The Versailles City Council, after the prayer and pledge, quickly took a turn when what should have been a routine piece of business led to a claim by Councilmember Ann Miller that Councilmember Fred Siegelman was in a conflict of interest and should not be allowed to vote on a zoning map amendment requested by SUS #1, Inc. and MMR Investments, Inc., involving the buildings at 200, 214, 216 and 218 Lexington Street and120 and 130 Locust Avenue, which was seeking a zone change from B-2 (central business district) to B-4 (highway business district).
As reported by the Sun last week, Goldie Singh, the owner of J&B Food Mart which is a well-known, popular, and respected business which includes a gas station and food mart, wants to build a new convenience store/gas station on the property. The Versailles-Midway-Woodford County Planning Commission approved the request following a public hearing on Oct. 8.
The re-zoning (or zoning map amendment) process then moves to Versailles City Council, which, as explained by City Attorney Bill Moore, means the council has three choices: vote to approve or deny the request based on the record of the Planning Commission, which means no new evidence or testimony can be put forward; choose to hold its own public hearing and then decide the request, which then would not use the Planning Commission’s record; or take no action at all for a period of time and the request goes into effect.
He explained that after the council receives the record and the Commission’s decision, the places it put it on the next council meeting agenda, takes no action at that meeting, which allows councilmembers to review the record in the city clerk’s office before the following council meeting held two weeks later – and, at that second council meeting, decide how to proceed.
However, until the council makes the decision to accept or not accept the Commission’s record, there can be no discussion of the proposed zone change or public comment on it.
As soon as Moore finished explaining this process to a member of the public who had begun speaking in favor of Singh’s request during the public comment portion of the meeting and had sat down, Siegelman attempted to short-circuit the process, made a motion to approve the re-zoning request, and began speaking in favor of the request, saying he had attended the Oct. 8 Commission meeting and had already reviewed the complete record.
Once he finished, the motion died for lack of a second.
At that point, Councilmember Ann Miller moved to disqualify Siegelman from any participation or voting on Singh’s request. She said, “An elected official can be disqualified on a re-zoning matter when there has been a violation of procedural due process or bias or prejudgment. Re-zoning requires a fair (review) of all evidence. . . . I believe Mr. Siegelman not only did not fairly judge the evidence, but he prejudged (the case).”
She went on to point out that Siegelman had already spoken in favor of the Singh request before it was even filed, when he voted against a proposed ordinance, which also contained the ban on data centers.
Siegelman responded by arguing he had not pre-judged the case.
He pointed out that though he voted against the proposed ordinance containing the data center ban, he did so because he felt “something got slipped in that could probably affect a downtown business . . . and, we all know it’s Goldie (Singh)’s business and it is grandfathered in, that’s why I voted against it.” Siegelman also pointed out that he clarified the reason for his vote at two later council meetings when he said, “I am 100 percent against data centers.”
Siegelman continued, again setting out all the reasons the proposed re-zoning request by Singh was good for the city and should be approved by the City Council.
At that point, both Mayor Laura Dake and Moore interrupted Siegelman to tell him he was improperly making statements on the merits of the request before the council had even made its initial decision on whether to hold a hearing. The concern, which had already been expressed by Miller, was that failure to follow the process Moore had described, would expose the city to a lawsuit by anyone challenging the approval of Singh’s re-zoning request.
While Moore was re-explaining the process to Siegelman, Siegelman interrupted and began talking over Moore. At that point, Councilmember Chantel Brown Bingham interrupted, saying, “Point of order! Let our attorney finish speaking.” Siegelman ignored her and continued speaking, which led to the councilmembers and audience laughing.
Councilmember Lisa Johnson then asked, “Is the issue now whether Mr. Siegelman can continue to participate?”
Moore explained that the ordinances were silent on how to proceed when a member requested the recusal or disqualification of another member on an issue before the council. He said he would research the issue and provide an opinion before the next meeting.
Dake then said the matter would be decided at the next council meeting on Nov. 4, and urged councilmembers to review the large Commission record so the council could take action at the next meeting. Finally, the meeting proceeded to the next agenda item.
Russeltown lights
Siegelman soon found himself the center of another tense debate later in the meeting.
Bingham, during the council’s miscellaneous section of the agenda, requested that lights be installed at Russeltown, which she said is extremely dark at night. She said she brought this up before council two months ago and no action has since been taken.
Bingham reported she had asked Public Works Assistant Director Daniel Knight, via text, why no action had been taken, and he responded that, “Freddie said no one wanted lights put up.” Bingham, who has been involved in this for several months and was visibly frustrated, said this was not acceptable and action needed to be taken.
Siegelman replied, saying he had spoken to the woman who had requested the light. “We can put one up, but we need to see what other (residents) think,” he said he told her. He then reported that he spoke to another resident who claimed to have spoken to all of the residents, and the woman was the only person who wanted a light installed.
Dake then asked Public Works Director Bart Miller about the status of the lights, and he replied, “We are waiting for direction from council and the mayor.”
With the approval of Bingham, Dake assigned the issue to the streets committee to meet and make a recommendation for council to then act on.
Before moving on, Bingham told Siegelman that he had overstepped and she knew other residents wanted lights. “One person has told us she does not feel safe and she shouldn’t have had to wait a year for some action (to be taken). I have been asking for a light or lights to be put out there; I grew up out there, I know where they are. The socio-economic status of those residents doesn’t mean they aren’t entitled to (get action taken by the council).”
Highbramble Park
City Clerk Elizabeth Reynolds updated the City Council on the status of the Highbramble Park default on its loan with the bank who had financed the deal.
She said the city and the bank have agreed on a 90-day extension to try to resolve the issue caused by the owners of Highbramble Park. Reynolds then explained that the extension was secured by the bank placing in escrow the full amount of the next loan payment due in December, which means no taxpayer dollars are at risk and no taxpayer dollars have been used at any time since the Highbramble owners default.
Further, she said this will also allow the city to take the steps it needs if it appears a new agreement cannot be reached, and the city has to take legal action.
Siegelman commented that this is why he has been asking about this issue, “I don’t want us to lose our place in line if things go bad.”
Moore explained that this is not a risk at all because “there is no line; (the city) owns the land,” meaning the city is secured by being able to retake possession and sell the land. Reynolds also pointed out that the land is now for sale and is being handled by a reputable real estate company.
Siegelman also asked how the property was being maintained during this time. Reynolds reminded him that the barns used by the harness racing stables are being used and lease payments being made, and this was sufficient to cover the maintenance costs.
Councilmembers spar over alleged conflict of interest involving Siegelman
