to the exercising of condition implementation, that proper due diligence be had. In this case, a simple pulling of the plat would indicate that the state never authorized the entrance from Shaker Town Road to Brook Cove Subdivision to be permanent. as such district seven has confirmed they have an expectation for that to be removed it's not our right of way it's the state's right of way therefore neither the planning commission nor the city of danville has jurisdiction over the commonwealth on their state highway road system and that's just a fact and so what the state contemplated is that that would be temporary and that the future Connection would be made to an adjoining property as it developed, which is where we are today. Now, it's our job to make you aware of those situations. It would have been desirable if the Planning Commission could have done such due diligence prior to the implementation of conditions that are inconsistent with state law as cited on the plat. I would tell you, you have no authority to act outside of the jurisdiction that the state has provided you. The right of way is not yours, and it belongs to the Commonwealth. As such, they have a stipulation that they have confirmed they expect to be enforced. So that's left to you to evaluate the process. then make a necessary conclusion. It'd be my opinion that the Planning Commission lacked the authority to implement a condition that contravenes state law and therefore is void on its face. And that you could make, approve the zone change with that condition being voided as a matter of law. I would prefer that that be done on the record so it would be clear and not be... complicate the record of what's recorded in the clerk's office. So we can have further discussion about this matter, certainly, but we think it's important enough that we discuss the complexities of the decision-making process, because just like Newton's Law says, I know Commissioner Cottle can probably repeat this, but for every action there's an equal reaction, right? And so, because of that, anything we add, there's always, Some reaction to that, and in this case the reaction is a negative one of which the planning commission acted without authority. Now not all conditions are like that, but some of them can be, and this is one that falls into that category. I'm happy to answer questions about that, but I did read something this week that I think is important to share with you that adds a little bit of context. I'm reading a book on Teddy Roosevelt, and President Cleveland appointed him to the Civil Service Commission to quote-unquote clean it up. So he took that role seriously, and in doing so, he was making a lot of headway, and it was met with a lot of when it was against political foes. However, it was met with much chagrin when it was enforced against political allies. And so in doing so, the president brought him in to the Oval Office and told him to enforce the law vigorously where the people will take it, but gingerly when they won't. And he records all this in a letter to his sister. And in that, this is what he said. He said, you are instructing me to enforce the law rigidly where people will take it and gingerly elsewhere. But as long as I'm responsible, the law will be enforced up to its handle. And I circled and underlined that in my book because that is my role. not to select when the law should be enforced or ignored based upon the personalities in the room or the relationships that we may or may not have. But my duty is to the law and to the law alone and the process in which you employ to your decision-making process. And with that, Sometimes decisions are easier than others, but the rightness of our decision needs to be rooted in our legal authority to act and in concert with our local regulations and everything that goes into that. So with that, I'll open the floor for any questions you may have.

My question, I guess, Stephen, I understand what you're saying, but if that's the... bound by the legal authority to act and what are we doing here, I guess. But I just, I don't know. To me, that temporary easement's been there for 40 years, thereabouts. I personally don't see any reason to change that. And if the state wants to get in a battle with the residents of Brook Cove, then I guess that's their prerogative, but it just seems like we're making more out of this than we should. That's just my opinion. But I do appreciate what you're doing, trying to, you know, you have to do what you need to do on our behalf, and I appreciate that.

I would speak to, I think that it feels like that we have issues in the last year, six months that have come before us, and it seems like there's so many conditions on everything. Like tonight, the first one has three conditions, the second one has five, the third one has five. So if that's a problem, shouldn't we be addressing it prior to things being approved at P&Z? I mean, you know, shouldn't there, should there be a, like you said, a training or a, what's the path forward prior to these getting to us, and then saying, oh, by the way, we have to do the, you know, I think, to me, it seems like it should have been addressed well before now with PNZ. If there's a problem, it should be addressed before that zone change ever gets to us. That's just my thoughts. You know, every one of them have had, like I said, even the ones prior to this, that they've had so many conditions on it, and I'm not a PNZ expert. I'm not supposed to be. That's what we have them for on the board that brings us recommendations and Stephen to guide us in our path. But for me, I would like to see things done so this doesn't happen anymore because every time a zone change comes here lately, there seems to be an issue or a problem. If there's a problem, if it's at PNZ level or if it's at a request level or it's at our application level, something needs to change because that would make it a lot easier for us moving forward just to trust the process to say this is what we should do because that's the process. Because I agree, there's conditions on everything anymore. And it's like, well, is our comprehensive goals wrong? Are our plans wrong? Is the plume wrong? What's going on? There seems to be an issue bigger than what we're addressing. So that would be, and in the In this, it says the traffic study is being tendered and applicants will follow all of the recommendations. So I think that would.

That was the condition. Right. But that was their condition that they put on at the meeting for this zone change.

I agree with you, Commissioner. It's a much better process when we have cleaner recommendations without a set of conditions. If there are things that need to be required, it would be best suited, and we do have standard conditions for any zone change. To me, that's the place where you wanna have them in a set of standard conditions. What we get are the most of conditions that are approved are reactions to voices in the room, which end up resulting in something like what one of our conditions is on this zone change, proper vegetation will be planted or something of that nature. It's wholly subjective and why would there be vegetation buffer employed between two existing residential subdivisions? It's incongruent with normal planning principles. You don't have vegetation buffers between consistent residential zones. Buffers are proper in between separation of certain zoning types, industrial to commercial, commercial to residential, things of that nature. I don't know of any example of vegetation buffers between two existing residential subdivisions. So I don't know the reasoning behind that necessarily. I can't speak for the Planning Commission, but let alone the fact that we don't have precedent for it, it's also wholly subjective. Who enforces that? And what is proper vegetation buffer? If we need to address when buffers are appropriate, which I think we have in our sub regs, then we should be able to rely upon what they require without the adherence to all these additional hoops and things to put on zone changes. It's a strong preference that you have clean zone change recommendations without conditions. Sometimes something may arise to the necessity of adding a condition. There's nothing wrong with the condition on its face. However, when they become so habitual that we start adding on all of these types of things, it makes the process murky, which is where we are today. I think that's a fair assessment. I do think it would be a good conversation between the Planning Commission and and I don't know how that occurs through some type of training or something, that the expectations of the city and county be properly discussed when receiving or treating these zone change matters. If that's your preference, to receive clean zone change recommendations, then I think it's appropriate to request that. And Commissioner Cotter, just to your point, of course, it's been there for a long time. It seems though it was done within a previous agreement with the state where the city says in note five, we've agreed to remove the street at the time of abandonment. So we have contractual obligations with the Commonwealth that are larger than just Brook Cove subdivision, obviously. And so, therefore, we hold the state's feet to the fire in upholding certain obligations that we have, and they do the same to us on transportation side and otherwise. So it is about contractual adherence to existing matters that we've already agreed upon. Now, I didn't agree upon them, you didn't agree upon them, but the city did at one point in time.

But a traffic study is going to be completed, correct?

I believe it is already completed, if not almost completed.

From the state?

From the state.

From the developer that will be delivered to the state that's indicating what impacts the development will have on traffic on Bergen Road. So they have to file an encroachment permit to open up entrances on Bergen Road on that state right-of-way. The state then will use that traffic study to dictate the design requirements along that road, such as intersection spacing, such as those things that we are weighing in on. We are increasingly weighing in on the zone change process, and it's understandable. the average citizen doesn't really understand planning and zoning and really, frankly, only gets involved when it involves their property immediately adjacent to them. There are many steps in the planning and zoning process. The planning and zoning, as a board, in theory, has an obligation to follow that in black and white, which is why the community gives them documents like the comprehensive plan that they apply their logic based on evidence given through the application of the public hearing process only limited to what that public hearing process is. Then they have to make a decision by overlaying that black and white text. uh... when when when they go outside of that to to the next step in the process what you do when you when you're when you start attaching site plan issues such as a vegetative buffer without definition the the normal subdivision rates may require spacing it may require setbacks in the room it has requirements on what that boundary is supposed to look like and and so then it's unusual that you're not taking that advice and you're merging those two steps together. And so for me, it makes for an increasingly confusing process, increasingly confusing results, and this is a good example as evidence of that. is all we were suggesting. It's evidence of a confused process is all that is.

I have one question. We're discussing that zone changes change the use of the land. And these conditions, as the land uses change, put restrictions on the land as the zone is changed. So if you don't have these conditions at the zone change time, like we are tonight, These conditions will then be put on.

So the next step is a site plan process where that development plan must be submitted to Planning and Zoning. And then these types of things are logically debated and heard at that stage. And Planning and Zoning still has a right to reject that site plan and to take that administrative step then. But the underlying use of the land theoretically approved, and when they approve that use of the land, then there's design requirements inside the sub regs that the developer then has to lean on and comply with. This becomes their new boundary, is that section of the sub regs.

So I guess my next question is that if these three changes are made, zone changes are made tonight, the L3 have conditions on them, At the site plan step, can these conditions be edited? Can they be taken away? What's the process at that point?

The conditions can't be removed at the site plan.

They can or cannot?

They cannot be removed. No, and at site plan review, they're bound by the subregs to make sure that everything that's submitted is within conformance there with existing regulations.

Interesting.

Any other questions or comments about this one?

You've had your opportunity. You can't do that anymore.

I would say it's possible. If the traffic study condition were left alone, it's possible. I'm not saying it's probable, but it's possible that the state would evaluate it and say, listen, that's been there 40 years. We're going to continue to allow that to be a permanent entry to Brookcove subdivision. We're not saying that we don't like that intersection or we don't like that entrance and we want it removed. We're just acknowledging that the state has the ultimate authority over it. And a traffic study may or may not advocate for its continued existence. We don't know.

So say that one step further. The state has previously spoken on what they think about that intersection. So until you go back through the process with them and... do the transportation plan, it's presumptive to conclude with assurances what the state wants out of that intersection when they previously said they want the opposite.

OK. I'm going to move this item. We have had the ordinance read. We've had questions. We've had addresses made. So my task at this point is to call for the question. Madam Clerk, would you do a roll call vote, please?

So what was the motion, Mayor?

The motion was to approve the zone change as presented.

Is that right?

Madam Clerk, you want to read the motion for us? Is there a motion made?

There was a first by Commissioner Caudill to approve as presented, seconded by Commissioner Saris.

So what's the commission's position about the condition?

Well, if we do a roll call vote and it passes, that means these conditions move forward with the zone change.

It would. It would. I'm just telling you that it is my position that that condition is unenforceable as a matter of law and voided. So what I would ask for is that your motion acknowledge the legal conclusion that that particular condition zone change condition is removed as it's unenforceable as a matter of law.

That's in consideration. Would you read to us the conditions? Yes. There's two or three of them, right?

For this one, there was five listed on the recommendation letter. Brook Cove prohibition, Brook Cove connection to be prohibited, an exception from the comprehensive plan's connectivity requirements is justified by the condition of the road the narrowness of the road, and an interest in preserving the rock wall on the property. A traffic study, traffic study is to be be tendered and applicants following all KYTC studies recommend, sorry, and applicants following all KYTC studies recommendations. Drainage plan, a drainage plan to be tendered at the subdivision plat phase, vegetation buffer, a vegetation buffer to be provided, and Brook Cove access restriction. Prevent any street access through or connectivity to Brook Cove.

So those five, there's two that would be questionable, the buffer as well as the connectivity?

Well, I think you can keep the buffer one if you'd like. I think it's vague enough where it's not enforceable. That's my position, but that is something that could be considered in site plan review because it's wholly subjective. However, it would be my position to remove the condition regarding connectivity and simply defer to the condition requiring the traffic study as those two provisions contravene one another, potentially. The developer could be in a situation where the state says close the Brook Cove entrance and open it over here, but you've passed an ordinance that says you have to keep it open. So then the developer would be handcuffed potentially in that situation. And we know state law governs when there are contraventions in those matters. So to prevent the hypocrisy of the positions... and the fact that the city has no authority to dictate right of way in the state's possession, the condition concerning the temporary or the lack of connectivity to the new subdivision should be stricken as a matter of law.

Thank you.

If we pass it contingent on the state's approval of leaving the entrance where it is, that's essentially what you're saying, right?

That's correct. If you pass it without the condition, then it leaves the final jurisdiction to the state where it properly resides, and then the state's traffic study evaluation can determine the appropriate entrances to both neighborhoods, which they have jurisdiction over anyway.

You said that it was almost complete. The traffic study is almost complete?

I believe in Tech Review, it had already begun at the point of that public hearing, so I believe... If it's not already complete, it's in the process of being completed.

Well, we've been asked by staff to consider an amendment to the motion. And I'm going to pause and give you all time to consider making an amendment. And if no amendment is made, then I think we go ahead and carry the motion forward.

Other questions, Steven? So if we passed it as is with the no access part of the change in there, and then if the state came along after and said, you know, you have to close that one, then, I mean, they would have to close that one. I mean, it's just timing, I guess, more than anything. Right? I mean, they... The state would supersede whatever we had done.

Correct or not? You lack the authority to approve the condition that the Planning Commission has recommended to you. Should you pass it... even though you lack the authority to, what results is confusion. Typically, confusion either leads to unintended results, meaning the state could say, we are going to not allow any additional entrances on 33 if Danville, if that's what you want, so do you want access to the new subdivision through Brook Cove, which they could do. So if you want that one to be your permanent entrance, then we can put all traffic through Brook Cove. The state will make that determination, and what I'm saying is you don't have the authority, so it contravenes law for you to approve that condition.

Okay, so is there amendment to this motion? I'm trying to figure out how I would amend it.

Your suggested amendment would be to approve the zone change as presented with the exception of the condition regarding access access through, or denying access through Brook Cove as it is against the state's stated position.

Working on this project?

And again, in doing so, you're merely deferring to the state's traffic study.

Yeah, you're not saying which one's appropriate. You're not saying to guarantee connection to Brook Cove. What you're suggesting is that that question ultimately is deferred to the state, but through the site plan process, planning and zoning and the various folks can still make a decision not to connect to it so long as the state doesn't require a connection to it. would be, is the correct legal path in this situation, given the record that the state has originally produced, or I guess agreed to or indicated?

So in principle, we're all agreeing with the zone change, right? Yes. And in principle, we're all agreeing with the fact that a traffic study needs to be done. Yes. And in principle, at that hearing, they agreed upon the... no entrance clause because that sort of gave us a chance to move this project forward. All y'all stop nodding your head on that one, right? That's great. Yeah. Y'all want to be illegal? Y'all want to be legal. That's all that matters. I don't want to hang up this project. That's what my problem is. Yeah. Yeah.

Proceeding with approval based upon the state's recommendations from the traffic study is not holding up the project. That has to transpire anyway. And it just acquiesces the connection issues to the determination of the state, which is where they properly reside as it relates to Shaker Town Rope.

I could make a statement getting run out of Dodge, right?

we kind of doing that though Steven you are if you remove the conceit right now they conflict potentially it's the zone change recommendation says you got to do a traffic study and adhere to their recommendations but it also says no connection to Brook Cove and it's possible that the state's study says you can connect to Brook Cove you should connect through Brook Cove, or because we're going to deny any other entrance to 33, therefore you have to divert all traffic through Brook Cove. I mean, there's several things they can do there, and we just don't know. I mean, I know that's not an amenable solution. So if we dictate that that has to stay open, which we don't have authority to do, the state could say, okay, well, if that's your preference, we'll route all traffic through that existing intersection. which I can't think would be an appropriate solution for anybody. That's one of those unintended consequences. Probably not, probably not. He said he probably couldn't submit that. The existing intersection probably isn't sufficient to have the proper you know width and everything else will be required for subdivision of this size on the stone land project say that again steven i'm sorry the existing intersection into brook cove yes most likely does not have the proper width to handle the added capacity if all traffic to the Stoneland zone change were routed through Brook Cove?

Well, you know, I'm reminded of when they swore they weren't going to open up Chestnut into Candlewood because they couldn't handle the traffic. And it was done anyway, and it's a mess. And this is not the same, but it's similar to that.

Well, the city owned both of those at that time. That's within the city's network, so you would have jurisdiction. Whether it's good or bad, the city made both of those decisions.

Steven, is there a way they could amend the wording of the condition that meets the goals without conflicting with? I'm trying to think of some way to word that you don't want it to be a through street. Unless required by the traffic study. Something along those lines that would guide us as staff.

It's not going to be a through street necessarily. Right, right. And I think that's the ultimate kind of... With the approval of a new entrance for Stone Land, that temporary easement will go away and Brook Cove will remain a dead-end cul-de-sac. It just will be flipped. Instead of going from Bergen Road directly into it, you'll be coming off of Bergen Road and passing through 10 or so acres of the stone land property into it. That's what the state's position is right now. It's not, I mean, according to the information that they have, it's not intended to be a through street if you follow the normal development process.

Yeah, I wondered about that as well because... If a new street goes in, then where the cul-de-sac is becomes lot 11, and you can build whatever you want to on there.

That is correct. That is correct.

So we are just flipping it, so why don't we just leave it?

Well, that's not what the state's opinion is, though. And so that's what kind of hymns you up a little bit, is the state has already spoken that, in fact, that is a temporary entrance. That's what the state, and according to the language that is on the plat, it says the city will remove the street at the time of abandonment, that the city has agreed to do that. And so that is a complicating issue, and all we are doing is raising that red flag for you.

Again, did PNZ have this information that you gave us?

It's a public record. So, I mean, I don't think they didn't review this at the hearing.

This was not presented with the staff packets, no. Okay.

You know, it's a little, I mean, it goes back to what I said. The normal process, you wouldn't necessarily look at plats. You would address the zone change. with the land use question that's that's what my point is or has been and then and then when it comes to developing the site plan that's when your engineers are going to be looking at these neighboring plats and thinking about how how they develop it internally really like what's the site plan look like and and those are not that is not one process That is two distinct processes. One overlays the sub regs, one overlays purely the comp plan in and of itself. Those are two different processes and all too often what you're seeing throughout Kentucky is that those are merging into one and site plan things are trying to be resolved on the zone change-in, and that is complicating planning and zoning, and so in reaction to prove that, the state of Kentucky is taking legislative action to diminish decisions that planning and zoning can make throughout Kentucky. So that just tells us that the process is being polluted throughout Kentucky. It's not a local problem. So our discussion is not intended to just throw shade at the neighborhood, throw shade at planning and zoning. What we're talking about is just a structural issue with how we apply the zoning standard, which is why I immediately went to training. I would love for the city needs to coordinate training because whatever training that, what we talked about with Hannah earlier, whatever training that has happened to this point, it's not stuck. It's not either planning and zoning is intentionally not listening. There's a misinterpretation of what that training reflects on. Those things are just, but it's not just in Danville, right? Like that's a systemic issue through planning and zoning because the average citizen, it's hard to understand unless you are actually performing it, which is why you're supposed to get engineers and you're supposed to get those different components to deploy through the process. And so at this point, I don't, The city has agreed to defer to the state, essentially, previously. When Brook Cove was developed, that's what the city agreed to. So what my suggestion is you can recommend to Planning and Zoning that we avoid the connection if possible. But I don't know that you can require it because the state has previously said you're going to do it. Right? So I think you have to give the state a chance to weigh back in again without the requirement of telling the state exactly what you're willing to do. I don't think you have that luxury. And I think that's, in layman's terms, what your attorney's trying to communicate.

On the site plan part of the development, does that allow for public input?

Yeah, it should. Yes. You would typically get public feedback around that, I would think.

Yes, site plans are in public hearings, yes.

They are.

Only subdivision approvals are not in public hearings.

I mean, I'm stuck on this transportation study. If it's almost finished, why don't we wait and see it before we make a decision that we're going to have to change it or somebody's going to have to live with it? You know, why don't we?

And that's exactly kind of what my point was at the first meeting. is typically the zone change is you make a decision on the land use. And you want to affirm whether or not you're doing a traffic study or not as part of that zone change. So it is very common that you are confirming that the traffic study will be done when the zone change occurs. So you are approving a zone change with the condition of a traffic study so that you can ensure the developer when their site plan is submitted, is at least inherent to the recommendations in that, design recommendations that come forward through that study.

And practically speaking, Commissioner, we don't require developers to expend unnecessary costs if the zone change hasn't been approved. So there's no sense in incurring the cost of a traffic study if the land use is inappropriate. Well, typically, sometimes they run concurrent, but I think upon a positive recommendation, possibly they proceeded, thinking now they're under risk and proceed, but probably that risk is lessened after a positive recommendation by the Planning Commission.

And I wanted to add real quick, because I don't want to... This is a good example, though, of the conditions. Hannah and I have discussed this, that development moves so slowly here, a lot of places, that... the conditions that are put on a lot of zone changes, it could be, I mean, this is 40 years later. We've looked back at zone changes that are 30 years old that we're looking at the conditions. A lot of times it's like we don't even know what we're reading because it's such a different tone of discussion and the priorities and values have changed so much of the community and the surrounding areas have changed. Traffic flow has changed. So many things have changed. It puts staff in a bind of like, do we actually... Do we enforce all of these conditions? Because these conditions, everything has changed so much in the decades since. Now, this one probably will move faster, but it may be, I mean, if it's 10, 20 years before this road actually gets built, I mean, is this whole conversation even... looked back on by the staff at that time. We could all be gone.

Okay, guys. In another attempt to move this forward, I'm going to ask the city attorney, would you verbalize an amendment to this proposal so we can see if I can get some...

I want to get to the exact language in this condition so I can do that properly. Hannah, can you direct me quickly to what page that's on on your report?

I believe it's on the last page, second to last page.

Okay. Mayor, the recommendation of staff would be to approve the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the zone change without the connection condition prohibiting connection to Brook Cove. as it is in violation of existing state law, and rely solely on the transportation study recommendations.

OK. Are you all willing to accept that as a friendly amendment? I got one yes. I just haven't got quiet. The maker of the motion needs to say he'll accept that as a friendly amendment or not. If he doesn't want to accept it as a friendly amendment, then I'm going to call for the question again. I'm going to drive it home one way or the other. I want to be sure everybody gets a chance. I'm sorry, are you having a hard time hearing me, ma'am? I saw you at that time. All right. In essence, we're saying we're going to approve this thing contingent upon letting the state Traffic Study and the State Department of Transportation decide upon the entranceway and the entrance and exit. That's correct. It relates to both of these pieces of property then, right? That's correct. That might be as good as we can do tonight. You accept or you do not accept? If you don't accept...

I just think we're, I don't know, it just seems like I think we're doing that with the traffic study anyway. I'll withdraw my motion. That's what I need to do. Somebody else can take it from there.

I didn't want you to withdraw your motion. I thought you would just add a friendly amendment to your motion, but let's see if we can come up with one. Let's see. Okay, then I'm going to move to accept the planning zoning recommendation as presented with emphasis on the transportation study, realizing that the state's going to make the ultimate determination about Grip Cove and the new development traffic flow, entrances and exits. And that's my motion.

One once, one twice. I'll second it so we can move along and vote.

Commissioner Peek, will you remove your second to the previous motion? Commissioner Sears, will you remove your second to the previous? Thank you. So the motion is to approve the zone change as recommended with reliance upon the implementation of the recommendations from the KYTC traffic study, which thereby eliminates the connection prohibition condition. That motion has been made by the mayor and seconded by Commissioner Cottle. Madam Clerk, we're ready for a roll call vote.

No discussion on that one, right?

Oh, I'm sorry. You're free to have it at your meeting. I think we've been properly moved and seconded.

Madam Clerk, roll call vote. Yes, ma'am.

Commissioner Peek, no. Mayor Atkins. Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Saris. Yes. Commissioner Caudill.

No. So it's a tie, which means it does not pass.

Right. So the floor is open again for another motion on the same zone request.

Correct.

So is there another motion? I told y'all y'all get to see the city government at work tonight. You're getting a good little taste of it. It's okay. I'll be here.

I would like to say I would love to coordinate with the city on training with the commissioners and our commissioners as well as our attorney. So just to get on better same page. Understanding.

Yes, ma'am. Appreciate that statement. All right. Again, is there a motion? on the zone change that we've been discussing for the last 35 or so minutes. So there's not a new motion? Not a new motion?

So I'm going to declare that. I'll restate my original motion to approve it as presented. All right. And then, like I say, Brook Cove and District 7 can have a discussion. So what's your motion, Commissioner? That just restated the original as presented.

It moves that we accept the zone change as presented with all the conditions listed. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, ma'am. Is there a need for any other discussion?

Just your attorney's comment that it will be my position, if addressed with the state, that your position voids authority under the law, and we will concede from a legal standpoint to their authority that's administered over us.

Yeah. All right, Madam Clerk, let's try it again. Roll call vote.

Commissioner Peek? Yes. Mayor Atkins?

No.

Commissioner Saris? No.

I'm trying to get Ginny to come back in the boat. She's not coming in, is she?

Mayor, I've thought of an idea. I don't want to complicate it, but I have thought of one idea. It's possible that Commissioner Cottle's motion be passed with an addendum to it or an amendment to it that says that the ultimate decision-making authority rests with the Commonwealth. Then you could pass it with conditions as presented with ultimate authority vested with the state's transportation study. If you do that, I think you adhere to the law.

I like it. Do you agree with that? I do. Is that your motion? Yeah, it is.

Okay.

Is there a second? I second.

Let's start over the roll call then vote, if that's okay.

All right, roll call vote again. Start with Commissioner Collier.

Commissioner Pate. That says that just what we're saying here, the state, the transportation study, they have to go by it in the conditions. So that's what it says.

That's correct, with ultimate authority. So if there's a contradiction, the state's ruling will be authoritative.

I would assume that would be anyway because they're the state.

Is that a yes?

Mayor Atkins. Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Saris. Yes. Commissioner Caudill.

Yes.

I'm going to say no again. Well. Do you want me to get Commissioner Holland? Thank you. No, don't get her. She's out there. Don't get her. I see her. Look.

Steven, thank you. Mr. Dexter. Steven, thank you for your input, actually. You're welcome. I know sometimes we don't always agree, but I always understand where you come from and what you're trying to do.

Listen, the application of planning and zoning law is very complicated, and that is just demonstrably true. It's okay. We just have to figure out a good way. From my perspective, we will get with Ann and try to figure out an effective way to provide additional comprehensive training that's effective.

Commissioner, ultimately, as you know, we're just trying to get to a place that's legally defensible. To make sure that any decision that comes out of this body is something that we can defend if necessary.

I appreciate that. I appreciate that you... You always try to find a workable compromise.

It is okay to have those kind of discussions, guys. I don't, you know, that's why y'all make the big bucks. Y'all have those discussions.

And I would also like to note that we had a training this past summer with Brian Howard. He is the Kentucky president for American Planning Association in Kentucky, the Kentucky chapter. It was very helpful, I think, but I am always a fan of more training. I think more knowledge is better, and especially when we're on the same page, I think that would be helpful. Great for everyone.

Thank you, ma'am. Can I move to the next item, then? I can't? Okay. Okay. First reading of Orders Number 2074, Zone Change, Chin Property, U.S. 127. Chair would entertain a motion.

Mayor, can I read it first?

Oh, yes, ma'am, you sure can. I'm all just debacleated, right?

This is the first reading of Ordinance Number 2074, an ordinance changing the zone from Agriculture AG to Highway Business HB, Office Professional OP, General Business GB, Two-Family Residential RM2, and Multi-Family Residential RM3 for approximately 133.85 acres, more or less, of real property located off of U.S. Highway 127 South and immediately south of Popowell Lane in the city of Danville, Kentucky. Do you mind repeating that, please?

Can you act that out? All right. Thank you, ma'am. Is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the first reading of ordinance 2074. Thank you, ma'am. Is there a second? I second it. Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Grave, want to make any comments?

Not at this time, no. You want to read the conditions on this one? I can, yes. There are some conditions on this one, right? Yes. There are some, there are five conditions on this one as well. The GB parcel restriction, the GB zone parcel shall be restricted to clubhouse operations. The RM3 parcel restriction, the RM3 parcel shall be restricted to single level quadplexes or single family dwellings. Traffic study, approval is conditioned upon completion of a KYTC traffic study. and the applicant shall implement all recommended infrastructure improvements. Agriculture border requirement, the applicant shall install a border sufficient to protect adjacent farms, including a barrier adequate to prevent dogs from entering those properties, and a lighting standard. All lighting shall be down lighting.

Oh, see there? Oh, there we go.

So in this one too, I mean, just as an example, just so you know, just so the folks know that we're not just picking on Brook Cove or we're not just picking on some other development, but the agricultural border requirement there has no definition to it. It's totally subjective. And so that's just one you typically don't necessarily see at the zone change.

Okay. Comments about other conditions in that one? This one?

I was just showing, I mean, like Kevin, it says, you know, I'm assuming if it read like this in the last one, it would have been more clear maybe, because this one says approval is conditioned upon completion of the traffic study and the applicant shall implement all recommended infrastructure improvements.

Absolutely. That's much more palatable. And that's a correct recitation of the law. Correct.

It didn't restrict them from anything.

But it's not necessarily about restricting the developer per se, it's placing the burden of the development on the developer in that scenario.

All right. But I'm going to add something to that real quick. Sorry. But like the traffic study and the drainage plans are things, like the drainage plans are already built into our, like the last one had a drainage plan condition. That's going to happen anyway. So that's already in our process. It's kind of like we're talking about the site plan phase. There's processes that we have. The traffic study, we could build that into our processes as a given on any development over a certain size. We could do things like that. That way you don't even have to worry about putting it as a condition. It's already built into our, Our zoning ordinance is building our sub regs. It's already part of our rules. So I think that that's some of that too is like don't make us have to go back and dig through these conditions again Just let us implement the rules. If we don't like the rules, let's change the rules. That's where it needs to be changed at.

I agree with Josh 100% and especially on lighting. All of these commercial and industrial development, everybody wants down lighting and all these things. Let's just put in sub regs. Be done with them. If that's what our community wants, let's just do it. You do have a lighting standard in your sub regs already.

Right. So we need to fix it.

Just change the language of your sub reg and then this condition never has to be shared around again.

In the meeting, the developer was there and said that the downlighting is cheaper and was preferred anyway, so that that was already going to be happening.

I guess I just didn't understand why the traffic study, why it shouldn't be just standard across the board to say that. That would make it a little easier.

On a subdivision of this side, on a state highway, it should be, I would say. And our regulation should just dictate that. Okay.

Other comments or questions? Madam Chair, are we going to have a roll call vote on this one?

Yes, Mayor Atkins. Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Holland. Yes. Commissioner Sarris. Yes. Commissioner Caudill.

Yes.

Commissioner Peek. Yes.

Okay, next item is Resolution 202607-2701, 2627 Medical SPD Amendment. Mr. Boulway.

All right, thank you, Mayor. So we get to talk about exciting health care. We'll keep this pretty brief.

There's no zone change involved, is there?

No, unless you want me to add it in. That's outside my wheelhouse, so we'll stick to health insurance. So in front of you, you have a recommendation to amend what's called our SPD, which is our plan document for our medical health plan. In simple terms, that's your plan document that governs all of your eligibility, coverages, exclusions, in simple terms, what's covered, what's not covered under your plan. Each year after renewals, when we do our 5-1 renewals, one of our exercises is to go through and review that SPD with looking at any amendments that we want to make to the medical.

We're only talking about that.

Sorry about that, the battery went dead. So we're only talking about the medical plan, not vision or dental. So in simple terms, we have identified some coverage gaps that we would like to incorporate into the language. These will not impact your overall cost that was budgeted for fiscal year 27. So there's three primary changes. One of those is we're recommending On our pharmacy assistance program, if you recall, we have a pharmacy assistance program that carves out medications, high-cost medications to a third-party vendor called Sharks. We're maintaining that because it is a good cost containment model for the city that saves us roughly about anywhere from $300,000 to $500,000 a year. On the SBD amendment, we're just wanting to remove the language of the shark's name to basically call it pharmacy assistance vendor. And what that does, that gives the city more flexibility to look at different vendors in the future as we go into renewals. Second change is we're asking to amendment to our preventative and some of our diagnostic services. One of the things that we've seen is there's a bigger need for screenings. Maybe there's a preventative screening, like someone goes in for preventative cancer screening, but it becomes diagnostic. We made this change with colonoscopies last year, and so we're asking to make that change again with mammograms. In simple terms, it means we're asking that the plan would provide one free mammogram to every member without any cost sharing per plan year as a way to provide more access to care. And the last thing that we're asking for is Amendment, again, this is a preventative item, is our plan originally had routine hearing exams free of service, not free of service, but covered at 100% every 36 months. We're asking that we make that change to have it covered at every 12 months. Non-routine exams will still be every 36 months. Also wanna point out, this amendments that we look at, this isn't always at renewals. We look at these, they're very fluid situation as we're working on our health plans. There may be other amendments that come up from time to time throughout the plan year. But at the start of the plan year, these are the three amendments that we've identified and are requesting amendments to incorporate into the plan.

They all sound good. Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve Resolution 2026-07-2701. Second. Thank you all. Any questions?

Hearing none, all those in favor of passing Resolution 2701, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Next item is Resolution 2702. Mr. Board, you have that one as well.

All right. Thank you, Mayor. So in front of you, you have an agreement with Point C, which is the city's TPA for medical services. Every year, group plans are required to do what's called an analysis of their pharmacy program to determine if it meets credible coverage definition in response to Medicare coverage. Essentially what that means is make sure that your plan pays equivalent or at minimum the same that Medicare plays for prescription D coverage. Point C has agreed to do that analysis for us. Doesn't mean that our plan will meet the credibility requirements. We won't know until we do it, but we're asking for to Contract with them to do the analysis. The amount of the agreement is $500. And then upon receipt of that analysis, we'll make our determination from there. And the city has to report that to Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services once that analysis is completed.

Thank you, sir. I'm looking for approval of Resolution 202607-2702. Thank you, sir.

Second.

Thank you, ma'am. Any questions to Mr. Board?

No.

Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Next is the city manager report.

Thank you, Mayor, Commissioners. Since Friday, we were able to finish the June budget report. We have added that to your packet, so there should be a digital budget report on your computer now and suggest or try to guide you towards that. The other thing is that we have a lot of dates that are coming up and would like to point out that The sixth through the ninth is a 127 yard sale, so please be careful when you're driving around town. You'll have folks that are not from here, they'll be trying to stop on your higher speed roads, trying to make turns, so we always like to try to raise awareness of that. The August 7th and 8th is the Soul of Second Street. August 9th is the Balloons Over the Bluegrass down at the airport. That begins at 4 p.m. August 18th is the next casual conversation with commissioners as it's going to be worded. It's going to be an evening event with Commissioner Holland and Cirrus at the Wine Cellar at 6 p.m. There is a sign up for the state fair. If you'll remember, we have a CVB booth every year at the state fair. That is ongoing between August 20th and August 30th. Volunteers are needed, and if you would like to do that, I think I've got two shifts. you can see Melanie to sign up for that. The next thing is that on everybody's mind is a garbage update. Josh has the solid waste collection, and so what we would like to do is just bring that up and merge it into this conversation since I was the one that actually wrote the text. So I've provided that. The transition is ongoing, and Josh may want to add some... Commentary to when he comes back right and he you know, so I don't know but he has an update of today He's working with Republic directly the things that we observe is we actually have two processes that are that that's ongoing a the city is eliminating the mandatory mandatory component of the recycling collection So therefore, new collection of recycling is voluntary. And then the second thing that's ongoing is that the solid waste coordinator has gotten a new upgraded recycling center. And so those two things are going on at the same time, but they're creating a little bit of confusion. And so then the Republic and the recycling center, they're deciding when the recycling that's collected inside of the city is going to be dropped off at the center in the cans. So that's the decision they are making, and we defer to their judgment on that. What we expect is that the recycling center will begin – taking 100% of the product in the cans to the center here in Danville by September 1st. It could be before that. Meanwhile, the center is open and they are accepting recycling out there in the city from citizens. So if you want to take specific recycling to the center, they will accept that. The location that goes back also has some recycling that they accept there. The thing that must be dropped off only at the center is the glass and styrofoam. That can only be dropped off at the recycling center and will not be... eligible for can distribution or collection. Meanwhile, in the background, you have 8,000 to 12,000 garbage cans that Republic has estimated it will take them 60 days to collect. And so that is underway, and it is ongoing. And so we just really appreciate the folks' patience for that. We know that the confusion is that folks are putting their cans out thinking that they're just going to be picked up that week. That is a regular collection scheduled week. That is not. They have a separate system that they're deploying to pick those cans up. Meanwhile, if you want to sign up for the voluntary recycling, they have a specific number for that, and it is 859-368-1140. They also have a specific email. Those two, either texting the number or emailing danvilleky at republicservices.com, those are to sign up for the new service. What is being confused is folks are calling those with complaints on the existing cans. Those won't arrive at the same location. So if you have a complaint about the existing cans or services, that has to go to the old complaint number. And so we know, so the layers of that can be very confusing even for me to describe. And so what I would like to do is we'll continue to communicate outwardly The summary is that we have two processes that we're right involved with. The one that involves the city directly in terms of our contract is we're converting the mandatory recycling to voluntary. You must sign up if you want a voluntary can. Otherwise, your can will be picked up over the next 60 days. If you want to sign up, there's a number to do that via text. There's an email to do that via email. If you have a separate complaint, call the old complaint number of Republic. That is still their complaint repository, I guess.

Hey, Earl, could I say something real quick? Yes, sir, please do. I had my recycling container been sitting out on the curb for a pretty good while. Right. It hadn't come down. So... I reminded them, and then two days later, they came and picked up both my trash cans, my garbage can and my recycling can. It's an imperfect system. They're overwhelmed, and they got it back to me, and it's fine, but patience is key for sure.

Patience is key, and we've had a street where the whole street had, everyone had put out the recycling containers to be picked up, on the timing of the original recycling pickup. Cans weren't picked up. One person complained. The truck went all the way to that address and picked up the one can and left the others. So when we say they're overwhelmed, they are overwhelmed. And they are working through it, but it will take time. We hope they will have the system, all the recycling cans flipped. in terms of the old recycling cans picked up, the folks signing up for the voluntary service will end up with a can. We hope that process takes 60 days.

And I think if you have a second or third garbage can, And you're putting it out on the curb because you no longer need the second and third. We need to let somebody know that, too.

Yes. Because they're sitting out there. They're sitting out there. So, yes, please. And if you just have an extra can that you want picked up, it's the same complaint number and not necessarily signing up for voluntary service.

I did speak to the Republic today. They have added more people collecting containers and they've also worked out a location. Angie with the county has found them a location that they can They can store a lot of containers because they were having to take them, I think, all the way to Stanford every time they collected a load. Now they've got a local place here in Danville they're dropping them all off at. So I think they've increased their efficiency. I think today was kind of the start of that. So I think we're going to see them getting collected. Yes, they finally admitted today. They underestimated how many containers they were going to be picking up. So I think they've worked through some issues, and hopefully these get collected. quickly. So we're definitely working on trying to beat that September 1st date of our recycling being clean enough to be taken to the recycling center.

And there's no option on having the one garbage can, trash can. Everybody has to have that one.

Correct.

That is still required.

Yes. And that'll be starting in this bill they'll be receiving now. They'll see that rate change to that one collection. It'll be prorated. That's another thing we wanted to say tonight. I don't know how to get this information out. They're garbage. If they look closely at their water bill this month, the bills they're receiving right now that are due on August 10th, it's going to look really strange because it's kind of transitioning from one to the other because these bills stagger over June and July, and we made all these changes July 1. So it's going to look a little, like the numbers aren't going to match anything we've talked about because they're prorated numbers. But starting the next month, when they get the bill they get in August, it's due September 10th, all they'll see is the one base charge for one garbage can is all they'll see on their water bill. Everything else will have to come through Republic.

And I got a bill from Republic for my recycling can.

And I guess they're billing me quarterly. Yes. Yeah, they're going to bill that quarterly. I haven't gotten my bill yet, so I don't know. You're the first I've heard actually got their first recycling bill.

Earl, do you think it would be a positive to have Angie come back and talk about recycling?

So that's... Yes and no. We do need to talk about recycling again at the end of the month. The part of the confusion of when... The recycling center is opening. That's not necessarily our garbage going there yet, right? And so that did create a little bit of conflict. So we are allowing her to communicate effectively about her center. And we're talking with her. But when I'm saying that, we're not necessarily, we are agreeing that she's got to do those announcements. And we are going to hyper-focus our communication on the conversion on the can side. Yeah. not necessarily the centering the collection side, right? So part of that was a little bit confusing. But at the end of the day, yes, the recycling material will have to be compliant. So we'll give it maybe two meetings and we'll bring her back then and talk about what's acceptable to recycle again. But I will say she'll get me if I don't repeat it. Glass and styrofoam at the center. Okay. Woodson. The recycling center on North Stewart's Lane.

That's on the right-hand side.

I think what I've heard is people have gotten the bill July, August, September, and then now it's like they're not really bringing it till September. Why are we paying for July and August?

Is it being brought to the recycling? I asked Republic that question today, and they said they would get back with me on that. So I'm going to keep following up. I think it would be good to have Republic come in the near future to talk to you all. They'll do that anyway. So when we saw Angie's post that we were going to be September 1st before, we had the same question. Personally, I've signed up for recycling. I don't. want to pay for it in July and August if I know 100% it's going to the landfill instead of the second center. So I asked that question today to Todd at Republic. So I'm waiting on a response to that. And yeah, we'll definitely get them here to speak to you all. I think they're still, like Earl said, they're overwhelmed right now. I think give them a week or two, and I think we can have a... a more knowledgeable conversation about where this is going for them especially. So let's, yeah, I think we'll bring them back sometime in August I think would be good. If we feel like they're getting comfortable, we'll get their heads wrapped around where we're going with it.

Okay, and if you find out, will you maybe email our group? Yes. Okay, thanks.

Well, and I was working today to kind of prepare a more like public because there was some confusion over the weekend. I'm not on Facebook, but I came in and said everybody had all these confusing things that had happened. They sent out a message about personal containers weren't going to be collected anymore, and they were talking about like your own garbage cans, but that confused everybody to think they weren't going to pick up anything anymore. So it was just a lot of confusion. So we were kind of working. That's one reason I talked to Republic today is like we need to get some good information back out to everybody because there's been conflicting information from them that has confused folks. So you might see, we'll get information out to you all, but I think we're going to try to put a public post. I talked to Melanie today. In the next day or two, if I can get some answers from the Republic on a couple of things.

And we need to remind our citizens that we can't take the recycling bins anyplace for recycling right now because they're still a mess.

And I'll say, too, I haven't seen it myself, but I'm guessing the recycling right now is probably as dirty as it's ever been because the guy driving the truck that's collecting the recyclables... He's probably not aware of who has opted in and who hasn't, and people are setting their carts out, and he's probably just dumping everything. And there's no telling what folks are putting in those carts because they're just getting picked up and taken away. They're not even opting in. So I'm assuming it's pretty dirty right now. So that's not something that Republic's making a decision or Angie's making a decision about. They just can't. So I think that, yeah, there is a little bit of patience, but also, as we said, you don't really want to pay for it either if you know that it's not being taken to the recycling center. Yeah.

Thank you all for those updates. Mr. City Manager, you have anything else? Thank you, thank you. Next item is our second here to public. For folks in attendance, we talked to the commission about things that are not on the agenda. Yes sir, you've been waiting patiently? Glad to see you back this week.

Yes sir.

I can. My name's James Phillips. I came back to follow up on the Water, if there have been any update on it. I had typed text, but I hadn't heard back.

Yeah, I don't have any good updates. I've talked to Public Works. They've been out. We think everything's good on Locust. We need to get downstream, which is actually towards the water plant. So we're going to keep working our way downstream and see if we can figure out what's going on there. So yeah, I've talked to Public Works about it. We're working on it. Stay in touch with me.

Yes, I'll just keep in touch with you. And then my other... After I left, I found out about the raccoons living in the roof of the house next door to mine. My daughter took a picture of it coming out of the roof and then she had texted to me while they were gone. This past week, the young lady that the people that live in the house told my daughter and my kids that they ought to use some caution because there's three of them in there. I have called in Mr. Young. He says the city doesn't, or the city doesn't do that. Maybe the animal control, I checked with the animal control, they don't do it. So they give me a card that are saying I can pay for it, but it's not my responsibility to pay for it. I know it's the house person's responsibility. It should be to take care of this. I'm asking, what is the process? How do, is it enforced? And do you have any teeth to enforce it? Because I got, I mean, if I have to trap them or I have to catch them, I'm bringing them to other neighborhoods. Fair is fair.

Fair is fair.

I mean, if they're not going to get them out of my, out of mine, I'll take them somewhere else.

That's why we enjoy you coming to see us.

No, it's still a mess, buddy. And the whole backside, you can't see anything from the backside at all. And I mean, it's still a daggone mess. I'm just trying to figure out, I know there's a process. You have to issue more citations, I guess. Is that right? Does the chief have your phone number?

You gave your chief? The grass has been mowed in the front.

Yeah.

I went by there today.

Okay.

And I know it was addressed last week. Okay.

I've been...

The animal situation would be the animal control or it would be actually on the homeowner. It's just like a groundhog in somebody's yard or in somebody's garage. It would be upon... It's not necessarily a cozy... Okay. Necessarily a thing per se. Okay.

So there's no, you, there would not be anything that, like you couldn't force them to hire somebody to trap them or get them out of the house? That's what I'm asking.

I'll just give you this. I have two raccoons that get in my garbage can on a regular basis. Where do they come from and is it my responsibility or is it wherever they reside?

Right.

You know, technically, if I want them out of my garbage can, I guess I would have to travel myself and call Animal Control to come get those. Mr. Phillips.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. It's three minutes expired. We just have this little signal we give each other. Anyone else desire to speak to the commission tonight? Yes, ma'am.

We have groundhogs. You want to get on the video? We have a house next door that's what he's talking about, and nothing is done. So we've called.

You want to get on the video? Yeah. That's Mrs. Joyce's owner. She won't come up to the microphone. She reminds us of somebody else.

I'm just agreeing that nothing is done. We've been told to live with it, basically, or to take it to another neighborhood, as he says. Oh, oh.

Okay, we gotta go on. Thank you, ma'am. Commissioner updates and comments? The lateness of the evening, can we just skip that tonight? Y'all got some comments, come on.

I will. Just when I'm at Main and Forth, it is so beautiful. With the fountain, the courthouse, and the mural, it's just beautiful. And David Farmer recently did a painting there, so. And I'm sad Hannah's gone because I was hoping to hear about the data center input meetings and when they might be posted. I guess we'll look on the city site for that soon.

We'll keep you up to speed. She's working through the Plain Zoning Commission on those, and so I'm not sure. I know they had a meeting last week. I'm not sure what the result of that was, and we'll find out. And if there's any, we wanted to put those out there on your calendars as soon as we saw those, and we will ask that Melanie post those or Ashley distributes any official dates once they're shored up beyond that initial schedule presentation to you.

Anyone else? Welcome back. Saw you after so long.

I wish I went to Baskin-Robbins and got me a sundae. I know it wasn't the commission talking.

Okay. Anyone else? Let's go on. The next item is payment of the bills. Chair would entertain a motion to pay the bills as presented.

I move for approval of the bill list as presented and the amount of $206,335.24. That is not correct.

What did I say? Several hundred thousand dollars missing.

Oh, yeah. Well, you know, or $602,335.25. Second. Whatever you feel like.

Thank you for the motion and the correction. Thank you for the second. Any questions about the bill list? Hearing none, all those in favor of paying our bills, say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed? Motion carried. 602, not 206, right?

Next item. So I was told repeatedly.

Next item is Municipal Order Numbers 07-27-2026-01. Post-insurance compliance process. Ms. Compton?

The city is in the process of issuing bonds. We passed our bond ordinance back in June. In July, if you remember. Yeah, in June. This is turning the short-term note for 6.5 million that we issued in 2023. some utilities projects into full-fledged bonds which will those will be sold in October as part of the bond issuance process we go through a tax compliance review along with a rating from the bond rating agencies and part of that is they like to see a Post-issuance, that means after we issue the bonds compliance policy. It's also just good practice, and we don't formally have one on documented. It essentially says what we will do after we issue these bonds. Part of that is making sure if we had any proceeds of the bonds. We don't in this case because it's refunding that note. that we would have to spend all those funds within a certain period of time, or then we may be responsible for repaying the federal government, the IRS, any proceeds on that, because you can only earn so much interest, right? We have a tax-exempt status, and with that comes some responsibilities. We can't essentially take that money and earn a huge amount of interest on it. We also have responsibility to report any non-compliances or financial issues that we are experiencing. So this policy just outlines what the city is responsible for and largely what my role is responsible for reporting to the federal government, to the securities exchange, and how we are required to maintain that.

Thank you, ma'am. Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve Municipal Order 0727-2026-01. Thank you, ma'am.

Is there a second?

Second.

Are there any questions? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed? Motion carries. Next item, Ms. Compton, is yours as well.

So the EDA is working with the Industrial Foundation on this second KPDI grant where the Industrial Foundation is acting, they are providing the local match. However, the city is the official grantee of this grant and the EDA is the beneficiary of the grant. So the city acts as a pass-through. for these KPDI funds, and we are requesting permission to apply for this reimbursement for a total of $92,898.99. As soon as we get that, that goes straight to the EDA. In the packet, you can see kind of the progress on the project. They're moving along pretty quickly.

Thank you, ma'am. Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve Resolution 202607-2704. No, 03. Okay. Sorry about that. Thank you, ma'am.

Don't want to mix that up.

Is there a second?

A second.

Thank you, ma'am. Any questions or comments? Hearing none, all those in favor of Resolution 2703, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Next four items, Mr. Carrier. Resolution 07-2704, GAC bid award. So we just make some motions on these and let him. Is there a motion to approve this bid award? You don't want him to talk? I'm going to let him talk.

I'll move to approve resolution 07-2704.

Thank you, ma'am. Second. Comments from Marsha?

Sounds good.

Okay. Any questions or comments? Saved us some money?

Yes, sir.

About $100,000.

All right. Thank you, sir.

Got to get that into the record, right? All those in favor of approving the GAC bid award, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Next item is... 07-2705, the East Main Pond Sludge, Lagoon, Delaware. Chair, would you like to entertain a motion to approve this resolution?

I'll make a motion to approve Resolution 2026-07-2705. Thank you, ma'am.

Is there a second? Second. Thank you, sir. Mr. Carey, you want to make some comments about this one?

No, sir. Just want to make a comment. Last time we did this was probably two years ago. That price at that time was $143.75 per wet ton. It's a little bit more this year, which with inflation probably makes sense. This year it's $156.25. So a little bit higher, but we've got the money in the budget to do the work.

All right. That sounds good. Very good. Any other comments or questions? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, motion carries. Next one is 07-2706, air release valve replacement. Is there a motion?

I'll move to approve Resolution 2026-07-2706. Thank you, ma'am.

Is there a second? I second. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Carey will make some comments.

Yes, Mayor. This was the lowest quote, $12,800 from May Excavation and Contracting LLC. We had another quote from Todd Johnson Contracting for $17,380. And we also reached out to Service Specialties, another firm here in town, for a third quote, but they did not come back to us. So we got two quotes.

Okay. All right. Any comments or questions? Hearing none, are those in favor of passing 07-2706, say aye. Aye. Those opposed, motion carries. The next one is 07-2707, Gearbox for thickening their unit. Wow, that's a tongue twister. Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve Resolution 202607-2707. Thank you, ma'am. Is there a second? Second.

Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Carey, you want to make some comments?

The lowest quote was from service specialties for $11,311.79. We had a second quote from Herrick Company Incorporated for $14,880. And then we also reached out to... A couple companies, Derby City Pumps and Hibbs Electromechanical, but they did not choose to respond. So, lowest quote is $11,311.79. Thank you, sir.

Any questions or comments about that? Hearing none, all those in favor of approving 07-2707, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Pretty easy for Mr. Kerry, wouldn't it? Yeah, don't be smiling at me, Jack. Mr. Marshall, I mean, Mr. Wharton, you're up next, right? You've been waiting patiently. Oh, wait, wait, hold it.

Do we want to do solid waste collection update again?

No, we're going to do 16 through the next two, buddy. Resolution 07-2708, 2026 SS-48 grant application. Grant's a good word, all right? Yes, sir.

Yes, the state re-implemented their grant program, G-R-A-N-T. It's an abbreviation. The goal of the program is to help cities and counties match any grant. They provide the match for any federal grants that community has received. Yes. You have to apply within 90 days of applying for the federal grant. So we were able to, we went ahead and submitted an application for the match that would be required if we received the SS4A grant that we applied for in May. It was... The total match for the city was $500,000, so we're requesting to receive $450,000 because we're required to provide 10% of the match. Our match is 10% of the other match. So we would provide 50,000, we would get 450,000 from this program. That all hinges on us receiving this grant and getting all the information to the state. So this will kind of, once we submit the application, if they approve it, it'll just kind of sit out there. And once we receive, we know we're going to get awarded the grant, we receive the agreements, then they'll reimburse us for what we've been awarded.

That's exciting.

Where is that exactly, Josh? I'm trying to place that. The SS4A grant we applied for in May was for the western bypass intersections. So going from the 2168 Harrisburg Road intersection to start the bypass all the way to Parable Road. So it was all those intersections through there on the bypass.

That would be great. Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve. I'll make a motion to approve Resolution 202607-2708. I'm second.

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, sir. Any questions or comments to the judge? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Resolution 07-2709, Bulkman Sidewalk being reviewed. Chair, you were talking about this from first, right?

Yeah, a little bit. We opened bids for the Boffman Sidewalk project on July 8th. We got one bid from the Allen Company in the amount of $1,092,405.06. When we applied for this grant five years ago, we had a project budget of $500,000, so we were going to get a $400,000 grant that we had to match with $100,000. We knew with inflation, we had estimated that would go up to about $650,000 for the total project. That came in well over budget. We're recommending to reject that bid. We are already prepared after tonight, we're going to re-advertise on Saturday. We met with the Allen Company last week, myself and the Palmer Engineering that did the design to talk about some of the items that came in a little higher. So we're making some changes to the scope of work. We're going to put this back out, try to get a little more interest in it so we get more than one bid. It's hard to know whether that's the true price without more than one bid. So we're going to open the bids back up probably... probably late August, and probably the first meeting in September we'll be back here to try to get this bid awarded, hopefully get a good bid this next time.

Thank you, sir. Okay. Is there a motion?

I'll move to approve resolution 2026-07-2709. Thank you, ma'am. Is there a second? Second.

Thank you, ma'am. Questions or comments?

Just thanks for looking again. Will this put the project off too far?

It should delay us about a month or two when we have to re-bid something. It's usually at least a month. I think some of this is a little bit of a blessing because ADMIS is doing a lot of gas line reinstallation out there right now, which has brought to light some of the issues that I think happened in the bid. One of the biggest numbers on the bid was just traffic management. Um, so we talked about some ways we can try to lower that cost a little bit because we're having a lot of issues out there with, with Atmos right now with how narrow, how everything out there is really compact on Boffman. The streets narrow, the driveways are close together, everything's really tight. So I think they're running into some issues that we're kind of, it's helping us see that we need to prepare for. Um, and also we don't need to start this work until they're out of there. So they're looking at September for being done. So that matches up with when we should be awarding the bid and getting started. So I think this is all kind of working out for the best, even though it's taking a little longer than we anticipated.

That's great. Do you think we're going to help with traffic management or the bidder?

The bidder. The contractor will be required to do that. So they put in a very high number to... they were going to install actually the temporary signals to work as flaggers, to flag down to one lane all day, every day. That's a huge cost. So we talked about maybe, and this is something, like, we may have to close Boffman a little bit, which would save us money, and there are options to get out of there. They wouldn't do it when schools, they would have to do it in a very small window of time when school's in session and buses aren't running. So they'd have to do it from like 9 to 2 during the day. But it'd be a lot of communication on our part, but I think I think folks out there are just going to want to see it get done. So we just got to set the expectations. I think that's part of the problem with Atmos right now is that they just show up and don't establish expectations of what people are going to see happening. And I think we just really have to set the expectation of like, hey, from these months, you're going to have these kind of disruptions, and here's what it's going to look like. I think if we can get the information out there, most people are going to be excited about the project.

Yeah, they will. Yeah, thanks.

You got to pass that. Did we pass the vote on that one? Okay. All those in favor of rejecting the bid, say aye. Aye. All right. Those opposed? Motion carries. All right. Next item is Chief McCurry.

I've got 17A that we added. Oh, yeah. I don't know if I should get that one.

Pickleball shade. Pickleball shade. I don't know if I should get that one in there, right? Pickleball shade. Mm-hmm. All right, Mr. Morgan.

Yes, so we received on Friday the final proposal for the shade structure for the three courts at the do pickleball courts. The final price that we received was $189,000. $649.00. That is about $25,000 higher than we expected, but I think part of that was just nowadays six months of inflation. And then also we changed a little bit on the design. I think the original code, I'm looking at it now, was a... three fabric section and we're going to go to a six fabric section, that makes it a little easier for us to... They actually ended up giving us two options when it was all said and done. There was one piece of fabric or six. Talking to Tommy and looking at some pictures, I think that it's going to be a lot better for us long term to maintain multiple small shades instead of one giant shade And we we took this to the picklers had them look at it. They agreed. So that's why we're recommending this this one this Structure at one hundred eighty nine thousand six hundred forty nine dollars. We budgeted 165 in the budget for this project But I'm already gonna be saving we're saving twenty thousand dollars on the parking lot of Jenny Rogers so that's gonna be that could be most of that and And speaking of that, they're going to start paving that tomorrow. So that'll be another good thing we can knock out this fall. But yes, that's going to be a little bit. So I don't think we need to do a budget amendment or anything for this going over. I think we'll be able to peel back some other projects within the parks capital budget to meet this increase.

Okay. So we need to entertain a motion to approve. Let's see. 2026. Oh, is it 07? It would be what? 27? It would be 11. 11 or 12? 11. It would be 11. 11, because T's got number 10, right?

So 11, right? Okay, well, I'll move to approve 2026-07-27-11, correct, Ashley? Okay, which is the shade amendment for Pickleball.

Second. All right, thank you all. Any other questions to Josh about this project? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries.

Can we get pictures of it or something to see, actually?

Yeah, we'll get you all some pictures, yeah. And I wanted to add, the reason we kind of expedited this and got it on here tonight and added it is because they need to prepare the underground. They're getting ready to start putting in the underground electric and everything, and we need to coordinate that because the electric will be tied into this structure so underneath the shade can be lit. So this is something we're trying to coordinate on the fly and make sure we don't hold the project up at all.

I think all commissioners should try pickleball once. I haven't yet, though.

I had the paddle in my hand one time. They told me it cost $110 for the paddle. I did. I was a loner, right? Let's go on, though. Okay, Chief. Resolution 2607-2710.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor and Commissioners. What this is, what we're asking is to adopt the Kentucky Emergency Management Mutual Aid Agreement. What it does is it provides us the framework and guidelines for receiving and providing aid to other agencies within the state in a declared emergency.

That's it. I move for approval of Resolution 2026072710. Thank you, sir. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, ma'am. Other questions or comments? It was an interesting reading. I said, man, I hope I don't get called out. Oh, my gosh. All those in favor of 07-27-10 say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Chief Gray, you're up next, buddy. I'm still voting no.

Mayor, commissioners, you have in front of you the municipal order reference automated license plate readers. The governor passed House Bill 58 back in April, became effective July, requiring agencies to adopt a policy. We adopted the Kentucky League of Cities model policy. That's what you have in front of you, reference APLs.

Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve Municipal Order 0727-2026-02.

Thank you, ma'am. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, sir. Any questions or comments?

This is the one they amended sort of late in the game, didn't they, Tony?

We had a policy prepared for the last meeting. And the morning of the meeting, they had sent out some new amendments to that policy. So this is the amended policy per KLC.

Thank you. Other questions?

Is there a way to find out, like get information out as to what they actually do? Obviously the big thing is against, you know, but I think a lot of people don't understand the limits of what they do and I feel like this will make it safer. So is there any information out there about just, will this contain only what they do?

Now this policy does not really cover or describe exactly what the flat camera system, how it works.

Okay. The collection of the information and use of it is covered under state law. We can't necessarily change that, right? The policy for us is internally what happens with our process and reconfirming what our internal process is. and the fact that we have an administrator and who that is, you know, those components of that operation.

Yeah, so it makes it better. It is. I just wanted to get that out in the public. Yes. Thank you.

Any other questions? She really avoided that one, didn't she? All those in favor?

Do we have a motion?

Do we have a motion? Aye. Oh, do we?

Yeah, we have a motion and a second.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Those opposed, motion carries. Chair would like to entertain his favorite motion.

For personnel and property acquisition.

That's not my favorite motion. My favorite motion is to adjourn. We need a motion for executive session, right?

For personnel and property acquisition.

We'll make a motion to go into executive session to discuss personnel matter pursuant to KRS-61810-1F and for property acquisition under KRS-61810-1B. Second. Thank you.

Motion to second. I'll be back in regular session. Mr. City Manager, you have some items for us?

Thank you. Randy, can you confirm for me the dates when I go through this? I would ask that the commission accept the resignation of the athletic supervisor, Stephanie Boyd, July 30th. August the 3rd. I knew there was an odd date there. Effective August 3rd.

Is there a motion?

I'll accept the resignation with regrets.

I'll second and wish her well.

Yes, she's wonderful.

Any other comments? All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Yes, sir.

Staff would like to ask you to accept the resignation through retirement of Charlie Lawson from the water treatment plant.

Is there a motion?

July 3rd. July 3rd, thank you.

So moved. Thank you. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, ma'am. Any other questions or comments? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Motion carries. Yes, sir. Staff is recommending the hiring of John Mofield to the position of water distribution operator class two. Thank you, sir. Is there a motion? So moved.

Thank you, sir.

Second.

Thank you, ma'am. Any questions or comments? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Congratulations to all three of those folks. Chair, do we have a motion to adjourn?

I'll move to adjourn.

Second. Probably move to second. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, have a good night.