City Council - Regular Meeting

If everyone would stand, we'll call this Georgetown City Council meeting to order. At this time, we will have a word of silence. Thank you. I will ask Councilwoman Willow Hamrick to lead us in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

Thank you and welcome to Georgetown City Council meeting for Monday, June 22nd, 2026. We are here to conduct business for the city of Georgetown. I'm going to ask again, council, make sure when you're speaking that your microphones are turned on. And when you're not speaking, please turn your microphones off so we can not hear any kind of background noises. We will follow the agenda as written, except we're going to make one adjustment. And that adjustment will be that if you look at item 19, human resources, I'm going to move that up to right under the...

on the right between 9 and 10 we're going to put 19 in that spot okay all right that being said uh madam clerk will you call the roll yes sir mrs wilkins brent here mr crisp here mrs hamburg present mr hampton here mr minke present mrs leslie mitchell here mrs tingle signs here mr stump here

Thank you, Madam Clerk. At this time, you received a minute from the June 8th City Council meeting. At this time, Council, I will entertain a motion to accept the minutes.

I'll make a motion, Mayor.

Motion made by Ms. Brandt. Do I have a second? Second. Seconded by Ms. Hamburg. Are there further questions and or comments? All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay. Item four, the receipt of the check registry. Counselor, you should have received that. If you have received those check registry, receipt of the check registry, register, excuse me, please show by raising your hands. Let the record reflect that all received. Item number five, public comments. Public comments give this opportunity for the public to come in and address any concerns they have with city council. We ask you that when you come to identify yourself for the record. Again, direct all information to the council. And again, this is public comments. Madam Clerk will time you. You will have four minutes to state whatever business you need to bring for this council. At three minute mark, she will alert you that three minutes has elapsed and you have one more minute. And then at the end of four minutes, she will say that your four minutes is up. And we will ask that you be respectful and then take your seat so we may continue on. Next, we have for public comments, we have Mr. Terry Thomas on the cabins.

Hello, how's everybody doing? Hope everybody's doing okay. We're here today, we want to talk a little bit about the old cabin that we had in surplus. I was here a little bit the last time we was meeting and I talked about it a little bit. And I just want this council to know that we just believe if we had something like this over in the Boston area, you just couldn't imagine the good that it would do. The question was asked, what's the reason? Why do we want to do something like this? Because it's all about the people. It's all about the people of Boston. It's all about the ones who've done great things. We would love to have a place to where we could have a Boston Hall of Fame, just for all the great people who've done You know, the pioneer people who've done the work. You know, we're talking about restoring the cabin. We know how much work it is. We know how hard it is. We just couldn't imagine what we're really reaching out to. We know that's a lot into it. We want to do this thing. You know, we want to do it for the people of Boston, such as Mr. Bubba McIntyre. Everybody knows Mr. Butler. I think we had a place where we could recognize just people as such. In other words, Mr. Tilford, we just talked about Mr. Tilford. But it's some that the city don't know too much about that we want to recognize. We got a lot. It's just a lot that we could do with a building like this. We would love to have a building or a slave cabin as such so we could honor people like Buck Hamilton. Buck Hamilton was born and raised here in Georgetown, Kentucky. He moved to Cincinnati now, and that's where he resides at now. But he's around an 80-year-old man, still drag racing. Still drag racing, but the thing to make his special is one day he was at a drag race, and something was going on with his car. He went over to the local radio shack and bought something in there, and he still get royalties today. off of that. So it's people like him, Clifford Pruitt. In 1900, y'all have heard several times about this man by the name of Clifford Pruitt. He was a black man. He was freed. When he was freed, he couldn't read or write. By the time 10 years after that, he was one of the richest men in Georgetown. I was looking at a paper the other day that was talking about him and it's talking about his accumulation. He had $30,000. in his bank as an old man. This is 1900, and that's equivalent to $1.2 million today. So we had them kind of people. That's the reason why we would love to have a place as such. And in the process, we restored the slave cabin. I wanted to think about three potential benefits.

That's three minutes.

Three potential benefits from preserving the cabin. Preserving history. promoting education and fostering community. And by that I'm going to read this because my time is getting short, but it's talking about a cabin built by slaves. A cabin built by slaves in Georgetown, Kentucky is a piece of history that holds significant importance. Unfortunately, currently it's in bad shape, which poses a challenge for preservation. relocating it to a prominent spot in the Boston community to provide and showcase the community's rich heritage. By incorporating the cabinet to Georgetown, if we had a legacy tour, the city could highlight the stories and the experiences of those who built it. This can help educate visitors about the history of slavery and its lasting impact on its community. The professionals from Boston.

That's four minutes.

Thank you.

I think I was here a couple weeks ago when I get to finish my story. Darnell Christopher, thanks for your time. I think I left off at the park. I just think that we need something to attract people in there. I mean, we've been doing this all our life, and it's all been outdoor activity. We've got park and recreations. We've got a learning institute. We've got to find some kind of medium to separate the two because we have park and rec and we have learning. Coming to a dormant stage, it's a failed plan that didn't work. We need to come to a new direction in the park and to bring an attraction to Georgetown, to the state for other different people to come where we could do the recreational events indoors, not just outdoors. If the kids come over and play basketball, it's raining, it's storming, and it's... All our lives we've been outdoors. That's the only thing we've been doing all our life. And to have us outdoors all the time is not, you know, we need some indoor facilitation to work. We could do concerts. We could do different things just to bring an attraction to the city of Georgetown because it's a community center. You know, we haven't since the center of town, we ain't had a community center down there since. And then also I want to touch down, I said something about New York. I don't know what the representation is, but it seems like all of the likes of people is embossed. It's like you got the Amen House here, you got the Gavin place here, you got the drug rehab place over here, you got the addiction place down here. And we get all the people filtrating through our neighborhood just safe now. I think it's a pot for something bad to happen and we want to do something about it before it gets too bad because people sleeping in the yard, we over there cleaning up trash today, they got feces in bags, throwing it up under the park. We ask for help to deal with these people, not to come over and harass us. Do something with these people, and we can take care of the rest. Because we're not equipped to deal with people who've got PTSDs and anxiety problems. We can't deal with that. But it's too much, and our kids have to see that every day. It's 10, 12 people just sitting out there camped out, taking clothes from different places, bringing them, leaving them all over the park. We need to come to some type of solution for that. Like I say, why is it all directed over this way? Why come to the Shatterwell? That's our little town. Why is it just here? And then our elders and our children, they're scared. They come. We don't know what these people are capable of doing. They've got pedophiles. Are they doing the correct procedures to vegan this specific area? Where do you ramp kids? Where do you ramp communities? Is it done properly? Something's got to be done before something bad happens. So, and then I was also, like I said, I don't know if we would have been talking to different people about a community center being built. I'm just wondering if everybody's on the same page and that's the direction we're going with this inside our park. I heard some people say this, some people say that, but is it a political campaign or is it real? So I'd just like to see some groundbreaking going on so we can have something. Ain't nothing going to be done real fast, but it's something we can start to implement to see further on down the road. Bring the attraction. The spirit of Boston is beautiful. It's our love. It's protected. The spirit is not going nowhere. So let's just keep our spirit. We've got peace, love, happiness. We just want to keep the peace. That's it. Let the kids of the elderly, you know, George and Aaron, give us people who are on work every day something to do.

Is it Wendy?

I signed that. I thought it was just coming. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Next is the item number six is the event application. We have A, the Elizabeth Village Night Market. All right. Nobody from Elizabeth Village. All right. Item number 6B, Jake Away, Cowboy Car and Bike Cruise Inn.

Hello. My name is Brendan Ruiz. I'm with Jake's Way. Each year we have an event at Country Boy. It's a car show. that raises money for funeral expenses for unexpected and sudden deaths in our community. This year we're seeking a road closure again on Corporate Boulevard from the intersection of Innovation Way for approximately 1,000 feet up until the entrance of the Creofoam parking lot. It'll be on October 11th from 1030 to 630.

I'll make a motion, Mayor. All right, did you hear the request? And motion is made by Mr. Brent.

Second, Mayor.

Second, made by Mr. Stone. Are there further questions and or comments?

Just a quick question. So given it's out in the business park and sometimes they work on those days, is there a communication that's going out to all the businesses in the park?

There won't be any obstruction of any of those businesses. There's going to be entrances. Our road closure goes from After Innovation Way, up until before the first business there, that career form. And there's three other entrances into that business park as well.

But my question is, is there going to be a communication to them? I mean, so that they know to take those other two entrances.

Not that I'm aware of, but we can do that if we need to.

I think that would be a good idea.

Okay. Is there any other questions? Questions, any comments? All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, say nay. Let the record reflect that it passed. Okay, item number seven, marriage comments. Got a couple things here I want to talk about. First of all, City Hall, you know, as a reminder, and I mentioned this a while back, hopefully we are still scheduled to, on July the 13th, will be the start of the new fiscal year. Will be our first council meeting in our new facility. So, it'll be July the 13th. We're going to have a a open house from 4 to 6 p.m. in front there. So all of y'all will be invited and the public will be invited. So stay tuned for that. And also, Council, there were some questions as to you all asked us to look into the water mitigation in the basement. We're still working on that, and we'll have something for you this week to explain what's going on there. Item number two is the Royal Spring cabin number two. Now, we have talked a little bit about this. As you know, Georgetown Municipal Water Sewer is waiting kind of like what we want to do with. Cabin one is pretty much decided with that. But cabin two, I think, is what we'll need to talk a little bit and have some discussion on. And I wanted to put this on this agenda because this is very important. And like I said, you hear the gentleman come up and talk about the importance of their mind about these cabins and so on. That being said, there are some options that we need to do. One thing we need to remember is this. GMSWSS is on a timeline. They've got projects they have to have that done. So, you know, I'm going to make a recommendation in just a few minutes on what I would like to see this council to entertain. Just to kind of give you a run-through of some possible scenarios on this. This is talking about cabin number two, okay? For that location, that is the one down near the KU building. of course the fence line okay that is still on the ground cabin one is as you see it's up on the trailer at this point in time so the first one would be that number one would be to actually surplus cabin number two uh as as to the original contract and surplus it means that that's a council action that has to be done item number two or a it will be a change order. And the change order will be that what we would do here is the cabin stays in location, but you've got to work around it. And working around it, it's an estimated $87,730.15. All right? And of course, option number three will be request the change order for cabinet two is to just pick it up and then run it, and then put it back. Now, the cost of that, I don't know what that will cost at this point in time. Now, here's something that I want to suggest that you all look at. There's a lot of thought that needs to go into this. And maybe we need to, for the sake of getting Georgetown Municipal Water their opportunity to go ahead and continue with their project, I'm going to make a recommendation that we do is that we pick it up and just put it from there. And then we can decide. And you can have a conversation with your constituents, whatever, and then come back and say, OK, maybe we need to put it back in the same place. Maybe we need to move it to a new place. whether it be in Boston Park or maybe remember that Cityville had also asked for it. So those are some options there. But the thing I want to make sure we do is that we allow the Georgetown Municipal Water to go ahead and get it out of the way so they can continue on with their project. Now, if you've got any questions, they're here. They can come up and offer that. That would be my suggestion.

Okay. So if we pick it up and just move it, that's the $87,000?

No, no, no, no. $87,000 is we leave it in place and we work around it.

And then we don't know how much it will cost to just pick it up and move it.

No, we do not know.

Okay.

However, they did that for the leach cabin. They moved it. So would it be a similar cost is the question?

I'm not sure if that would be the similar cost. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think the estimated was about $35,000 for that project. Now, you could think that it might be somewhere close to that or maybe more. I don't know.

Yeah, so the scoped cost to pick up the leach cabin, move it aside to complete the work, and then to place it elsewhere in the park was $35,000. That was in the scope of the project, not as a change order and relative to the condition of that cabin. We can't with any certainty without asking for that change order price, say what it would be to pick up, move, and then replace it. I think what Mayor Jenkins is suggesting as an option is if there's interest in having further conversation and researching some of the ideas that have been brought by the community and the council, that an option to allow the project to continue progressing would be to see what it looks like to pick it up, move it aside, and then continue the conversations assess the condition of it, because that's obviously a consideration as well, whether it can withstand a big move or whether it should be evaluated to be disassembled and reassembled, and just research and look into what best suits the community's needs. So I think that suggestion was not to get the price to move it and put it back, not make that full decision, but to just get it moved aside to facilitate the conversation and the project at the same time.

So what is the actual project timing? the amount of time that we have to actually make that decision and execute it.

I'm going to ask to bring them up because Allen and them can tell me exactly.

I don't know the exact date that they'll be coming to the park. They'll be coming here pretty soon. They'll be in there mid-July, August. And that time frame, they're probably going to start up in the park. Right now, the contractor's already screaming at me. He's asking to delay because we haven't held that month from doing the contract, which was to dispose of that cabinet. So we're already under pressure from the contractor for delays.

So may I?

Yes, go ahead.

Our next meeting is three weeks from tonight. And that would be in the heart of the project if we did nothing.

If we do nothing, I'm sure the contractors are going to ask for some more delays.

Right, which would cost money.

Yeah.

So how much was in the contract to move?

The bid contract price was $10,000 to disassemble and dispose of capital. And where was it going to be disposed of? It was probably going to be chopped up. It's in pretty rough condition. The wood, it's not treated wood. There's no paint or stain on it. It's just raw wood from the 1870s, 1860s. And it's weathered harder, much harder than the Leach cabin has. It has more water damage, more insect damage to it. The subcontractor that originally brought it down here has indicated he's not too sure if he can lift it up and move. He doesn't know if he can pull it together. But we haven't asked him to do anything of that nature. So right now, the bid is $10,000 for the .

So I'm wondering, is there another option to disassemble not cut it up, but disassemble it, evaluate the integrity of it, and then being able to reassemble it somewhere, whether that's in Boston or some other place, but being able to preserve the options and still not negatively impact the sewer project. And that would... already be built in, at least the disassembly would be built into the contract, correct? Unless they're just going to take the same chainsaws to it.

I don't know what they're going to do with it, but they're just disposing.

If it's as old as they say it is, and I know it came from Grant County, but there's still a lot of history in that building. disassemble it, set it to the side, if that's what is chose to do with it, then we can, you know, we can make a decision of where to reassemble it without them chopping it up and getting rid of a piece of history, so.

But the original contract was to dispose of cabin two, which is the one about, and then move the leach cabin into that spot. So, like you're asking, if we just disassemble it, and stack it up over the side, you can still accommodate those things. There should be a cost to this as well.

And then maybe find someone to actually, that are good at this stuff, can actually reassemble it.

Before you before you disassemble it could you get an assessment on whether it could just be picked up and moved right now instead of disassembling it and then option B to that would be to disassemble if you couldn't be picked up safely and then do that but our first option would just be to move it first.

We've already had a subcontractor express concern. He's concerned that he can't pick up the whole bottom run-up. It's rotten down. So I can have him reassess it, but I don't know what that assessment's going to take.

That would be, I think, best.

Do you have somebody other than just the general contractor? Because he's not in the study.

The general contractor's not in the form of the cabinet. His subcontractor is Judy, the company that moved down here originally. It's the same company.

Well, can you not have somebody that actually their forte is historic buildings or old cabins instead of just a general contractor looking at it to see how much valuable option there is in saving it?

i guess could try to reach out and find somebody but so obviously we're talking about this in the scope of the georgetown municipal project but you know the cabins are that's not a separate conversation but it's kind of a city conversation so if there's interest in the city i know that the kentucky heritage council has contacts that that they can help help refer to us i know that that one has already been in contact when this conversation previously occurred so if the council and the mayor are interested in that independent assessment. Obviously, Georgetown Municipal is going to have to take some action relative to their contract, but we independently can look into an inspection like that and see what opportunities could be there if that's a path. I think we're still balancing that with making sure that we're facilitating their project continuing, but if that assessment is going to happen, I think that's something the city should take on as a project before, kind of advising Georgetown Municipal on their contract. So if that's a path you all want to take.

And I have no problem with the city taking up that part of it because it is our park and it is our cabin. But honestly, to see if we're even talking about that we could or couldn't surplus it, give it to somebody else or move it or whatever, I think from what I'm hearing, as damaged as it is, we need somebody... in the know of cabins not general construction their new construction but in o construction to actually take a look at it and see if it's worth it if and give us a report back on it to make a actually a knowledgeable decision on it i really think we need somebody that's skilled in that that area to look at it so if you think you got city can get connections for it that would be my recommendation for the city to take somebody to take a look at it So they may say they may come in and somebody wants to save a gap and they may say, there's no way you can say this. And then we know to let them do what they need to do.

But isn't that the group that the group that's moving the cabin, aren't they specialized in that activity?

I do know that they have experience in moving historic structures. I don't know the extent of their experience relative to assessing the condition. But we can certainly ask that question. But, yes, the subcontractor that initially moved it from Shelbyville? Yes. Initially brought it here from Shelbyville is the same contractor who will be working with it now. Not sure what condition it was in then versus now, but certainly can ask that question. Okay.

All right. Go ahead. Ms. Mitchell. So. It's been locked up and unsafe for years. I mean, nobody's been allowed in it. And it seems to me that it's pretty obvious that it's in rough shape. And regardless of what we do with it, if we move it, which I mean, I would love to see us do that somewhere, if we do that, We're going to have to shore it up so that wherever we move it, it's not locked up and rotting like it is now. And it seems to me that maybe the best, I don't know the best idea, but it sounds reasonable to me to have the contractors in place to disassemble it. and regardless of whether i mean they may pick it up and it may just assemble itself there's a good chance of that and so if they carefully take it apart and stack it then it seems to me that we have more options with what to do with it and then we already have it in the contract that that's what they're going to do and they can get on with it

am i speaking correctly or no don't think carefully disassembling it is in the contract it's not okay disposal off-site so i okay i don't know the means and methods that would be the contractor's determination but my guess is that ten thousand dollars is to knock it down and demo haul off. So we can get those are presses we can get, but ultimately I don't think the $10,000 scope includes that level of care.

Something like I said earlier was just assess whether it could be picked up and moved and then if not, disassemble it.

And it did seem like when we talked about before, we all were like, they said they could work around it. And we were all like, OK, well, great. Let's work around it. And then how much is that going to cost? And it became exorbitant, in my opinion. And it seemed like it was to everyone else. And so I mean, I almost think that that's something that we might want to take off. the table i don't know eliminate from the choices um so that we can i mean did ever did i read that right when you when we talked about this before that people thought that that was um that was the majority let's just put it that way that was the majority of the vote yeah yeah

So once again, we still need to find out what we're doing with this here.

So, you know, you know, I don't think they have enough information to make a good solid that we can support to the community, regardless of what we do, because we, we know that the cabin's in bad condition, but we don't know how, how bad a condition. We don't know if they move it, whether they think it's going to fall apart again, but I think we need more information to make a more educated decision on what to do with that cabin. because we're i think we're making decisions without enough documentation to support it but i know i don't think any of us want the cabin to be torn down and destroyed regardless either whether we put it aside because it can't be moved or it can be moved but i think we need to know the actual condition of whether they can support a move or it can't support a move

But if we don't make a decision tonight, we might run into greater costs because of the GMW SS timeline. So I don't want that to happen either. So, well, we easily call special meetings. Yeah. So if, uh, well, that's why I'm saying we would need to do that after we get.

Yes. So we can do it quicker, uh, and get some of that information back and maybe they won't get it back to you in time, but then we can have the mayor call a special meeting and come back to make that final decision.

So the information requested is an assessment of whether it can be safely relocated. Mm-hmm. And then potential information on the cost to disassemble and place it off-site and reassemble.

Yeah. Well, actually, your options would be whether it can be moved and sent back. Mm-hmm. without falling apart or whether it cannot move at all and needs to be completely disassembled and set aside in parts. But I don't think anybody wants to tear it down and just demolish it regardless. Yeah. Okay.

But are we, is the quote to set it aside and put it back or is it set aside and put it somewhere? Okay. because the original scope was to take the leech cabin and put it where the second cabin is.

That's already been amended, though. That quote has been amended, I believe, because the leech cabin's going back where it was.

If we're trying to save the cabin at all, we're changing the scope of what that's going to be. So I think that's also information to bring us back is not only the condition of the cabin, but which decision we make, approximately how much is this decision going to cost us. Does that make sense to you, Devin?

Yeah, it does. I think, you know, looking at the different options, the move and setback where it was versus if the condition doesn't allow that. I mean, if the condition, quote, does allow that, subject to things going okay, what's the price? And then if that isn't sustainable or that's not an option, cost to disassemble and then ultimately an assembly cost at some point as well. But I think we're going to have to do some research to find the right tradesperson for that. Right.

But I was under the impression that the cabin was going to the south, not back to its original, the leach cabin to its original position. That was not my understanding.

Yeah. I just want to remind you when y'all discussed moving the leach cabin out of the way and bring it back, it was going to sit on top of the new sewer. So we all did not want it to sit on top of the new sewers. It chose not to put back into its own location. You all chose to move it on back to where Kevin. Yeah. Yeah.

That was my understanding.

It's not an option to leave. the cabin number two where it is because the leach cabin will be there.

Yeah. Right. So the real decision on cabin number two is whether or not it can be safely relocated as is or disassembled and reassembled somewhere else. Then the third is if it's just so far gone it can't be recovered, then the ultimate of disassemble and disposal. Those three options?

Yes. Devin, I know you don't know this off the top of your head, but you might be able to guess. But how long does getting somebody in here to do that take? You don't know.

But irregardless, whatever option, then it still has to be surplused?

It only needs to be surplused if the city doesn't want to come in.

Oh, no.

We won't keep it.

So if we was to move it even into the Boston Park, it still belongs to us.

Okay. That's what I was asking.

Yeah, it still belongs to us. Unless we just give it to another agency, And we take away ownership of that. Am I close with that?

Every time you're going to get rid of property that's in the house, the first step is to mark a surplus that's extra, you don't want it anymore. And then there's different options under the law on how you dispose of it. So that could be a transfer to another agency. A lot of times you see it as a public option, but a lot of times they come back.

So does that create an issue from a scheduling perspective, given the tight timing of the project?

Well, I have to go back and look at the schedule, but I just know that Clear is planning on being in the park at the last half of July. I don't know how quickly they're going to be up in that area. So we have a little time. Not much.

So this might be where we have to really get information as quick as possible. Yes.

Typically, when it comes to procurement, I think the minimum is typically if you were to advertise this, it's a minimum of seven days for most things. So if they were going to go through a public procurement route to find someone to do this, that's what you're looking at. I don't know where this falls under who we have as a subcontractor. But typically, we were going to go out and find somebody to publish it.

My question is, could we, if we know of somebody who has done this before or whatever, could we just contact them to come and do it?

If you're talking about the assessment of the condition, like Emily said, it will depend on what dollar amount threshold it meets. If it's a very low dollar amount assessment or if there are Heritage Council requirements, If there are folks who do this either pro bono or at a very low cost, we could have a quicker opportunity. But if it meets that threshold, yes, we would have those advertisement periods that would give that seven-day window. And then obviously any turnaround for the work that they would need to complete. So it will definitely depend on what level of cost is associated in terms of how quickly we can turn it around.

But there is a person that works for the Heritage Council who's who is a professional at log cabins. That's what they do. And they do this kind of work all the time. And I don't, I mean, is that breaking any rule to ask them to come size it up? That sounds like you're just partnering with another agency.

But we also don't have their schedule in our organization.

So it's all information we can gather.

That's who you're mentioning, Tammy. That's exactly who I'm thinking that you need. And they can probably, if they can come and look at it and willing to look at it, they can eyeball it and give you a whole lot of information very quickly since that's their thing. And from that, that would help evaluate what we need to do.

So right now, we're going to... get some information and bring it back as soon as possible. And it might result that we may have to have a special call council meeting to make a decision to meet their timeline.

That's great.

Okay. Is that workable?

Yes.

All right. Thank you. All right. Moving right on to item number eight, which is council committee reports. I have on my sheet finance.

Thank you, Mayor. The finance committee met on June 15th at the police department community room at 8 a.m. The meeting was called to order. Those in attendance were the mayor, myself, and finance director Stacey Clark and city clerk Tracy Hoffman. Miss Leslie Mitchell was not in attendance. The minutes from the May 18th, 2026 were unanimously approved. The third item on the agenda was the new investment proposal recommendation, which will be coming to you tonight. So I'll let Stacy talk more about that later. Item number four, the fiscal year 2526 procurement update. uh recent procurement activities have they've been busy with several uh Stanford items lined up for discussion um for tonight's meeting as you can see from your your agenda and uh let's see the uh the state has the state has increased the bid limit to fifty thousand and we adopted by municipal border uh in 2022 provision that the bid Limit would conform to the state statutes effective July 15th, 2026. The bid limit will go up to 50,000. It is currently 40,000 for formal bids. We discussed the fiscal year 25-26 carry forward budget items. Among those were the pavement analysis, main street sidewalks, the clubhouse bridge repairs, and Old Oxford Project. Under general discussion, we talked about the assistant finance director that will be advertised in the next few weeks, along with the new public works and police department positions. The meeting was adjourned at 826.

Thank you there, Mr. Hampton. Okay. Item number nine, Lane Runners Business Park. All right. All right. Thank you. Okay, you have Mr. Jack Connor.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor, Council. I'll defer to Emily when it's necessary, but the item that we have first is a contract with CNG Motorsports 195 Endeavor. The contract has already been approved by Council. Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority has already awarded a contract, or excuse me, an incentive to them. Unfortunately, the contract is void, not void, it's expired as a result of passing the 180-day due diligence period, then we gave it an additional 30 days, and because of the funding issue from the the owner's position, they were unable to close that period. So we're asking for a 90-day extension in order for them to get that accomplished. Talking to the owner last Friday, having them sign the extension, they thought they could have the stepfather within four weeks of your signing the additional 90-day contract.

Is that good?

Yeah, so the agenda would also reinstate all the other original terms, and then it's amending the closing date to which the document is.

Mayor, I'd make a motion. Okay.

All right. Motion made by Mr. Minkey. Do I have a second? Second. Second made by Mr. Hampton. Are there questions and or comments? Yes. All those in favor of this motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay.

Thank you. Number two. Sorry. Sorry, Todd. You should have in your packet MLA prepared a map that shows you all three portions we're talking about. Obviously the one on Denver which is CMG. We do, the business park authority received on Thursday morning two additional contracts for Lane's Run. If you'll look at the first one I want to present, it's at the bottom. It's one of our pad-ready sites. It's the one in the middle, so it's just a little bit east of Universal Platinum. This is 4.4 acres. This space, too, so that's $35,000 per acre. And both this contract and the other one that I'll be mentioning, neither one of those are interested in an incentive, which they would have been eligible for for KBI. The first one is LG Fox. LG Fox is a manufacturer of the Nix code that you have. I'd be more than happy to read it to you, but they do everything from millwright to manufacturing. They're the type of business that comes into Toyota as an example on shutdown and does a significant amount of work. They also do work with a number of Japanese companies. They also work with Volkswagen. So when they come, and by the way, they're currently located outside Scott County, so they would be moving into Scott County from another location. And I've already been in contact with that company or that economic developer in that community just to make sure that we're doing things good. Always do that with everybody that's moving somewhere. So when they come on a job site, FOR YOUR INFORMATION, THE NUMBER THAT I WAS GIVEN BY THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CPA IS ABOUT 150 JOBS. SO WE'RE TALKING LARGE WAGE POSITIONS. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU MAY ON THAT. MOTION MOVED. ALL RIGHT.

At this time, a motion made by Ms. Mitchell. Do I have a second? Second, Mr. Mayor. Second made by Mr. Chris. Are there further questions and or comments? All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay. Item C, land sale contract. Next is code 423930, waste disposal equipment assembly slash distribution.

This is revenue supply. They are currently a lessee at Syrock Holdings, an old dollar plane, which actually is not in the park. But they have 75,000 square feet. So they have partials of 15,000 feet apiece. They've been there for quite some time. And now they want to make the move that we want everybody to make, go from a lessee to a lessor position. So I gave you that map on purpose. And by the way, P&Z folks are here at the staff. Everything that we do does go through P&Z first to make sure that they meet all of the requirements for BP-1. So in the case of C&G, they met that, but LG Fox meets their requirements as well as this particular plan. So as you note, Under their NICS code, they supply garbage truck parts and equipment. They currently do that in that location. They also do a small amount of assembly work. They actually import material from China, and then they assemble. But the beauty of this particular facility that they're going to be building apart is that it's going to give them the opportunity to move more into engineering, more into manufacturing. It's going to allow them to do some other kind of unique Things that will relate more here to parts for garbage, vehicles, etc. than they would do elsewhere. The interesting thing is, and when I met with Holden on this particular project, and the reason I'm showing you this conceptual plan, it's nothing more than a conceptual plan. It has not been through PNC, it's not been through the Business Park Authority, or anybody. I just wanted to see kind of what he was talking about. We have great demand for product. You've heard that from me for a number of years. And some of that product really is people looking for lease things, not to buy, but to lease, to begin to build their business. So in this particular case, we footprinted three 25,000 square foot buildings. The first 25 would be his. The other two would be available to be leased. However, Emily, and the Business Park Authority in their wisdom, because we learned a real bad lesson 20 years ago. So we have that any potential renter or lessee of a facility would have to go through the Business Park Authority, and planning and zoning to determine that their use meets BP1. I don't know if that's item number 15, but I think it is, in the contract, that is, just in the contract. So I'm just really pleased with that, that we now have got a hold of that, so we can be sure that we're not gonna have a bowling alley or you know something that would not be appropriate for that so um looking forward to that again uh no incentive that space uh phase one so that's 25 000 feet you'll notice it's 8.75 and call your attention to the right the left side of the map that's a part of our regional we have a number of regional detention areas that is why that extra lands over there because that's where that intention is so we can use on-site as well as give good attention for our off-site we're happy to answer questions

all right this might have a question yeah i do mr mayor yes yeah um well thanks for this presentation jack um do you have any rough ideas on the projected economic impact that having these two businesses right now that's a big it's a great question the last one that scott hall did for us but the fiscal year i think was 23 24. yes

That, in fact, was $1.8 million a year only for the business part. And I can't give you, what I give him is a cumulative list of companies. He then checks the occupational tax, net profits tax, and then I go back to John Burke to get the PVA. So I look at those three things. The last number I had was $1.8 million. I've already asked for $24 million. excuse me, 24, 25, 26, so we know that data's not going to be available until the latter part of July. But I trust that it will be in that same neighborhood or more. Since you asked for statistics, currently, right now, we're at, I can tell you the exact number, assuming that these three close, and they will, we'll have sold $4.4 million worth of property, which equates to 880 jobs. And then, if you add these job shops, which are not in that 880, then that brings it up between another 150, 200, 300. Okay. But the ROI, I do do that. Great. Does that answer the question?

It sure does. And out of curiosity, why do companies sometimes forego the... What was that, the incentive? It's not interesting.

To them, it's a hassle. To them, it's an issue of am I an auditor or am I an accountant? Greg's agreeing with that. It's just sometimes I don't think it is, but to them, it is.

Too much of a headache for the discount, theoretically, they would get. Okay.

My position is something better than nothing.

Okay.

But you're right, it's up to them.

Great. Thank you.

Is there a motion on that?

All right. At this time, I need a motion. Motion made by Ms. Menke. Do I have a second? Second. Second made by Ms. Hamburg. Are there further questions and or comments? All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay. Thank you. Again, I remind you that we are switching the agenda a little bit, altering. So we're going to item number 19. And item 19, as you look in your sheet, is human resources. And it's going to be the municipal order for insurance renewal fiscal year 2026, 2027. And we have Patrick Johnston up here to tell us a little bit about it. Mayor, do you know what page number on the packet that is?

$599. $599, OK.

I can tell you. It is bookmarked, but it's page 387.

OK, thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm here to discuss any questions you might have about our insurance renewals this year. I can give you a brief summary of what our liability on property and what our workers' compensation agreements have increased to. The liability on property went up 20% this year, and the workers' comp went up 17.5%. And the reason being that is our vehicle fleet grew by 22 units on the other liability side. And five of those units accounted for $5.1 million in value increase. And so that accounted for $60,000 in premium increase. So that was a big part of our auto liability portion of the renewals. Overall, the liability on property went about $180,000 this year. We also had a $3.7 million increase in our property values. KOC is fully accounted now for the value increase at City Hall, an assembly that's going to be completed this year. And so that's increased that value somewhat. We've added some other items on our equipment, very minor in nature. Live built also looks at the number of employees we had, the number of street mounts we had. And it also goes back and takes a look at some of the claim history that we've had. Looking at all that together, it's come up to about 20%. If we look at all our property values over the last four or five years, our property values have almost doubled in value, almost doubled from 2020 to 2021. So things will continue to increase. We're a growing city, and that can be anticipated. The workers' compensation part grew by 17.5%. Again, it's a combination of growth of employees, salaries, and the type of exposures that we have. We do some of the most dangerous work anywhere around, between police, fire, public works, being out in the streets and roads. So the premiums for that type of work are basically higher. So overall, this past year, we also had a few claims. Not significant, but we did have some over the last three, four years. And they look back over that period of time, and they try to balance out all your premiums. But it did go up 17.5%. That's that. And then there's another item, I think, that comes up next. Any questions on the liability property or worker's file?

Yes. Patrick, so in the packet, apologies. So the online version of the packet is bookmarked where it was split due to file size. If you go to the second part of the packet that Tracy had emailed out, the second PDF, that is still page 387, but it's 387 out of 92.

want to make sure everybody's looking at it before sorry yeah uh patrick on the property casualty side um do they break out the the market rate increase compared to all the stuff we've added

Well, what they've done is they've said, here's what you've had.

Right.

And then they'll go back and I guess look at the market that the market's actually charting, you know, but they don't break it down for us. They base it off our prior premium. and what we've added in property, what we've added in vehicles, what we've added in personnel, the value of all that combined, and then they'll do a premium on it. And it's based on the exposure overall. So KLC tries to do a pretty good job of keeping our premiums down compared to the overall market because they know that any time we can go out and do an effective quote. So they keep it fairly good. Overall, though, I mean, this is the largest premium increases I've seen in the last 25 years that I've been in the business. But at the same time, it's also been the largest increase in property values, vehicle value. I can tell you from my personal experience with my cars and my home, my home's doubled in value. My car insurance and car and home premium have doubled. So I think we're kind of falling in line with the rest of the market. And it's unfortunate, but that's just the nature of the business, right?

Right. And on the workers comp side, you said the employment numbers went up as well as wages. What about the experience factor? How did that do?

The experience mod factor went to a 1.39, which is not as high as it has been in the past, but it's higher than when we started having experience. We had three claims. a couple of years ago that account for 86% of the overall value of our losses. And that was three years ago. So they're just now coming back and picking that up. And they're looking back at our experience. That's our experience. But overall, our work comp is done pretty well overall over the years. I can tell you the work comp back or something this year is going to be 1.38. Prior year was 1.19 and 2024-25 it was 29. So we've had some good, and prior to that, 1.04, 1.06. So we've had some good experience the last four or five years. Unfortunately, we had these three planes that jumped out and bit us. Each one of them were about 50.

When were those claims? About three years ago. And they roll off after five, is that right?

Well, they should roll off after five, but sometimes they'll look back ten years. So it just depends on what kind of experience you're having, but I'm hoping to see a decrease going forward. I looked at our claims experience for the last two years. It's been much, much less than what it was three years ago. So I'm very, very pleased with that. Everybody's doing a really good job focusing. We're having safety committee meetings. We look at our stats every time we get together for our director's meetings. I go out and help the departments with their safety committees, and we sit down and talk about the losses and what they can do to prevent them. We've got online training. We've got hands-on training. That's what Poison Fire basically do. They train, train, train, and so on. that they are in a dangerous business. And periodically, we're going to have some famous students.

OK. Thank you.

You're welcome. So that's the property and liability and the workers' comp. Any other questions?

All right. At this time, I will ask for a motion. Motion made by Mr. Hampton. Do I have a second?

Second.

Second made by Ms. Sainz. Are there further questions and or comments? All those in favor of the municipal order for the insurance renewal for the fiscal year 2026-2027, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. Let the record reflect that it passed. Item 19B, municipal order for the blanket umbrella honesty bond.

This is quite pleasing to me is that We're going to use a blanket, what they call honesty bond. It's kind of a crime-type bond, but it covers everybody, including the mayor, finance, city clerk. So you won't have to buy individual bonds anymore. It will cover you for employee theft, forgery and alteration, on premises, in transit, money orders and counterfeit, computer fraud, computer program and data restoration, fund transfer fraud. personal acts of forgery and operation, identity fraud, social engineering, and any claims expenses associated with that. And it was a very modest premium. So very happy to see that happen. And it will be all inclusive. So we'll cover all of our employees.

Thank you. At this time, I will entertain a motion. I'll make a motion. Motion made by Ms. Brent. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Minky. Are there further questions and or comments? All those in favor of the municipal order for the blanket umbrella honesty bond, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay. Thank you, Mr. Johnston.

Thank you all. Have a good evening.

All right. Item number 10, we have Republic Service Update. So we have Todd here with us again. So, Todd, if you'd come to the podium here. And we can go from here.

All right. Good evening, y'all. I'm happy to be here. It's great to see everybody once again. I think it was right after the winter weather the last time I came with an update. But we can get started on the stats that we always start with. So these stats are from January to May. We did include the weather in here. So total cart service, this is recycling and trash. So we tipped 413,719 carts Received a total of almost 6,000 calls, so about 1.4% of residents. Total service concern calls were 265. And then those same day worry calls where maybe we just haven't gotten there yet when we're usually there at nine, but it's 11 o'clock, we're not there yet. We had 130 of those. Not out calls was when our drivers called in and say that 123 Main Street is not out for service for those. Actual probably missed calls were the, I like how Tim put probably. 62, so .001% of missed pickups. Only had 12 calls during the snow event. I think that the communication that was going back and forth was so much better this year than it was in 25. It just helped a lot of things. And we will remember that for the future. and bulk item calls 1 340. so a lot of bulk pickups before we go to the next slide y'all want any questions and all that so how do these numbers match up with trends with what the trends from the frankfurt office and well really from the lexton business unit it's pretty right on really we had a We had some stints where there was some issues with manpower a couple years ago when things were a little rocky. But you guys have had the same people for a couple years now, for the most part. There's obviously some peaks when we have a sub-driver in or something that might miss one of the outstreets or something like that, but for the most part, Lexington's done pretty well the past couple years. They're kind of carrying the area right now, to be honest with you, which includes Illinois, a little bit of Arkansas, all of Kentucky. So they're doing pretty well, pretty well.

Is that something you can include next time, the trends?

If Tim can get those stats, yes. Well, for here. Oh, for here. You're talking about the trends. OK. Yeah. Just as far as. Yeah. OK.

I got you.

One number really doesn't tell us much. I will include that. I'll tell Tim to do it. And really, lastly, I'm going to make this quick. We go to the next slide. We already talked about the winter. One more. Thanks, David. So great thing. Online scheduling for bulk items is now active. It's the one thing that you couldn't do on the app or online. And now you can. So you don't have to call in. You schedule it. It goes through our system. It automatically creates a work order. And it will prompt you through all the prompts. And then it will say you're finished. Item is scheduled for the most part. We'll take you through the prompts to identify what type of item you have, whether it's furniture, appliance, or other item type deals. So once you click on furniture, we'll say bed, mattress, box spring, couch, whatever, appliance. If you click on refrigerator or something else, like an AC unit, a window AC unit, it will tell you you've got to have a dream about a licensed technician before we can take you to the landfill. So it's an awesome, awesome thing. We've been waiting on it a long time. to just finalize our app. Any questions overall?

Yeah, a quick one. It's sort of a little bit on trends, but are there any service areas that you've noticed or any special parts of town or anything at all that continue to present challenges? Or when you guys, the rare time nowadays you seem to have an issue, is it just kind of hit and miss in different parts of town?

It's mainly hit and miss, but the only one I can even think of the name of is one of the trailer parks. Whenever there's a storm... one of those wires gets down a little bit too low, and if one of the shorter trucks isn't out here, which is the one from Cynthiana that we used to bring in for help, if he's got time, he's got to come and get that because the trucks just can't get underneath of it. It just goes down just a certain amount, and it's just too short. And other than that, like I said, the same drivers out here, they know how to get around. I don't hear anything, honestly. I really do not.

Mayor? if I can. So, second time you've been here, and I haven't had any complaints since the last time you've been here, so good job.

Fantastic. Great to hear. Thank you.

Mayor, just one other quick question. So, Todd, we've talked in other avenues in other areas about traffic on the roads, parking on the roads. Are there any areas that you guys have

more challenges with from a parking on the road where people are setting out there the only time that history is honestly kim is when something's going on on 64 and we get down to main street too late that's when it hits us okay and gina always sends a email the mayor's office let know the situation we back the next day all right thank you thank you guys thank you

All right, item number 11, the fiscal year 2024-2025 annual audit presentation, RFH, PLLC.

Thank you. I'm Heather Cochran with RFH. You should have in front of you probably two pieces of information. One is this bound booklet, which I was told that I match. The bound booklet, which is the financial statements, and then a separate, what we call the communication with governance, which is the city council. So we'll start with the bound booklet. In here, there's lots of information in here, but there's just a few pieces I want to point out. The first is on page one, two, and three. So at the very beginning is our independent auditor's report to you all for the audit. So that's the one that's on our letterhead. You look on page one in the second paragraph under the title opinion. You're looking for this wording. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly in all material respects. So in an audit, that is what we call a clean opinion. That's what you're looking for when you get an audit. I always tell people that's kind of as good as it gets, right? So that's what you're looking for there. There are other things in this auditor's report. It talks about responsibilities, our responsibilities, management's responsibilities, and so on. When you're looking at your audit report, you really want to look at that second paragraph there under opinion. So that is your independent auditor's report. Because you are a city and you're a government, you have a secondary report, which is on pages 68 and 69, kind of towards the back of the bound booklet. This is also on our letterhead. So on page... 68, it's the independent auditor's report on internal control and compliance in accordance with government auditing standards. So like I said, because you all are a city, we have to follow government auditing standards and then we have to do this secondary report. So this report basically says if you were to look under the heading report on internal control over financial reporting, in the very last paragraph of that section it says during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. So in the auditing world you get these different levels of findings. Material weakness is kind of the worst and we didn't find anything that rose to that level. So again, that's really what you want when you're getting an audit. We also, under the report on compliance and other matters on that same page, the very last sentence, we didn't have anything that we felt like we needed to disclose related to noncompliance for this particular letter. So again, you know, in the auditing world, this particular letter is kind of as good as it gets, okay? You also have, because you spent over $750,000 of federal money in 2025, we have to do an additional audit in accordance with what's called the uniform guidance. You'll also hear it called the single audit. It's just additional testing that's required when you spend a certain amount of federal funds. That is on page 70, 71, and I believe 72. So on that one, the opinion is in the same place. So it's the second paragraph on that very first page of that report, so page 70. The second paragraph says, in our opinion, the city complied in all material respects with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could be directed material for that major program. So again, that's kind of as good as it gets for your program. So we selected a major program to look at. We looked at it. We didn't see anything that caused us any concern related to the program. That's what you're looking for there. Now on page 71, we do have something listed under other matters. So it's kind of middle of the page on page 71. It says we did find something that was noncompliance related to the uniform guidance specifically, so related to this uniform guidance specifically that we are required to disclose. So we'll go back to where that is in the report. That is on page 74 and 75. And this really just relates to the timing of when you're required to submit your audit to what's called the Federal Audit Clearinghouse, when you have a single audit, when you do have those federal funds that you spend. You're required to submit it at the latest by March 31st. And so that didn't happen this year. It was a little bit past that when everything got wrapped up and submitted. So it was a little bit late. And we feel like we needed to inform you all that it was a little late. Now, in the grand scheme of things, we have this happen sometimes. It is late. And in my experience, not a lot usually ever comes of it. Now, I do always recommend that you file those things on time. But as far as repercussions, I don't typically experience much in the way of repercussions when you file it late. So that was on page, like I said, page 74 and 75. Now the rest of this bound booklet is your financial statements. I think I tell people, I think it gets longer every year. You know, we just have to add more and more stuff. So it's a lot of reading, you know, if you've got the time, maybe before bed at night, you know, you can read your financial statements. So that's the bound booklet. Then we also have this secondary letter. Like I said, this is the letter that we consider to be our letter to council. Most of the information in this letter are things that were required to communicate with you. For instance, if we were to have disagreements with management during the course of the audit, or difficulties in getting information, or something that was just like, we need to communicate this information to you. that would be in this letter. There isn't really anything like that in this letter. We do have what we call other matters. So these are items that didn't rise to the level to be included in the bound booklet. So they weren't material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal controls. but there are other things that we want you to be thinking about and to be aware of so that is on the second page and the second and third page and so the first one relates to a couple years ago we were required to start recording leases and what they call subscription-based information technology arrangements. We'll abbreviate that SABITAs, so you'll hear that terminology in the accounting world. We were required to start recording those in a very specific way. And so this past year, you all authorized some of these leases and these information technology arrangements. And these are like long-term software agreements and things like that. Or they're leased vehicles that you're doing over a number of years. So you all authorized some of those to basically purchase or spend the money. But the budget wasn't actually amended to show that. So it's really a timing thing. I know Stacy and I have talked about it. And I think you all have a plan for making sure to try to get all of those in there. It wasn't that you didn't approve them. It was just more of a administrative type thing that didn't happen. So just want to mention that. This is actually fairly common at cities, I'm not going to lie. These things are pretty new. We haven't been doing them for a long time this way. So that particular finding does happen fairly frequently. So that was the item that's on that second page. On the third page, so the very last page, we also had an item related to nuisance, if I can say that word, abatement expenditures. So prior to us starting our audit, we were actually, I believe it was Stacy reached out, had some concerns about some internal controls related to your nuisance abatement. And so when we came in, you know, we found that the things that Stacey had found and that your management had found was accurate. So we found a couple of things. We found that there were some invoices that were prepared internally by a city employee rather than the vendor. So, you know, obviously you always want the vendor to be preparing those invoices. We also found that there was some items that lacked some documentation. It lists here work orders, service dates, or photographic evidence of the nuisance, like the grass height or whatever it is. And so there was just a little bit of a lack of documentation there on those nuisance abatements. And while you all did find the problem, right? So we didn't come in and find it. You all did find the problem, which is good. It did go on, I think, for a couple of months where this happened, where these things were not being caught. So this is kind of just a reminder of always being on the lookout for good internal controls, making sure that the people that are reviewing the things know exactly what they need to be looking for. And so our recommendation there is that You've reviewed your controls, which I think you all have already done, and implement some additional steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. And those were kind of our findings and what we found. Like I said, clean opinion. So that's really the main thing that you're looking for.

All right. Is there any questions that was in here?

Quick question. Thank you for this. On the document we were just looking at, on the first page, it talks about all significant transactions have been recognized. What constitutes significant for Georgetown? It's the second paragraph, last sentence.

Yeah, so significant is defined in, you know, like our standards. And I can't tell you, like, it's this amount of dollars because it varies, right? So when we look at things, whether they're significant, whether they're material, we look at a number of different things, both quantitative and qualitative. You know, would somebody's opinion on these financial statements be impacted if something was left out? Um, all of those things. So while I can't give you, oh, everything over this amount, I know for sure is in there. I can't, I can't give you that. Um, it is defined in, in our, in our literature and we do follow those rules to make sure everything's included that should be included. Okay.

Um, and then the previous, uh, discussion about the federal audit clearing house.

Yes, sir.

That it wasn't submitted. By the end of March.

End of March would have been kind of the last point in time when it should have been submitted.

So when was it submitted? When was it submitted?

It was submitted probably the first part of May. It was in May. I don't have the exact date. You can look that up online if you wanted to, but I don't have the exact date. But it would have been sometime in May. Okay. And it would have been before I went on vacation. So before the 16th, thank you.

Any other questions? Thank you. Um, before we continue on and want to kind of piggyback on that a little bit, as you all know, they were talking about the, uh, the issue in question is about the internal controls over the, uh, the new set abatement. Um, you know, I want to make sure that we're very clear that this is something that falls within the scope of the mayor. And it's an executive thing we have to do. And I take this to heart, and I take this very seriously, what has happened. But I want to let you know that we took immediately when we found out this happened, We took the appropriate steps that we needed to take to ensure that we were trying to fall in compliance and get the answers that we need and getting information. As you all read, the first thing we did was to suspend the person involved with this. And from there, we did an actual investigation through the Kentucky State Police. because making sure there was no criminal activity that evolved from this. And from there, we started the process of looking back. And quote me, I think it was almost back as 2021 or 22 when we started looking to see how much the embatement irregularity was present. It took a while when they got through with the KSP, got through with their report. They found no finding that there was a criminal action to be done or had been committed. We also had the audit coming up, and so I made the decision to tell staff that let's continue to work to make sure we find all aspects of this, to make sure there's nothing that we missed, have the audit to look at it, have a second opinion on this, make sure we cover everything about this. So, yes, it took a long time. And you could sit there and say, well, Mary, why don't we get this done right away? That's, that's what I did. I want to make sure that before I bought you this information that had all the information they needed, such as the amount of money that was, that was lost or was overpaid, excuse me. And what steps we're going to put in place to assure that this doesn't happen again. And. a repayment plan, which we have all done. And we've started this process. Once again, I know some of you could say, if it was me, I would have done a little bit different. And I get that. And I respect that. But this is the process I took in ensuring that we got the right information to you all at the right time and to be fully transparent. And that I'm going to stand on. And our staff did a good job of digging in the weeds to make sure they covered everything on this. So like I said, going forward, we had a lot of things we learned. We've already put some things in place and our hopes that looking ahead that this doesn't happen again, but we know it shouldn't because we have put things in place to assure that this doesn't happen again.

Mayor, I'll make a motion.

Yes.

To accept the audit report.

Motion is made. Mr. Hampton, do I have a second?

Second.

Are there any questions and or comments? All those in favor of this motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. Let the record reflect that it passed. Thank you, council. All right. Item number 12, Planning and Zoning, Zoning Ordinance Overview, Proposed Zoning Ordinance Tax Amendment. Item A, with ZOTA 2025-02 Mixed Use.

okay uh so again thank you guys for engaging with this process as you're aware this is one of many zotas that we've proposed in the past year we're taking them in bite-sized chunks the first one that we're going to talk about tonight is soda 2025-02 and with the mayor's permission i'd like to go ahead and cover zota 20 2504 as well which has to do with the plan unit developments just put those together because they are related okay thank you uh I'm gonna talk just briefly about why we're bringing this forward, and then my senior planner, Ms. Elise Katz, has a short presentation where we'll work through more of the nitty gritty details, because I think it's important to understand what we're doing and how we're planning to do it. So the first one, ZOTA 2025-02, has to do with residential districts, commercial districts, and the integration of some mixed use components into our multifamily neighborhoods. This one will look very familiar. You guys have seen these before. It went through first reading, went through second reading, and then it failed for lack of a second on that. And so we're looking at it again. Maybe you make a different choice, maybe you don't. I'm still going to give you the details on it. The primary intent of this ZOTA is to look at how we integrate commercial uses into our multifamily neighborhoods. Just a quick kind of look at this is we have three real zoning types of residential. We have our R1 zones, R1A, B, and C, and those are single-family zones. And we have an R2 zone and an R3 zone. The R2 zone is limited to 12 units per building, and then the R3 zone is really where you see a lot of our large multifamily developments. The intent of this ZOTA is to allow for neighborhood commercial development to integrate into those multifamily communities. When we look at... planning as a whole one of the things that we try to to do nowadays is figure out how to meet those neighborhoods needs without having to get on a major road drive you know two three four miles over and go to the you know the store for everything there are some things that it makes sense to locate close to the neighborhood there are some things that make sense to put out of the neighborhood and so what we've done is in our R2 and R3 zones as we've proposed through a plan unit development to allow neighborhood commercial activities within that development. Now obviously they still need to get the development plan approved, they still need to go through the PUD process, but the intent again is to allow for a certain level of commercial activity in that residential district. The reverse is also true. what we've tried to do is identify where we might have commercial zones, where it might make sense to have some residential units built into the development at the same time. And so we'll get into that in just a moment. The other one that's going to come up again is this conversation of how do you calculate density, whether it's on net or whether it's on gross. Right now we calculate all development densities based on net. as opposed to gross. The national trend is for new greenfield development to do it on gross. We do things differently. We're going to talk about what the downstream effects are when you make that decision. Last time I told you that it's for just ease of use. When you see 4.4 dwelling units per acre, it means 4.4 dwelling units per acre, and you don't have to adjust for right of way. I think the other way to really think about it is are we doing what it is that we say that we're offering to the community? When somebody says, I have 10 acres, what is the development potential for me? Is it really 4.4 or is it less? And if it's less, why is it going to be less? And so with that said, Elise, I stepped out for a brief moment. I'm going to assume that she's going to come through that door right there. And so we'll run through the presentation. And then if you have any questions, we'd be happy to answer them. THAT'S FOR THE ANALYSIS, IF WE CAN FIND THE GREAT POINT.

I'M JUST GOING TO WAIT FOR A QUICK SECOND WHILE WE HOPEFULLY... OKAY. Anyway, so Holden kind of broke it down in two parts in it, so I'll kind of have a couple breakpoints throughout it so we can kind of naturally have conversation as needed. Again, this is really just an introduction to the text amendments, very similar to what we did before. And I do want to reiterate our thankfulness in being able to come before you guys with the text amendments, kind of provide a little bit of context what we're thinking about and kind of what we can do kind of going forward. So Devin, can you skip two slides since we've kind of already gotten past this point? Maybe. Next slide. Yeah, I guess not. Is it progressing at all? I'll just get rolling. So as Holden stated, this is meant to go into our multifamily zones when it comes to mixed use. So you're seeing it in the R2 and the R3 zones. I understand previously at the time we had some discussions about some businesses that were maybe entertaining coming into areas that were single family zoning. Those are not impacted or changing. Those are conditional uses. They go through the different process. This is a permitted use that still has to go through an extensive plan review process with rezonings, development plan review, subdivision plan reviews, and kind of the whole kind of natural system and process to it. So in the R2 medium density residential district, not only are you kind of looking at that gross acreage thing, which I'm going to address independently of this, I'm going to mostly just stick to the mixed use part of things. You can have planned development projects for residential use right now in the medium density residential zone. And then this is also just allowing for that potential of a neighborhood commercial, which we later define in our neighborhood commercial zone as retail sales for consumer use, consumer services for neighborhood use, and then professional business and governmental offices and labs. So it's much more kind of community oriented, small shops out of the house. Just that kind of smaller scale kind of environment. We're not looking at large gas stations and then for some reason they put a person on top of it in an apartment complex, which sounds, in my opinion, rather unpleasant. That's not what we're looking at in the zone. We're looking at very kind of controlled, scaled uses that are going to fit kind of that smaller kind of enterprise activity, kind of small business venue, that type of thing. Just kind of giving people options. The same kind of goes for the high density residential zone. We're looking at kind of clarifying some residential uses, essentially just consolidating all of them to say it's really any residential use and then saying same thing, neighborhood commercial uses could be integrated with an approved plan unit development or mixed use project associated and just kind of making sure that it follows our rate process. We review everything as they come in, and we make sure that they meet our expectations and standards for those neighborhood commercial uses. In our neighborhood commercial use, so in our commercial uses, this is where we're kind of adding a new integration of that kind of commercial component to it. Right now, there are two kind of target zones that are getting impacted by this. There's the neighborhood commercial zone, which is our B1 zone, and then our community commercial zone, which is our B4 zone. neighborhood commercial is a little bit more rural focused. You see it kind of at the great crossing intersections. You see it around Oxford. You see it around Newtown. You don't see nearly as much of it in the city limits, but it is kind of a zone that is kind of for that smaller enterprise at crossroads type energy. We added a zone description, which is part of the text amendments that you guys are reviewing under first reading later tonight. And then we're just kind of articulating that you can potentially have some residential component to it at what we would call the R1C density, which is 4.4 dwelling units an acre. So it is intended to be kind of very small scale residential to go with, or very like lower density residential to go with a lower impact, lower activity level commercial enterprise. In our B4 zone, we are adding kind of, right now it just says commercial use only. by right in that area. And again, for reference, the B4 zone is a community commercial zone. So that's like Falls Creek. That's some of the stuff around Emerson Orchard where the urgent care is going for Baptist Health. Perfect. This is even easier. All right, let's go. Two more. So this is where we're at right now. So we have a list of kind of very community oriented uses. So grocery stores, clothing stores, personal services, offices. And we're keeping all of those zones as is and then just adding the option to potentially integrate some more compatible uses as like a second floor addition. So first floor being like a small grocery store or a convenience shop, second, third level being apartments on top. You see it a lot in like historic Georgetown where it's not meant to replace historic Georgetown. This is a town center. But this kind of allows for the facilitation of kind of a mix of uses in a way that can be really well managed. And the B4 zone has pretty specific design standards and character components. We don't want the buildings too far from the road, so it feels pedestrian focused. We have lot coverage requirements, height requirements. So it ends up being this kind of managed cohesive item with the density not to exceed 12 dwelling units per gross acre, which is our R2 residential density standard.

I have a question. Yes, ma'am. Is that? not similar to what we have downtown?

It is very similar. Um, I think that there's a big difference in, uh, what the B three does, which is meant to be that very historic zone in the B four, which is kind of like a newer development thing. Neither, you can't replace one with the other. So the B3 holds a lot of value. We're very proud of our downtown. We want to protect that. This just allows for people who may want to have that downtown thing, but can't find a unit to live in, but they kind of want that proximity to their uses. In other areas across the nation that I'm familiar with, it comes down to like student housing or residential components. It comes down to some life assisted living facilities and just kind of new professional things. where you can't really find something downtown, but you can kind of find this little small town center that's not going to replace it. It's meant to just kind of be an alternative similar energy to it. Does that make sense?

Yeah.

I'll just add one really brief thing to that. The section that Elise is referring to still requires a planned unit development. The idea here is that right now when we do a plan unit development, we require them to identify on the plat the specific residential area, and then there's a hard line, and then there's that commercial area. What this is really allowing to do is to number one, not have to draw that bright line and separate those two, but again, rather allow in a planned unit development. Those uses to be better mixed or stacked and really taking this idea of like a near use Because our large scale developments are already planned as one project to begin with. They come in with the residential component and the commercial component at the same time. What we're really saying is can we do a better job of integrating those? And do we need that bright line between residential and commercial to do that? Again, we're planning for it up front. And so still requiring that planned unit development, not replacing our downtown, but rather again, planning for these other development types. And we are already seeing those near use developments. This is just taking that next step and really making that mixed use development.

Devin, if you go to my next slide. So this is just kind of a breakdown of densities. So you can see in the first three columns that the single family residential districts do not have any component of that mixed use. They can still have single family or residential PUD projects, but they don't have that commercial facet to it. The R2 and the R3 do have that component. They keep their density. They have very specific uses that they could have in that area. And ultimately, again, keeping that kind of general character that we have, just allowing for some light integration if you wanted to put like a yoga studio on the first floor. The B1 would add that residential component at a density which is equivalent to the R1C. So again, that 4.4 units an acre. The B-2, we would not be adding a residential component to it. That's our highway commercial designation. So around the interstate exits, we want those to be kind of more commercially focused, less so that full-time residential focus right now. Um, the B3, which is our downtown already has this functionality to it. We already see these apartments on the second and third floors or in the back of a unit in the front as the business. And so we are retaining that. We're still keeping that as an option, but the B4 is then just kind of having that similar kind of energy just kind of elsewhere on or in our communities because it is a trend that we see it as an option that people seem to really crave. These downtown apartments usually get consumed really quickly. because of their kind of charm to it. And this just kind of offers that secondary component. I do have a couple asterisks about the B5 zone, which does state that anything that is allowed in the B4 zone could happen in the B5 zone. So like grocery stores, professional offices, et cetera. It's kind of a repetition reduction note. If this is to pass, that would also facilitate some of this type of development in the B5 zone. So it would still be that kind of Whatever standards the B4 would have would apply to the B5 if someone would be so inclined to do that. In my experience with the B5 zone, a lot of people really don't use it for that. That's our Walmart site. That's the Georgetown Commons site. That's where the Publix is going. So those types of areas really are less inclined to do it. They're much more larger scale. But on a kind of technical note, that is something that could potentially occur in that area. Are they going to put apartments on top of Walmart? Unlikely. But you never know. They could come in, and if they do, they have to go through the rezoning process for their PUD. They have to go through the development review process. We have to go check building inspection. There's a long series of steps that you'd have to go through something like that. With that, I'm going to pause here. This is part one of text amendment two. I'll be part two in a second. I'll see if there's any thoughts. I have a question. Yes.

And maybe Candice is the best person to perhaps answer it. Is this the kind of – Is this the kind of new housing development that when we are talking about a scarcity of places for people to live is helpful towards the goals that we might have in Georgetown?

Yeah, I would say Holden has told me about their work on this, and I think it would definitely be helpful, especially when we try to find places that are accessible for folks. For things like grocery stores, if people have transportation issues or disability issues, I think being able to connect a lot of community resources with housing is always going to be a helpful move.

So this is in line with some goals that you might think are best for our community from a housing standpoint? For sure, yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Is there anything else with this one before I move on?

Just one quick question. So I'm trying to clarify my mind. In some of the B4, B5, B3, B4, B5, where you potentially maybe have something on a second floor residential building, opportunity in an outer area of the community, in a smaller mixed use. Is that what we're saying is permissible? Obviously, we're just seeing this slide now. with the number of asterisks I'm trying to figure out. Oh, sorry.

I tried to do a lot of them so you could see like a lot of asterisks, some asterisks and not that many. Yeah. So right now the language state that it says specifically for commercial use with or without residential use above the first floor. So it could be on the kind of like sharing a wall with each other all on one level or it could be stacked up. That kind of, that with or without is intended to have that option for either or. Right.

And so with the potential for more than one floor, what's the highest potential for that type of development? Number of stories.

Holden, do you remember what our thing was? I know the standards for both zones. I just can't remember what we came to when it came to the height maximized.

So as a general of thumb, our B zones do have higher maximum heights than our residential zones. And so what we came to was you just take whatever the zone standard height is. And so for the B4 zone, that would be?

75 feet in height, six stories. In the past, I mean, besides Toyota being even not even B4 zone, you're looking at maybe three stories, maybe four sometimes for hotels and those types of users.

No. The other design elements typically dictate the heights for that, requirements for sprinkling, elevators, that kind of thing.

So are you saying they could be higher than, say, the hotel would be?

Well, no. It's the same zone standard. And so that's not changing. I think what Elise is saying is typically we don't see very many six-storied hotels in Georgetown.

But we could.

Yeah, absolutely.

So this allows it to be if it was the designer and they came in with it and they had everything they could.

Same thing we have today.

Which I don't like, as you know.

So if there's anything else, this is just kind of our density calculation breakdown. So what we define as net is total site area or gross acreage minus area of right-of-way. It is good for infill development because roads are already there. It's really convenient to kind of do that. But for new development, it can be really complicated for us to understand what people can do, for neighbors to understand how many units are coming in, for you guys to understand when a zone change comes before you. There's a lot of ambiguity still. It could be 200 units. It could be 150. We don't know yet until the right of way is truly built out and truly specced out. And so the proposal for the second part of this text amendment is to use a gross acreage system. So allowing essentially saying, if you have 50 acres of land at 10 units an acre, which is purely theoretical, you could have 500 units. Thank you. I don't know why I couldn't find the zero. You could have up to 500. That is oftentimes not what we see. We don't have a 10-unit-an-acre zone. There's a lot of other facets that come with that that go through that zone change process, but ultimately it makes it really easy for a property owner to understand what's going on, a neighbor to see what their neighbor's doing, and for us to administer our code effectively.

have a question for that yes ma'am let's see if i understand or not okay so if you do it that way and so taking out since you said what you said was all right when it comes to us usually we say we're going to have 20 units 15 units whatever it's going to be then if the road gets wider for them what the state comes along or whoever comes along then they're going to have to have less units currently, right, to go along with whatever the highway has to be. Is that what you said? Is that what we're doing now?

I think I'm understanding quickly, but I think Holman may have grabbed it a little bit quicker than I did.

Yes. If a project loses acreage to right-of-way, they lose rights to development.

They lose that in their building. But what you're proposing is to say, okay, well, we're saying that you have this much, and even if the road comes in and takes that, you're still going to have this much. Is that correct? That's correct. So that then means that the houses or whatever we're going to be, houses, apartments, whatever we're going to do, could be closer together, and that's more density, correct? That houses is closer, correct?

So we've got a slide coming up that's going to talk about the real numerical difference. the thing i'm going to just emphasize here is that we have lot standards that are separate from density standards okay and so in our regulations we dictate the minimum lot width per zone we dictate the maximum building height per zone and we dictate setbacks from those property lines per zone How we calculate density does not affect those numbers.

Okay, so then you're going to, if this proposal goes through and you're looking at their gross, then if they're going to have... 500 units, then fit in there regardless of what the road is, then you're going to change the lot size to fit that?

No.

Okay.

No. So a great example of this is our R1C zone has 4.4 dwelling units per acre. At the same time, our R1C zone says that you can have a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. 7,500 square feet times 4.4 is not an acre. And so those bound the development kind of size and layout in two separate ways. Affecting one does not necessarily affect the other. We could take, for instance, and this is not what's being proposed, but as an example, take your R1C zone and say all of a sudden we get 100 units per acre. But we still require... the minimum lot size to be 7,500 square feet, and the maximum height to be two stories, you're never gonna get 100 units per acre. At that situation, the lot size is gonna dictate what you can come to. And so by going net to gross, we are calculating how many units you can get up front, but the number of houses or rather the lot sizes, minimum lot size is not getting any smaller than what it already is. The setbacks from the property line is not getting any smaller than it already is. But again, great. That was a look.

I'm sorry. Then why change it from net to gross?

That's, I think, the next slide. Let's, if we can take a look at that. Yeah. Okay.

So I went through and I took a sample of various communities across different zones, different ages of development, all these different things. And this graph is meant to illustrate how much kind of residential units are actualized versus what they could have gotten out of it. So in a multifamily zone land, so our R2, our R3, By the nature of their site developments, their roads are internal. And so they, because they're private right of way, they aren't removed from their net calculation. And so they are using 100% of the total allotted residential units that they could have ever gotten. There's no residual units. So by taking this action, you are not increasing the capacity of an apartment complex on a 50 acre lot versus, 50 acre lot net versus 50 acre lot gross. For multifamily, we found no difference. When you look at single family zones developed with single family houses, if you have 100 acres and you could have 100 residential units on the property, we are only actualizing about 81 of those houses. There is an additional 18 houses that could have been built if we allowed for them to do the gross calculation, notwithstanding all the lot sizes and setback requirements and lot areas and everything like that. but it allows for us and you guys to understand at most we could get this, but in reality we are seeing less than this in actual application. That is the same thing for any residential district. So the R2 and the R3 allow for single family residential development. Take the colony, it's an R3 district. There's a lot of single family in the front end, apartments in the back. When you take that one as well as a couple other zones in that fact, and factor those together, you get that same ratios component of it. So of the 100 units you could have built, once you actually start putting everything on the ground, only 81 of those units are being kind of made. So we're essentially losing 18, 19 residential units because it is a fraction that could have been built in that neighborhood if not for these kind of components of it.

I don't understand what you said. Sorry. Holden, would you like to try a different, more effective way?

Yes. OK. He's much more versed on the houses. Let me just be honest. Oh, it's OK.

I'm not hurt.

When we require somebody to create public right-of-way and donate that public right-of-way, we're forcing them to give up land, and they get no credit for it when we do the calculation based on that. When we have a multi-family development that is only accessed internally and they keep control of those streets, they don't lose any development credits or potential. For the R2 zone, when it says 12 units per acre, they get 12 units per acre. When we have a single family developer come in and they have 10 acres at 4.4 dwelling units per acre, which is what our zoning density says you can get, When they build those roads and they dedicate them to the city, they don't get 44 units. They get 31 or whatever that 18% less is. We are taking units away from the single-family developer because we make them give that public right-of-way, and they get no credit for that land. So that is a difference that we're creating between multifamily development and single-family development. where it's the single family developer who still meets our minimum lot size requirements and still meets our setback requirements cannot get those extra units. And actually, again, when you say extra, we're making a value call as a community to say net versus gross. There's a real question here about what the property rights of the owner are when they come to develop on that property. I argue that they should get credit for all of the land that they're bringing into the development on the front end. NET doesn't do that. NET says you only get credit for the land on the back end after they've donated or after they've given to public right-of-way. And so those lose 18%, multifamily that doesn't give that public right-of-way loses zero.

So question, when you say credit, what kind of credit to develop or explain, what do you mean by that?

How many units per acre they're allowed to develop at.

Okay, so if they're only going to be able, regardless, whichever you're going to be able to do only a certain amount, you said they don't get credit for the roads that they're putting in. I don't understand when you say credit for that. If they're only going to do a certain amount of houses based on what your setbacks, blah, blah, blah, are, what is the credit? Is it a credit or something that helps them with getting finances or what?

I think the other way to say it would be this. If in some hypothetical development, they know that they're going to build roads and donate them to the city of Georgetown on two acres, those two acres of roads that they build and give to the city, they don't get development credit associated with that acreage. The multifamily developer does. That's the difference.

Okay.

But that's all we have to say about this zoning ordinance. We've got another one right after this. So if you guys would like, we can move on to that one. Or if you've got more questions on this. Again, the thing actually I really want to emphasize here is there's a lot more to this zoning ordinance than just gross versus net. There's a lot more to this related to the mixed use zones, to the ability to make a plan unit development that meets the needs of our community today and doesn't create an arbitrary line. As Candace pointed out, if we can have neighborhoods where the neighborhood services are located within walking distance, those can be real benefits. And so we can get bogged down. And again, that's just a policy choice. Net versus gross, again, we can give you the numbers. We can talk it out. If you don't think that that's a good change, that's OK. But there's a lot of other good elements in this text ordinance. that I really think the focus should be on those substantial changes.

So question. Yeah. So you're saying lot sizes don't change, setbacks don't change. Those are not variables. Yep. Roadways are set, sizes and all that based on where they are and all that.

Yep.

Parking areas are not variable. So where's the variable? That's the real question, is where's the variable?

For this?

Yeah, yeah.

It's just net versus gross. And then, oh, Elise, is this the one where... That's the variable, is it's just net versus gross, and then we're allowing for planned unit developments to incorporate mixed-use development inside of that. We'll look back into it more.

It's the type of development that you're doing. Sure. The mix. That's the variable.

I have a question that might not be relevant or you might not be able to answer it. But I've had some calls about the cherry blossom development. Is any of this discussion relevant to what the cherry blossom neighbors are concerned about?

So the Cherry Blossom case is unique. So the Cherry Blossom case is a commercially zoned property that's trying to rezone to residential with the intent of putting in a number of apartments while keeping some of the commercial space to itself. The other thing that is very important to understand for the cherry blossom one, and I'm very glad that Mr. Rhett Shirley is here, that's his case. A large portion of the concerns for that case revolve around traffic. Right. The proposals that we're putting forward are still dependent on can you get people in and out of the site safely. Traffic is, again, that's one of the things that's not changing. But it was also hype. Right. It was also height, I believe of some of the, um, so this, this, again, this is a really interesting one because it's, it's commercial right now. It has a certain height that it could develop to, I think at least just said 65 feet, uh, 75 feet or six stories. Yeah. When it changes to, I think they've proposed, they propose our three, uh, that is two stories by right up to three stories. If they increase their setbacks. And so in this, and I think they have requested, they had originally requested the waiver, but they've now proposed only going to two stories. They only, I think, are looking at two stories right now. That's their concept. And so what's interesting in this one is the commercial use by right could be much taller than the residential use. But they're reducing it by going to a residential use below what would otherwise be allowed. There's a lot going on in that case.

Well, it's interesting because I think it integrates into some of this thinking that we're trying to decide on.

So for that one at least, that would be one of the projects where it would be commercial on the first floor with residential above.

Right.

And so in that way, you preserve the commercial use of the property and then facilitate additional units, dependent, of course, on traffic. Right, that traffic study didn't work great. And staff. What was staff's recommendation for that to change? Yeah. Okay.

Well, can I ask a question about that? I don't know for sure if this is the right spot or not, but I'm going to anyway. You had you all on the commons over there. Your staff actually, if I understand correctly, was holding the feet down on not giving them a variance on a situation. And I don't know what the situation was, what they were asking for. which when I heard that, I was actually kind of happy. It sounded like you all were listening to us saying that, you know, we don't do variances except under real important situations. But your commission didn't follow suit with that. So it sounds like they weren't listening to what we feel like the people's concerns are. So what was that about? What was the variance that they had asked for?

Yeah. No, I'll take first crack at it. And, again, I'd love to discuss this, you know, in depth if you guys are looking for – if you ever want updates on specific cases, please let us know. We'd be happy to come and present on specific decisions that the Planning Commission has made. With that said, my body, the Planning Commission, is empowered to make decisions under the statutes of KRS-100. Anytime my staff reviews variances, it is underneath the statutes of KRS-100.243. And we are consistent with that. We only give variances where they meet those statutory requirements. That request ultimately boils down to a request to change a setback from 100 feet, and they've requested variance to go to 65 feet. Their argument was based on the shape of the parcel. They have basically a pie-shaped parcel. They had squared their commercial development up to the roadway to the north there, and in doing so, it basically ran into their side yard setback, which should have been 100 feet because it was adjacent to an R2 zone, and they asked for a variance down to 35 feet. Staff, again, did not feel that that met the statutory requirements. However, like I said, it is ultimately the Planning Commission's authority to make that decision. They felt that it did meet the statutory requirements. And in particular, they felt satisfied that with additional buffering standards that there would be no adverse impacts to the health, life, or safety of the surrounding community.

let's say that for you all I applaud you all absolutely on that because I think you did the right thing on doing that and I'm disappointed with what the commission did but like you said it's their right to do just like it's our right to do things but those are the things that on changing this and that kind of stuff those are always the things that I personally worry will get looser is uh as we go through things and so that that's my that's always my concern that's my hold up and that's been my frustration with things on that but now to have a big commercial building setting that close to residential um is really a shame for the for the neighborhood that's behind it but that's my opinion and so go ahead with the rest of it but that is always my worry is the variances that you didn't but

Well, and you're well said, Karen, on that. But along the same lines, you know, we can't, we could definitely come up with an ordinance, can't do anything less than what the state law says, but we can certainly tighten down even further to where they can't just go, well, we like the idea of that and go ahead with it. So we can come up with that and tighten it down even more.

Which is, I was very honest when I said I didn't understand a word you said. And this zoning things are very complicated when this is not your everyday thing. But that's one of the things with this makes me worried is there's places in it that we could tighten it up. that we can make more assurance, a little bit more assurance, that those things like that's not going to happen. So you're right about that.

Well, guys, I think you're going to like the next section then. I'm going to kick us off, and then you can present specifics. So the next section that we're going to talk about, if we'll go, is specific to planned unit developments. As we've mentioned, with the mixed-use side of things, the assumption is that it's a planned unit development. And so what is a planning and development? What do we currently have and why are we trying to change it? Planning and development essentially in the simplest form is a special type of rezone where we look to incorporate some level of flexibility into the development with the understanding being then that the community should get some sort of extra benefit out of it. Planning and development, again, are a tool that my office has used for many years. It is about, if we're talking loose, the current existing ordinance is about the loosest part of the zoning ordinance that we have. Because essentially it says that a planning development can only have the uses allowed in the zoning ordinance unless the planning commission says otherwise. It can only have the densities allowed in the zoning ordinance unless the planning commission says otherwise. With the understanding, again, that there's some sort of community benefit. What we're seeking to do with this new and updated proposed PUD ordinance is to define what that community benefit is and how we can ensure that when the developer says that they need flexibility, we can tell them upfront what that flexibility can be. And so, you know, again, on kind of just the basic level, when somebody comes in and says we need a PUD, it's been kind of the long-standing position of my office that we advocate for 10% usable open space. This leads to a lot of questions like what is open space and what is usable? I'll just, as an example, the ordinance that we've proposed and what you guys have in front of you tonight says that actually we want a minimum of 20% open space. and that at least 65% of that open space needs to be usable. And then we do something we haven't done previously. We define what usable open space is. We require greater canopy coverage than we have before. And we require, again, the developer to make improvements above and beyond what the standard subdivision regulations would be. In this case, I'm talking about improved sidewalks and pedestrian trails throughout a development. And so this is not taking away the ability of a developer to seek a variance. Rather, instead, what it's doing is saying, what is important to our community? And if we are going to be flexible with you, these are the things that we want. And so, Elise, are you ready to talk through some of the specifics?

I guess we're leaving the sheets here, so that's fine. SO AS HOLDEN KIND OF STATED, OUR LANGUAGE IS, I'VE REVIEWED ENOUGH OF THE ORDINANCE. I THINK IT'S MAYBE TWO AND A HALF PAGES OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. AND A LOT OF IT IS JUST REALLY INDENTIONS THAT MOVE ALL THE WORDS DOWN. AND SO WITH THIS PLAN, WE'RE PROPOSING LIKE SIX, SEVEN PAGES OF JUST CONCRETE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. So kind of running through the top, it's permitted in all zones. That's not going to change. Lot area width setbacks, et cetera, are at discretion of the developer and local regulations. So for example, there's building separation requirements for single family buildings as set forth by the fire department and city ordinance. That still stays locked in place. But there's other things. We did include just kind of a customary modification example. It's not something to hold them to. It's just meant to be like, hey, this is what we sometimes see. DO WITH IT WHAT YOU WILL. AGAIN, IT'S NOT US SAYING THAT WE WILL APPROVE THESE THINGS. IT'S JUST SAYING, LIKE, THIS IS WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST. RIGHT NOW, THE USES VARY UPON BOARD DECISION. FOR US, THE USES VARY UPON BOARD DECISION, BUT ARE LIMITED ONLY TO WHAT IS ALREADY ATLANTED IN THE ZONE. FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAD A PUD THAT CAME IN OR THAT I READ IN THE PAST THAT SAID, WE'D LIKE A HOTEL ON THIS PROPERTY. WE'LL GO THROUGH ALL THIS PROCESS. AND OUR CURRENT ORDINANCES SAY If the planning commission board really likes a hotel, maybe we'll let that happen. And with this one, we're saying if it's not a conditional use or a permitted use, it's not a use on the site. Full stop. So that allows for a lot more clear identification of what is happening on the site. We're not getting more than what we bargained for. Surprise, surprise, there's a hotel now, and we didn't plan on that. Um, the language is a little bit ambiguous on densities. They do kind of say like with planning commission approval, this could happen. It's never happened currently, uh, but it is kind of under our current regulations. That is a weird thing. We very clearly say now that does not matter. We are going to draw a line in the sand. It's just a clarification thing. Um, I'm searching really savvy art. attorney may be looking at something like that and we just want to set the expectation straight, like we're not doing that anymore and we're very clear about it. It will follow our typical zone change, PSP, PDP process. I will get into that in a little bit. Next slide, please. So this is where we start getting into open space. Our current regulations are typically, typically we ask for 10%. Typically we say just that's it. Our current or our proposed regulations are saying There's no typical anymore. There's no, well, it's up to everybody. No, it is 20%, and then it lists very specific expectations and performance standards of it. So it must be usable, so no floodplain, no sinkholes. People like to say that's the pool, and I say that's not a pool. You can potentially have a little bit of it if it's like a nice little feature, like a nice little spring box, but we're saying you can't just say all of your open space is the ucky stuff in the back. which I see a lot, it grinds my gears, I grit my teeth about it. And so we wanna make sure that what we're getting is actually usable. No more than 25% of it can be permitted on the perimeter. We wanna make sure it's embedded in our communities so that people have the small community park that they can access pretty easily, get in a nice little playground action, play ball field, have a little dog park, whatever you want to do with it, you kind of have that option available. We also want to establish minimum sizes. So we're looking at 10,000 square feet, which is bigger than what most zones would say is the size for a single family house. We are saying that does not vary. It shall be this at least. as well as it have a width requirement. So 25 feet, you can have kind of like a wide pathway that goes into a larger thing or like a nice strip walkway thing between blocks, those types of things, all kind of an option. It's important to note that we have it, and I've included it on this side, that all open spaces shall be allocated, designed, maintained as an integral part of the PUD. We want to make sure that these are retained in perpetuity and that someone knows what's going on with them. and it does not get lost to the sands of time and now we don't know what's going on anymore. Next slide. Our next one have to do with accessibility. So proximity of a residence to an open space. We want you to be within 300 feet or 300 yards. So it's about a quarter of a mile to walk from point A to point B. We want the sidewalks to connect residential units to open spaces. We want the open space to have at least 25% of its linear boundary on the perimeter of a road so that you can actually see that there's an open space there. You can't really have like this lollipop thing where it's this really small thing. You don't know what's back there until you get there. We want everyone to know that that's open space. We want to ensure that there's multiple access points to get there. So if you're at a corner, you can get on from both sides. If it's splitting on block spaces, you have a lot of space for it. So we just want to make sure that people can get to it really easily, either through an easement or a defined pathway. and that those areas be constructed in a similar manner as the sidewalk, so it's very intentional. It's not just, oh, it's my gravel pathway to do this, and everything else is a really nice sidewalk. It's like, that doesn't look like we planned it out. Having the sidewalk ensures that people have a safe mechanism to get there and a clear mechanism to get to the amenity that they're supposed to be able to enjoy. Next slide, please. So right now we see a lot of just people dedicating just squares of land that they don't want to use or they just want just squares somewhere. And then they ask, well, I can't reach this metric. What we've kind of devised and discussed as staff as well as just informed with other kind of neighborhoods and communities is to kind of allow for like a different option to it so think of this kind of as like a mini legacy trail type thing where it's a 10 foot wide easement not shared by any other easements so not a front yard not a backyard not a utility easement a nice wide easement with a six foot long walk or six foot wide walkway that you can utilize it can allow for people to cross safely with stop points for people to stop in the shade or to sit on a bench or get their mail kiosk if they wanted to, kind of at regular intervals so you can kind of have that general kind of sprinkling of resources. It's not just a bunch of benches in one spot, nothing else around it, and it's completely sun bleached and no one wants to sit there, it's too hot. So we want to make sure that we have amenities and stuff like that, and that trail has to connect the usable open spaces.

Yes, ma'am. Question. On that trail idea, is that going to be paved or are they allowed to do mulching to make the pavement?

So right now the materials are really not defined, but it is a pedestrian sidewalk, which is a defined material. Okay. So in this, in fact, it would be my interpret or my review of everything that it would be a paved amenity so that it is accessible. It meets all the ADA requirements, those types of things.

Okay. When you said ADA requirements, then that would make it probably some type of pave.

Yes. Yeah. That is the intention of that one is to make sure that it is like the legacy trail with with the ability to walk past your neighbors and walk side by side and walking on the grass.

Well, this is past, but we do have some trails in town. Well, now you can't tell the trails because they let them grow up because they were mulch trails, and they let them grow up.

Yeah, this is just, it's a little bit more cost on the front end to pave it and more cost to maintain it, but it does create a clear route, and that is absolutely what we believe is critical. And from our conversations with the community and the comp plan and other meetings, they want to understand that it's there. Yeah. We'll move onwards. We have a mix of housing types. It's not going to change from PUD to PUD or current PUD to proposed PUD. But we do want to state that if you have like multifamily and single family mixed PUDs, if you want to credit it as usable, it has to be accessible. So it can't just be, yeah, the apartment gets that one, but no one else can use that apartment like ball court or pool area. If you want to credit as usable, you have to be able to, everyone has to be able to get in there. For residential and non-residentially zoned ones, a little bit more atypical, but we do see them sometimes. If you put the open space in the commercial area or in an area that is like an office designation or something along those lines, it has to be able to connect to that residential thing so residents can make that clear connection that here's my green space, here's my house, we can get from point A to point B. Next one. Neighborhood connectivity items, as stated. All concept plans and master plans, development plans, et cetera, have to indicate which uses are intended for which open space. And no one amenity type can be utilized for more than 50% of all the usable open spaces. The reasoning behind this is that we see developers, we see projects come in and they say, yeah, that's the open space. They don't do any improvements to it. They don't have any access point to it. There's no amenity there. They'll be like, the HOA can figure that out. The staff believes and the community believes that there's not a lot of play areas for kids to utilize. There's not a lot of options available. There's no clear loop thing or a ball field or anything like that. And so by saying that no one amenity type can be used for more than 50% essentially tells a developer that we want improvements to this. We want this to be usable for not just one type of use of walking your dog in a field and looking at all the wildflowers and all the dandelions it's actually like engageable and how you may want to recreate so that's a pretty critical conversation and critical thing that we believe is important from our conversations with the community that is something that people are interested in they want options We'll move to the next one, tree canopy requirements. Currently it's based on based. So if you're in a single family residential, depending upon how many trees you see 10 to 15% CANOPY COVERAGE FOR MULTI-FAMILY, YOU SEE 15% TO 20% CANOPY COVERAGE. OVERALL NOW, IT'S JUST SAYING IT'S 30. SO IF YOU HAVE THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, IT'S 30. IF IT IS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY, IT'S NOT COMBINE THE TWO AND HAVE THIS HODGE-POGED DENSITY OF TREES ISSUE. IT'S JUST 30 ACROSS THE BOARD, MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CONSISTENT. IT MAKES IT LOOK LIKE A MORE COHESIVE NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN YOU ACTUALLY HAVE COHESIVE PLANTINGS. The phasing of development, a lot of people say, oh, well, I'll just push that back. I'll just do my open space later. We've specifically identified that you can't wait. You have to put it in. If you're going to put some neighborhoods in and you do two phases or two units side by side, you need to make sure that those get the open spaces when you do it. If someone's supposed to live there, there should be an open space for them to use. Last item, and Todd, this is informed by you because you always ask about this. This is just procedural stuff. Everything has to follow our regulations. Currently, if a PD is approved, we keep the records internally. We would still continue to do that, but I do want to call out that a record plat needs to be formed identifying the concept plan and having that being officially recorded in the court's office so that when someone comes in, they can look and it's tied to their deed Hey, I've been selling this property. It's tied here saying this is what we were expecting to have. This is now kind of walking you into place. There may be a little bit of twisting around, like you may orient things a little bit differently. You may distribute housing types a little bit differently. But ultimately, this kind of layout is what we are expecting people to adhere to so that we don't have that surprise. It's this now. we recorded it as this document. And we expect this to be the way that it is.

But that would not preclude all of this variance stuff that happens, correct?

I will take a breath.

So that's also why, in looking at the PUD, we've tried to identify what those, what we're calling customary modifications are or could be. When we talk about all these things that we're now expecting the developer to provide for us and show the benefit they're giving to the community, there is that expectation that they do receive some sort of flexibility from us. Because without that flexibility, there's no incentive to then produce these neighborhood benefits. If you were going through the PUD process, number one, it's the expectation that you're asking for some sort of variance, because otherwise you wouldn't need the flexibility. That's different from the KRS 100.243 questions, which are... Yeah, with the PUD, it's more of a waiver. Variances, and this is something else that's very important to understand, are dimensional in nature, and that is all. When the KRS statutes describe when a variance can and should be applied, it's with the understanding that it is only applied when the statutes are met for very specific cases which are dimensional in nature. You can't get a variance from uses. You can't get a variance from something like... the canopy requirement, because that's not dimensional. Those are development regulations apart from dimensions. And so when you say this, it is, it's a different conversation. Variances are a different conversation. What were you trying to understand by pointing that out?

I just wanted to know the difference there. It's a good clarification to to keep in mind, because I still think we need to tighten up variances by ordinance eventually. Thank you. And when you say dimensional, I understand that.

All right. Let me turn my microphone on. Question?

Thank you all for standing up. Thank you all.

Are there any additional questions related to ZOTA number two or ZOTA number four?

I understand four much better than two.

I know we're about to do the first reading on the other ones that we discussed last time. So, again, we really appreciate it. Planning and zoning. And it's very important if we get this right, it puts us in the right place.

Thank you so much. All the information very well done and so on. Yes, ma'am.

We did not do this last time, but I believe those are the last two of the six that we have presented. If there is anyone interested in sponsoring either of these for first reading at the next council meeting, please let me know so I can coordinate that. If you want to discuss that now, you can. It's totally fine to do one or the other or both. But I know that we've been trying to keep things moving and keep this going. All right.

Thank you. All right, item number 13, first reading of Zoda 2025-05 sponsors Michael Crisp and Willow Ambrick. Madam Clerk.

An ordinance repealing and replacing Article 4 of the Georgetown-Scott County Zoning Ordinance relating to zoning district regulations as recommended by the Georgetown-Scott County Planning Commission. Summary 1. Repeals and replaces Article 4 relating to zoning district regulations in the Georgetown-Scott County Zoning Ordinance. This text amendment establishes new sections 4.1 agricultural districts, 4.2 conservation district, 4.3 residential district, 4.4 commercial district, 4.5 industrial districts, 4.6 professional and community services, and 4.7 historic district overlay. to, A, change the zone descriptions to a consistent format, B, rename and recategorize the rural residential A5 district from being an agricultural zone subtype, rural residential A5, to a residential zone subtype, rural residential, and C, provide character descriptions for each zoning district type. two provides for repeal of inconsistent ordinances, several ability of provisions and an effective date upon passage and publication. The full text of this ordinance is available for examination in the city clerk's office 629 North Broadway, Georgetown, Kentucky 40324 or at www.georgetownky.gov. Introduced and publicly read the first time June 22nd, 2026. All right.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Next is item 13B, ZOTA 2025-06, sponsors Michael Chris and Willow Hambrick. Madam Clerk.

An ordinance amending the Georgetown-Scott County subdivision and development regulations to align with state law KRS 100.275 ministerial review as recommended by the Georgetown-Scott County Planning Commission. Summary. One, amends the Georgetown-Scott County subdivision and developmental regulations to incorporate the outcome of comprehensive review of the language and format of the document for compliance with House Bill 443. State legislature passed in the 2024 regular section regarding the administration of land use regulations now codified as KRS 100.275. In addition to the language review pursuant to KRS 100.275, the amendment also includes A, changes to Articles 3 through 9 relating to the procedural and review changes for improved alignment and state regulations, and B, changes to Articles 10 through 12 to consolidate requirements to one location and to correct any discrepancies within the regulations. Two, provides for repeal of inconsistent ordinances, severability of provisions, and an effective date upon passage of publication. The full text of this ordinance is available for examination in the City Clerk's Office, 629 North Broadway, Georgetown, Kentucky, 40324, or at www.georgetownky.gov. Introduced to public and rep for the first time, June 22, 2026. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Item 14, second reading of the budget amendment on this physical year 2025-2026, sponsors Tammy Lusby Mitchell and Greg Hampton.

Yes, I went over this at the last meeting. Just as a reminder, this does address some of those things that were mentioned during the audit about budgeting for some of our leased items.

An ordinance amending the annual budget ordinance for fiscal year July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026. Summary. General fund. Prior year revenues are increased by $7,250. Lease proceeds revenue is increased by $704,415. General government expenses are decreased by $16,025. Building inspection expenses are decreased by $22,505. Police expenses are decreased by $1,353,722. Fire expenses are decreased by $1,691,530. Code enforcement expenses are decreased by $17,700. Public works expenses are decreased by $97,000. Engineering expenses are decreased by $3,000. Transfers to other funds are increased by $1,207,250. Debt service expenses are increased by $2,000,000. $1,482 capital outlay expenses are increased by $704,415. 911 dispatch fund. Dispatch expenses are decreased by $11,634.18. Debt service expenses are increased by $11,634.18. capital projects fund transfers from other funds are increased by $1,207,250. Capital expenses are increased by $1,207,250. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed. This ordinance shall take effect after its passage and publication according to law. The full text of this ordinance is available for examination in the City Clerk's Office, 629 North Broadway, Georgetown, Kentucky, 40324 or at www.georgetownky.gov. Publicly introduced and read for the first time June 8, 2026. Publicly read the second time June 22, 2026. All right.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. At this time, I will entertain a motion.

Motion made.

Motion made by Mr. Hampton. Do I have a second? Second. Second made by Ms. Sames. Other further questions and or comments? Madam Clerk, roll call.

Mrs. Wilkins-Brent. Yes. Mr. Crisp. Yes. Mrs. Hambrick. Yes. Mr. Hampton. Yes. Mr. Minke.

Yes.

Mrs. Lesby-Mitchell. Yes. Mrs. Tingle-Sames. Yes. Mr. Stone.

Yes.

All right. Let the record reflect that motion passed 8-0. Item 15. All right. GMWSS. And so we're going to do the water usage first and then water treatment plant update. And I guess we can do all the others together. If you want to go ahead and read those and then have one ordinance, I mean one

I do need to apologize, Mayor, that item B was a video on the water treatment plant. We've had some technical difficulties tonight, and that's not available. If we could, we'll bring it back to the next meeting. So you'll bring that back.

So that's going to be a bring back.

Okay.

And then, therefore, then we'll go and do the 15A, and then after that, if you would go through C through F, and then we'll make a motion to accept all those. Okay? Yes, sir.

Okay, we're going to start with our monthly update for leak checks. This information reflects May of 2026. As you can see on the left side of the screen, out of our 15,451 water customers, we performed 44 leak checks in May. Of those 44, 33 of those leak checks resulted in no leak detection. 11 of those customers did show a leak at the meter, meaning we saw continuous flow through the meter with all water fixtures turned off. If you look at the right side of the graph, of those 44 leak tests performed, 29 were requested by the customer, and 15 were initiated by GMWSS. Of those customer-requested leak checks, the 29, 23 did not have a leak. Six did have a leak, showing continuous flow of the meter. On the GMWSS initiated leak checks, the 15 there in the bottom, 10 did not have a leak, five did have a leak. Questions on that slide before we move on? Okay, next slide. Leak adjustments, we had 26 total for May. There were 10 requests made by policy. That would be the busted pipes numbering eight and the water heaters numbering two there on the far left side of the graph. um and we 16 were courtesy adjustments those were a variety of issues of the courtesy adjustments four were toilet leaks eight were miscellaneous and four were unknown uh questions there leaks uh in their uh outcomes okay we'll move on to the last slide here on this section uh this chart reflects uh residential usage categories over the last three months so march april and may of 2026 We've got residential usage compared to usage ranges. In April, we added an additional usage category at 8,001 to 10,000 and then 5,001 to 8,000. These usage plots line up very consistently month over month, showing that we don't have any major variations in usage or volume. Questions there?

sorry quick question uh yes back on back on the leaks themselves of the the eight leaks that were pipe related are any of those connected or potentially connected to any of the blasting and things like that that's been going on in town do we have any layout of where those are and

I do not have that information.

I'm just wondering, given all that activity that we've been seeing this year at multiple locations, if we're seeing any connection there of breakage. either whether it's a water company or the homeowner themselves with the meter to the house.

I'll take that note and we'll follow up with you on an answer with that. Thank you. Anything else before I move on to purchase orders?

All right.

OK. First purchase order is for Environmental Systems Research Institute. That's for $12,950. It appears our video was trying to work all of a sudden. This is the first PO, Environmental Systems Research Institute, $12,950. This is our annual ArcGIS support. ArcGIS is our mapping software. We use that in engineering, and we use an online version for digital work orders to assist us in locating assets and infrastructure. throughout the system this is the support renewal for fy27 in the fy27 budget we did budget for this item at fourteen thousand six hundred dollars so this is a uh a slight budget good guy for us The second PO is for Judy Construction, $134,724.07. This is our monthly billing from Judy for their work on and progress in the wastewater treatment plant number one expansion. This request is for payout number 62. This is work completed on the project from May 7th to June 8th of 2026. With this payout, we have expended 92.6% of the project budget. The third PO is for Buchanan Contracting for $18,020. This PO is for a change order on our pump station number 20 project. We've encountered rock there at a much shallower depth than we earlier anticipated. We've been using a hydraulic hammer to remove that rock, so it's very percussive. It's been pounding the rock. We've reached an area, though, between two townhomes where about we're going down the middle of those two town homes and they're about 10 feet away on either side and we have some concerns about potential foundation damage for continuing to use that percussive hammer so we would like to Request a change order to incorporate a rock grinder, which is much quieter and kind of chews the rock up rather than pounds it consistently. We think this will alleviate any kind of foundation concerns. This $18,020 is for a two-week rental period. We believe that's plenty of time to complete that work. Lastly, we have Trojan Technologies Corporation for $27,000. $321.79. This PO is for replacement of the UV sensors at the water treatment plant. We've made several repairs to the UV system, but we were continuing to experience sensor faults. We did additional troubleshooting and that revealed one double and two single sensors had sustained water damage. The UV unit itself is 20 years old. None of the sensors have ever been replaced. UV treatment is one of the final disinfection treatments before the water enters our distribution infrastructure.

All right, thank you. Okay, so you have heard the request for these items. At this time, I will take a motion for the approval of item C through F. Motion made by Ms. Mitchell. Do I have a second?

Second.

Second made by Mr. Menke. Other further questions and or comments? All those in favor of the following. Item C, Environmental Systems Research Institute for $12,950. Item D, Judy Construction Incorporated for $134,724.07. Item E, Buchanan Contracting Incorporated, $18,020. And item F, Trojan Technologies Corporation for $27,321.79. If there's no further questions and or comments, all those in favor of this motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. Let the record reflect these items. Thank you. Item 16, City Engineer Municipal Order for Pavement Analysis.

Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Mayor and Council. This is a request for a purchase order for pavement condition survey. It is a budgeted item that we took competitive pricing on. And I would ask approval in the amount of $26,500 for in-frame. He's the name of the company that drives around in a truck. They do an analysis of all the pavement of all the city streets. We have about 146 miles right now. And then we'll look at all of them and give us an assessment of the condition. And we use that along with a drive-by visual inspection to figure out which streets to pave next.

OK. You have had the request. At this time, I will entertain a motion. Motion made by Miss Mitchell, second by Miss Sainz. Are there further questions and or comments?

Just a quick question. So Eddie, the actual final product of this activity, what does it actually give you in terms of data to be able to utilize, to be able to evaluate?

It'll give us a score of 0 to 100, 100 being the best and 0 being the worst. based on a lot of parameters. They take the depth of the subsurface and its density readout. Sure. And then, you know, it also gives you mapping. They put it in mapping. We overlay scores on GIS system and a big, long spreadsheet of a whole bunch of different items are included in that analysis that we give us. I could give a presentation after we get it done to go over the results. That would help. We had it done by the same company about ten years ago, and so we have an example of, you know, we use that in our current evaluation.

So it's just of the pavement itself. It doesn't take into account traffic or any of those kinds of things.

You have to add that into your analysis. No, it's pretty much a physical assessment of the condition of the surface and the subsurface. Thank you.

All right. Any other questions?

Oh, yeah. I've got a quick one. Eddie, out of age of the roads that are being analyzed and usage, is one factor between those usually cause the longevity to be an issue with the road? Or is it usually both of those factors? Or are there other factors, too?

It's usually the traffic load, you know, the heavier travel roads are going to wear out the fastest. And then a lot of times when they changed the road regulations 15 or so years ago, some of the ones that predate that, currently we have about a 12-foot pavement. It's stone and blacktop. anything predating that, they may have a little different, they may have been built to a different standard, and so they may wear out faster, may not. Okay. But pretty much traffic load is the main driver. Great.

All right. Thank you. Okay. If there's no other questions, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

Aye. Those opposed say nay.

Thank you. Item 17, police municipal order for purchase of a forensic scanner.

Mayor and council, we would like to approve to purchase this. We'd be buying it off a state contract and funds from a drug court.

Okay. All right. At this time, I will entertain a motion. I'll make a motion. Motion made by Ms. Brandt. Do I have a second? Second. Seconded by Ms. Sainz. Do I have any questions and or comments? All those in favor of the municipal order for purchase of a forensic scanner, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. Item 18, thank you.

Before you, with a planning and zoning presentation before, I don't know if they were planning on leaving before we were done, but could they forward that to Devin and send that to the council? Is that possible?

All right, thank you. That's all right. Item 18, fire. Item A, municipal order for annual physical contract.

Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, Council. Good evening. Yes, so we have three here tonight, three orders I'd like to discuss. The first one is the annual physical contracts, physicals that we have for NFPA 1852, entering into an agreement with SiteMed. SiteMed is a company that specializes in firefighter physicals, so I'm really excited to start working with them pending your approval.

Thank you. You have heard the request. At this time, I've entertained a motion. So moved. Motion made by Ms. Hamrick. Do I have a second? Second. Second made by Mr. Crisp. Are there further questions and or comments?

Quick question.

Yes, sir.

So are there any local opportunities?

We put out a RFQ for this, yes, and we work with local vendors and we've worked with vendors outside of the area as well. The RFQ was filed, we reviewed it, it was unanimous afterwards that SiteMed was the winner of the RFQ.

So just follow up. So with this, it looks like they're out of Florida. So how does that work?

So it's actually, they're mobile. I actually saw them at one of the conferences that I've been to over the years. Checked all their references. They do a lot of large departments. They do Raleigh, North Carolina. That's like 700 firefighters. So basically, it's a mobile. It's like the blood mobile. It's like a mobile lab. They bring it to our department, which that's what I'm really excited about is because they're focusing on us and no one else. OK. Thank you.

All right. Any other questions or comments? All those in favor of this motion signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay. Item B, municipal order for a purchase of fire engine. Future fire station number four.

My apologies. Yes, this has been in discussion, I think, for quite some time now. This would be purchase of an additional fire engine for a future fire station number four. We are told the build times now are down to about 24 to 28 months. If we're looking at station four, the projection for that is summer of 28. So that puts us right in line with this build. I would like the opportunity to go ahead and get in line for that. Utilizing our most recent purchases, the twins that we call them from 2022, this will give us an opportunity to work out any kinks. And if we see any tweaks that we want to make in this new build, then we'll have that opportunity to do that as well.

Thank you. You have heard the request. At this time, I will entertain a motion. Motion. Motion made by Mr. Menke. Do I have a second? I'll second. Second made by Ms. Brent. Are there further questions and or comments? All those in favor of this motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. And last item, item C, municipal order, fire department uniform first contract extension.

Yes, this is just a simple request to extend the contract. We selected a new vendor last year, so we have been working with them now for one year, and we are happy and would like to move forward for one additional year.

You have heard the request. At this time, I will entertain a motion. Motion made by Mr. Chris. Do I have a second?

Second.

Second made by Ms. Hambrick. Are there further questions and or comments? All those in favor of this motion, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, say nay. Let the record reflect. It passed. Item 20, finance. Item A, 28, municipal order, investment proposal, Stockyard Bank and Trust.

Yes, we directly solicited some of the local financial institutions here in our town that have brick and mortar locations. We ultimately had a four-person scoring committee consisting of myself, CAO Golden, Finance Chairperson Greg Hampton and Chip Sutherland, who is our fiscal agent with Bayard. We utilized his expertise as well. And based on the scoring of those proposals, Stockyards Bank had the highest scoring proposal. And in our discussions with the Finance Committee, the Finance Committee has recommended making an initial $6 million additional investment with Stockyards Bank as a result of that process. We currently do have $5 million with them, but based on their proposal, which was included in your packet, we felt it was the most robust as far as supporting what the city needs and diversifying our investments. All right.

You have heard the request. At this time, I entertain a motion. Motion made by Ms. Mitchell. Do I have a second?

Second.

Second made by Mr. Hampton. Are there further questions and or comments? All those in favor of this motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. Item 20B, municipal order for surplus for city hall.

Yes. So as we will be moving here shortly in our new furniture, desks and things that we've ordered will be arriving. This is to surplus some of the old office furniture that will no longer need to be used.

All right. You have heard the request. At this time, I will entertain a motion. Motion made by Ms. Sands. Do I have a second? Second. Second made by Ms. Mitchell. Other further questions and or comments? All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay. Nay. Item 20C, municipal order for assignment of general fund balance 6-30-2026.

Yes, this is something that we do every year to prepare for our audit at the last council meeting. Basically, if there are any goods or services that did not get completed in this budget that we didn't plan for next year's budget, we carry those over. With regards to our fund balance, it is simply moving it from one fiscal year to the next. with regards to our operating budget for fiscal year 27 these are all one-time expenses so it does not affect that operating budget balance that you approved it is a little larger than usual i believe because we had that late budget amendment in april that we normally don't do and then there were a couple things that we forget on the pool design to carry that one over but there were a lot of things approved near the end of the year a lot of procurement that was going on in the month of May so just some things that we need to to carry over again just switching the fiscal year that they're coming out of but on our June 30 26 financial statements it will be shown as an assignment of fund balance because we budgeted for it in 26 and we're reserving that to pay for these in 27

All right, you have heard the request. At this time, I entertain a motion. Motion made by Mr. Hampton. Do I have a second? Yes. Second made by Ms. Mitchell. Are there further questions and no comments? All those in favor of this motion, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay. Item 20D, quarterly financial update.

Yes, my apologies because I forgot to email this to Devin to put on there. You do have it in the packet and we will obviously make it available through the clerk's office if any of the public want it after. So I apologize that it is not on the screen today. You have in your packet the March 31st detailed report. I won't be going through that, but you do have it available. and so the first page just kind of a quick update on our fund balance projection for fiscal year 26 our as of our last budget amendment that was approved which was budget amendment three since this one hadn't been approved yet tonight we had anticipated using about 5.7 million of reserves mostly for one-time expenses And then we've been talking about that possible payroll revenue shortfall. We'll talk about that a little bit more. I had been using 1.8 million prior to that. We did receive some additional receipts. Right now, the last couple of months, checks that we've received, we're trending right about 6% ahead of where we were at this time last year. So comparing that, I think that shortfall will hopefully be closer to around 1.5 million instead of 1.8. Again, this is anticipated just looking at where we're projected right now we still have most of the month of may that will be coming in this month and then the month of june that will be coming in all the way through the end of july so we still have a couple of months to kind of see how everything plays out so our adjusted fund balance projection at june 30 26 of 24.6 million On the next page, you have just that breakdown of our general fund budget progress on revenues and expenses. Again, this is as of March 31st to tie with that report that you had. So keeping along with that, you can see all of those percentages. Revenue is showing 53.6%, but there's a lot to come in that last half of the year. That also includes all of that revenue from those non-cash items because that is budgeted. So when those journal entries are made in preparation for the audit, the revenue associated with those capital items will be booked. So that's also, that was quite a bit this year because we had the least fire truck that was $3 million. dollars kind of had the percentage of each expense again transfers to other funds those are all completed at the end of the year during preparation for the audit that's why that's a zero percent debt service our last principal payment is made in June so that will pick up after that And the same thing on that capital. That is those non-cash capital items that will be adjusted during our audit. Again, if you have any questions, let me know. But I want to focus on the revenue. So the first one is our payroll taxes or employee withholding. As you can see, we are running through the month of April. So May collections are attributable to the reporting period of April. We are running about 989,000 ahead of last year, which is about 6% ahead. So obviously we've talked about our budget. We had budgeted on a 9% projection. Right now we're trading at about 6%. So just wanted to let you know that and that was factored into the first slide on fund balance. The next one is net profits. We've currently collected about 2.4 million. There is some additional that will come in through June and July. I do have a note out to scott just to talk about whether our net profits are down in general and that i'm excluding any large employers excluding any large estimated payments i want to talk to him about how our net profits are trending in general so i do have that question out to him and i will provide communication to the mayor to send out to all of you i want some people to hear back from him on that and see it's obviously hard to compare last year and this year because we had a large a lot a lot of net profits last year from estimated payments and things that are kind of skewing last year's number so it's hard to compare that typically i would expect us to be between 3.54 into 4 million for the end of the year the next one is insurance premium taxes you can see that Through those first three quarters, we collected $6,284,000 for about 71% of our budget. We're about 4% below where I would expect to be, but our last quarter is also usually our largest. A lot of premiums, you collect the premium once a year. when those policies are paid or renewed. And a lot of those do seem to happen in that last quarter. It is usually our largest quarter. So we'll keep an eye on that one as well. Right now we're running about 113,000 ahead of last year. Property taxes, obviously at this point in the year, we have usually collected all or more of our budget. So as you can see, we budgeted 2.9 million and we have already collected just a little under 3.1 million for property taxes. And that's about 287,000 more than last year. The next page in your packet has the other funds. You can see dispatch running about 65% to 60% on revenues and expenses, the alcohol fund, the stormwater. That is very project-based. You'll see in that assignment. MO that we just approved there's a lot of stormwater projects to be carried over some of those are rather large so that is why that percentage is low right now cemetery revenue we've talked about that during the budget process that it's running a little bit behind that's also showing behind because we make a transfer from the general fund at the end of the year and we bill the county at the end of the year for anything that their revenue doesn't cover so most of their revenue comes from the city and the county at the end of the year after their transactions are complete and they're billed so and the last one is the alcoholic beverage regulatory fee revenue and you can see i don't think we had completely collected, but we're at about $994,952 through March 31st. So I'll double check on that quarter because it is a little lower than what that has been in the past. So I'll double check on that. Those are filed quarterly and we should have received everything for the March quarter, but that's a pretty low quarter. So let me look into it. Any questions?

thank you very much as always stacy thank you very much item 21 council discussion item 21 a old business anybody got any old business we bought full council item 21 b this is a new business item discussion data center moratorium and uh i'm gonna kick this over to mr stone he uh brought this up to who wants to talk about this and have a discussion so mr stone

Okay. Excuse me.

And I think that's reasonable since we are in the county.

So was the county working towards developing a standard or just a forever ban?

So the county back in March, I believe they established a six month moratorium essentially on the location of data centers here in the county. The point of the moratorium is to allow the Planning Commission to kind of evaluate different options as far as additional regulations we may need to specifically address data centers and the development thereof. I don't want to speak for the Planning Commission staff on this, but essentially it carves out time to determine what appropriate regulations on this topic might be needed in the community. Talking with Judge Covington last week, so their moratorium is six months, so I believe that will go through September, and that's when it expires. So just kind of keep that deadline in mind that we're mid-June, end of June. I don't know where the Planning Commission staff is necessarily in their review and thoughts on what this could look like. That's kind of where they're at.

Anybody else got some discussion points on this?

Just planning to give us kind of their thoughts at this point.

Yeah, we'll call them up. They're here. After they clean up the mess up there. All right. Thank you. Okay. If you want to give us kind of an overview, please.

So we're currently working with the fiscal court to amend their cluster ordinance and their ADU ordinance. And so we're well underway in preparing a draft ordinance for data centers. And so the idea is as soon as the cluster and ADUs is finished and wrapped up, we'll move forward with the Planning Commission on the data centers. The data center draft that we currently have is based in large part off of a sample ordinance provided by, what is it? Is it KLC? KLC, yeah. by KLC and then modified to specifically address the county's concerns. If it would be beneficial to the commission, I'd be happy to forward that to you tonight.

Yes, please. If you would send that to me and I can get it out to council. And I guess if you're also going to be having any hearings or review, if you could specifically send those notices to the council so that we're aware of those and we can tune in or go or whatever.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right. Is there any other more discussion on this? I want to make sure everybody get an opportunity to weigh out their feelings on this and go over it.

So is Todd asking for this to go on the agenda for next to consider it for the agenda for next to actually have a family?

I mean, the county's already done something.

Support.

Yeah, so I think ultimately it's your choice. If you want to have a standalone resolution next time to actually read and pass, we can do that. That would be my recommendation. All right. Just so you have something more formal documented. I think we just want to make sure that the messaging, you all have a chance to look at it and make sure that your policy position on this reflects everybody. So we can have that on the 13th.

Is that welcome, council?

Yes, that's good.

All right.

Thank you. Ms. Emily? Because I think one of the things that's really important with this type of thing is definitions, because there are a lot of different types of data centers, processing centers. There are all kinds of things where companies have many of these in existing places currently. we're really focusing on the mega centers that are utilizing lots of energy, water, utilities, those kinds of things that we need to be very deliberate about the definitions that we're

And I will call out, in the county's resolution, they do offer a definition of what they're considering a data center. So I would definitely take a look at that and see. And that could drive additional discussion that we may need to have for city-specific regulations versus whatever the county may want to adopt later. So just take a look at that and think about it. OK. Thank you. Thanks.

All righty. That being said, let's now go to council comments and I will start with Mr.

Crisp.

Ms. Sainz.

Two things. One, Terry Thomas that comes in front of us, his history that he talks about is outstanding. I hope that we can work with him somehow, including the museum to work with him and collect that data, that information that he has, that history that he has. I'm sure he's getting it from somewhere other than just knowing it. But he fascinates me every time that he comes and he gives a little bit more history. So I support him in supporting that area of town with the history. And then the other thing, Hogan made the comment about invariances are measurements. Can we, this is a question, don't have an answer, don't understand, don't know. Can you pass on, can you pass an ordinance that says a variance cannot exceed a certain amount or a certain percentage if it's based on numbers? that something you don't have to look up on okay and for the uh and for planning and zoning to see if that can be done to passive areas can exceed a certain percentage or a certain amount okay that's my question mr minkey

Thank you, Mayor. Just a few items. One of the questions, I've been receiving a lot of calls from folks about blasting that's been going on and if we have any information about the potential duration of this activity. The other that I mentioned earlier, there were some folks that were also having water issues and whether or not there was any connection to that. That was just something that came up in my mind. thinking back there's a lot of houses that were built at a certain time in this community from the meter to the house maybe weren't installed the best way possible you know right on bedrock that could cause some problems so that was the impetus behind that that question earlier the second item With the brick work that we have going on, the replacement of the bricks on West Main, I notice they haven't been working for quite a long time, and again, it's i travel that a long a long time a lot of times and people are having trouble crossing the street there to get to the businesses and things like that granted they ought to be going to the corner but that doesn't always happen Any update there?

Yeah, I share your frustration with that. They're going to be back tomorrow working. We've had a lot of discussions. Good. What has happened is they ran out of bricks and they couldn't get, they thought it was a shelf item that they could just go to the lead brick and block and pick them up. They had to scramble around and find them. They found them. They've had them shipped here. And you ask why are they needing bricks when they're putting, well, every broken brick has to be replaced, any chipped brick, replacing those. Plus, they have to cut little slices of them to fit the gaps that they need to do. They ran out. They made a mistake. They had a lot of discussions. They will be back tomorrow working, weather permitting, And we'll start to see progress again. We'll get that block, and then we'll jump to the other side of the road. And then we'll come way up, and we'll be complete once we get up back to about where they stopped on the other side with planning and zoning and that block there. So I appreciate your concerns. Thank you. Thank you.

You're welcome. Mayor, just the final thing that I've got is I had an incident actually today where scammer basically making a phone call saying they're from the scott county sheriff's department and you know that i had a out of out of time summons and all this and basically thinking that that was a scam, asked who the sheriff was in Scott County, and they immediately hung up. I did send a note to Sheriff Nettles. But I just want to make folks aware that there are a lot of those kinds of things out there. just don't buy into that immediately ask questions if you have a legitimate concern and then share that information with the appropriate places thank you miss hamburg good meeting later mayor it's well well discussed

All right. Mr. Grant. I have nothing, sir. Mr. Hampton.

Yeah, I agree with Willow. A great meeting tonight. Just a funny story to follow up on yours. Whenever I would get those calls, I would say, okay, let's go meet my brother, Sheriff Hampton.

okay so your name dropping is that what you know all right got it all right um miss mitchell um i just wanted to ask if we have the opportunity to ride the fire engine in the fourth of july parade this year we can find out for you The question is, will the fire engine truck be available in the 4th of July parade?

We'll have to talk with the city's risk manager, Patrick Johnson, unless you want to give that authority. All right, we'll talk about that. We can talk about it.

Because we won't have another meeting before then, and so you just let us know.

I will email you. Okay, great. Just no throwing candy.

Thank you. No candy.

Thank you.

All right, item number, okay, next. Oh, I'm sorry. It's okay.

Kim, I had the same phone call. I kept them on the line for 45 minutes, just twisting them around. Mr. Stone. The car warranty people are really fun to play with, too.

I have nothing, sir. I have nothing. If no other business to be brought before this council, this meeting stands adjourned. Okay. Email me so I can give it to, so I can let them know.

I like your bridge. Thank you.

You like mine?

Yeah, you're looking good too.

How long did it take you to get them up?

It was super hard. I can't believe it. Thank you