Ackerson Has Nine Questions For Derby Festival Officials

by Gabe Bullard on February 15, 2011

As reported earlier, Metro Councilman Brent Ackerson has taken issue with a change to seating for Thunder Over Louisville. Ackerson says it’s unfair for the Derby Festival to require visitors purchase a Pegasus Pin to sit in a section of the Great Lawn in Waterfront Park.

Derby Festival officials will appear before the Metro Council’s Parks, Libraries, Zoo and Cultural Assets Committee Tuesday at 5:00. Ackerson has released nine questions he wants them to answer. WFPL will have a summary of the hearing shortly after it happens.

Here are the nine questions:

  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?

Comments Closed

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: