Um, I have a motion, uh, because there is no work session next Tuesday, uh, the administration has asked me to bring this motion forward for the docket having to do with, uh, the wayfinding signage, and I suspect there are people here who can answer questions if there are any. I move to place on the docket for Thursday, September 3rd, 2009, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to e- execute a change order to the contract with Wilbur Smith & Associates for the Irvin County Government wayfinding program to extend the existing contract for completion of construction drawings at a cost not to exceed $140,742.52 and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 0064. I have a motion and second to add that item to the docket for, uh, this Thursday's meeting. Any discussion? All in favor of adding that item, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. Anything further? We're now then ready to vote on the approval of the, uh, docket as amended. All in favor of approving the docket as amended, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. Item three on the agenda is approval of the summary for the August 18th and 25th work sessions. Any ... Is there a motion? Motion for approval. Uh, I heard the motion. Council Member Hinson has moved to approve those summaries, and Council Member Meyer seconded that motion. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. We have a few budget amendments today. Is there a motion? So moved. Second. Council Member Beards moved the approval of the budget amendments. Council Member Gordon has seconded that. Any discussion? Council Member Hinson. Mayor, thank you, Mayor. I have a walk-on to, um, move funds from, um, my, um, yes, capital funds, sorry, I went blank, to the Department of Environmental Quality, and this would be to produce, um, $388 for signage in the 11th District, so moved. Second. We, we have a motion to amend the budget amendments by adding an authorization for transferring $388. Is that correct? From Council Member Hinson's account to, uh, environmental quality. Any discussion on that amendment? Those in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. We're now ready to consider the budget amendments as amended. If there's no further discussion, we'll vote. Those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Those opposed, say no. Motion carries. The new business items are found in the packet. Is there a motion to approve them? Move approval. Second. Council Member Gordons moved their approval. Council Member Stennet has seconded that motion. Any discussion? Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Could, um ... I guess this is probably going to be Shea for J and K, please. . Okay, Charlie? I guess it just deals with the, the change orders for the Lyric, and the one I guess I'm really asking about probably be more, um, K. Is that a normal process that we do that we just go ahead and give you all authority to up and to a certain amount, or have we done that before? Yes, we have. On the, uh, new courthouses, uh, the, the, uh, the council gave approval, uh, and also on the day treatment center, that approval was, was, uh, uh, was given for the mayor to sign change orders within certain limits, like we're proposing for the Lyric, uh, without the, uh, council's approval. And then we report those, uh, quarterly or whenever it's- So, we give up to $15,000. Is that what it is? And up to 150,000 aggregate? Oh, yes, sir. And then you'll just report quarterly to us? Yes. Now, I guess this one here, the first one that would have been in J, that was over 16,000. Would that be one that you'd have to come to us then? We'd have to, we'd have to come to you, uh, for that one. Uh, I think that there, there may be a request to have a second reading this coming Thursday and in order to save time. Okay, that's the only question I had. Thank you. Council Member Feigel. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I just have a question. I thought that I understood change orders, and so I'm just trying to clarify that. Change orders are when you run into, um, a situation that you didn't anticipate the costs. Mm-hmm. Is that correct? That's one reason. Uh, that's, that's the, uh, uh ... And, and this case, the, uh, the first, the first, uh, item on the change order, the wheelchair, uh, relocation, was, uh, because of a request by, uh, Dr. McCarvey, uh, at UK, requested a change in the plans after the plans were developed and bids were taken. The other items, there's a couple items that, that in order to get the lead points for, uh, certification, lead certification that we need, we had to change some sizes of windows and things like that to get natural lighting and other, other details going with the other items in that first change order. But there's a number of things other than unforeseen conditions that can cause change orders. So were these -- uh -- The first item there, the wheelchair thing, was owner-requested. So were these not anticipated when the bid went out? They were not. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, Charlie, um, on item K on page 34, you've outlined the, um, the conditions, uh, which must be met for a change order not to come before the council. And, um, I had a question about i- if, if the council approves this, when would you anticipate giving your first report? I would say the first report would be, uh, during the next three months, which is a quarter. It wouldn't necessarily have to go with the calendar quarters. Uh, and I, and I could certainly, uh, do reports to the council more frequently if you think it would be necessary. Well, my, I was going to ask if it would put you in a huge bind to do them monthly- No. ... because I think it would give council members a better sense of what was happening and what expenditures were going on in terms of change orders, and three months is, uh, quite a bit longer. Would that put you in any kind of a bind? It would not. I'd be glad to do that whether there's any change, change orders or not during a month, I would, uh, send a report. Okay. Um, then, um, if I might, Mayor, uh, make a motion to change this last bullet to say monthly instead of quarterly. So moved. Second. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Gordon and a second to, by Council Member Beard to change the last bullet on page 34 of the packet from quarterly to monthly. Any discussion on that particular item? Seeing none. We'll proceed to vote. Those in favor of that amendment, please indicate by saying I. I. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. Charlie, uh, I'm assuming that we'd like any project that's authorized and budgeted to move along expeditiously and, and, w- what is the unique feature here? The u- the, the, the unique feature is the schedule for having the, uh, Lyric Theater completed and with any, with any, uh, construction project, the normal cycle of, of, uh, of council approval includes two separate council meetings, a total of up to four or five weeks to get a change order approved when the cou- when the, and when, as, as often is the case, uh, an unforeseen condition comes up quickly, it's, uh, it's kinda detrimental to the contractor and to the project if, if we can't get a more, uh, uh, temp- uh, a more timely decision. If we have to wait that long for a change order, he could have crews standing by waiting to, to, uh, do certain kinds of work. H- you know, it's hard to give you an exact example of that kind of a situation but- But, uh, th- th- this would be true of any, any project where a change order could unfortunately- I've found that to be true in my experience. Yes, sir. And yet at the same time, I, I, I don't think we'd want to, to make this a, you know, a, a precedent for, for all projects. And so I, I mean, a- again, I, I, I'd like to know what, what the special circumstances. W- would we be penalized in some way if this project is not finished by the projected, uh, completion date? Do you want me to answer that? I don't think we're gonna be penalized. I just think, um, we have our contractors on board waiting to move and the most costly change order here is the relocation of the wheelchair lift, and that's a significant change to the plans and they cannot continue with their demolition work or order the approp- appropriate supplies until they know whether or not this is approved. And so it would, could delay us several weeks in allowing them to complete the work that they're doing to the existing facility, get it closed up for the wintertime to move on to the, to the second building. Okay. Basically. The big issue here is not the floor mats or the other things that could come later. It's the wheelchair. Are you referring to item J? Yes. Well, that's, that would be on the docket and would be, uh, presumably approved within two weeks. So you're talking about whether or not... You're talking about K, about giving us permission or something. Yes, I am. Yeah. I'm sorry if I didn't- I'm sorry. I wasn't arguing with J. Um, well, we will, we'll be requesting a second reading for J this Thursday evening, just so everybody will be aware. Um, I'll let Charlie talk a little bit more because it's just been the way it's done in the past and I think it allows the project manager to make decisions, um, at his or her discretion without having to come to the council over and over again. But I'll let Charlie take that. That item, the wheelchair item in J does relate to the situation with, with, uh, with K. And I, your question as to whether or not that should be on all projects, I don't necessarily advocate that. I think every project needs to stand on its own. It has its own schedule. It has its own team of, of, uh, consultants. And there are several layers of, of review of any of these changes, th- change orders that we're talking about that occur before it gets to this level where, where we ask them for authorization. Uh, there's the consultants, the, uh, architect. ... the architect's consultants, the specialists in their fields, the, uh, the contractors' opinions, and the project manager, which is what I've been hired to, to, uh, to, to provide professional oversight also. So again- So can I- ... this project is one of the ones that, that, uh, that, uh, I hate to see the long delays in a change order being approved when right, in practical terms, it would be well if, if they could be approved on the spot, in some cases. But this, this particular, uh, routine with, uh, with item K will save us a lot of, uh, of time in the future. The- It has the potential of saving it. I un-... you know, and I do understand that, and I, and, and I recognize that we want to, to move this project along at, at, at a, uh, uh, at a steady pace. Uh, w- we're gonna have a lot of projects, uh, expensive projects coming up as we, as we move into all of the construction that's gonna be, for example, related to the, the consent decree. We're wanna... we're gonna want to move those along as, as well and what, what I'm concerned about is whether we might be establishing a kind of precedent of... because I'm, I'm not clear on what the principle is, what the distinction is between this and those other projects that similarly we'd want to, uh, you know, keep moving. So that's my, that's my reservation and my hesitation here. I think there is, uh, uh, precedent for this kind of action, based on the, uh, the, the rules we had for the new courthouses construction and the day treatment center. I can't remember whether mayor's job training center had that routine also. I, I, I worked on that, but I don't remember. But I know those two jobs did and it was very, very helpful. Well, I can appreciate the, you know, the motive here. Again, I'm, I'm, I'm a little concerned about where we're going with this. Thank you, Charlie. Council member James. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Charlie, for, um, for answering our questions about this. Um, in the cases of... I don't... and you may know this and may not, cases of the day treatment and new courthouse, both of those had a budget that they were working with. Correct. And so nothing that was done through this alternative process would have allowed to exceed any budget. If, if any budget, uh, change was required, that stopped this process. Okay. We had to then go through the process of changing the budget. Okay. That's helpful to know. And, and, and I think that's another, another of the reasons for allowing this kind of thing, is the fact that the budget has been established. Okay. And, and I think the professionals, uh, uh, should be, um, required to, to follow their, their rules and- Okay. And we did... there was a contingency, um, budgeted- Correct. ... for the Lyric. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And we are not exceeding the contingency based on what's come forward today? The, uh, the 150,000 limit on the, uh, aggregate change orders does not exceed that budget, uh- Okay. ... for, for contingency. Okay. And the changes made, um, related to the windows, um, headed towards the lead? Do you know if that's... um, the lead certification, do you know if that bumps us up any levels with lead? It, it allows us to get the points that we predicted we would get. Okay. When they designed it, I think they thought that the window... it, it's a matter of natural lighting- Okay. ... uh, for workers. There's very few of that kind of window in the building, but, uh, but they undersized that, the area of natural lighting a little bit and had to change those, uh, take out, uh, one window and, and add two. Okay. And the wheelchair lift? Yeah. That allows, um... explain wh- where it's... where it was previously positioned and where it needs to be and the change, the reason for that change. It was designed, uh, on stage right, uh, because of the, the, uh, the actors or the, or the participants in any kind of an event coming from the, the, uh, the left side of the building, which is the new addition to the building. They would be staging themselves over there and come to the stage, at stage right, and use the wheelchair lift, if necessary, or the stairs. Uh, Dr. McCorvey at the University of Kentucky, uh, the musician... the, uh, the, uh, opera singer- Mm-hmm. ... uh, made a recommendation to the... uh, to, I guess, to Shea and, and to the architects that it be put on stage right. I'm not exact... I don't know if I can explain his reasons. Stage left. Okay. Stage left, stage left. I can add a little bit more to this too. Um, and for those people that aren't in the theater, if you're looking at the stage, it was originally designed for it to be on the, the audience's left-hand side. Um, we're recommending or we're asking that... for it to be moved to the right-hand side of the stage, um, from the perspective of the audience. According to Dr. McCorvey, this will allow for more wing space from where the actors will actually be entering, which will accommodate, uh, more theatrical performances and larger, um, troops or whatever the appropriate, um, word might be. Um, the space on the right-hand side is not as important for wing space in, in his expert opinion and curtains can be used appropriately for people to run back and forth, but essentially, a large group and movements of scenery or whatever it might be. Um, the, the wheelchair space that was originally designed was taking up a large amount of that area and now, it's gonna be open. Okay. All right. Pretty much. And we, you know, we were really kind of asking ourselves how often would it be. I mean, we obviously want to provide a wheelchair lift from someo- for someone to get up there, but most of the time it's probably gonna be used in the event of someone coming from the audience, perhaps to be awarded, um, something or to speak. And being on the right-hand side of the building, um, we felt was appropriate. Okay. Well, I'm thankful for Dr. McCorvy's level of expertise and that was why he was part of the work group. Um, and we're thankful that he's staying involved and making sure that as things move along that it's going, um, that whatever will be best for the theater. So, thanks Charlie, thanks Shea. Thank you, Mayor. Council member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I, I think it, it's good for the city to have some reasonable, modest limits and, uh, um, for, for, um, you know, for some change order authority to have some flexibility for a project. It really is, is troubling, or not troubling, but I guess it's, it's unfortunate to have to stop a project in, in mid-swing to have to come back and go through the, the process, uh, of going through the council again. That said, there are things that really should come through the council, and so ju- just as if, just as we're looking at, at trying to not to have to approve truck, accepting free truckloads of dirt on the council, so there should be some, uh, amount of reasonable business flexibility to allow them to sort of get the, the deal done. This is $150,000. I understand it's 2.7% of the overall bid project. That's well within the, the contingency amount that was, that was allowed for this type of, of, uh, of change order. As a historical matter, the Lyric Theater was, was never built with any backstage facilities, as I understand. And in order to accommodate modern productions and thea- uh, theatrical productions, uh, we are, are very, um, indebted to have, really, a world-renowned opera, um, uh, impresario of our own town, uh, Dr. McCorvey, to help us get it right. And I would really wanna make sure that we sort of give him the tools to do that. Uh, I'm, I'm pleased that, that he has identified this, this rather small construction issue, which will allow them to get, have better productions there. And, uh, I'd like to sort of just give them a little bit of, of flexibility in order to do that. It's a small amount, no more than 15,000 per change order, uh, and it's got a cap of 150, so once they exceed that cap, they're gonna have to come back to us, and, you know, if we need to, we can r- you know, really get, uh, um, uh, more involved at, at, if there are problems at that time. But it's a fairly small change order authority for this size of project. So, thank you. Vice Mayor Gray. Uh, thank you, Mayor. Uh, actually, I'm very much for this, and I would encourage others to look at this, uh, throughout the government. Um, this really oughta be the routine and not the exception. Uh, I don't know how we're gonna manage the consent decree projects without level of authority that is similar to this, actually. So, I'm gonna do that at IMHO, in my humble opinion, Dr. Blues, and ev- others on the bo... You know, I mean, um, this level of, this level of, um, management of change orders is pretty unusual for... I can't imagine that, that, that this level of change order management is occurring on projects that, in other cities of our size. And I, and, and ultimately, the effect is that the contractors work, it's an unusually sclerotic process. You mentioned the turnaround time on the change orders. What that yields is contractors who are disinclined to actually bid the work because of the calcified sclerotic process. And the numbers here, the 2.7%, you know, typically, uh, arrange an order of magnitude of 3% is, 3% is a very nominal change order latitude. So, I would just encourage the, that instead of this being a, uh, an exception that we look carefully at across the board and how this might be applied, uh, more universally, still within good, good and solid governance practices. Thank you. Council member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Charlie on this, on page 35 in the packet, it explains, um, that all change orders that fall within these categ- these conditions will be reviewed by and recommended by the consulting architect, their sub-consultants, and Irving County Government's project manager, and by the mayor's chief of staff. Um, in that process, do you guys, at least you two from our perspective, look at the change order to see if it's a change order that's, that's related to the contractor or the architect making a mistake, as opposed to, um, just the work group continuing its work and realizing that there's a better way to do something? So, in either case, if it were to be, if there is a change order that's based on a con- on a architect's mistake, they have, they have, uh, agreed, and, and I think it's in our contract that they cannot charge their nominal fee for, for executing that contract. If it's, uh, uh, I, I think the, uh, I don't know that there's very many projects that have been built without some mistakes on the part of the designers, but, uh, there is a difference in those two, in those two, uh, approaches. So, what happens if it's a... The most famous one that I remember when I got on the council was a building that the government had either built or, or refurbished and... There was no ADA accessibility built into the plan. So the, they came back and had a 15,000 dollar change order which, I don't know how anybody can miss that. But, in that situation, we still paid the change order. I think somebody else should have been held accountable and we shouldn't have had to pay that, so... In that type situation in this, and, and all of our jobs, will you two look at that and say, "Okay, this is a, an issue that we need to do the change order. Well, the change needs to take place but we shouldn't pay for it." H- How is that process handled in this? We have contracts with both Tate Hill Jacobs and with Denim- Denim & Blythe which outlines what would happen I w- you know, in circumstances like that. I don't know the, exactly what the language is right now. Um, we can get you copies of it, of those contracts if you don't have it, but... I, as y- I mean, my name's on your docket, or on the agenda, so I'm the final person to sign off before it comes to you all. And so what happened in this it- situation is, I sat down with both Charlie and with Tate Hill Jacobs, and they walked me through exactly why we are making these changes. Now obviously, these are not huge, major, complicated changes but, um, you know, I stood before you all and told you we're gonna try to keep it within... We are gonna keep it within the six million dollar budget for the capital project. So, and I know we've got just a little bit of contingency money to work with and I wanna use some of it for, um, parking, if possible. So I can guarantee you that I'm going to make sure that we're not bringing forward to you any change orders that are not necessary or that should be paid for by somebody else and that's the best I can do right now. But if it's written into our contract with either of the firms that if there's some kind of mistake, whatever's in the language there, that's our recourse. Otherwise, we know we'll work something out or I wouldn't bring it forward to you in the first place. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council member Feigl. Thank you, Mayor. Um, ah, I just have a question about, ah, what the agreement with the contractor has been. If we are going to, um, fast track this by not allowing, or not requiring that every change order come back to the council, we're, um, actually taking a great burden off of the contractor in terms of timeline. Shaking your head no, is that a- Hmm, I, I don't know that that's the case. I think that, uh, it's a matter of staying with the schedule. Mm-hmm. Ah, if, if, if we, if we took the, sometimes maybe five or so weeks to get approval for a change order and the contractor had to, had to wait that time and maybe pull crews off, it would be like, ah, ah, Vice Mayor Gray had stated that that kinda discourages people to bid on our projects if that's the way we react. Um, but, um, the, uh, I think it's just a, again a matter of, of keeping on schedule- Okay. I, and I'm- ... and letting the work progress, ah, work progress timely. And I'm not opposed to this, um, but I think historically that's been the case where all, all the change orders had to come back to the council and so we are actually giving up that, um, authority. We're saying we won't, we won't require... If we pass this, we're not gonna require that you come back with change orders as long as they stay within the parameters. So my question then is, are there any liquidated damages in the contract with the, with the contractor to ensure that the August 31st deadline is met or is, is there some penalty for him- I honestly don't- ... if the August 35, 31st deadline is not met? I honestly don't remember. I'd have to look it up in the contract and see. In most... Well, in a lot of the contracts with, ah, we, we do have liquidated damages but I, I wasn't involved in developing that contract but, ah, neither one of us are sure but, but I can sure check. I would appreciate that. Thank you. Council member Wayne. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, I, I was gonna just add a comment that I think that we should do everything we can to accelerate the construction process and as long as there's a cap on the amount of the change order so that, you know, we know what the range would be, I think it would be a prudent thing to do. If we have 10 million dollars invested in a project, at today's low interest rate of 4%, that's, ah, $400,000 a year in interest to carry and that's about $1100 a week so if we have a five, ah... Excuse me, that's about $1100 a day. If we have a five-week delay, the equivalent interest cost there is $37,500. So I think we, you know, you have to look at, exp- you know, expediting the, the work, turning the project over sooner, getting it into service and I think ultimately, it would save us money, so... That's, I just want to comment on that support of Vice Mayor Gray. Any further discussion? All right. I think, ah, if there is no further discussion, we're ready to vote on the new business items as now amended. All those in favor of approving the new business items as amended, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Opposed, "No." Motion carries. That takes us down to our presentations, the first being from the Water Resource Oversight Committee and I understand that Council Member Blues will be bringing us that report today. Thank you, Mayor. The, ah, Water Resources Oversight Committee met at 11:30 AM on August 25th and I think that all council members have been provided copies of the minutes and also, ah, various handouts from, from that meeting. Ah- Commissioner O'Mara had a conflict and could not be with us to update us on the financials, but, uh, will report back later. On construction projects, uh, Director Martin discussed briefly the Hamburg Break situation and noted that -- that this will be an ongoing concern, the condition of that line, until the completion of the Wolf Run Pump Station. He, uh, reported on on Consent Degree -- Decree deadlines. We are meeting all of the milestones set by the EPA, and the Vice Mayor will be relieved to know that there's no classification of calcification or sclerosis in, uh, in that process. Uh, even though we're still waiting, uh, Judge Forester's opinion on the -- on the decree, we are going forward and -- and meeting the -- the deadlines therein set. Daryl Bennett reported on stormwater issues, uh, on the progress of active stormwater projects in Green Acres, Sugar -- Sugar Mill Project, the Rookwood Project, the Glendover West Project. And in the director's report of Charlie Martin, uh, updated us on preparations for the implementation of the -- of the water quality fee. I would note that the Incentives Working Group will hold a first meeting on September 11th. I do not remember right now the time of that meeting, and perhaps, uh, Council Member Gorton, you could, uh, clarify that for me. Council Member Gorton? The -- the- Yes, sir. The September 11th, uh, In- Incentives Working Group- Yes. ... will meet on the 11th, but I don't ... I can't remember what time or- It's at 9:30. At 9:30 at -- at, uh, at the Water Quality, uh, uh, Conference Room. That is an open meeting and, uh, and -- and so anybody who would be interested in a- in a- in attending those proceedings w- is most welcome. Uh, finally, uh, Ken Cook of the Friends of Cane Run made a presentation on, uh, LFUCG stormwater housekeeping and compliance with construction, uh, pollution control requirements. And -- and we discussed some of the -- of the potential for gaps in -- in oversight of those, uh, of those projects and agreed that I would meet with, uh, Commissioner Taylor and -- and -- and Charlie Martin and others and bring forward a preliminary plan to the rest of the committee at our next meeting. Uh, thank you, Mayor. That's my report. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Any questions for Council Member Blues? Council Member Stinnet? Mayor, I just had one comment. I know, uh, since Council Member Blues has taken over as chair, a- and even probably a year before that, we have not had a financial statement for the sanitary sewer bond projects and the sanitary sewer fund or the stormwater. Obviously, we won't have that one right now, but when we -- when can we expect, uh, the financials for this committee? It's been over a year that -- that we've had one and -- and s- I don't know if Council Member Blues has an update on it, but ... I think that the, uh, the Acting Commissioner O'Mara will provide us with, uh, with a -- with a written report before the -- our -- our next meeting and -- and -- and that will be our discussion subject then, and -- and I'll, uh, distribute that to -- to everybody once I get it. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Anything further? Council Member Gordon. I don't have a question for Council Member Blues, but I have a comment, and I hope that all council members read it in the Water Resources minutes. Um, I think that the minutes highlight a significant problem that Urban County Government has. Uh, if you read your minutes, you saw that the Glendover West Project, which is in the Arboretum, um, the -- there have been ongoing problems with the boardwalk and the contractor has refused to fix them, so Urban County Government is going to fix them. And I think it's a real problem when we don't have a way to make a contractor do the project right, and after the fact, Urban County Government has no leverage. And so we are now going back to fix a problem which should have been done correctly by the contractor. So I, um, th- this was a wonderful project and it has helped in terms of stormwater, but the actual boardwalk has some problems, and I appreciate that LFUCG is going to- going to go back and fix them, but I'm hoping that we can look at ways to make our contractors do the work correctly in the first place. Thank you. Any further discussion? All right. We'll move along. Council Member Stinnet? Thank you, Mayor. We had our, uh, monthly Budget and Finance Committee meeting last Tuesday. Eh, as always, our agenda w- was- was full, and so I'll read through this pretty quickly, Council Members. First item on our agenda was our revenue, uh, updates for the month of June, uh, 2009, year ending, and then our first month of, uh, fiscal year 2010 in July here. Again, we only measure the four major categories because they comprise 83% of our revenue stream. For the month of June, our revenues were $217 million, which was .58% ahead of June of last year, 2008. ... uh, Lexington unemployment rate continues to be around nine percent. Um, the permit for building were up in, in July. Uh, but once again, they were down in this past June. July's numbers, tw- uh, again, the four major categories, 12.7 million , excuse me, 12.7 million, uh, July of 2009 compared to 11 million in July of 2008. This was a 16.2% increase. However, it is important to note that we did receive a payment of revenue in July that normally comes later on, so if you take that payment out, we would really be looking at a .9%, uh, ahead of last year at this time in the month of, uh, July. Now, having said that though, if we're comparing to July of 2008 and June of 2008 numbers, we know our revenue, uh, was down about $6 million from what we budgeted last year. In order to meet this budget, um, the 2010 budget, we'll need to average in the employee withholding a 5% increase from last year and, and net profits for businesses will need to average a 3% increase from last year. So we do have our work cut out ah- ahead of us in order to avoid budget reductions. Anybody have any questions on the current revenue forecast? Okay. Our second item on the agenda was the landfill user fee. Uh, the highlights of the discussion on the landfill user fee, one, we have a fund balance of $25.54 million in the landfill user fee. Again, this is known as the $4.50 Herby fee that we pay on our water bill. And then we also have a landfill reserve account that is $17.54 million and we will be expecting a report back in another cop- couple months from Commissioner Taylor, uh, a- and more in-depth analysis of the landfill user fee and what we can do going forward, uh, in regards to the $4.50 that we're charging currently. The third item on the agenda was the, uh, discussion or continued discussion that we've had during work sessions about the urban services fund that comprises of the streetlight fund, the solid waste fund, and the, uh, street cleaning fund. It is important to note that the current fund balance, um, in the solid waste portion of this fund is 24 million, the streetlight portion is 2.89 million, and the street cleaning portion is 2.1 million, and they all together make up the current urbans- services fund balance. Commissioner Taylor also discussed a 10-year plan of spending as it relates to the solid waste fund, and this is, uh, with the recommendation from the administration of a 20% reduction in the property tax over the next two years, uh, for that fund. That copy of that report is also in the packet as well. The third, a- and also during that discussion, Council Member Myers made a motion to ask Commissioner Taylor to pursue a study and analysis of a fee-based system in waste management. This was seconded by Council Member Lane, and that's one motion I do bring to the council. Again, the motion was made to analyze and study, uh, going from a property tax system to a fee-based system for solid waste management. So moved. Any discussion? Yes. Oh, I- Council Member James. I'm sorry. I'm just... So the folks who've logged on here, Council Member James, I'll catch up with you after Council Member Myers. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. I, I did not want to discuss this motion. I just wanted to correct, uh- We're ready. ... an item in the report. I can do that after we vote on this. All right. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I do wanna make a clarification. In that meeting, um, Commissioner Taylor spoke about different fee-based scenarios that you could have, and one would allow people to opt out of certain services which would, would incentivize illegal dumping. And so I wanna make sure that the study that they do, the analysis they do provides that everybody opts in for all services and the services are across the board. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. I was not present at, um, last week's budget and finance committee meeting and, and was off learning. Um, Council Member Feigl and I were off learning about some economic development initiatives, um, at the Kentucky Institute for Economic Development. Um, and as I look at, as I listen to this motion about fee-based, um, and, you know, I guess I don't mind a study coming forward as long as we get all the, all the data that the study shows and that the data's not filtered before it gets to us. Um, one of the things to keep in mind that I see referenced here in the minutes, um, is that the current, um, or the report that was presented to us, um, by Commissioner Taylor had, um, savings calculated based on a h- a medium home price of 250,000, um, and we learned some staggering information, the Kentucky Development Institute for Economic Development last week, um, which is giving us some ideas of where the housing market is going and property values based on, um, what we see going on right now in the housing market industry. Um, so any, anything, any study that we do, we need to really be sure that we're basing that on real data and not some kind of current price or values, um, not what was the last census data, which we know that census can be challenged and is often inaccurate. Um, so I will support the study, but I want to make sure that the data that we get, that we scrutinize it for the ba- looking at how, um, they came up with that information to make sure that the assumptions are correct. Um, if we assume wrong, we could, um, be in a city full of garbage with no place for it to go, um, and we'll never make it to our zero base, um, or zero trash. Um, we've got to do things that are right. I will support the study, um, but I, I won't support it with the mission of e- of eliminating our current system, and I won't support it, um, with the mission of not doing the things that we saved up for years to do, um, which is the new recycling center. So I'll support this, but keep all that in mind, please. Thank you. Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion from the Budget and Finance Committee? Councilmember Stennet. Mayor, I will make one correction. I think the study that Commissioner Taylor presented was based on a home value of 150,000, not 250,000. Then the notes need to be corrected because the minutes reflect that. Right. Right. All right. So- All right. All right. Let's do that in two separate steps. The motion at present is to, uh, pursue the study that Councilmember Stennet outlined a few moments ago on a fee-based, um, on fee-based services and waste management. All in favor of pursuing that study, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Councilmember Stennet, do you wanna make that correction, or no? Yeah, actually I was gonna wait and let... Councilmember Lane was gonna make one as well. All right. Councilmember Lane. Okay. On, on page 39, the top sentence, that should be 25.545 million. All right. Thank you. Thank you. So we have a motion to amend those minutes to reflect that's 25.545 million at the second line, page 39 in the packet. Um, Councilmember Stennet. Thank you, Mayor. And a- and again, the typo on page 39 is a medium home price of 150,000. All right. So the motion as, uh, made by Councilmember Lane, and we'll take a second there by Councilmember Stennet, is to, uh, amend the fir- the second line of page 39 of the packet to reflect 25.545 million, and to amend item three, paragraph three, second line from 250,000 to 150,000. All in favor of amending those minutes as indicated, please let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. And then our fourth item on the agenda was our current bond update. Current outstanding bonds are 229 million dollars with a debt service in FY2010 of 19.9 million dollars. Also, in fiscal year 2010, we'll be doing a 50 million dollar general obligation bond, a 35 million dollar pension bond, and then an eight million dollar bond for the Eastern State Hospital project. Looking forward, Bill O'Mara, Commissioner O'Mara submitted a plan going forward, a debt forecast. This includes the pension obligations as well as an additional 15 million dollars a year in capital requests. Again, this is just a projection. So looking ahead, fiscal year 2016, um, if we continue with that plan that was projec- uh, presented, we'll have a 382 million dollars in outstanding debt. And that's compared to 229 today, a 52 million dollar, uh, general fund debt payment as compared to 19.9 today. That would be 15.12% of our general fund revenues as a percentage. Now, if we exclude the pension obligation, that we find another way to fund the pension issue, we're looking at 10.25% of general fund obligation as a, as a percentage. So that ga- gave us a bond update. And then the last item on the agenda, which we'll discuss again at the next, uh, budget and finance meeting here in September, is the business occupational license fee discussion. We had a brief summary, uh, due to time, a- in regards to what the current ordinance says. And we'll be discussing with, uh, some entities in the community that would like to voice some public, uh, uh, opinion at, for or against the ordinance at our September meeting. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Gordon? Uh, my question actually is on the previous item, if you wanna... Do you wanna go there now? I, I just wanted to, um, go back to the, um, street sweeping study. Uh, the council voted to ask that, uh, LFUCG do a street sweeping study. It was a recommendation from the, uh, Stormwater Fee Task Force. And, uh, Mayor, I just wondered if since that's in this report that I had asked, if we could set a time when we could have an update on that and the progress. Let me, um, ask Commissioner Taylor in the back there if, if we could arrange that. If you and Councilmember Gordon will coordinate on that, then we'll get that done. That'd be great. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Councilmember James. Thank you, Mayor. Um, on number four, it shows that Councilmember Gordon had asked about capital workshops. And I didn't get to view the tape yet. Councilmember Gordon, did you get a response? Or what was the response you got when you asked about the capital workshops on number four related to the bonds? Actually, I'm not sure that I got a response so I have put the six-year capital plan in front of everybody's place today, since we're going to be discussing our ad valorem tax. Thank you. Councilmember Lane. All right. I'd like Mr. O'Mara to step up for a second, please. So at our, um, budget and finance meeting, you addressed this and I thought it might be helpful for the general public and the rest of the council to, uh, hear this. Uh, the question I've got is, could you just address the impact, the fact that we have bought the bonds to fund the police and firefighters fund, and we are paying that debt service. But that is, to a certain extent, offset by the fact that we're not required to make as large a payment on behalf of each, uh, police and firefighter into that fund into the future, because, uh, we've c- caught up a deficit, uh, that we had before we put the bonds in. That might sound a bit convoluted. You might be able to state that better than I can. Well, that's correct. I- ... excuse me. I think I, I alluded to, uh, showing the debt service with the, uh, contributions to the police and fire and without. And the reason I made that point is because those dollars, if we go to the bond market and use bonds in order to infuse dollars into the police and fire, um, relieve us, uh, from an increased contribution on payroll. So there's kind of a, a trade-off between payroll operating expense going up very rapidly for police and fire versus this component of the debt service going up very much in order to, to fund the police and fire liability. When you say pay- when you say payroll expense, you actually mean the amount of our contribution into the police and firefighters fund doesn't impact- That's correct. ... their pay rate at all, but just our contribution- No. No. It's, it's our category in an operating expense. Okay. Good. I think that's sufficient. Thank you so much for clarifying that. Council member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. O'Mara, um, uh, I too had to be away. Uh, I was in a little long business that afternoon and didn't get back until while into the council session, but, um, uh, and looking at the minutes, uh, it appears that there was some discussion of a contingency plan. Taking us back to before the, the July recess, I remember me asking you about the possibility of, of, uh, if our revenues were down at the end of this year rather than up, we were gonna be about 14, $15 million short. And I guess my question back to y- to, to you is, uh, given that, uh, during the past three recessions we've had more than one year of declining revenues, what is our contingency plan in case this follows suit over the last three recessions and we have declining revenues this year? Well, we did discuss that, and we looked at graphs as far as comparability of which are leading indicators and how quickly the different, uh, revenue streams responded. Uh, the net profit has a different characteristic than the payroll component. And excuse me, and, and we also talked about it, it being a judgment call as to the winds are blowing, uh, as far as the economic, uh, uh, environment. And so is it time to turn and take cover or hold fast and, and weather the winds? Uh, we talked about strategic hiring, uh, in order to control this year's expenses. We also talked about referring back to the plans that directors turned in last January and February when we were building this budget about 15% cuts. Uh, so some of those things have been identified. Uh, some of them are not things that we want to choose to do until the last minute. And so we feel that we should maintain vigilance and control costs now, but we're not ready to present a, a, a budget reduction plan at this time. We want to see how, how we respond in the next few months. I, I, I'm, uh, reading between the lines in your, in your cryptic response that there are plans, but you're just not ready to unveil them yet. Is that accurate? Well, I wouldn't say I have a white paper and I'm ready to release it. I'm saying that we've, we've, we've had discussions and we've talked about the type of things we would look at, uh, when it's time, if it's time for us to propose something. I, I just wanna make sure that, that we just don't get caught too late into this, because if I understand the projections is that we need 4% in order to meet budget, but we're not on track for 4%. Is that accurate? That's correct. On revenues. On revenue. Obviously, revenue drives things. And so that's... So, um, I, I guess I'm gonna keep asking, uh, because I, I think this is, uh, something that we really have to make sure that we don't get caught by, in that I know it that the, that the ex- the s- the spending of, of an operation as large as the City of Lexington does not turn on a dime, and that you will need several months to adjust expenditures likely. And so I, I just wanna make sure that we're keeping on this, because, um, I... it's a, um... we will all be pleasantly surprised if our revenue projections are different than the last three recessions, but we certainly need to be prepared for the possibility that they're just gonna track the last three recessions and we're gonna have down revenue again. We'll, in that case, we're gonna need 14 or 15. Let me respond to that particular issue. We have had discussions. We have no plan at this point, and I think it is imprudent, having just approved the budget about a month ago, to start adjusting what we proposed in the way of revenue projections back in April were bumped up by couple million dollars or something like that, as I recall, during the course of the council's deliberations. So I do think our revenue projections in the budget are, are more aggressive than what I'm comfortable with. But after another month's worth of experience, uh, we'll start firming up our plans, and I would anticipate after taking look at what actually happens in September, if we don't see an uptick in our revenue, we'll come with y- to you with a specific proposal about how to rein in expenses, so we don't find ourselves in March coming to you with a, a Draconian kind of solution. And, and a lot of time by... and, and I think you answered that very adequately, is, is just a contingency plan, that, that here are the types of things we could do for if, if we're running short or we're not meeting projected revenues within a certain period of time. That's... And that's what I'm hearing, so thank you. Mm-hmm. Thank you, Mayor. Council member Wallace. Um, this goes back to, um, the debt service and our bonding capacity. And actually the, the taxes we're gonna be talking about tonight, um, so my understanding is we haven't gotten an update on what our bond capacity is and the impact that reducing the waste management tax by two or three dollars a household will do to our Moody Bond Fund rating is ... Are we gonna have ... I, I, I didn't understand. The question was asked of Council Member Gordon about did she ever get an answer about getting a report on that, a workshop on that. No, those are two entirely different things. Okay. The Budget and Finance Committee got an update last week from Commissioner O'Mara about the status of our bond obligations. The question that went to Council Member Gordon was whether or not workshops had been scheduled. I don't think they had been scheduled yet, but I know Commissioner O'Mara is very interested in having them, so everybody's apprised of what the long-term outlook is. Okay, thank you. Anything further? Council Member Stennet. Mayor, I'll just add to that he did present a schedule that includes the reduction in property tax, um, on, o- at the Budget and Finance meeting. I'd be happy to give everyone a copy of it. But it just shows that only $15 million a year of capital projects and that's important. I mean, $15 million is not a lot at all, so and that's for the next six years. Oh. Yes, I would love to see that. Thank you. Okay, be glad to make copies. Thank you. All right. Anything further for Council Member Stennet? Then we'll move ahead and I'll turn the microphone over to Vice Mayor Gray, who will, uh, provide a little background on our next presentation. Thank you, Mayor. Um, couple months ago, I was talking to Michael Speaks, who's the Dean of the College of Architecture and it happened to be about the same time as we were having conversations in the council regarding economic development and other issues, espec- and the Corridors, the new Corridors Commission. And Michael mentioned that the University of Kentucky's College of Architecture has been doing some projects for other cities. Uh, I think namely, um, Henderson, Louisville, maybe Owensboro, Michael, is that right? You can come on, march on up while I'm giving you this introduction. Um, and it struck me that it might be useful for the council to have Michael share with us some of the work that the, the, uh, college has been doing for some of our, uh, cities right here in the state. And, uh, by way of introduction as well, I know some, many of you already know this, but the College of Architecture has a long history of having worked with, uh, with Lexington, um, the downtown, um, with the D- Downtown Development Authority. Uh, and several years ago, um, the, um, was it, um, on Main Street, um, there was what was then described or characterized as the Downtown Development Studio. Was that what? Downtown Design Studio. So a lot of work has been done and, uh, Michael's gonna share with us what it, they're doing, um, now on these other projects. Just, in a sense, just by way, just an FYI, uh, not a s- not, not a sales pitch in this at all, but the, um, what's being done at the university is often, uh, uh, sort of under the radar force and this gives us an illustration of what's above the radar. Thanks. Okay, thanks, uh, thank you, Vice Mayor, uh, Mayor and Council. It's nice to be here. I- I'm a huge fan of the, of this tele- ... Tell you, and, and hopefully this will be a relief. The slides that I sent you, uh, last week, uh, are not my presentation today. I think there were 250 slides on there. Um, and I got a call from the, from Artie Johnson, who said, uh, "You know this presentation's only 15 minutes." And I, and I said, "Well, I, that wasn't really gonna be my presentation." I, oh ... So I apologize if I alarmed anybody about the number of slides. There won't be 250 slides. There'll only be a few. Um, and I guess they're here and here. Um, I wanna start by just, uh, uh, saying that I'm not gonna really talk about any projects we're doing in Lexington because we're actually not doing any projects in Lexington. Um, what I do wanna tell you about are two projects, uh, that we've initiated, um, this last year, uh, and they are associated with the Ohio River. Uh, one is in Louisville. The other is in Henderson, Kentucky. Uh, I also just would say that I've, uh, this is the beginning of my second year at the College of Design. We're actually not a college of architecture. We're a college of design, which means that we have School of Architecture, School of Interior Design and a h- and hi- and a historic preservation program. So we're, we're actually more than architecture. Um, but the, but the slides y- you see right there, uh, see up there now is a, is, er, is an advertisement basically for two events. And these events are kind of bookends in a, in a, a project that we're calling River Cities Project. Um, the one on the left is an invitation for a, um, for a reopening of an urban design studio that we do in Louisville. We've been doing that for 10 years. It's a partnership between the City of Louisville, well, among the City of Louisville, University of Kentucky College of Design and a university of, uh, and the City of Louisville. Um, that happened, that re-o- we reopened and relaunched that studio last week on the 28th. Um, and on the 3rd of September, which is Thursday, we're gonna la- we're gonna, uh, launch our River Cities Project, uh, in Henderson, Kentucky, where we've been actually doing a lot of. ... a lot of work, uh, in the last couple of years. Um, what you see on the left is a model. I'll show you a little bit more of that in a minute. What you see on the right is an image of a, uh, of a coal fire, uh, plant, Hippell 1, in Henderson, Kentucky that was closed down about six months ago. Uh, the city would like to take it down. We would like to find an adaptive reuse for that building. It's a pretty exciting building. It's a, uh, it was built in 1950. It's a really remarkable building. And we did a photography show here in Lexington about, uh, six months ago, um, and that was one of the images. So, I'm gonna, I'm just gonna run through these slides. I'm gonna, uh, uh... and I'll give you this new presentation. You'll have it around if you wanna take a look at it later, or, um... Just say- uh, just, uh, a couple of quick things about, uh, about cities. Um, the approach we're taking to, uh, this RiverCities project, which is enabled because we have funding from, eh, this... from, uh, a c- a group in Henderson called The Henderson Project, who've raised about $150,000 for us. Um, we're funded in Henderson, uh, by that group. We're funded, uh, by the City of Louisville, uh, or by the, by the Urban Design Studio in Louisville, uh, through Brown-Forman. So we have a, we have a chair in urban design, uh, there, and we have a chair, uh, that's associated with The Henderson Project that's being funded now by a group there. But I wanted to say just briefly that, um, our approach to the RiverCities project is a little different than the approach that we see... that we've seen the last six months in a lot of surveys of livable cities. This is Monocle. It's a, it's a journal, uh, of public policy design. It's a kind of a global, uh, magazine. They, they listed along with, uh, The Economist, uh, and, uh, Financial Times of London, uh, and a number of people are interested in these surveys, the top 25 most livable cities in the world. About two months ago, they listed this. Um, this is the, uh, The Economist study. What's interesting about these studies is many of them are premised on, um, this... on the work of Richard Florida, whom many of us know and respect. Uh, one of the problems with Florida's work, and one of the reasons that what we're doing in the RiverCities project is different than this, is that Florida is interested in, uh, attracting an existing class of workers to a city. And what we're interested in much more is finding, uh, ways in which design adds economic value to a city. So how, for example, could adaptively reusing existing buildings like the, uh, like the coal fire plant in Henderson, how could we use that in order to attract jobs, in order to attract new industry, in order to create new business parks? So it's a slightly different approach. Um, it's a, it's a way in which design doesn't create objects that are crowns and ornaments, but in fact, where design, it literally creates economic value. Going back even to the old idea of the Bilbao effect, um, that Frank Gehry's building, uh, generated some years ago. I'm gonna go, uh, I'm, uh... It's this kind of approach much more that we're interested in. This is a PolicyLink study looking at small industrial cities, uh, throughout the, uh, Northeast, uh, and Midwest. Um, and what they're really interested in doing is, uh, i- is discovering how design can create new value economically, uh, and not... again, not, uh, not simply create, uh, uh, uh, little ornaments. Um, this is a... our Henderson project, uh, uh, is, as I said, the, the first in this RiverCities project. We're gonna be looking at Henderson, uh, Paducah, Owensboro this year. Uh, and it's a 10-year project. Uh, we'll start with Henderson. We'll move along the river. Each year in the fall, we'll do a strategic design, uh, a set of strategic design proposals. And in the spring, we'll actually make building design proposals for the cities. Um, we'll start in Henderson this year, we'll move to Owensboro, um, and we'll move up the river. Um, so there were two invitations. One was to The Henderson Project, which starts Thursday. The other is for, uh, the relaunch of this Louisville project. It's hard to see that there. We, uh, have a new façade, uh, that we put on the building last week. We have a, a kind of a new partnership now with U of L. And, uh, I'm gonna show you in just a second a project that we did out of this studio last year, um, which is the Brown-Forman, uh, Chair Studio in Urban Design. Um, this is an opening we did last week. We had about, oh, about 100 people there. Um, a lot of interested, uh, architects, a lot of interested, uh, people in the city coming to see what we're gonna do o- out of this new facility. Um, I'm bouncing back and forth here. Here's the power plant in Henderson. Um, it's a beautiful facility. It's right on the riverfront. It's an incredible resource. There, there are gorgeous parks on either side of it. Um, and right now, the plans are, well, they cl- they've just closed it. The plans, uh, are to close the, cl- the... close the facility down. Uh, here's a great photograph of me in the Henderson Gleaner, uh, speaking about this, uh, two weeks ago. I'm gonna show this slide because there are amazing things that you can do with old industrial facilities. I did about a two-week tour in Western Germany this summer. This is an old, uh, coal, uh, producing and also, uh, smelting, uh, uh, iron smelting plant, uh, outside of Essen, Germany, which they've re... uh, uh, they've adaptively reused and they've created incredible, uh, uh, a, a business park there, some cultural facilities. You can see they've even s- inserted a swimming pool here, uh, in one of the... um, an ice skating rink. Uh, they've really done amazing things with these older buildings. One of the great precedents to look at right now, uh, is the High Line in New York City. I don't know how many of you know about that, but it's an elevated rail line on the west side of New York, um, New York City, that was... that's been closed and decrepit for about 25 years. About seven or eight years ago, a local group decided they wanted to use the High Line, uh, or to re-... or adapt it, they reused the High Line. They've done so. They've created now a park that's elevated above the city. And the interesting thing is along the High Line, all the way up, uh, from about 14th Street up to, oh, I don't know, 30s, um, new development is occurring, new buildings are being built all along, uh, the- the, uh, the new, um, the new park system. So it's a way to- to turn resources that you have into new kind of stimulants for economic development. Uh, they've... uh, in this same facility, there are restaurants, bookstores. Um, I'm gonna run through these quickly. Uh, this is... These are just images of our, um... of the show that we did on the, uh, uh, the power plant here in Lexington. We had about three or 400 people. Very, very quickly sh-... run you through a project we did, uh, this last year, uh, in Louisville. Um, we did this out of the urban design studio. We have a, um, uh... we have a, a chair in urban design that's underwritten by the Brown-Forman, uh, found, uh, company, uh, in Louisville. Um, in the fall, we hired a firm from Oslo who did... I mean, from... I'm s-... yeah, from Oslo, who did, uh, uh, a strategic design set of proposals for us with our students. And in the spring, they actually developed, uh, this into some building proposals. So I'm gonna show you very quickly. It's a study. We looked at the shipping port area of Louisville, which you may know, uh, about. It's on the west end, uh, of Louisville. Uh, this is an existing picture. This is... this was our proposal. The proposals were pretty dramatic. The intention of the proposals was really to stimulate a discussion about what might be possible down in this part of the city. Um, this just recaps the discuss-... uh, well, what I just said. So we took, um... what's really exciting for our students about this is that we took, uh, our students to Oslo. We worked with this firm in the fall. For about a week, they went to Oslo. They worked there. This is the students there. Um, they came back. They made strategic design proposals. And in the spring, they developed those into some real building proposals, which I'll show you in a second. In the spring, they worked in, in, in Belgium with the, uh, the firm that we hired for the second semester. Um, this is the... this is th-... a kind of an abstraction of the proposal that we made. Um, and I'll walk through this very, very quickly. Um, during the academic year 2008, 2009, uh, College of Design made, uh, uh, worked with Gary Bates, uh, with this office in Oslo and this office in Brussels. Uh, in the spring, it's at Brussels. Uh, let me just move through this text. They made the... Students along with the professors made six proposals. The green proposal on the far left is a, uh, proposal for a Ford Motor plant that bridges, uh, the river there. It's really dramatic and a bit outlandish. Uh, but in fact, it created a huge discussion and stir in Louisville. Uh, we had about 300 people at an event, uh, many of whom were upset, uh, some of whom were excited. Uh, but it created a discussion. That was part of the point. Uh, number two is a proposal for, um, community, uh, colleges and a campus system. Three is for a housing project. Four is for, uh, a commercial development. Five is for another housing project. And six is for a skate park. I'm gonna run through these very, very quickly so we can... you may have questions about these. So this is the first one. Um, it's a green Ford Motor plant. Uh, you may know Ford has a plant there already. The idea, uh, was to design a new kind of plant with a circular assembly line, uh, that made, uh, green Ford motor products, hybrid cars, things like that. It would be, uh, essentially a research center. Uh, the students did a lot of research on this. They discovered that, in fact, it's a lot cheaper to build a new plant than it would be to retrofit the plant that they... that, that Ford, Ford currently has there, especially if it's being retrofitted for a lot of these new products. Um, this is some sectional views. Um, this is what it might look like. It would have like the Fiat plant, uh, in Turin, Italy. It would have a test track on the roof, uh, which is kind of a nice, fun feature, but actually it's a functional feature as well. This is what it might look like, um, along the river. Um, second proposal series of, um, you'll see, if you, if you watch the red line in the top right and the, the red elevations in the middle, you'll see what the scale looks like as it goes across. This is for series of new campuses, two minutes, quickly. Um, I can move even faster. This is what it might look like. Uh, it's a housing project. This is a really, I think the most exciting proposal of all, which is, uh, for a movie theater, sports venue, uh, bourbon distillery, museum, restaurants, retail, parking, hotel, public sectional view. This is what it might look like. Fifth project, uh, live-work skate park. This is the model that the students made. I, I have to say, it's one of the most incredible models I've seen before. Um, it's a 25-foot model of the whole project. Uh, some of it shot at night. This is the discussion we had, uh, in Louisville. As I said, we had about 300 people there. Um, exciting, lots of fun. Um, the point of... I guess the point of showing you this is to say that, that we're really interested in working with cities to do real projects. Uh, the River Cities project is a real project. Uh, we have funding for that, uh, from the city... well, not from the city of Henderson. Actually, from a lot of local constituents. We have very good funding with our Brown-Forman to, uh, to continue to work, uh, in Louisville. And with that, uh, I'll end and say thank you again for, uh, letting me be on my favorite TV show. Thanks, Dean. Any questions for Dean Speaks? Council Member Martin. Just two things. Um, one is, I, I was at the state when they first unveiled the waterfront development plan, so it's neat to see new, uh, new designs for the waterfront. Um, it's just very exciting. And, and I, I just really wanted to comment on the, the incredible partnership between UK and the City of Lexington. And I understand that UK has donated the s- services of Mr. Mahony to the Downtown Development Authority. And that is just ... I, I can't tell you what goosebumps that gives me, just because w- that ad- the availability of, of that amount of expertise and the, the, uh, uh, the contribution of UK to that, that's just very much appreciated. Well, I think that's, uh, I think the, the College of Architecture, now the College of Design, has worked with the city for a number of years and we're, we're pleased that David Mahony is gonna be working, I think, with the, uh, with the DDA going forward. Yeah, that's right. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Dr. Speaks. Uh, my question is, um, you mentioned in the beginning that you aren't doing any projects in Lexington. Ah, c- can you speak a little bit to why that is? Uh, no. Actually, uh, I, I can't. We're, we're, uh, these projects that we're working on, well, w- w- we're, we're not doing them because we actually haven't been solicited and we haven't really looked to do projects. These pri- the River Cities Project, uh, is a, is a long-term study that we're interested in developing, partly because we had resources to do the project. So for example, the Brown-Forman, uh, Chair in Urban Design allows me to bring in high-end experts from Europe, from Asia, to work on these with our students, so we have resources to do that project. The, the reason we do it in Louisville is that it's a stipulation for the Chair in Urban Design is that it has to be a Louisville-based project. Sure. We're doing the Henderson project because we actually have a l- a, a very active group of, um, of local, uh, business people, uh, and developers and others in Henderson who've raised a lot of money so that we can take our students back and forth and actually develop these projects. So these are in, in, in, in a way, it's opportunistic, but it also, it's a way for us to look at the whole river as an economy, as a, and as a kind of an ecologic, economic, ecological system and imagine what we can do at a college of design to add value to those, uh, to those cities. Um, we would, we would welcome in, in, in, uh, uh, you know, the same opportunities, uh, here in the City of Lexington as, as, uh, uh, Councilperson Martin mentioned, we're, we're, we are, uh, David Mahony is gonna be working as he has before with the DDA. But we, but we'd love to do more, uh, student, uh, based projects, um. And so I welcome the opportunity to, to, to do those and- Okay. ... would, would be happy. You sort of answered my second question a little bit, and that was, what was the point of engagement with these other cities? Obviously, the chair, um, with Brown-Forman in Louisville set that one up. Right. This investment sort of group in, in Henderson set that one up. So what other points of entry do you have that then gets you engaged in these other cities? Well, the, the, I'll tell you, in the case of Henderson, there, there was a group of three former, well, the graduates of the College of Architecture, who are from Henderson and had created basically a fund for, for a scholarship fund, and they were looking for ways to make that more meaningful. And we actually turned that into a funding source for this larger sort of study in Henderson. Um, the interesting thing is that once we started to do that, other cities have come along and said ... So we get calls now from Owensboro, and we haven't, we haven't really even made the proposals yet in Henderson, but Owensboro now says, "Well, you're doing that in Henderson. Can't you come down to Owensboro and do that?" And it's, "Of course." Um, it's part of our proposal. So, so some of it is basically ... And we're getting, we're, we get calls, we're, you know, now from cities all up and down the river because now if you look at the river, if you're on the river- Right, right. ... you know that we're gonna, we're gonna do a project there. So, um, so the point of contact just looking forward is that, is that people look and see that we're working on the river and they would like us to be engaged in their community. And I mean, these are, let me just say one other quick thing. Okay. The, the des- the, the, the design methodology that we're, that we're developing is based on scenario planning. And scenario planning is a very bottom-up strategy where we essentially develop at least four scenarios in which the, uh, uh, that, that would guide the way an area would develop. Those are our deliverables to the, to our clients, the cities at the end of the day. But, but the, but the knowledge really that we use is the knowledge that comes from the city and the constituents. We don't go in as top-down planners- Right. ... with a set of expertise. We go in with an, with a methodology and an approach and, uh, uh, uh, the imagination of our students. And that imagination combined with the wisdom and knowledge of, of the city, uh, really, we use to generate these proposals. So we're, so it's not a, it's not really a matter of, of us peddling our expertise. It's a matter of us finding ways in which the College of Design, um, can be a real, uh, value-adder for cities out in the commonwealth. And part, part of the other reason that we're outside is, I have to tell you, the first, when I, the first trip I made to, uh, Henderson, uh, they told me that they were very pleased that someone from the University of Lexington had, uh, dared- ... to, to come back out west again. And so, as you, as you, as you know, University of Kentucky, um, is flagship university of the entire commonwealth and we have an obligation to serve the entire state. So we're very pleased and happy to be, uh, to be going out to Western Kentucky and to Eastern Kentucky. I mean, there, there are a number of other projects I could tell you about that we're working on right now, um, but, uh, maybe I'll hold that for, for another day. Okay. In closing, I'll say that we have another project we want you to look at, and it's we have a river too, but, but it's under Vine Street. And so maybe next year. We can -- we can do concrete rivers. We'd be happy to come back. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Dr. Speaks, uh, you a- answered part of my question already previously, uh, with the bottom-up approach. Is there n- h- how is that managed, though, internally, uh, to guide students properly toward what maybe you all know, as faculty, um, is doable and -- and, um, reasonable, as opposed to turning students loose, uh, I won't say willy-nilly, but, um, l- l- letting 'em show their artistic, uh, uh, efforts? H- how does that work internally? H- how do y'all m- manage to do that, I guess? That's a very good question. That's a -- that's a company secret. Um. Um, we actually ... It's a, it's a very fine line and -- and it's, it is not an easy thing to manage. I can tell you the way we, the way we ran this Brown-Forman studio last year, we ran it like an office. Um, it's a, it was a two semester, one-year project. Students had to commit to working on the entire pr- on the project for an entire year. Students would often work in teams. Uh, we would try to figure out what kind of areas of expertise they had developed already, and we would try to help them develop those. But some students are better at research. Some students are better at design. Some student ... So -- so -- so we actually ran the project last year almost as you would run, uh, an office. These are graduate students, mind you. Mm-hmm. So these are not undergraduates who are learning the basics of -- of design and design practice. Um, but it's a, it's a, it's an approach that I've been developing for ... I mean, I ... Before I was here, as I said, I've been here two years, I ran a program like this in Los Angeles for 10 years, um, using scenario planning as the, essentially as -- as the kind of methodology. So we have some experience doing this. We've worked with a lot of cities in South America, Europe. I've done a lot of consulting in, especially in Holland. I mean, I've spent probably the last 20 years working a lot, uh, in the Netherlands. Um, it's o- it's one of the reasons we have a lot of Dutch, uh, lecturers coming in. It's the reason we have a lo- a lot of Dutch planners, but they are also very good planners. Um, so this approach is a, it's a methodology. It's not a top-down, um, uh, prescription. Uh, but, uh, but it's, it's, it's a way for us to use the imagination of the students in a, uh, i- in, in a, in I think a very efficient way. Uh, so that -- that allows them to be creative, but that also trains them and lets them understand what it's like to be a professional and work with a client. These are real-world situations. I mean, in -- in -- in some real ways, in some ways without the constraints of real clients, you cannot innovate. You can't innovate in thin air. You need constraints. And -- and, and for us, that's what's exciting about having real clients. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I just wanted to say that, um, that I -- I'm real excited about an opportunity to be able to work with Steve Austin. And he's going to be working with a group of architecture students to take a look at the Lexington Mall building, to see, uh, what kind of creative possibilities that they can come up with for that structure as well. So. I see. Um, I'm -- I'm very excited about what that might turn out to be. There's a lot of exciting work that's been done in the area. You know, the last three years there, there's been, um, there have been competitions nationwide with s- with students on -- on what's called a Dead Malls Competitions, uh, where they try to reimagine how to enliven malls that died. And there's some incredible results. Actually, we, uh, we ran one of these in Los Angeles for -- for a couple of years. So, um, I look forward to seeing that as well. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. Sorry to come up twice. Um, given that -- that Turfle Mall is in my district, I would be very interested to get everything you got on the Dead Malls Competition. I -- I was, uh, asked that just earlier today. Um, m- many folks don't know that Turfle Mall is closed inside. And so, this is very important to the 10th District. Obviously, it's important to the Lexington Mall area. Both these malls, I worked on professionally. Um, I just want to say, I think Lexington, and I've said this before, it needs to devote far more resources to -- to planning and design. I think it's gonna be vital for the people friendliness of Lexington. And that's just good for our economy. We need more imagining and dreaming, and we need to plan smarter. Uh, we -- we spend a lot of our time processing and permitting, but we need to spend a lot more time thinking about how we can do things better, how our town can be better, how our -- our -- it can be more imaginative, and that was gonna track, um, uh, economic activity and vitality to our town. And so, I just, uh, I -- I again appreciate, uh, Dave Mahoney's, uh, st- uh, additional resources to the DDA, and I look forward to working with you a- you all at UK, uh, to try to do more. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Vice Mayor Gray. Thank you. Um, what's also interesting about, uh, Council Member Martin just used that word imaginative, and it takes us back to three years ago, one of the cornerstones or pillars that the council established was innovative and imaginative urban planning, which you guys are illustrating right here in our back door. Uh, one of the things that, uh, just as a, um, as a observation, one of the things that struck me when your student, or not, I'm sorry, not your student, but, uh, professor, your adjunct professor, a full faculty now, Drew Parish- He is a former student of mine. He is a former student, right? And, uh, a native of Henderson. He's one of the, one of the guys that, uh, that Michael was- ... speaking about or referenced as a Hus- Henderson native. I saw an example of, um, the, um, the corridor, uh, a proposal that they'd made in Henderson, which illustrate how something very simple and arguably really inexpensive could ha-have such a, an effect. It was a series of taxus hedges that they'd grown vertically and, um, like a hedge would, right? But over time, cut out the Henderson in it. And, um, of course they Photoshopped in and created this and, um, and it, it very much like the Keeneland out at Keen- except, you know, there it's on the ground, but here they had illustrated it vertically, so the entrance to the town in a, in a, um, an imaginative way, in an unexpected way. And, um, and it got your attention. The other thing that when I s- when seeing these images of the, um ... Where was, where wa- where was it in the, in Germany? The old ... Essen, outside of Essen, which is in West Germany. That's right. So these were abandoned, at one time abandoned- For 10 years. ... steel mills, right? Mm-hmm. And that's what you saw in Henderson. But our own analog to this would be argu- perhaps the step- the Pepper Distillery. Right. And I don't know how many of you all have actually been down there and seen the, um, in the distillery district, but that, that building. But it is in a ... I know you have, haven't you, Tom Blue? And Andrea, have you, have you been in it? Have not, Councilman? To, uh, the Pepper Distillery? So it's got the same bones as you were illustrating in the, um, in these other projects. So it just made me think that the opportunity for us still represented is perhaps in the distillery district. Thank you. Any further questions for Dean Speaks? All right. Thank you very much for being with us today. Thank you. I look forward to coming back. Appreciate your time. I overlooked item C on the agenda, so we need to go back and catch that minor detail, uh, today. Uh, Commissioner O'Meara, if you'll step to the podium. Thank you, Mayor. Um, as we presented, uh, several weeks ago, uh, here is our proposed, um, ad valorem, uh, tax rate calendar. Uh, we brought this forward, um, I think on the 18th, um, availability for, uh, discussion, uh, last weekend. Uh, also there was discussion at, uh, Budget and Finance Committee, uh, which, uh, brings us to today's meeting, uh, September 1st, where we propose a discussion and a tentative approval of dates, of rates, excuse me. And that is to allow us to, to make the schedule that goes on. We are required to make two advertisements. Uh, that first one would be scheduled for this Saturday, the second one on the 10th, leading up to a final, um, reading and approval on the 17th. And then we have, uh, per council request, hope I use the right term, public meeting, public meeting tonight at 7:00, uh, for public discussion. Um, so what we have for you is, um ... this is just a recap of what was in the booklet that was given to you on the 18th. Uh, this shows you the rates where we have control, which is in the top half, and the other, uh, taxing districts which require council approval or adoption. And, uh, first column is last year's rates, the second column is the administration's proposal. For illustrative purposes, we put on the far right, uh, the impact of any proposed change on a house that has an assessment of $150,000. And so if you have questions or discussion, I'll be glad to try to, um, to address those or entertain a motion for what you want to adopt as property tax rates for 2009. Any questions for Commissioner O'Meara? Uh, Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. O'Meara, I'm sorry, just, um, bear with me. The proposal includes, um, what decrease to the urban services? It's, uh, the refuse collection, 10% decrease from 15.9 cents per $100 assessment to 14.31 cents per $100 of assessment. Okay, thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Other questions, comments? Council Member Stennett. Mr. O'Meara, just as a timing, um, question. So we have to advertise this this coming weekend, correct? In, in order to make the schedule, we're required to have everything completed by the 45th day. Uh, so for us to be in compliance with that, that would get the two advertisements which have to be, uh, in two separate weeks, and the second s- uh, advertisement cannot be less than seven or more than 10 days, uh, after the second advertisement. So we don't need two readings Thursday night, we just need the first reading to happen by Thursday night. Is that correct? Yes, sir. But you need to go ahead one way or shape or another today in order to meet the Saturday deadline for- In order to meet the advertising deadline- Okay. ... to meet the public notice, yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Council Member James. Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. Sorry to bug you again. Where would I find that on the sheet, referenced the refuge collection? It is, uh, under Urban Service District, which is the second subset on the s- on the top half. You're looking at, um- Am I looking at the right thing? Thi- this is the sheet I'm speaking of. Oh. Oh, wonder why my- You have the, uh- Thank you. ... bonding analysis. Thank you. And, and if this is not, um, if this doesn't pass Council in its current form, what's the next process? What's the next step? So if it's voted down? W- well, thi- this is the proposal by the administration. It's now up to Council to adopt whatever rates you choose. So... So the proposal from the administration as presented, we would vote on that, or we would make any changes before it comes forward for vote? There has to be a motion to adopt something. We, we have put before you the administration's proposal, and now we're looking for Council to make a motion to adopt property tax rates for 2009. Is it similar to our current, um, like, our budget process that if there's not a motion to change something, then the existing way stays in effect? I don't believe so. I think Council must set rates within 45 days of the assessment. Otherwise, we don't have a rate to produce for property tax bills. Is that incorrect? Excuse me. Oh, excuse me. If you do not, then we revert to compensating rate, and that is in your packet, um, which would be option two, um, which is higher than, uh- Y- ... last year's rate, or what is, um, recommended by the administration. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Any further questions for Mr. Mayor? Uh, Council Member Wallis. I'm sorry. I'm, I'm confused on the process part of this. Exactly what are we asked to do today and Thursday? And if we do not want to, or somebody wants to make a motion to put something forward, other than the administration's recommendation, when does that need to be done? Today. Okay. And so, if someone doesn't make a motion today on the reduction of the refuse tax, then it will go forward for first reading on Thursday? N- no, ma'am. We need a motion to adopt a tax rate. We have suggested what that motion would include under the amende- administration's proposed rates. It is up to Council to set the rates. And we need to do that today. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Council Member Figal. Just ca- clarification as well. Um, we would adop- adopt on a tax rate today for you to base, um, your advertising on, but that doesn't mean that we would necessarily keep that tax rate as we go forward through this approval process? If, if you change it, then we revert back and start with the advertising process- Okay. ... again. All right. We, we have to notify the public, two separate advertising of the intended rates to be voted on by Council. Okay. Thank you. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. I have a procedural question. Um, today's work session is not an official meeting, um, of Council, so I'm wondering, how is it that we're authorized to approve any type of rate in this setting today? Well, it... To be technically correct, the approval today would be to place this on the docket for first reading on Thursday evening, which means we'd have a second reading two weeks thereafter. So the, the actual approval today would be to put it on the docket for Thursday evening. So today would not be the last day to make any recommendations to change, because the official date to... for first reading is actually Thursday, and that's our official Council meeting date? Well, that is correct. However, we are operating within a series of constraints imposed upon us by state law. And so, as a practical matter, we will have some issues with our advertising obligations, um, if we change the rate after today. It's not insurmountable, but it does probably necessitate our having a special meeting sometime between now and the middle part of September in order to, to approve the rates. That's probably the real consequence of an adjustment in the rate after today. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Uh, thank you, Mayor. Okay, I guess I'll step up and I'll make a motion that we accept option number one for the General Services Fund and option number two for the Urban Services District's Property Tax Fund. So moved. Do I hear a second? Second. Have a motion and second to approve the rates as, uh, uh, proposed. Floor is open for discussion. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I actually was on the list that talked before. I knew he was gonna make a motion, so I'm not sure if what I'm gonna say is to the motion or not, but my question was gonna be, is there a reason why we're having a public meeting after we set? Because it sounds like you said that if we decide to change this number after we set it today, that we have to start over with the advertisement process. That's correct. Um, you may recall when Council Member James raised the issue of scheduling a public meeting. We just asked the council administrator to work out a time that worked from everybody's standpoint. So, um, the meeting date was what appeared to work best, as far as the council was concerned. Now having said that, to the degree there is a desire to change the rates after we act today, we can deal with that, but it's probably going to necessitate a, a- Special meeting? ... special meeting sometime the next three weeks- Okay. ... to adjust. Thank you. And, and, you know, that's not the end of the world. We've done that before. Um, so it's, it's a manageable situation. The only clarification is we would have to re-advertise as well. Right. That's right. Um, Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. I've got some concerns about the Urban Services Fund and, and, and what might be the consequences of making that reduction, particularly with reference to the, uh, capital projects up- upcoming, uh, most specifically, the, uh, the new recycling center, which is, uh, you know, I think a, a, a, a very high priority item. And so, so perhaps Commissioner Taylor could comment on, on that. What are, uh, what are our guarantees for, uh, you know, as we go forward, uh, with making sure that we, we, we stay on schedule with those plans? Well, I can't really comment on how that impacts bonding. That would have to be, um, Bill's response, but what I can talk about is the, the center. Uh, what we're doing in order to make some decisions about whether to go forward with a new MRF versus the existing one that we're currently updating would be to take a look at the, uh, investment opportunity for that, do a cost-benefit ratio analysis, and then come forward with a plan that we think, uh, is viable, that stands on its own merit, um, and then would propose that we would bond that. That's what we suggested when we went to the Budget and Finance meeting the other day is suggested, um, bringing forth a project that shows a return on investment that's attractive and then bonding that project on its own merit. Uh, we are currently, of course, updating the, the MRF, uh, almost $4 million with equipment and storage, and that will give us triple capacity at the existing facility, but what we wanna look at is by investing in a larger facility and potentially becoming a regional recycling center, what are the investments and what are the paybacks? So we're taking a look at the whole project from an engineering standpoint, making a decision, and bring forth a, a recommendation to you about how to go forward with that. What I don't know is total bond picture and how that all works together. So are you s- suggesting then that, that there is a question ab- about whether to stay in place on Thompson Road, uh, or to, uh, uh, you know, or to move to a, a new facility? Is that issue, uh, uh, is that, is that still an issue? I think- Let me, let me, let me speak to that issue. It is no more an issue now than what it has been in the past. Clearly, the long-term goal is to move the recycling facility to the Old Frankfort Pike location that we just recently acquired. I am totally confident there is more than ample money in the so-called garbage tax fund to enable us to make the kinda capital improvements that are there and to realize the operational efficiencies that we need to realize in that particular operation and to build the MRF. Now, part of the equation in terms of how big a... and what type of facility we build on Old Frankfort Pike is what kinda revenue is it going to generate. If we conclude that we can generate $10 million a year in recyclables, we'll build a different... propose building a different kinda facility than if our assessment is it's only $1 million worth of revenue that can be generated at that facility. As a result of the acquisition of the new equipment that the council approved back in June and that we anticipate installing over the course of the next several months, we will be in a much better position to evaluate, number one, what our recycle, recyclable stream will be going forward and what our recyclable revenue will be going forward. And that will be useful information for purposes of making some kinda projections about what kinda facility we have on Old Frankfort Pike. But I see no reason now to think any differently about the recycling facility on Old Frankfort Pike than I did six months or a year or two years ago. I think it makes a lot of sense. I expect we will do it. Now, there are no guarantees. I'm not guaranteeing anything because circumstances could change. For instance, the recycling markets could change, could get better, could get worse. The technology may change. We could conclude... ... that rather than recycling, we need to utilize one of a number of different waste to energy models that are out there, but all of that having been said, there hasn't been any- any change in circumstance attributable to this particular proposal that causes me to look at the recycling facility any differently now than what it does... what- what- what I have in the past. Well, let me see if I can state my concern here, and maybe you can, uh, help me a little further. It- it- it- it does seem to me that, uh, regardless of market variations w- on, you know, recycled materials, that recycling is a must. I mean, the- that- that- that dumping what we do year in, year- year out in the- in the- in the landfill is not a sustainable, uh, practice. And- and that as we expand our recycling capacity, we, uh, we do n- need to go forward in some- in some fashion with a- with a new location, new facility. Uh, where we are is also n- not sustainable. So I'm wondering whether the funds we now have in reserve, whether it's your notion that they would be put to other operations or whether that figure's in the mix for expenditure on our- our- our- our- our future recycling, uh, capacity and the new mobile equipment that's going to be necessary to s- to serve it. Uh, what- what I'm worried about is that we get into a situation where the- where the recycling center has to compete against other, uh, you know, other and future, uh, uh, projects that will be bonded. That's my, uh, deepest concern. Well, the thing that makes the recycling facility and the recycling equipment, capital expenditures we're talking about on equipment, different is we have this dedicated fund that is generating revenue now, will generate revenue in the future to enable us to, uh, have the resources necessary to collect the garbage and send it to the landfill and, um, to, uh, do the recycling operations as well. So all of that is to say there are funds coming into our waste management division as a consequence of the property tax. There are also funds coming into our waste management division as a consequence of the recycling revenue. All of that is going to continue to remain dedicated towards improving our collection of garbage, our recycling of the recyclables, and, um, I am- I am very confident after looking at this closely with- with Commissioner Taylor and the folks in waste management that there are operating efficiencies that we can realize through the acquisition of, um, equipment and software that will enable us to maintain the very same level of service we're providing now, if not better service, at a l- lower cost. And at the same time, there will be ample funds in there to maintain the capital investments at a level that are appropriate to keep things current. So for all of those reasons, I don't have any heartburn whatsoever about this first 10%. Now, I do think that next year, whether or not we reduce it by another 10% is something we need to scrutinize on the basis of real operating data that we will see at least for part of this year. And Commissioner Taylor, I- I think the equipment is scheduled to be installed in the spring or operational in the spring. Yeah, it was ordered in July, late July, and, um, it's a 46-week project, so it'll be late in spring before we have it operational. But we will at least begin to see by this time next year whether or not our anticipated efficiencies are- are being realized, and, um, if everything goes as- as I'm pretty confident it will, both on the recycling front and on the garbage collection front, we will have substantial cost savings there that should, uh, make this particular, uh, reduction in the property tax, um, uh, a very easy one to- to incorporate into the overall scheme of things in waste management. And, um, I'll be surprised if we can't do that again next year. Well, I appreciate that- that explanation. I, uh, I st- I still have concerns, and- and- and your answer leads to another question, which w- we need not answer here, but it's something I wanna think about, and that is, uh, if we'll know more, uh, in a year's time based on new equipment and- and- and so forth, what would be the problem with waiting for a year for any kind of movement on this? ... uh, on this tax. Uh, you know, I'm, I, again, I, I, I wonder whether the $24 per household approximately, uh, is, uh, you know, uh, uh, is something we should go for instead of, uh, what is demonstrably a, a community-wide, uh, benefit. Yeah, well, let me, let me speak to that question. You know, back in January, as a part of the state emerge government address, uh, I talked about our need to reduce the garbage tax this year, because I was confident after, uh, Commissioner Taylor had been here for a little more than a year and had an opportunity to assess that, that, uh, operation, that there were operating efficiencies that could be realized promptly, particularly with the, um, investments in capital that, that we have talked about. Um, so there was, there's no, there's no reason not to go ahead and proceed with that 10%. Now, I'm pretty confident we can realize 20% once the, uh, equipment and software becomes fully functional, but I think prudence does dictate postponing the consideration of the additional 10% until next year. That's, that's why I think we need to go ahead this year. I'm confident the, the savings are there. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Commissioner. I know there are others who, uh, who will have questions. Council Member Wallace. Yes. Um, thank you, Mayor. I can't support this reduction and I'd like to explain why. Um, first of all, in the last year, we have seen what happens when people, um, anticipate the best and the worst happens, and we also have seen what happens when you run your credit cards and your home equity over what its value is, and a lot of people are suffering and our global economy is suffering as a result of this. Um, this is one area where the refuse, um, tax and waste management, this is one area that I have been so excited about, because we've had a long-range plan that we saved for. We didn't replace the old trucks because they wouldn't... Um, we waited to replace the old trucks because they wouldn't work with the new, uh, recycling center and we saved to buy the recycling center with cash. Now, just like individuals, our credit rating is based on our Moody Bond Fund rating. Our credit rating is... Cities have credit ratings too and it is based on how much you have in assets and reserve versus how much you have in debt. And part of the reason our bond fund rating is as high as it is, is because we have this reserve. We have almost $300 million worth of, um, bonding, things that may need bonding over the next few years. Um, and instead of... So 24, $36 a year is, uh, a family of three going to a movie once, that we are going to deplete our savings on anticipation of things going well with a system that hasn't been put in place. Um, we just, two or three weeks ago were brought, we needed an extra $600,000 for software that we've already spent $5 million over its original budget for. So we don't know how much the software's even gonna cost and, and cost to implement. We have no idea. Um, I don't know how we can... Mayor, you said you were confident things were gonna go really well, but then you listed the things that we can't anticipate, so I don't understand. To me, this would be like telling someone who thinks they're, they might get a raise, who has their credit card pretty full and is almost underwater on their mortgage to, "Oh, well, if you think you're gonna get a raise, you should go out and borrow more money, run up your credit cards." You know, uh, you save and plan for the worst and celebrate the best after it happens. We have been asked to be... Our goal is to be trash-free by 2020, and I'd like to commend everybody in environmental, um, services and waste management for coming up for terrific, uh, innovative plans for doing that, and I'm excited about those plans and to give back this money, um, I know it sounds good, it reads well, we're rolling back taxes 10%, in, in reality, that's somewhere between probably $25 and $40 per household per year and putting us in a place where then we're gonna have to bond the MRF and we're counting money in savings of a system we haven't even implemented. Um, and, uh, we're, and we're also looking at going from a flat fee to a, um- ... fee rate, so what's that gonna look like? So for me, this is my personal opinion from where I'm sitting. This is financially irresponsible, and for that reason, I cannot support it. Thank you. Council member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Well, first I wanna thank, uh, Commissioner Taylor, and I guess you're- are you still acting, Bill? You're a long-term actor. Uh, Commissioner, acting Commissioner O'Mara, for bringing us the information to support the administration's request. Um, I do appreciate all the hard work you've done on it, and, um, I, um, you know, I don't know of any politician who wouldn't like to lower taxes. Um, I think all elected officials would like to do that. I think that what our citizens want is to be sure that we understand the consequences of doing that. And for me personally, um, I have some reservations about lowering, at this time, the solid waste fee. Um, Mayor, you mentioned, uh, the recycling markets, and there was a, an article in Business Week just about, probably about five weeks ago now, and it talked about the failing recycling markets. And so I don't think we know yet where the recycling markets are going. Most of us up here, I would say all of us up here, are probably huge proponents of recycling, just for the good it means for the Earth. And, um, so I'm uncomfortable not knowing that. Um, I do think that this decision should be about the big picture, and last week we had some big picture discussion. Uh, although our... And I've given every council member a copy, some of the new council members may not have seen this August of 2008 six-year capital plan, but it details our capital needs, which do total, uh, approaching $300 million, and some of these are not frivolous. Uh, there's situations where if an HVAC fails, it, it will mean we have to immediately put it in, because it's an emergency. Y- you'll remember the discussion about the coroner's office needing a properly ventilated and HVAC'd working situation. There are many of them in here. So that's general fund, and we all understand general fund bonding. But the discussion last week, we did talk about, it's all part of the big picture, and, um, in my office, I have the plan of the proposal to use the urban service, uh, fund balance. It's a proposal that's several years old, and the proposal was to save the money to improve and build upon the recycling center. And so that plan has been looked at, and it was on the table at one time. Um, but the biggest reason that I will not support your motion, Mr. Lane, is because these operational efficiencies that we're going to save and that we're going to enjoy, I would like to see them first before we take the step to say, "Okay, we have these efficiencies. We have saved money. Um, now, let's lower this tax." And we could do that in one year. I, I f- I mean, I believe in your confidence, I'm just, I don't totally share that now is the right time to do this. I would rather see that the new trucks and the new system are working and really truly, um, a- allowing us to save money. And so then when they do is when I will wanna see us drop those taxes. So, um, I will not be supportive of the motion as it is right now, Council Member Lane. Council Member Lane. Uh, thank you, Mayor. Well, I don't wanna be negative, but I think our solid waste department has been grossly inefficient for probably maybe two decades, and I, I really, uh, commend Commissioner Taylor for her efforts to streamline the department and make it more cost-effective. Uh, I don't s- I would like to reduce the tax to zero, because I feel like it'd be more equitable to have a service fee based on the services you get, rather than being taxed for garbage collection based on the value of your home. But I don't think that we can move in, to a service fee at this point, so that's why I supported the reduction of the tax rate. And I have looked at these numbers. Uh, there are, solid waste has millions of dollars in surplus funds, so we would have the option of either paying all cash for the plant, or if we found, uh, for some reason that we wanted to reserve our cash surplus, then we could bond it and, uh, pay it out of the receipts, uh, coming in from the facility or use our, our bonding as, uh, our cash to help pay the bonding if we needed to do so. Um, I think that is a decision that we can make. ... once we, uh, decide what size recycling plant we want to build and have our foma- financial model, uh, completed. The, uh, new recycling plant, because of automation, would reduce personnel cost. And by recycling more product, the amount of halls we have to, uh, run to the landfill would be reduced, that also saves money. And then we don't have to pay per ton for landfill costs because we'll be recycling a lot of this material. So it'd be saving a lot of additional money there. Also, if we have more recycled products, uh, at the same rate that we have today, we will be receiving more revenues. If we triple or quadruple the amount that we're doing today, even if the rate goes down, they will still have more revenue coming in. You know, based on my evaluation of this, I feel like the additional savings that we would create, the additional revenues we would create, and the surplus funds that we currently have, would make this a very safe way to approach this effort. So I would encourage us to pass along the tax increase to the homeowners for this, uh, service. And it's been creating a surplus for seven or eight years, maybe longer, so there's not any reason that we have to- ... continue to make surplus. Uh, I think we could just take the surface money that we have, keep the current revenue that we have, and we're gonna be in great shape. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Meyers. Thank you, Mayor. I guess there's a lot of things going on in, in this discussion. And I guess the first thing I'm gonna say is I think it's wrong that we charge our citizens for trash collection based on the property value of your home. And the reason I asked for the commissioner to do the study was to move away from that type of taxation. Also, it's been my understanding that there's at least six or $7 million on the table with recycling if we do the new facility, if we build a new facility and ramp that up. I don't think there are too many profit- ... centers in government, but recycling is one. And not only does that bring a profit into the government, but it also reduces, as, um- ... Mr. Blue said, the landfill cost and the detriment to the environment. And so my hope is at the end of the day when we do that study and we go to the fee-based, um, trash collection, that we also end up incentivizing recycling. And so then if you don't want to recycle, then you'll be charged more for not recycling and then we'll really get after the issue. Um, so all those things being said, the only thing that concerns me about rolling back the tax, because everyone knows I've been a proponent of doing that and not allowing tax- ... money that we take in a, in a dedicated fund to be used for some other fund, we can't do that. Absolutely not. Um, but Mayor, it, it, it almost sounds like, and I know you're gonna correct me on this or clarify this- ... it almost sound like you're kind of hedging on whether or not we're gonna do the recycling, build a recycling- ... facility. That's the only concern that I would have. Am I gonna raise my hand and swear on, on the Bible we're gonna build a recycling center? No, I'm not gonna do that. Because there are any one of a number of things that could happen that would make that an imprudent decision when we get around to making the decision. I have no reason to think we wouldn't lunge at the opportunity- ... to build a recycling center. It is a revenue generator. It's good for the environment. It saves us the transfer station costs. It saves us the landfill fees. It saves us the transportation cost. I can't think of a plausible scenario where we wouldn't want to build, uh, a recycling center. But I'm not gonna say, and I'm not gonna bet my house, I'm not gonna guarantee it in a, in a formal kind of way that that's gonna happen. I just think there are too many uncertainties in life, but I can't foresee a situation where we wouldn't want to pursue it. Okay. And- I hope that provides a little comfort. And, and I was not gonna ask you to stake your house on it or any of those things. Good. What, what I wanted to make clear was that you, the, the vision is still to do that. Yes. Okay. And that we weren't hedging on the vision. No. U- understand things can happen. Um, we all understand that. But the goal and the vision is still to build a recycling facility as large as we can build it and effectively- Right. ... make a profit. Right. So, um, that being said, I think I'm gonna, I'm gonna support rolling back the tax. Thank you. Count- I hope, I hope that clarifies it to everybody's satisfaction. Clar- um, Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Council Member Lane mentioned there had been some grossly inefficient things going on. I think I agree and, but I think that it came on oversight. Um, our, it's our council's job to look at opportunities for revenue generators. I think that came from our council. Um, I think that if you look ahead forecasting, um, years ago, there was a wave going towards recycling as a revenue generator for cities. And there are cities way ahead of us there. Um, and we were so, it appears from my research, that we were so worried about how it was being run, that we just didn't do things to say, "This is what needs to happen," and, um, change our structure headed towards recycling. Um, so I think, you know, yeah, maybe it's in a bad way right now, maybe we're headed in a better direction thanks to Commissioner Taylor, um, Steve Feast, Kevin Bennett that are there, and I'm very thankful. I've done my research as well. Um, and my research does not give me the confidence, um, that some others have spoken around the, the horseshoe. Um, my research based on, um, some meetings I've had with Commissioner Taylor, with, um, some conversations with waste management, actually, um, it sees a, a bleaker kind of vision of, of where we will be when it comes to capital projects in the future, with waste management operating expenses. Um, and once we roll back a tax, it's, it's really difficult to ask for an increase. We don't, no one's gonna do that. Um, I think what Council Member Blue said was very astute, um, which is, um, w- we need to see how it's working. I think Council Member Gordon had mentioned it as well. Let's see the results of that, um, because what we'll do, we'll end up creating a fee schedule, um, which is gonna be based on efficiency. We need to do what's best for our citizens. If we think that what's gonna happen at waste management, um, the efficiencies are gonna be there based on this new equipment, based on the new structure, whatever we're gonna do, let's then wait and then base our fees on what the efficient process is, because we'll be back in this same hole again, um, with what I don't believe is surplus, but savings, um, but, uh, let's just get towards what we've saved for, um, which was for a purpose, to create efficiency, and then create the fee based on that efficiency. 'Cause again, what are we doing if we base it on what we have existing? Thanks, Mayor. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple of things. Council Member Meyers, I think you, you hit the nail on the head. For the last five years, I know a number of us have been talking about this fee, and we... everyone knows this is not the way, uh, you should probably tax, uh, refuse collection. It doesn't make any sense that two, two people living in a home that is valued at 150,000, uh, pay less than two people living in a home that's 500,000. That, that's not... it doesn't make any common sense. And so getting at this fee has been something that we've looked at for quite a while. Um, one of the things that is interesting about this discussion as I listen is, is that just two weeks ago, I was talking to folks in the industry about the technology that's coming, that I think, Mayor, one of the things you said is, as we go forward, we may find that there's other things to the positive that we haven't even identified. And I guarantee you there's, there's technology right now that may render us actually having to buy and build this facility. Maybe it renders it moot in six months, uh, with some of the, the new technology that's actually there. But the key piece of this is, is that we have $24 million in surplus. Now, we didn't acquire that overnight. And so what that means is, is that either we were charging too much or that somehow it was, it was mismanaged and either from a council standpoint or from solid waste or whoever, but the bottom line is, it wasn't saved for the purpose of recycling. Council Member James hit it right, right on the head in that recycling for Lexington has not been on the radar until just recently. Now, this, this 24 million has been collecting over time. So it wasn't like two decades ago, we were gonna sit back and we're gonna collect this money so we could go do this now. The bottom line to it is, is that we haven't even turned the spigot on in this community for recycling yet. We haven't even made it easy for everyone to recycle. Um, we have three bins for all, and we've got them all named different things and so forth. That's a, kind of an inefficient way to recycle. Again, with some of the new technology where you throw it all into one bin and it is, is collected and every aspect of that down to the methane gas that's generated is turned back into use for potentially the buildings that we operate. The bottom line to it is, from where I sit, is that people are, are very frustrated in today's culture. They're nickeled and dimed by their government to death. And while this may be a nickel, it's a nickel you hand back because it's a nickel that obviously we are not needing right this second. And my sense is, is that with what we are doing and where we're heading, we have an immense opportunity to do the right thing and create opportunity for this government and, and for our environment and the things that are all important to us. And it doesn't cause me any heartburn, uh, to use the words, Mayor, that you've used, to, to support this. And I think that, um, the caution of what do we do needs to be turned into an exploration of what can we do. What can we do so that we can take this money that has been, uh, that is sitting there right now and use it to maximum efficiency, whether it's used, uh, in, in a cash format or we bond it or we, whatever it is. The council's responsibility, uh, is to find these opportunities of recycling that make this a win, win, win for everybody and to be fearful to give, uh, to not take this off, uh, because, well, maybe we might need it and we might not know is, is one of those things where I just, I feel comfortable doing it. I will support the motion. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Wallace. Um, thank you, Mayor. Again, as, uh, Council Member Gordon said, there ain't a politician alive that wouldn't like to roll back taxes. But there is, as Council Member James very astutely pointed out, a difference between a surplus and a savings. And, you know, I save for things before I buy them, and that's how I've lived my life. And, um, Mayor, you said, um, and I'm not picking on you, I'm just quoting you here, um, I can't imagine why we wouldn't lunge at the opportunity to build a recycling center. I think if you had asked a lot of people two years ago, they wouldn't have imagined that they would be in foreclosure on their home. They couldn't imagine they wouldn't lunge at this point to be buying a bigger or better home. But they overspent, the market went sour, and again, you anticipate and then you can get disappointed or you can be surprised. You plan and save. ... and then you spend. And that's, uh, what could, what could happen? What could happen is we would be all about bonding this MRF that we have saved for, uh, and that's materials, recycling, facility. And our bond rating is so bad and the interest rate is so high, there's no way we can do it. And again, there are too many unknowns, too many, "This is probably what it'll cost, this is probably what we'll save." And in my experience in the last seven months is, it rarely turns out that way. So, thank you. Well, I can't let the statement that our bond rating is so bad go by. I didn't say it was, I said it could be. And nobody, uh, two years ago, there were a lot of Americans, Mayor, that had a great credit rite... ra... rating that can't charge a pair of shoes today. So I didn't say it was bad today. I said that's something that could happen, and there are a lot of people in America right now that never anticipated that their credit rating would be in the toilet right now, and it is. So long as everybody understands Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government's bond rating is not bad right now, then ... Uh, uh, yes, sir. I'm sorry if that's the way I, I said... That's what would keep us from it. Not that it is today, but if we keep bonding everything and spending every penny we have, it will be. Council member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Um, since we, uh, the issue of whether or not we're building a new MRF has come up, what is the plan to go forward? Is it to bond it or what's the plan since we've purchased the land? Well, we purchased the land anticipating using it to build MRF, but what we did do since, and you've seen the preliminary data, we did two, um, collections of data in December and then again in April to get an idea of what the potential volume of recycled material could be. And as you might recall, about 3/4 of what goes into Herbie is actually recyclable material, and the predominance of that is organic material, but we do have a lot of opportunity to dramatically increase the amount of recycling. So based on the data, this is the engineering approach. The, what you do is take the data and you use that data to make a determination of potential revenue, future revenue, future volume, and what the investment would take in order to, um, to build a facility to accommodate that volume and then calculate your rate of return. So, our plan to go forward would be to show the economic viability of building that MRF. You know, I'm, I'm a huge fan of the idea. I think it's a gold mine for the city. I'm optimistic, but it's a gold mine for the city, so I'm very much in favor of moving forward, but what I wanna do is move forward with data so I can show you a economic case that supports that, you know, emotional want. Um, so that was the plan. Now, once you get that rate of return, then you have choices depending on your situation at the time. If you have... I'm also a proponent of if you have the money, you spend the money, uh, versus bonding. Uh, if you don't have the money, then you look at the rate of return and make a decision about the investment needed to pay out. So, I think what we need to do is bring you back an economic model and then make the decision as a city about the best way to fund it and move forward. Thank you. I'm a great proponent of data also. That's exactly why I will not vote to lower this tax, because I don't feel we have the data. Um, and just to correct something that was said, uh, council members were invited to go out to, it was then known as Solid Waste. We received written proposals of the new MRF. The, um, money that was saved was saved on purpose to pay for the new MRF, and I have those plans in my office if anybody cares. Um, I don't know if there's anybody else in government now, probably Steve Feese, uh, was here, and he has those plans, but the purpose was to save cash to pay for that building or expansion. And so this big fund balance isn't a surprise to those of us council members who went out there to see that presentation. It's, it's the way it was presented, and that was the reasoning for saving that money. So I think I heard you say that you would first like to use cash to pay for... I mean, that would be my preference too, and, uh, as opposed to bonding for the new MRF. I mean, I'm just agreeing with you that we've got the cash, we could use the cash. Thank you, Mayor. Council member Lane. Well, first off, I would like to say council member Crosby brought to my attention when I said I was in favor of increasing the tax, when I meant to say decreasing or rolling back the tax. So I wanted to thank her and stand corrected on that. And then I was also brought to my attention that in my motion, that, uh, I did not address the other taxing districts, and so I want to, uh, uh, if I may, amend the motion that I made to add the requested rates that are pointed out on the overhead for the other taxing districts. That includes the conservation district, extension service, and the health department. And those rates are virtually unchanged. I think there's 1/10 of 1% increase for the extension service. Uh, that's 1/10 of one hun... That's one 100% increase. So, uh, that being, I would like to make the motion to amend my motion by adding, uh, this to the, uh, motion. Um, if there's second agrees with that, we'll do so by way of a friendly amendment. Any further, uh, discussion? Uh, yes, sir. I would like to say just one more thing is that I have been on the council for five years, and we have discussed the surplus in the Solid Waste Department all that period of time. And, uh, until this issue of rolling back the, uh, rate came up, I've not ever heard anybody say that we were saving this money to do a recycling facility. And so, uh, I'm not saying that somebody hasn't said that, just saying that I had not, had not heard that before. Uh, I just thought I'd throw that in for thought process. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. This is a tough one, isn't it? Uh, I listened to one colleague, and they're for rolling it back, and I say, "That sounds like a good proposal." Then I listened to the other side, and, uh, I said, well, so, so does that. And, um, I don't know what the tipping point is. I think part of the tipping point, which was brought up by, uh, Commissioner Taylor is, uh, the collection of data. And, uh, I, I really don't like flying blind, which is what we essentially are doing, uh, making, uh, uh... I'm starting to use the term we use in banking, but it, it isn't probably 100% appropriate. Uh, anyway, um, making swag, uh, guesses as to what, uh, what's going to happen. I would rather have some hard and fast data and maybe a low, medium and high probability, uh, attached to that. So, um, I'm gonna have to, uh, uh, vote against this, uh, this motion. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Does any other council member wish to address the issue? Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Taylor, l- last Tuesday during the Budget and Finance Committee, you presented a historical info on the solid waste fund. Uh, that info went back, back to 1998, where we began a ser- uh, fund balance at that time of $6 million, and you report that the projected is $24 million today, almost four times what it was 10, a little over 10 years ago, or 11 years. In the last three years, the fund balance has increased 2 million, 5 million and 7 million respectively each year, and has been added to get to, get us to that 24 million. The last study that was done in 2006, it was around 13 million. So we've jumped it up by 11 million. In the last three years, has that $11 million increase been because we're saving for the MRF, for the recycling center? Is that why we've had that big jump in $11 million in this fund balance? Because we've been saving for a recycling center? Or- That was not my deliberate purpose, but, um, we certainly... And I've been here a year and a half, so I can't- Right. ... answer for three. But have you seen anything in records, notes, anything that says the reason why we haven't spent those monies the last three years or even seven years is to save for a recycling center? Not to my knowledge. Um, what we, what we discussed when I first got here certainly was the MRF, uh, was over capacity, uh, it, it's not efficient, we do not have storage. I've talked to the council about all of those things. So our immediate need was to improve and enhance the existing MRF, because it's what we have, it's what we're, we're able to use today. And so our top priority was to get that MRF upgraded, and that's what we're planning to do this year. The other piece that we were able to incorporate in that, and, and we held up in purchasing additional trucks, because in putting new equipment in the MRF, we gave ourselves the opportunity to single stream. That means we can standardize to one vehicle, and we're pretty excited about that. That's gonna be part of the savings that we give back. But the money that we've accumulated in the last couple years since I've been here has been primarily because we have been, we held up deciding what capital to invest in until we knew what we needed, and we've selected that and purchased the equipment in July. And the second piece was what, uh, what vehicles did we need to accommodate and could we go to a single stream system? And that decision has been made as well. So, uh, I, I think a lot of the increase that jumped up over the last couple years is that we had not made capital investments, and now we're making those investments to get the system to a healthier place. As far as the additional from back from '98, you know, it did show increases over time, and I didn't know about the plan, but I have talked to Council Member Gorton about that, and, and, you know, when I did come in the door, we talked about the need to do something with that MRF. It's, it is badly over capacity, and we, we... One of the reasons we don't recycle more is we're not encouraging and educating people to do that, because if we did, we would have nowhere to put the material. So a lot of those things have been on hold, and I think that probably contributed over the last couple of years. We've also experienced, as I mentioned the other day in Budget and Finance, a fairly high vacancy rate, and that amount gets carried forward as well. And we're working pretty hard right now with HR to get critical management positions filled and to fill critical driver positions. That's our top priority for the entire department- And- ... is getting drivers. And as the head of the Solid Waste Department, ultimately, you feel comfortable in your model and your recommendation to council for this fiscal year to reduce it by the 10% initially? I, we can deliver that savings this year. And you can deliver the same service that we're getting today? ... without a reduction in service and still hire the 58 positions that we need to fill, or what, whatever the exact number is. Based on our calculations, we can deliver that. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. Excuse me- A- ... Mayor, point of order. Uh, she's already spoken twice t- on this topic, so abide by the council rules. Speak once- Okay. ... twice. That's fine. Mayor's spoken several times too. Stand corrected. Council Member, uh, Hinson. Hi, Commissioner Taylor, uh, wouldn't you think that the, the large balance would also have to do with the efficiency of the apart- the department? I mean, you've gone to a one-day pickup, you're using automatic trucks, your lifts. Wouldn't that... I would think that would have a lot to do with... Well, actually, um, our operating costs have not gone down and even though I know it, people refer to the one-day pickup, what we've really done is gone to two pickups in one day. Um, what... Like, for example, in my home, my Rosie's overflowing every week and my Herbie's about half full. So, I still get two containers a week picked up, but we get it on the same day and it still costs us, because we have separate trucks and separate systems, it's the same as going, you know, you have two trucks picking up two containers. So the operating costs for the most part have held, um, fairly steady. Uh, we, we, um, they haven't gone down. We have go- moved in the direction of automation, but we certainly, um, are not where we need to be. We still have to use a lot of human beings to pick up a lot of heavy things. So as we move into the future, we definitely will be automating more with that single truck. We'll be able to automate that truck and eliminate some of the heavy labor that people have had to do and reduce our employee injuries, which is a big- Well- ... critical component for us. So I think we're being fairly stable. We do have a, a chart that we gave to the Budget and Finance Committee that I can, um, make sure you get a copy of, and- I have it. ... just to show you our numbers. Okay. I have it. Thank you. Okay. But I did want to comment, in the Budget and Finance Committee meeting, I remember saying that, um, I'm not satisfied with the service as far as the garbage pickup, the trash and garbage pickup. I feel like there are certain areas of town that are, maybe need more attention, um, due to the population that live there. For whatever reason, that needs to be done. So I'm not really in favor, um, of reducing the amount of money that they get. I mean, they, they really need to provide the service and, you know, and I know you say, "Well, if we reduce this 10%, you can provide the service," but I'm saying it's not being provided and just, I just want to make sure that's clear. And I know that you and I have spoke about it and when it, you know, and you're great, you do great with sanitary sewer and so forth, but in waste management, it is just not being done. Thank you. Does any other council member who's not yet spoken wish to do so? All right, I think we're ready then to vote on the motion to set as the property rates, to set the property rates- ... as specified by Council Member Lane. Um, those in favor, please vote aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay electronically. And we'll wait till tabulation. Motion is approved by a vote of nine to five. All right. That takes us down, I believe, now to the council reports. If you, uh- ... wish to report, please indicate. I wasn't on it. You were on there, uh, Council Member Crosby, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I just had one thing. As, um, our public safety link, uh, we're getting ready, I guess, at the end of September to wrap up the first quarter. And I don't know if we need to work with you all or if RD has to arrange for the fire department to get on the agenda. Uh, one of our recommendations was, and, and th- this was approved by council, was that the fire department give us, uh, quarterly updates on how things are going with their overtime budget, as well as their hirings and everything. And just with one month left in the quarter, um, I would just like to request that we don't lose track of this and that they get in and give us a, the first quarter update on how things are going. So, if, um, someone could make sure that that happens over the next few weeks, uh, we would appreciate it. Thank you. Commissioner- That's all I have. Commissioner Bennett, if you'd check with the chief and make sure we get that info in a timely fashion. Thank you. Council Member Gordon. Uh, yes, I m- m- make a motion to, uh, move the Neighborhood Development Fund list from September 1st to the docket. Second. All in favor of approving that motion, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed, "No." Motion carries. Okay. Council Member Lawless. Oh, okay. Um, thank you, Mayor. I have a couple of motions. Um, one, I move to place on the docket for the council meeting of September 3rd, 2009, a resolution imposing a moratorium on the issuance of building permits for additions on residential structures in excess of 25% of the existing square footage of the structure in residential zones, unless... ...proposed addition would result in a final structure totaling 1500 square feet or less within the urban service area for one year or until the council takes final action on possible amendments to the text of the zoning ordinance or map amendments, whichever occurs first, for the purpose of allowing time to study existing regulations for residential zones and consider amending such regulations or adopting ma- map amendments to protect the character of existing neighborhoods within the boundaries of the urban service area. Second. I have a motion, uh, by Council Member Lawless, second by Council Member Gorton. Any discussion? Council member ... oh, okay, let me see. Council Member Meyer, several folks. We'll start with Council Member Meyers and extended Crosby Lane. Thank you, Mayor. I guess, my question, I don't know who would be the person to direct it to, but we had a moratorium like this back, I think, from 2001 to 2003. And my question is gonna be, you know, what was looked at with respect to the ordinance and zoning laws as a, as a result of that moratorium being put in place, and what's gonna be different this time? If it's just gonna be another moratorium for an extended amount of time, and then it's released and then people can go back to doing whatever they were doing, or has someone actually been charged with looking at the current ordinances and coming up with a solution long term? What happened, uh, as I understand it, is the moratorium was lifted in 2003 when there were text amendments, uh, passed by the planning commission and then passed by the council that they, that were expected to alleviate the problem. Somehow and for some reason, um, they are no longer working. And so what we have is we've got a patient in the emergency room hemorrhaging, so we need to stop the bleeding and then look at the cause and the cure. And so another motion I'm gonna make is that we refer that to the planning committee for study, and hopefully get to the cause and come up with a cure sooner rather them than later. So, and we can debate this on, at first and second reading, and I've talked with, uh, somebody from the remodeling association and the home builders as well as neighborhood associations. Uh, I welcome any input and certainly any friendly amendment that would have an unintended impact would, I would certainly wanna hear about and would support. So that being said, right now, we have a situation in some of the areas where overnight there have been, um, building permits given for com- uh, well, you heard the testimony at the last council meeting. And so it, it's a, it's an effort to stop it immediately so we can do, as quickly as possible, a study of what the cause and cure could be. I guess what I'd like to see happen as a part of this, and I don't know if I make an amendment to your motion or i- i- if it would take that, um, I also heard, I think we were talking earlier and you said that there are people that are, that are adding onto their homes without building permits. So I guess what I'd like to see is someone from the administration come and speak before this gets second reading as to what was done last time there was a moratorium in place and why that did not work. That wasn't- And what they- ... that wasn't addressed last time, but I'll have another motion about that, so. Right. The, the building without a building permit wasn't addressed. But you're saying that they did do some fixes but they apparently didn't work. I, I think they worked temporarily, and then as time went on, people found ways around the fixes. Um, probably Chris King and Dewey Crow are the two most knowledgeable folks about the history of this and would be glad to make them available to you. Those were good questions. I would... Dewey Crow is back there now. Can you come up for a second? All right. He's back. What, what I wanna, Mayor, what I wanna do is make sure that we deal with this issue without just putting this moratorium in place and then seeing what happens later on. If, if we're gonna do the moratorium, I wanna know what happened- Yeah. ... and why it didn't work. And I think- And what they're gonna do different this time. ... I think the folks in law would, would say we've got to be working on a real fix while we put the moratorium in place temporarily. So we've got a legal obligation to do that. Okay. I, I guess my, you've heard the conversation, what, what happened last time the moratorium was put in place, and how did people find a way around that now? Yeah, well if memory serves me correct, the l- the moratorium that they're referring to was put in place in a- around 2000 or so to allow, to the issue of com- duplexes, I believe, was the specific item that that was affected in the one and two family, uh, zones where you can build duplexes. We were seeing these large conversions of duplexes to, you know, increase their size to basically house, you know, more folks at a time. Um, that moratorium was put in place while it was studied as to what best method put in place to address that. And I think the outcome of that was the infill and redevelopment, uh, overlay area to cover the specific parts of town where it was felt that this was, the problem was occurring to the greatest extent. And that was put in, in place. I believe that was finalized probably in 2002. Again, I, I'll defer to someone else as a more correct date. That did, for the most part, have its intended effect. It did slow those types of, uh, projects down because it required, uh, certain, uh, floor area ratios, certain yard restrictions, uh- ... certain attachment methods to go to the existing house. And for the most part, it was fairly effective in slowing down those types of large additions that we were seeing done, especially to duplexes. Now, what we think has happened over the years, we've, uh, especially in the recent housing downturn, you've had moderation of housing cost. It's now become a little more economically feasible for these projects to be kinda looked at and put in place on single family homes, in, in R1 districts. And where they can, uh, financially add the addition and hope to recover it through the rental of the property. And again, that we think that's partly based on the fact that, uh, you've had moderation in the housing cost, uh, the, the market has gone down, construction cost ha- have moderated. It makes it affordable to do that. And these, uh, different developers have learned to work within infill and redevelopment guidelines to still produce the product that they're looking for on these properties. So we think it's just been an adjustment through, because of market conditions, and because people just learn how to work within the guidelines that have been established that you're seeing kind of a resurgence of this type of issue. Okay, thank you. Now, uh, uh, you asked that we make somebody available before we meet again, if you'd like for them to come back, we'd be glad for them to. If that is an adequate answer, then we'll, we'll- I, I think I'd like to have them come back because there may be some people in the community that want to speak to the issue as well, and we want them to be available to answer questions. Okay. We'll do that. Thank you. I had Council Member Stennet next, but I understand Council Member Crosby, uh, has a bit of a time constraint, so Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Council Member Stennet. Um, I guess my question is, and Mr. Crow just kinda touched on it a little bit back with the previous moratorium, that it was just directed in a certain area where there is a problem, and I believe that the reason why this came up was because we had a complaint. This is complaint-driven from one, one area, basically. Um, I don't believe we have an overwhelming amount of complaints coming in from all over regarding this issue. So I guess my question may be for Laue, why, why did we decide that we had to do the entire urban service area versus just, once again, directing, directing it towards this one area? We've done it in the past, why, w- you know, w- a- as, as Council Member Lala said, we see we have a hemorrhage, rather than, um, penalizing the entire urban service boundary when there are a lot of responsible projects going on and not these six bedrooms being added on and making basically apartments next to the university, w- why are we doing this? Why can't we do a targeted effort? Well, it, it is not a strictly localized to one street problem first. There is a, an area that's involved in this. The problem is, you have to support the moratorium by a reasonable good faith belief that you are covering the area where the problem occurs, as opposed to targeting one area and deleting other areas where that problem may be taking place, which means basically it's not fair, it's not reasonable, and you can't have it be over-inclusive. Um, going back to the 2001 moratorium, just as a correction, that was county-wide for the zones that were listed in it. It was not targeting an area. And realistically, we're trying to, we're trying to prevent this problem in a wide range of areas. I think by, um, couching it that you could build an addition on up to 25%, I think the belief is most reasonable additions to single family residents, um, based on, uh, Dewey's experience in building inspection, is, uh, probably going to be addressed by that. Um, it will fall within the 25%. There's also the provision that you can build on an addition that may be more than 25% so long as the overall size will not then increase to more than 1500 square feet to allow people to make, um, uh, additions onto smaller homes to create a re- reasonable single family residence. So the feeling was, it wasn't going to create a tremendous burden, and that there were impacts on various areas in the urban service district area that had to be addressed. The problem is that the time it would take to do an extremely detailed study to support a narrowly targeted area would, in fact, be the time that ... I mean, this moratorium is created to allow the time to do that kind of a study, to, to get a handle on the problem and what needs to be done to address it. The time it would take to do that kind of a study would allow this problem to continue to carry on while we, while we did that before putting on a moratorium. S- so we're gonna hold up, I guess, the revenue that we get from, uh, people who pay to get their, uh, building inspection fees and all that with the moratorium while we do a study, um, b- based on this. Because don't we, we generate revenue in this department, do we not? I'm afraid Dewey would probably have to answer to that. I really don't know the nuts and bolts- Dewey- ... of what kind of revenue. ... from the permits? Yes, we do issue, uh, permits and collect a permit fee any time you add onto your home, remodel, build a new home, or build a new building. There is a permit fee associated with that. Certainly, with this limitation, if someone wished to build, was gonna plan on building 50% and they could only build 25, we would only charge them for the 25% that they could add on. But they would still be charged for that. Now, the only lost revenue wa-- if they had planned on building 50%, but could not, then obviously we would not receive a permit fee for that additional 25%. And have, um, you talked to anybody from, I mean, obviously you have an opinion, but have you talked to anybody, um, from this remodeling council, um, regarding this and how this might affect their business- I, I've- ... and the- ... I spoke to the Home Builder's Association. Um, in fact, we just, we spoke earlier this evening. Uh, Todd Johnson and I did about it, and their, uh, concern seems to be that, yes, there could be some negative impact to individuals who are in, just wanting to add on, you know, make use of their homes. They had a large addition that may exceed this 25% and yes, they would be negatively impacted under this, uh, proposed moratorium. There's no denying that. You are definitely going to have some instances where folks are not gonna be able to do what they would like to do to their property. Uh, in the past moratoriums, the way we got around those particular issues was those folks would come back, came back before council and basically ask for, uh, some help there, for the council to basically remove the moratorium from their particular property to allow a, you know, a pro- a project to move forward that certainly didn't, wasn't anticipated to create any problem, or certainly not part of the problem that the council would be studying. So that's how it was done in a previous moratorium. Those individuals with those projects came back to the council and asked for some relief under the moratorium to allow their project to move ahead. I guess I just have an issue when we have to have people come back and ask for an exception or a variance on something, where in the front end, we should have the, I guess, ability to have guidelines in place where people shouldn't be in this situation. I'm very sympathetic to what's going on with, um, Council Member Lawless's district and what she's seeing, but that should not happen. It should never be allowed to happen, um, where somebody can add on an additional six bedrooms to a single family house, but yet we're gonna penalize, as far as I believe, people who wanna be responsible with additions and are doing things the right way, whether it's over 1500 square feet or whatever the guidelines say, and then we're gonna have to make them take an extra step to come back and get extra special approval from us because we have a very small group of people who can't do things the right way. It just doesn't make much sense to me, so thank you very much. Let, let me interject at this point. We had some discussion, I guess, at our last, um, maybe council meeting, about deliberating on things that are not on the agenda. Um, I'm concerned that we're going down that path again, and this one is particularly noteworthy because I know there are a number of very substantial interests on both sides of this issue that probably wish to be heard. We have traditionally allowed motions to amend the docket as Council Member Lawless has, has, uh, proposed here today, but, um, and, and I think that's in order to do that as a part of the council report, but after giving this a little thought and, and subject to some comments from our parliamentarian, who's the next one to speak here, if, uh, if we proceed, I think our interests would be better served if we limited council reports to people reporting as opposed to deliberations. And then to the degree we need to deliberate, do so in the context of a meeting when those matters are on an agenda that is circulated around for the public to be made aware of. Now, I'm not gonna be crushed forevermore if the council concludes that this discussion needs to go on, but I think in the context of our rules, the way I look at them, we ought not be engaging in a substantive discussion of the issue at this point. Mr. Parliamentarian, correct me if you feel my interpretations in error. Well, I think in the past though, we have had these kind of discussions- We have. ... and deliberations and it's been the practice of council, but I do think at the same time it should be, uh, limited though, to whether or not we should actually be placing it on the docket. And whatever information the council member would need from administration to be able to make a decision whether or not we should place it on the docket, docket would be relative. I, I- Actually get into changing it around and moving around does get into the public input side and, and may not be appropriate. I think- But I would think this would be appropriate. I mean. Well, that, that's a valid point. And so to the degree you have questions about information you need for purposes of determining whether or not this ought to go on the docket, that's appropriate. And I do. Okay. And if you do, then proceed. Uh, Mr. Crow, have you looked at how many building permits are out there today that would be negatively impacted by this that you've issued currently? Have you- If we've already issued a permit, there would be no negative impact. I understand, but I'm, what I'm saying is past performance. H- how many have you issued that would have, if this was in place, been negatively impacted? Have you looked at those numbers? We don't, we don't have a statistical number that, uh, that where we can track how much percentage that, uh, would apply to any particular addition. I don't have a way of collecting that data. Okay. Where we based our decision that 25% was probably a reasonable amount was general, uh, anecdotal evidence from field staff, plan reviewers, those folks in my office that look at these things on a daily basis, that for the most part, the additions and things we see done fall roughly around 25%. Again, I don't have hard data to back that up. It was just a general consensus of staff within my office and senior folks that see this day in and day out. ... that we felt 25 was fairly reasonable. Obviously, there will be numerous projects that will be negatively impacted. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Mayor. Council member Lane, then Council Members Blues and McCord. Are we continuing to discuss this or- Uh, well, i- in... From the standpoint of whether or not to put it on the docket at next... or at Thursday night's meeting. All right. In that case, uh, I'd like to make a motion to table this and to put it onto the work session docket for next Tuesday, so we can have a full discussion on it at that time. So moved. It- We don't meet next Tuesday. You don't meet... The Tuesday following next Tuesday. Okay. So the motion is to table the matter until the work session on the 15th. Is there a second? Okay. Motion does for lack of a second. Anything further, Council Member Lane? All right. Well, in that case, Mayor, I guess I'll say something. Uh, I think my opening comment is, let's turn a major recession into a depression by voting for a remodeling, uh, moratorium. You know, our home builders are already having a tough time and when you put on a moratorium for the entire county and the urban service area restricting remodeling, even if there is a square footage, uh, percentage involved, that is not good for business. And I, I think this is not a sound business or political practice to do that. Uh, and we're also taking away the rights of property owners to improve their property when we do that. And we don't know how long the moratorium may last, and I just don't think it's a, a good practice. What I would instead ask is that the mayor have the code enforcement and the billing inspectors go to the properties that have been identified to be in violation, uh, of our code. Uh, you can't have a boarding house and, um, and, and a single family property. If somebody's put eight rooms in there and renting them out to students, that's not a hou- that's not a single family residence. That's a boarding house. I think we need to strongly enforce our codes. I'd like for us to do an inspection on these properties and then come back with a report as to what the real factor of the situation is. If we enforce these codes, whether the billing, uh, moratorium one may not even be necessary if we hold people to do what they say they're gonna do. If you're applying to, uh, renovate a single family home and then you turn it into a boarding house, that is not, um, in accordance with our zoning ordinances. That's all I have, Mayor. All right. But I really would appreciate if you would have that checked out. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. I, um, I think this is a property rights issue and I think that people have, you know, have a right to protect the integrity of their property. The, the, the, the integrity of the property of neighborhoods is being, is being seriously threatened. I go back to Council Member Lawless's point that, that, that there is a crisis and that, uh, well, was it a hemorrhage? Uh, if that's the metaphor. Then the... There's no way to do this selectively that the only way to fairly do it is to apply the tourniquet, uh, throughout. So I would, I would support putting on this, uh, putting this issue on the docket so that it could be, uh, putting the question of the moratorium on the docket so that, um, we might be able to put it in place and then, and then work to address the situation, uh, without imperiling neighborhoods. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, Todd Johnson from the... Would you mind just going to the mic? I want to ask you a couple quick questions. But while he's going to the mic, I think that, you know, where, where we are on this thing is, is needing some intelligent compromise. There is no doubt this is an absolute, uh, epidemic problem and, uh, there's nobody, I don't think, that sits up here that doesn't know that you've got a serious, serious problem in that district. And knowing that with 7,000 new students coming over the next few years, it's not gonna go away. Council Member Beard brings up a great point every time we talk about this, that whenever you do something in that area, it just squeezes it out and pushes it somewhere else, like a Big Bear Lane and so forth. Um, but I also have serious reservations about, you know, putting this out there and, and, you know, having people, as Council Member Lane said, that, you know, are using this as a means of, of, uh, trying to improve their house. They didn't go buy a new house, they're putting money here, it's, it's jobs and so forth like that. Todd, my question is, uh, as it relates to the, the numbers, I heard Council Member Lawless say, you know, "I welcome anything anybody can bring." We, we... There's, there's no doubt we need to do something and my hesitation in putting this on the docket is, you know, are these numbers fair? Do these numbers cover it? Is there another number that we should look at that makes sure that we can... Everybody out there can live with it and we can live with it? 'Cause, 'cause I wanna get something done. I don't know if I can address that question directly, but what I can tell you is, first, I wanna say thanks to Council Member Lawless. She did come to me before work session started and, and our remodelers council within our Home Builders Association is one of our most active groups. We have about 270 members that are part of that council. And we are more than willing to sit down and, and work with any group to try to resolve an end to the issue that's going on in her district. Um, back to kind of getting to your question, I can tell you that I've called three of our remodelers to talk to them just generally and what this would do to affect them. I was told that... Probably about 40% of the additions that one company typically does would be affected by this 25% rule. Uh, Chip Crawford, who's sitting here in the office with Crawford Builders, currently has, uh, six bids that he's working with on, on additions. Five of them would be negatively impacted by this, resulting in about a million and a half to a million and three-quarters worth of work. So it is a substantial hit for somebody like Chip, who is not at contract yet with these people, but are close and working with them, uh, for this work. And taking that into account, and the fact that, you know, he's employing 60 to 70 people per job site, uh, things add up in, in other revenues other than building permits and inspection fees and things like that. And, and I- Excuse me. I'm sorry. I, I know Mister, Mister Crawford very well, I've known him for a long time, and, and he doesn't do too much work in, in that area and, and much like that. It's, uh, very substantial work and, and that, and that's my concern. And so I guess my question, uh, my hesitancy about putting it on the docket for Thursday night, uh, is, is, is tho- are those type of things. And I guess what I'm looking to you and, and Chip and people that, uh, r- recognize those that are adversely affected that are getting caught in the crosshairs of this is, is there an industry solution that you can bring to us to combine with this motion, or combine with this, this action? Because, uh, I mean, make no mistake, this isn't something that, "Well, we'll study that, look at it, whatever." This is something that has to have immediate action. And my only hesitancy about voting for it going on the docket, uh, on Thursday lies in, in what you've just said. And what I would ask of you all is, is within the next week or so, bring us a, a intelligent compromise. Something that we can take that, that really helps you get done what needs to be done, but really gets at this issue. Because, um, the bottom line to it is, is, uh, our laws don't work. I mean, we can't enforce this. And is, is maddening to be an, a, a council aide, a, a counsel member and receive these phone calls and be hamstrung and do nothing. Is that something that you guys can help us with immediately? I think absolutely yes we can. Uh, it so happens our, our Remodelers Council meets for their monthly meeting tomorrow. We have a steering committee before the full body meets, and I can assure you this will be a topic of, of great discussion. And we realize the importance and, and the impact that this problem is having. Sure. I think Councilmem- Member Crosby may have summed it up best, that it looks like we're kind of going at the, the problem maybe a little bit backwards. If we can identify where the problems are and concentrate on those problem permits where, where the things are going on we don't want, an, and address it that way, rather than putting a blanket on the entire industry. I, I, I will, I'm voting against putting it on the docket for Thursday night, but what I am saying and, and the reason I wanna explain this is, is I'm looking to you, uh, over the, by the time we get back together in two weeks to have some solutions that we can then work around. And I'm f- fully prepared to move forward- Right. ... with, with a motion, uh, as we go forward. Because this has to be addressed. But I, but I will vote against it for Thursday night. Regardless of how it goes down- Right. ... I, I, I really think that you guys need to take the opportunity tomorrow. And, and this is a wonderful opportunity to help government solve a problem, uh, that we really need help solving. My intention will be to bring it up at our Remodelers Council meeting tomorrow, and I'll be in, in co- in communication with, uh, Council Member Lawless as we discussed previously, and we will, we will certainly do all that we can to, uh, to aid. Thank you, Todd. Council Member Lawless. I, I just wanna say, the last thing in the entire world I wanna do is, uh, punish responsible homeowners. Uh, and many are being punished by irresponsible additions, or to do anything to interfere with your business or any other business. So thank you. We appreciate that. Thank you. Motion on the floor is to, uh, add that item to Thursday night's agenda. Any further discussion specifically on that? Council Member Martin? Thank you, Mayor. I agree with Council Member Lane that th- this is not a time where we want to, to, I guess impose hardship on our remodeling community. Um, and so, and I, being a real estate guy, I, I, I understand their pain in, in, at this time. I'm gonna vote against this at this time, because I, I don't think we've really found a solution. I'd like to maybe have a hearing on it or something where we can get some advice, uh, and, and, and some expertise brought to us. I'd like to see our planning and engineering departments really come up with a good solution. 'Cause I tell you, we around this circle aren't good enough, we're not experts enough to be able to develop this. I mean, we need them to come help us figure this out. And, uh, the, and the, our task is how do we prevent single family residents from being turned into apartment buildings or, or boarding houses. And so I would ent- I would sup- Point of order. I wouldn't think this about- I would support- ... whether or not to put this on the docket, is it? I would support putting it on the docket a time when we can get some more information in front of us. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. I think ... Okay. Uh, y- this is, um, these are folks that wanted to do council reports and so I'm kind of getting a show of hands in terms of people that want to speak to the issue of whether or not to put it on the docket. So, Council Member Feigl, then Council Member James. I, I don't, uh, have this kind of problem in my neighborhood yet, but I don't think it's too far away. Uh, particularly if we begin to, um, approach student housing issues where we're, we're beginning to limit density, which is one of the proposals. Uh, I will support putting this on the agenda, but not because I think it's ready for us to vote on. But just so that we can move it forward and hopefully in the meantime, we can get input from our staff and input from the professional organizations that, um- ... whose, uh, businesses this will impact. Uh, if we can't get all the information we need at the next council meeting, then I think we always have the option of tabling it to wait for more information to come in. But I would like to see this move forward. It is a, a problem that needs an immediate, um, solution. And we may not get that immediate solution, but at least we can take the first step. So I would like to see us support putting this on the agenda so that we can try to get that feedback in a very expeditious manner. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. I agree with Council Member Feigl. I will support the moratorium resolution going on for the docket for Thursday. I do hope that, um, its presence being there will hope... will, um, help to move forward the discussions, um, between whoever needs to be there, um, to come up with creative solutions. And at any point, um, it can be pulled, um, and tabled, removed, um, whatever's necessary, but I, I don't want to see this, um... I don't want to see it slowed. I'd like to see it move forward and just knowing at any point that, um, council can remove that. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gray. Uh, I agre- uh, am gonna support the, the resolution for actually the same reasons. Uh, I think we've all come to le- learn that, um, when we're faced with, um, and presented with, um, the kind of wholesale destruction that's occurring, that we have to do something and that, um, the best way for, the best way to, um, solve some of these issues is to, to press forward with the, with an initiative like this. And, um, I know Chip and his dad and the other comp- and, and I'm in the construction business. I understand completely the level of distress that exists in the industry. And what we're trying to do is work here to avoid the continued destruction that's occurring in these neighborhoods while not compromising the businesses and the homeowners who are responsibly, uh, initiating new projects. Thank you, Mayor. Think we're prepared to vote? All right. Uh, Council Member Beard. I too am gonna support, uh, the motion, um, primarily because, uh, I, I do think that we need to get... move forward with this. Uh, we've been flying with some assumptions of having some data available as to, uh, what, what the norm is or close to what the norm is as far as the size, size of some of these projects. Um, whether it be building inspection or, uh, the PVA's office, the data is out there somewhere to be collected and can be collected so that we can, uh, do something intelligently and maybe 25% isn't right. Maybe it's 35% or maybe it's 30%. I would like to see that information brought to us somehow, uh, between now and, and the time that we might vote on it, uh, and, um, ho- hopefully that can happen. Uh, and w- w- with the home builders' input also. Uh, you know, we have, uh, our builders and our, uh, our citizens come down here to appeal, to, uh, discuss with the Board of Adjustment, with the BOAR. Um, I see this n- uh, not much different than that. Uh, there has to be a reasonable threshold and maybe we haven't gotten a reasonable threshold, but, uh, I think we can get it between now and the next couple of weeks. Thank you, Mayor. Are we ready to vote on the issue of putting it on the agenda? Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. You tried, right? Um, I guess when I look at the situation, I want to ask Mr. Crawford if he wants to come up. Is that, is that okay to ask him if he can come up? If it goes to the issue of why we should put this on the do- Do you want to come up? I don't want to belabor the point, but before you speak, I want to say this. When I listen to this debate and this conversation, it reminds me of South Limestone. We've got a situation where the government's getting ready to do something that's gonna have an adverse effect on local business and we all want to be careful how we do that. To me, the solution is not to affect... to throw out this big blanket and affect everybody in town because we're trying to get out a real small problem. I'm... L- let me rephrase that. Let me rephrase that. It's not a small problem for the people who live in the neighborhood. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying when you look at the area in which it's affecting as opposed to the entire city, it's a small geographic area. And so to throw a blanket out there that covers every business in town that does this type of work doesn't make sense to me. So I wanted to kind of set the stage in that way. Let Mr. Crawford say what he wants to say quickly and then I have one more statement to make. Well, I appreciate the opportunity and, uh, the, the issue at hand definitely needs to be addressed and I appreciate being brought to the table and I know our association does too. Um, I'm a little concerned with the timeline of a couple of days and a week or two to fully come up with a moratorium that doesn't negatively a- affect our association. That's my biggest concern. Uh, the way the moratorium as I read it is written today is, uh, extremely encompassing. Matter of fact, it, it probably addresses 70 to 80% of my remodeling work. ... um, and I'm not the only remodeler in town that this would affect. And I know that I've never done a project that is at question in, in, in what's, what's happened here. So, there are solutions. There's gonna be, there's gotta be a really simple solution to even the moratorium. Um, the numbers just don't make sense to m- to our business, uh, at all. Um, and, and coming up with the right solution for dealing with just the moratorium, much less the bigger issue, I, I'm just afraid w- we need a little more time. This is the first that I was made aware, a couple hours ago, of this issue. So, as far as, you know, addressing the moratorium. And, and I would like to see more time and a little more, you know, cooperation, um, and, and teamwork to pull this together so that it doesn't adversely affect us. It is, it's, uh, I know ... If things have just recently started to changed in the community when it comes to, uh, the mine industry's economy turning around. And I'm seeing, just in the last two months, an influx of bid opportunities, homeowners coming to us looking for work. And to just blanketly stop, uh, you know, 70 to 80% of my business, it would be, uh, a big, big, huge deal, uh, for us right now. I mean, I ...
Yeah. ... Todd a- or he said, I can reiterate it, but it's, we're looking at six projects, five of which would be negatively affected by this. That, that's what I think is, just needs a little more time. Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. Uh, thank you for, for your comments because you actually just drew another parallel when you talk about time. You know, we talk about the South Limestone Project and not giving businesses enough time to get ready for the changes that are gonna take place and then we walk something on here today without any of these businesses being notified in advance that this is gonna negativ- negatively impact them and their ability to stay in business. And so, I don't see how we can vote to move this forward, um, today. And I'm not gonna vote to table, I'm not gonna make a motion to table, I just wanna see how people vote on this, but, um, it's, it's not right to walk something on when these business folks haven't had a chance to even know that this is coming down the pike. And I guess my final statement would be, someone talked about the fact that if you allow someone to build a big box on the back of one of these houses, it's no longer is a single family residence, it's now a boarding house. So, it seems to me that if our code enforcement people would not issue a permit for someone to do that in a situation in which it doesn't make sense to have a boarding house and it's not legal to have a boarding house, that would get out part of this problem in the meantime while we're looking for a fix. But ... I guess I'm done. I ... no one blare it, but to vote this in, walking it on when these businesses haven't had a chance to adjust and asking ... I agree with business being a part of the solution, but to ask them to come up with a solution for their own industry, I think is incorrect as well. Thank you. Council member Lawless and Council member Blues. Motion- Uh, thank you. I was gonna wait to walk this on, um, but was asked to go on and do it. And I would like ... I take exception to this being like South Limestone. This hadn't been put out to bid with the dig date before it came to Council and that's a big difference, but I'm not trying to debate. But, again, one of the great things about this, that I'm sitting here, is this is not a new problem and it is not a small problem. But, by golly, all of a sudden, people want solutions. I've been sitting in the student housing task force for a long time and not nearly as long as a lot of people while we've gone around the merry-go-round while the destruction, so I'm really excited that bringing this forward is getting people energized about addressing a problem that is systemic in our community and not just in my area, but in lots of areas. And maybe we'll get that text amendment and get some of these things defined and that, hooray, if it does nothing else but get the fire under people's ... feet - ... then by golly, it's worth it. Thank you, Mayor. Council member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. The, um, council member Martin observed that, that, that we are not experts and I couldn't agree more. And that's the best reason of all why we should have this moratorium at this time, to stop the destruction of neighborhoods. People have a right, it seems to me, to, uh, you know, to their, to their property values, to the sanctity of their neighborhoods. And, and council member, uh, Lawless is absolutely right too. This, this should and I think it will get a- all of us, the property owners, the council members, the home builders, the remodelers involved in coming up with a, with, you know, with a solution that we can, we can bring forward, but we do have to stop this destruction and I think it's a critical, uh, critical matter and we should put this on the docket and, and debate it there. Thank you, Mayor. Let's proceed to vote. Those in favor of adding this item to the docket on Thursday evening, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Oppose, no. No. Let's vote electronically, please. Vote electronically. Those in favor of adding it to the docket, vote aye, those opposed, vote no. Vote no. Okay, we're gonna have to do it that way 'cause we don't have a quorum here so we're gonna have to do it that way. Aye. Council member -- I was looking who hadn't voted, and it's Council Member Crosby. Um- I think he passes it. At least he's got I'm gonna vote aye in the interests of, uh, moving this ball along. It has been stalled in the student housing task force for two solid years. It was in the planning commission, committee two years ago. Um, now having said that, I recognize, uh, there are a number of businesses that have the potential to be adversely impacted in this, so I would ask the folks in planning, law, and um, building inspection to make this a top priority to pull together the information necessary to, to have the debate pronto. Here. Uh, and, and let me ask- I have a question. I have a procedural question, Mayor. Just a moment. Before, before, um, going any further, there was, my understanding, a student housing task force meeting last Wednesday. Has that report been finalized yet? Because if it is, we need to get that on the table post haste so everybody can consider it. I started to give an update the other day when the question was called and I was cut off. So I will be happy to tell you now. Uh, the process is that the task force has finished its work and the recommendations are going on to the Town and Gown Commission to have their input, and then it will come back to the council. Then I'd just like to get a copy of the report so we can get it on the table for purposes of this discussion on, on, uh, Thursday evening. Um- It's not ... It is not final to the council yet. Mike Moizer's the chair and you could talk with him about getting a, a draft. Um, how many, how many folks are members of that, uh, student housing task force? Does anybody have any objection to bringing a draft of the report here before- Yes. Mm-hmm. Okay. Well, um, let's roll on. Mayor, I have a procedural question and- Council Member Ellinger. It's my understanding, and I need to talk to the, um, parliamentarian. When can the, um, mayor vote to break a tie? It's my understanding it was in a council meeting, but not in a work session. In the By charter, it is in the council meeting, but as the chair of the meeting, most chairs of meetings don't vote and would break a tie. But that's, but this is different though because he is the mayor. He's not, he's not a council person. So I think at 7-7 it dies for a lack of a majority. I can ask the, the, a law department to answer that question. Normally a chair of a, of a meeting would break a tie. That's the purpose of having a chair. And, and I'm going to rule- And he's the chair of work sessions, so- I'm gonna rule that the chair does have the ability- Can I ask the law department to rule on that then? Because it's my understanding that the mayor only votes on, in a council meeting. I believe that's correct, yes. Let me get the council rules. I have them back there and take a look. Hang on. Excuse me, Mayor. Can I go on with my report? Yes, please. If I interrupt- We, we have a, we have a meeting coming up at 7:00, so we probably need to move as expediently as we can. Th- this is just a quickie. Um, at, uh, some time ago, uh, at my request, David Barbary, um, put together a motion to put a fine, uh, for, uh, a penalty fee, uh, for people who did building without a permit. We're one of the few committee, uh, communities in Kentucky that does not do this. It is strictly for things and it is, um, part of state regs that we can do this. And we put it off so that we could, uh, they were changing the regs, so commercial and individual read the same. That has gone through LRC and so, um, again, this is only things that are required under state regulations to have a building permit. Not fences, decks, local things. Okay? So I move to place on the docket for September 3rd, 2009 council meeting, in ordinance to create section 529.3 of the code of ordinances to establish the following additional fee penalties to be assessed for failure to obtain a building permit certificate or letter pursuant to the following sections of the code, all effective October 1, 2009. One as being additional and equal to the amount of the original relevant fee, but not less than $500 for sections 529.1 through 914 and 15, section 529.1. Section five, whoo, my chair fell. Section, section 532 and section 567 of the code of ordinances, and two, being, as being additional and equal to the amount of the original relevant fee for sections 529.10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17 of the code of ordinance, so moved. I have a motion and second to add that item to the docket. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. Um, oh, I'm sorry. Also I would like to refer to planning, uh, the planning committee looking at, uh, the, uh, ordinances that regulate the, um, b-build, building, um ... Oh Lord, I've lost my mind. Uh, the- How to fix this building addition problem. Do we refer that- Um. ... to Planning Committee? Uh, uh, I think the, uh, idea is to refer to the Planning Committee the issue of the, um- The cause and cure for- ... permit of the additions. ... the problems we're, we're dealing with. To residentials. Residences. The motion and second to refer the issue of, uh, residential additions to, uh, Planning Committee. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. And lastly, I would like to ask that we have, um, at the, maybe the next council work session, an update, a presentation of an update, uh, for the Southline project. There are some pretty severe problems down there and, uh, promises by the city and the contractor not being kept. So, uh, if we could have a report and have that on the agenda. Sure. Uh, Mr., Commissioner Webb, if you'd ask, uh, Mr. Milligan to be here with us next time and perhaps the contractor as well, that would, uh, be good. For a presentation? Yes. On the 15th. All right. Thank you. That's all. Council Member McCord was on the list and, and got lost, so Council Member McCord- Just, hey, Mayor, before you get there, I think, um, the law department was gonna- Good. ... was gonna answer the question. I think I stand corrected in Logan. Thank you. Yep. Thank you, Council Member Eliger. Uh, Mayor, under Section 4.104 of the rules, it says, "Action taken by the Irvin County Council at a work session is procedural in nature." All you do here is vote to put things on the docket. Rule 4.201 says, "As presiding officer, the mayor shall have a vote on all matters substantive and procedural only in the case of a tie vote among the elected members of the council." So after conferring with the parliamentarian, it appears you do break a tie vote at a work session on a procedural matter. Thank you. All right. Uh, Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple quick announcements. One is, uh, Monday, September 14th at 8:00 PM, the Copperfield Neighborhood Association will hold their annual meeting. We won't have any council meetings next week to announce that, so I wanted to put that out there. Uh, I wanted to also, uh, thank you, Mayor. On Friday, uh, uh, we announced, uh, University of Kentucky's extension in University of Kentucky Healthcare, uh, being the, uh, presenting sponsor for Second Sunday across the state. Uh, Windstream has now stepped in as well as being, uh, the communications partner and, uh, as of today, Mayor, we have gone over 100 counties, uh, in the state of Kentucky- Wow. ... uh, with, uh, the addition of Ashland, Boyd County and so, uh, again, appreciate all your efforts to make Lexington kind of the gold standard. Lastly, I just wanna extend my, uh, heartfelt, uh, sympathies to the loss of, uh, uh, a really good member of the LFUCG family, uh, Jimmy Cottle, who was killed yesterday in a, in a very tragic automobile accident and, uh, certainly my thoughts and prayers go out to him and his family. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. Mm, I have a motion. Um, I move to refer to Planning Committee a review of the permits issued to mobile food vendors to limit operating hours, identify vendor by fiscal address of operation and to limit the length of time the vendor may remain in operation at the location. Do I hear a second? Second. Have a second by, uh, Council Member McCord. All in favor of referring that item to the Planning Committee, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I guess I'd like to ask, first of all, if, if the, um, the moratorium could be placed as a docket item for the work session next Tuesday. Uh, it'll be heard for the first time on, on Thursday night and this will give us an opportunity to maybe hear some fort- from some folks on, uh- He said there's no meeting on Tuesday. ... oh, there's no meeting on Tuesday? We, we meet next on the- Maybe work session. ... in work session on the 15th. Two weeks, then. All right. Um, let's see. Mr. Green, would you make sure that, uh, is a presentation? As a presentation, right. All right. Uh, I'd like to also announce that on S- uh, Tuesday, September 8th, the Beaumont Neighborhood Associations have a meeting at 6:30 at their clubhouse. Uh, tonight is the last night of the Southland Jamboree. Starts at seven o'clock. It's gonna be free tonight, so everybody come on out for that. Uh, Sunday, 10:00 to 2:00 PM, Farmer's Market, uh, on Southland Drive, uh, in front of Sloan's Market and, uh, um, I guess the Southland Association Board, uh, for the Merchant Association will meet at s- uh, September 8 at 8:00 AM at Bank of the Bluegrass. Thank you, Mayor. Um, advise that we may have more than the normal number of presentations lined up for the 15th right now, so is there any objection to expanding the normal list of three to accommodate presentation that, uh, Council Member Martin requested? Any objection? All right. Seeing none, we'll, we'll proceed. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Mayor. I would just like to, uh, to give kudos to the city staff and the Parks Department on the most, uh, the largest crowd ever at Picnic at the Pops, and, uh, especially to Tom Minter, who's chair of the Pops and, and the whole Pops Commission, uh, and to Penny Ebel and, and certainly the Parks Department. Um, I also wanted to thank, uh, the, the two, uh, sponsors that gave prizes for the table decorations and, and I would just say the table decorations are worth going just to see those, even without the concert. But I would like to say a big thank you to Frankie and Annette's and to Spindletop Hall for providing the prizes for those competitions. Also wanted to report that Council Member James and I completed the training course held by the Kentucky Institute for Economic Development in conjunction with the UK College of, of Business and Economics, the Gatton College, and we received a certificate for completion of 26 hours of training in community and economic development. We missed a couple of city council meetings, uh, while we were in that, um, while we participated in this conference, but we felt like it was well worth, uh, our time there. September 12th from two to four is the Kennewick Neighborhood Association Centennial Party where they will unveil their new park development plan. September 13th at three o'clock is the Fairway Neighborhood Association Ice Cream Social at the Julia R. Ewing School Building. September 20th, the Castlewood Neighborhood Association Meeting, um, is a location to be determined yet. And September 27th, the seven, at 7:00 PM, the Kenwood Neighborhood, Kenwick Neighborhood Association will have a meeting and they will vote on the park design. So, all those meetings are upcoming. Please put them on your calendars. Thank you. Thanks. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Jeanette wanted me to inform, um, folks and I think it, it's probably my duty to do so as well. Um, the Roots & Heritage, um, is, um, ongoing this year. Lewis Cobb's real happy about that. And, um, it, it kicks off Thursday, September the 3rd and it's a month-long event. I don't know if everybody knew that or not, but it's beyond the Street Festival. There's plenty of other activities that go on throughout the entire month. Um, September 3rd kicks it off at the Carnegie Center from 5:00 to 7:00, um, where they'll have probably an exhibit and, and a meet and greet for, um, the actors troupe, uh, the Agape Actors Troupe, which will be presenting at the Opera House on Sunday, September the 20th at 3:00. Kind of exciting. There's only, uh, one show this time. I mean, in the past they've had several shows, but there's one performance this time on September 20th at the Opera House, um, Sunday, um, at 3:00. Um, the Street Festival is the 11th and 12th this year, and 13th this year. The Sunday event is still on. And, um, the art... I'll get there. Slow your roll. Um, Street Festival of course, the Friday Night Blues, um, the parade is on that Saturday mornin', um, as well as the Street Festival and other events happening on both stages on that Saturday and then on the Sunday is a gospel event. Um, one of the really, the, the things I enjoy the most is the art exhibit. There's, um, they always have a feature artist and this year that feature artist, um, is Charles Bibbs. Um, there's a new partnership that we're trying out this year with the Downtown Art Center, so we'll have the, um, exhibit there on the 11th from noon to 9:00, which is open to the public. I hope some council members will join me, walk down there and check out that exhibit. And then on the 12th, the artist will be at the Street Festival, um, always set up towards the end of the corner there by, um, by The Lyric at 3rd and Elm Tree. So Charles Bibbs will be there and you'll get to see his art. There's also a health fair and Links Walk that happens every year. It's sponsored by The Links Walkathon. That, this year, will be held at the William Wells Brown Neighborhood Association. Um, I'm sorry, William Wells Brown Community Center from 11:00 to 1:00. Um, for council members who may wanna participate in the parade, you can see Jeanette, um, in our office and for any other information and anybody watching, you can check out, um, the website at www.rootsandheritagefestival.com. That's www.rootsandheritagefestival.com, all of that completely spelled out. And, um, if you can't get information through that, feel free to call the council office and I'm sure Jeanette will help you. Thank you. Council Member Stennet. Thank you, Mayor. I, too, wanna give my condolences to Mr. Caudo's family. He was a valuable, a valuable LFUCG employee and, and he will be sadly missed. Um, also wanted to, um, welcome a new business to Lexington. The mayor and I had a opportunity Friday to welcome Haix, which is a manufacturer of military, police, and hunting boots, uh, to Lexington with their first store in North America outside of Germany. Um, hopefully one day they'll get, they'll reach enough sales here in the next couple years, we'll, they'll move their manufacturing over here as well. So we've placed that bug in their ear and they, they love Lexington and hopefully we'll have an opportunity to welcome them to the community and do business with them in the future. Also want to, um, announce a neighborhood meeting. Andover Forest is having their annual meeting next Tuesday, September the 8th at 6:30 at Crossroads Christian Church out off Todds Road and that is the Andover Forest Annual, uh, Neighborhood Association meeting. Then last but not least, we also wanna make an announcement. We have another sewer line break over in the Liberty Road corridor. Not near Star Street Parkway where the recent one was two weeks ago, so if there's any residents out there who are having sewer issues on Liberty Road in that vicinity, please call Lexcall 311, and, uh, they can push, put you through to the right, uh, people, but hopefully this break is not as bad as the one two weeks ago. And now you under- understand the need, council members, for the North Elkhorn force main to get online sooner than later. So, thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I just wanted the opportunity to announce the Lansdowne Neighborhood Association Annual Picnic, uh, will be held on Monday, September 14th from 6:00 to 8:00 at the Signature Club, or actually behind the Signature Club. Uh, if it rains, uh, Frankie and Annette's will be able to accommodate the crowd. Uh, they expect roughly 300 people, uh, at this picnic. Does any other council member wish to report? That concludes the council reports. I don't have any, um- ... written report this evening, but I do have a couple of things. First, uh, on the issue of the moratorium, I wanna thank, uh, Dewey Crow and Chris King who got together and brainstormed back in July to come up with some solutions for this. We're gonna -- They got a request from, uh, Council Member Lawless in, uh, early part of July, and on July 14th, they had, uh, pulled together some thoughts about how to address the problem. We're gonna continue to be needing their services and that of their colleagues. And, and I appreciate their wrestling with this issue 'cause I know it is of concern to them. Second, uh, this afternoon, I received a, a document, um, that I wanna circulate to everybody. I, I think Mr. Green is circulating it now, but it is a request for a tax increment financing on Angliana Avenue. You may recall we had a presentation from George Krikorian, uh, probably a couple months or so ago now, about a development that he had planned on Angliana Avenue. And, um, we received a, a letter this afternoon from Chris Westover, who represents the project, and we are circulating a copy of that document to you now for your consideration. This is not for any action now, but since the request had come in today, I wanted to make you aware of it. And number two, um, to the degree that we wish to implement a, uh, review proposal along a process along the lines of what we used last year, um, we'll need to undertake that. But at least you've got it now for the next, um, a little bit, so you can give some consideration to how you think we need to proceed and we can take that up at a later time. That's, um, all I have in the way of a report. That takes us down to the last item on the agenda, which is public comment on issues not on the agenda. Does anyone wish to address the council? Seeing not... Okay. Mr., Mr. Cobb. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, first giving honor to the most high, to the council, peace and love. Ooh, uh give honor to Edward Kenny- Kennedy for the life he lived, public service. Take a few seconds to remain silent. The soul of Lexington is on trial. The verdict is still out because all the evidence ain't in yet. As I see the evidence in front of me, I see Lexington changing, growing, but some of the same, uh, same mindset is still here. So with the coming up of Roots and Heritage, which is probably the most important activity, far more greater than World Equestrian Games, far more important than any event that we ever have 'cause it gives us an opportunity to analyze our heart. It's easy to say, uh, "We're gonna be ready for 2010" and the urgency that we put forth, but when you're dealing with your roots and your heritage, you're put to the test. Dr. King told us to remain awake through a great revolution. He challenged us. Roots and Heritage this year is that revolution. Whether you believe it or not, times is changing. I was in a office and I seen some fiber optic wire. One minute it was one color, then it changed to another color, and I seen myself in that, my situation in that fiber optic wire. I'm gonna change and y'all not even gonna know it. Lexington's gonna change and y'all not even gonna know it. The fruits of love is what's gonna make it change. We got work to do, Mr. Martin. We got work to do, Mr. Lane. We got work to do, Mr. Ellinger. We got work to do in Lexington. The only thing that I ask is that we open up our hearts. It can't continue to be for whites only. You might not say, you might say, "What you mean it just white..." It's a unspoken code in Lexington that is gonna be broken, and I'm gonna be a part of it. I told Mr. Webb before he tore down the Rite Aid, how important the Rite Aid would, was to our people. Old people need a place to get their prescriptions. I need a place to get shoe polish from time to time, or a soda. He ignored me, and I told him, I walked up to him, I said, "Every time you limp, I'm a pimp." That's what I told him. Mr. Cobb, you have about 15 seconds. That's all I need. The reason why Centre Point ain't built, because they disrespected the people. Somebody had to pay a price, and that's what's happening in Lexington. Open up your heart to love, love Roots and Heritage. I'm here today to see who's gonna support me for Roots and Heritage. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cobb. Does anyone else wish to address the council? Do I hear a motion we adjourn? So moved. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Stennet, second by Council Member Myers. All in favor, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Those opposed, "No." The motion carries. We'll- It's seven o'clock. We'll be here at seven o'clock for a public meeting on the property tax rates.