Map It

Map City Services

Enter an address:
(e.g., 410 S Fifth Street)
Click...
 

  Features

Metro Newsroom


Councilman Brent Ackerson releases questions for Derby Festival concerning Thunder Over Louisville

Tuesday February 15, 2011

For Immediate Release:
Majority Caucus
Louisville Metro Ceuncil
COntact: Tony Hyatt 574-4137/526-3622


Councilman Brent Ackerson supports the Kentucky Derby Festival. However, he is presently in disagreement with their proposal regarding the “pin-for-entry” to part of Waterfront Park for Thunder Over Louisville. He believes that through a thorough and meaningful dialogue all parties will better understand the issues at hand in order to arrive at a best route to address those issues.

In an effort to be fair, and to get accurate information to examine the issue , the following is a list of questions the Councilman would like to see addressed at today's Parks and Libraries Committee meeting discussing KDF's new plan to fence off portions of the park for Thunder. These questions have been forwarded to the KDF.

1. If staking out portions of the Great Lawn and volleyball courts are a problem, then wouldn’t the simpler and more cost effective solution be to ban such activity and allow police officers to patrol those areas to enforce such a ban? Aren’t officers already patrolling the area?

2. Won’t fencing areas with limited entry/exit points further cause crowd control issues at the end of the evening by bottlenecking pedestrian flow?

3. Exactly which areas of the Great Lawn and Waterfront Park area will be fenced to accommodate the 50000 people, restroom facilities, and vending areas? Which areas are to remain free to the public? Do the maps contained as part of the License Agreement fully define the areas which are free and which are to be fenced?

4. Has there been any discussion with the Derby Festival organization about the increase in revenue from the proposed fenced portions of the Great Lawn and the other parts of the park? If so, what are the expected increases in funds or revenues?

5. We’ve been told of increases in the costs of fencing the area at issue. What are these projected costs and how do such compare to the estimated Derby Pin sales increase from this new “pin-for-entry” requirement?

6. With regard to the proposed fenced area, how many extra restrooms are proposed to be added within this area, as compared to the restroom facilities availability in previous years when the area was not fenced? What are the additional costs for these extra restroom facilities? Will there be a decrease of such facilities in other areas that are not being fenced?

7. With regard to the proposed fenced area, how many extra vending facilities are proposed to be added within this area, as compared to the vending facilities available in previous years when the area was not fenced? What is the projected revenue from any new vending facilities within the proposed fenced area? Will there be a decrease of such facilities in other areas that are not being fenced?

8. Will there be police assigned to the fenced area of the park, and if so, will such officers be taken from other areas or will there be additional officers assigned to the fenced area? Who is paying for these police officers, and what is the projected cost for any additional police solely within the fenced area?

9. With regard to the problems which KDF claims it is attempting to solve this year with the proposed fencing of certain areas of the park, what other solutions were discussed or proposed, did these other solutions have costs involved with such (and if so what were they in comparison to the solution to fence the area at issue), and what were the reasons why the other solutions were abandoned in favor of the one presently proposed?

Sponsor:
Brent T. Ackerson (D) 26