Now that I have your attention, we'll go ahead and call the special meeting of the council to order. Madam Clerk, if you would please call the roll. Okay, Ms. Lawless. No, you're right. Mr. Martin. Here. Mr. McCord. Here. Mr. Myers. Here. Mr. Stennett. Mr. Beard. Present. Mr. Blues. Here. Ms. Crosby. Here. Mr. Ellinger. Here. Ms. Feigl. Here. Ms. Gorton. Here. Mr. Gray. Ms. Henson. Ms. James. Here. And Mr. Lane. Thank you. We have a quorum, so we will proceed. The first item on the agenda is a public hearing on the Show Prop Lexington Development Plan. And I'll turn the podium over to Ms. Westover, who I think has some general information about the plan to share with us in fairly short order. And then we have two individuals who have indicated a desire to speak. Ms. Westover. Thank you very much. I'm here today on behalf of George Krekorian, Show Prop Lexington LLC. Along with me is John Ferris and Sarah Tuttle. They will not speak unless you all have any particular questions. And I, too, will be very brief, but I want to put some evidence into the record. I wanted to start by saying that as a community, we have come to realize the importance of preserving our agricultural land. And instead of having new growth spread outward, we preserve our unique bluegrass landscape and our agricultural lands so we don't put shopping centers, roads, and new subdivisions on green land. Our growing awareness as a community has led to some very visionary concepts. We have the Purchase of Development Rights Program. We adopted the 40-acre minimum lot size. Most recently, our comprehensive plan that was adopted had no outward expansion. The idea is to do sensible infill and preserve our agricultural lands. This project, Show Prop Lexington, it implements all that this community and the government is trying to do. It is an infill project on vacant industrial and warehouse land. It is close to the downtown and it will also adaptively reuse an old tobacco warehouse. So it fits four square with everything we're trying to do. The specifics of this plan, I think Sarah is going to set up the renderings of the proposed new buildings and there's also the development plan. I'll get to that in a minute. What we are proposing to do is at a cost of $70 million, a 3,000-seat multiplex movie theater complex. Two of the movie screens will be about 70 feet wide and 60 or 70 feet tall. And there is a curved screen around it. This is a unique type of screen. It's not available anywhere else except with this type of development. In addition, there will be 3D projection capability. So it's very new and unique, not just to Lexington, but to Kentucky. In addition, there's a 22-lane bowling center. We're going to do the adaptive reuse of an old tobacco warehouse for retail, restaurants and so forth. Two buildings will have commercial on the first floor and residential above, cafe, restaurant, outdoor amphitheater. There will be a pedestrian bridge across the railroad tracks that will be timed to go in when Newtown Pike Extension is built. And this will allow terrific pedestrian and bicycle connectivity not just to downtown but to UK, the new South Park Village that's under construction and on up to Transylvania and the future campus of BCTC when it's moved there. So it will integrate all of this in accordance with the goals and objectives that have been adopted by the planning commission and this council to have growth focused downtown infill and to adaptively reuse land that is currently vacant. Infill projects, particularly ones like this, are particularly expensive and sometimes risky for a developer because it requires the assembling often of small parcels. There are a lot of issues with infrastructure. The infrastructure that's in there might be aging and deteriorated. It might be in the wrong place. There are a lot of problems with it. As a result, it's important if this development is going to go forward and if we are to truly implement the concepts in the infill plan that's part of the comprehensive plan, we need some government assistance to help pay for some of these expensive improvements. And in particular for this project, these improvements include a five-story parking structure. There will be public art including an iconic tower, fountains and other sorts of public art features, a rail car exhibit, a pedestrian bridge across the railroad tracks, burying the power lines and other utility lines along this portion of Angliana Avenue, an outdoor theater and new street lighting, among other types of improvements. This project, as envisioned by the developer, is new to us, but it is not new to the developer, Mr. Krekorian. In fact, he has demonstrated history of successful infill projects in California. He has won a number of awards and special recognitions for similar type infill projects. He won the statewide 2002 Award of Excellence presented by the California Redevelopment Association for the category of community revitalization. In 2003, Monrovia was presented its first downtown revitalization award from the San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership and it was based on the redevelopment of Old Town Monrovia initiated by Krekorian Theaters. They got the key to the city for Redlands for the redevelopment of an inner area in the city of Redlands, California. The Krekorian Theaters won the 2006 Reader's Choice Award for Best Movie Theater, the Pico Rivera Chamber of Commerce Beautification Award for 2007. So this is a developer who knows what he is doing and he wants to bring it here and with your help we hope that this can be done. Just for housekeeping, I have a few exhibits I would like to enter into the record. Outside the chambers, I did not know if many citizens wanted to come and look at it. I have what I am also introducing here, photographs of the existing conditions of this vacant area and I also have a number of other photographs from the redevelopment projects that Mr. Krekorian has done in California, taking blighted areas and turning them around and making them economically vital to the communities. Ms. Westover, if you will just tender those to the clerk, we will make those a part of the record in case anyone wishes to take a look at them. Do you have anything further, Ms. Westover? No, I don't. I am happy to answer questions. We have two individuals who have indicated a desire to speak, first being Chad Harpo, Mr. Harpo, if you will come forward, and then Porter Peel, Mr. Peel. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor, members of Council. I appreciate the time to speak. I am Chad Harpo, Vice President of Public Policy with Commerce Lexington and I am before you today very proudly, enthusiastically supporting this project on behalf of Commerce Lexington. Last year, Commerce Lexington stood before you and supported both the Phoenix Park TIF as well as the Distillery District TIF and we commend you guys for passing that and sending that on to the state and we both know those are working through the process, which is great for our community. Commerce Lexington for several years has supported the use of TIF. We have been beat in the TIF areas by Northern Kentucky and Louisville for far too long and it is great to see our city moving forward with TIF zones. TIF, as you well know, is a way to keep the tax money generated in Fayette County in our community to be spent in our community instead of sending it to Frankfort to be divided around the state. That is why, once again, we are enthusiastically supporting the show prop development as well as their TIF proposal and we hope that you will do the same. These type of projects are the type of projects we need to see in our infill redevelopment plan. They are using abandoned space, industries that have moved on, one of them relocated inside Fayette County, thankfully, and it is time that we redevelop these parcels and turn them back into tax base to our community. In closing, we hope that you, along with us, support the show prop TIF application and get this project moving forward to better our community. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Peel, if you would step around. If you could give us your full name and address. When you get to the podium, sir, if you would repeat that for us, I would appreciate it. And you will have three minutes. My name is Porter Peel and I represent myself and the other citizens of Fayette County in Lexington. I am here in regard to the safety of the roadway on Lansdowne Drive. There are two dangerous areas on Lansdowne Drive that All right. Mr. Peel, excuse me just a second. Are you here to speak on the show prop tax increment financing district proposal or a traffic matter, sir? A traffic matter. Okay. I apologize. I called you at the wrong time. We will get to the work session in just a few minutes. If you would please let us wrap up this public hearing on this specific matter and then we will come back to you in just a moment here. My apologies. Does anyone else wish to address the Council with regard to the tax increment financing proposal? Very well. Then we will conclude that portion of the meeting, the public hearing. And Madam Clerk, if you would give second reading to the ordinance entitled a second reading. An ordinance for second reading, an ordinance enacting Article 21 of Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances to authorize the organization of a non-profit Kentucky corporation to be called the Lyric Theatre and Cultural Arts Center Corporation for the purpose. I had a motion to amend this. I move to amend Ordinance No. 1 under second reading of ordinances to require that the initial appointments of the Lyric Theatre and Cultural Arts Center Corporation Board be made by the Mayor subject to confirmation by the Council. After the terms of the initial appointments expire, future appointments shall be made by the Board of Directors. This is a material change and would require a new first reading. Second. I have a motion and second to amend Item 1 under ordinances. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will proceed to vote. Those in favor of the proposed amendment please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Let's take an electronic vote. Madam Clerk, if you would set the machine. Won't work. All right. Well, let's do it the old-fashioned way. Those in favor of Councilmember James' motion please indicate by raising your hand. The motion is to amend the ordinance to change the selection process for Councilmembers. I see 8 votes in favor. I tell you, I think the simplest way would be for Councilmember James to simply re-read her motion. The amendment reverts this back to the original motion before the amendment that you made. This goes back to the original, which was the recommendation of the workgroup that was presented to Council. Currently we have on today's docket, under Item 1, the ordinance that got first reading at the last Council meeting. And it provides for the perpetual appointment by the Mayor and confirmation by the Council. I understand your motion to amend. It would provide for the initial Board to be appointed by the Mayor, confirmed by the Council. There would be staggered terms. There would also be a provision for the Board to be self-perpetuating after the initial Board members are appointed. That's correct, Mayor. Anybody with us? Okay, Councilmember Beard. This Board appointment by the Mayor, will it span the full five years time frame that we're going to be subsidizing the operation? No, the appointments are, they don't go five years out. As I recall, the initial Board would have eight members, I think, appointed for four-year terms, seven members appointed for two-year terms, and then that staggered term process would go to the point at which every member would be serving a four-year term. Roughly half would be elected every two years. Thank you. Councilmember Crosby. Mayor, since this is a material change, as Councilmember James mentioned, are we just voting to give this a new first reading, and then will we be giving it a second reading today, or will we be then putting it on the docket for November 5th for the second reading? All we would be doing right now is voting on the motion to amend. If it is amended, I think it would be a material change. I don't recall whether or not that was a part of the motion, but it would be a material change, and so it would be necessary for the ordinance to receive a first reading today. Then, if the Council elected to suspend the rules to give it second reading, we could. If not, it would go to the next Board, next Council meeting. Thank you. Everybody with us? All right. The motion now on the floor is Councilmember James' motion to amend item number one. Do I need to restate that? All right. Everybody seems to be comfortable. Those in favor of Councilmember James' proposed amendment to item number one, please indicate by raising your hand. Councilmembers James, Martin, Feigl, Gray, Gordon, Wallace, Blues, and Henson are voting yes. Those opposed? Councilmember McCord, Stennett, Beard, Ellinger, Crosby, and Myers vote no. It appears to me it is approved by a vote of 8 to 6, if my math was correct. Councilmember James? I'll just wait for the first reading. First reading of ordinance number one as amended. An ordinance enacting Article 21 of Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances to authorize the organization of a non-profit Kentucky corporation to be called the Lyric Theater and Cultural Arts Center Corporation for the purpose of overseeing the management of and programming for the Lyric Theater and any and all other appropriate purposes, providing that the corporation shall consist of 15 appointed members and shall have all the powers conferred upon a corporation organized under Chapter 273 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes dealing with non-stock, non-profit corporations, including all powers necessary and proper to fulfill and further the purpose of said corporation, and authorizing the mayor or his designees to serve as incorporators, and authorizing the submission of an application for tax-exempt status to the Internal Revenue Service. Councilmember James? Mayor, time is of the essence of appointing this board and getting an Executive Director hired. I make a motion that we suspend the rules and give second reading to this motion. I have a motion and second to suspend the rules for purposes of giving this item its second reading. That is a motion that's non-debatable. It requires a two-thirds vote, which means in this instance we'll need ten votes. Those in favor of suspending the rules, please let it be known by raising your hand. All right. I see Councilmember James, Martin, Gray, Gordon, Wallace, Blues, and Hinson voting in favor. Those opposed? Councilmember McCord, Stennett, Beard, Ellinger, Crosby, Feigl, and Myers. The motion fails. Thank you. If there's nothing further, we'll proceed to resolutions entitled to first reading. Resolution number one, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the University of Kentucky to allow the University of Kentucky to enforce its tobacco-free policy on public sidewalks at no cost to the Urban County Government. Councilmember Wallace. Yes, I've had, all of these streets will be in the third district, and I have had a remarkable outcry of concern about this for multiple reasons. Interestingly, I think I've had maybe one or two that are for it, and lots and lots that are against it. The primary reason being has not been about smokers' rights, which was the issue when we were, when you all were looking at the indoor smoking ban, but about city streets all the way to the curb around UK being smoke-free, which would then make people have to cross the street into the neighborhoods to smoke. So that's a real big issue for the neighborhoods around UK. They don't want to be UK's ashtray. And I think it also sets a precedent that when we were talking about the moratorium, it had to be a legally defined area. So we're picking specific public streets, somewhat randomly except around UK, that make it illegal for the citizens to smoke on them when it's not illegal on any other city street. I completely support UK's ban on smoking on campus, but I'm very concerned and the neighborhoods are very concerned. I've had health care workers who, most of the people have also identified themselves as non-smokers, so, that are against this. I've had health care workers contact me saying it's an issue for them and they're a non-smoker, they wish people wouldn't smoke, but, you know, all it's doing is moving people across the street. So for that reason, I won't be supporting this and thank you. Thank you. Any further discussion? Council Member Crosby. This may be a question for Vice President Beatty, I'm not real sure. Last week during the presentation, you all discussed enforcement of this and I guess my questions revolve around, it sounded to me like there wasn't really, it was just more of a verbal type warning that there's not really any type of penalties or anything that if somebody does this it's up for maybe that they sign or the code of conduct at the beginning of the school year, which wouldn't apply to a lot of people who are on campus who might be breaking your policy. So I guess even if this goes into effect, I supported the smoking ban, I'm a non-smoker, but I guess if this goes into effect, what really benefit do you have besides saying put that out? What if somebody just says absolutely not? What do you do? How do you enforce it? Thank you and I'll try to clarify that and let me start by saying I want to clarify a point here that we're talking about a tobacco ban period, all tobacco products, not only smoking but any form of tobacco product. And secondly, as I stated last week, we are talking about a cultural change and a shift much like we saw happen here in the city when we went tobacco free, smoke free inside our establishments back in 2003. And the intent is to provide a healthier environment here. So you're exactly right, there's not a penalty attached to this other than if a student violates policy or a visitor violates policy or an employee violates policy then there are regulations that the campus has that will come into force here. So there are no citations, no arrests will be made, no enforcement action other than enforcing the policy for the campus itself. It's geared toward the campus. And that's the intent is to change the culture here, provide a healthier environment without getting it into an enforcement capacity because we don't understand the problems with the addiction to tobacco products and so we're trying to help break the addiction. Well I guess the big difference between our policy and your policy is we can enforce it. We have a health department and they can if somebody is inside a place of business and they get caught then they can get obviously fined for that. So I guess that's what's missing here to me is basically that we can do this but there's still going to be the ability to not enforce it because what's the incentive for somebody if they're tailgating at a game and regardless of what kind of tobacco it is for them to say oh okay I'm sorry. I didn't realize that besides the fact that they may want to when there's no educational component even attached to help these people be healthier or what we're trying to do. We all strive for that but I guess I'm just hung up on the enforcement. Really we're passing something that you can't I don't know that it can be enforced. Well quite the contrary. There is an educational component on campus in terms of educating number one the policy and the changes that we're making and number two we're providing nicotine replacement and therapy. So there is a heavy educational component involved with this that's ongoing as we speak on campus. So there is another piece of this and again we're trying to change the environment to make it healthier. So we're educating. We're also providing the signage. We will be what you just said is an example of exactly how this will be approached in terms of the approach that individuals would make to a violator advising them of the campus policy, asking them to abide by the policy and this has already happened at the medical center complex and in most of the cases when the approach is made as Dr. Hahn said here individuals comply. I'm Frank Butler, Vice President of Finance and Administration. In response to that there are already student codes which under which this will operate. So if a student is asked not to smoke in an area and they continue to do it then they will be disciplined through the student code. We also have human resource policies in the university which require people to abide by the rules and regulations of the university and I don't know whether I mentioned last time I was here but we terminated a medical center employee last year who refused after going through an extensive process of saying you cannot smoke in this area. They continued to do it. We warned them. They did it again. We basically terminated them. So there in fact are enforcement policies within the institution which we will use. We're not going to create a whole new set of rules and regulations. We're going to use the ones that we have and we believe that will be effective. Let me reemphasize what Anthony said. We don't expect this to happen overnight. This is going to take us probably a year and we'll see and we'll continue to monitor this and we'll see where we are, see what issues that are created by this and we may in fact change our policies over time but we're trying to start this out as sort of the kindler and gentler approach combined with education to get people to understand that this is something that we're going to continue to try and create, as Anthony said, the healthier environment on campus. So there in fact are enforcement but they're not specifically focused on tobacco but we will use violations of that and we will administer under the existing rules and regulations we already have. Are you all going to be doing any type of outreach to visitors? I mean I guess what I'm hearing is students, faculty, staff and those are not the only people who will be doing this on campus. So I guess my question then, if you're going to have an educational component to this, are you going to be, besides signs, are you going to be doing any kind of PSAs or anything at maybe your athletic events or anything to help and then also offer them help if they need it? Should they want to? All of the above. We've budgeted money for people who want to quit and if they want to use the non-smoking program we have at the university, we'll pay for that. I've put up money so that if people need help through medication that we volunteer and we've even extended it to spouses of our staff and faculty who might have someone at home who smokes and knowing how difficult it would be to quit smoking if you were quit smoking during the day but went home and there was somebody smoking at night. So and I think we have done what is reasonable to try to mitigate the effects of this policy on the institution, its employees and visitors. If you go to the football game in the future you're going to get a handout about the implementation of the non-smoking policy and its application around the football stadium as well. So the answer is yes, we're going to continue to educate. I guess much beyond the resources that you mentioned besides the handout, most of it again revolves around faculty, staff, students. Yeah, you ask who's going to enforce it, you're looking at the enforcers. We are the people, we are the faculty and staff of the university are the ones who are going to be talking to the folks who violate our policy and asking them, first educate them, tell them that it is a tobacco free campus and if you need some help, here are the ways that you can get it. Okay, thank you. I'll stop there. Council Member Blues and Council Member Beard and Council Member Mark. Thank you Mayor. I've got one question for either Mr. Butler or Mr. Beatty. Will the all-campus smoking ban work if we do not approve the MOU? In other words, we keep the border sidewalks open to smoking? We will be implementing it one way or another. I think the message, Council Member Blues, that we want to send is we want to define the university campus and its immediate areas. That's one of the reasons that we won't exclude from smoking. That's why we have not provided, designated on-campus smoking facilities. We're saying that the campus is to be open to smoking. I think the message that we want to send is designated on-campus smoking facilities. We're saying that the campus is to be tobacco free and what you have seen as a result of us not having that is that we now have groups of people on the edge of campus, on the sidewalks, smoking. We feel that with the implementation of the MOU that these people will be dissipated, not gathering in one or two places like they are now and will not have the impact on the community that they do now. That's the sticking point. Sure it is. I mean Council Member Lyle just brought up and indeed I think we've all received emails and phone calls from residents of surrounding neighborhoods who are worried that their sidewalks will be used by smokers and they're understandably concerned about that. I don't know that this will be at all helpful but we are also pursuing the same type of memorandum of understanding with the Department of Transportation with the state to cover state roads as well as the city roads and we're in discussions with them about a similar agreement. But we will implement our non-tobacco policy one way or the other. It will make it a little bit more difficult to say and we won't be able to say that we're a totally smoke-free campus if the first impression you get as you come down Limestone is 50 smokers out in front of the medical center. I understand the dilemma. This is, there's no easy solution to this. I understand that. Correct. Thank you so much. Thank you Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Beard and Council Member Fyke. Thank you Mayor. Yesterday afternoon leaving here and going out south Limestone, I was in a meeting with in the area where there is some construction near the Speedway and across from the Student Health Center up against that orange netting that's been there was about eight or nine people leaning back against there with cars going by anywhere from 12 to 18 inches away from them smoking. So, they were either practicing or they were smoking. So, they were either smoking or they think the message has already been, the die has already been set I guess. This pushing this across Limestone, I can understand and have some feeling for Council Member Lawless as far as that's concerned and her constituents. I had an interesting situation, an email from an individual who lives on Hilltonia off of Limestone near Central Baptist and they're afraid that Central Baptist is going to do the same thing and push those people across the street into their front yards. It's, again this is kind of a slippery slope because we all know that it's something that needs to happen over time. I don't know maybe it's a culture shock of all at one time. I might say semi facetiously that I kind of doubt that the boxes at Commonwealth Stadium will be monitored and anybody who lights one up up there is not even going to get thrown out into the end zone. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Feigl and I would just note that we're still operating on the five minute rule if we can get the machines cranked up to reflect that. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Mayor. I don't think I'll take five minutes. Mr. Butler, I think. I think I understood that you said that you were going to enforce this non-smoking rule at football games. Yes, at the last ball game of this year, Tennessee game, which would be very appropriate. Out in the tailgating area? Yes. When you say enforce, what we're going to do is the same thing that we talked about and that is we're going to try to start that in changing the culture. I don't know whether you remember, but at one time we allowed smoking in the stadium and we eliminated that a number of years ago. Apropos of Julian's comment, if you go out at halftime, you will see folks gathered in the corners hanging over the railing. So we haven't eliminated it, but we're going to continue to work on it and we're going to try and change it over time. Are we ever going to stop everybody from smoking? No, but I think the message we're trying to get out there is once you come on camp and that's the message we're trying to send, we're trying to improve the health of the campus by doing that, and we know that we're going to have issues and I will also make a commitment to the council, you know, we will continue to work with you on this. We don't view this as we're going to come down here, ask you for your help, and then we're going to go away and never come back. This thing, you know, if it creates issues and problems, we will continue to work with the city and the council on this. We are not trying to dump our smoking problem on the neighborhoods, and we know there are going to be some unintended consequences and Chief Beatty and I will continue to work with you and your constituents as we try and implement this policy. Just one other thing. I understand that you do have some system in place to work with your employees, your faculty, your students, but a lot of the folks that are out there on the sidewalk smoking are visitors or folks that are in the hospital. One example, I'm sorry, when a patient is coming to the university now to be admitted, we send them out a package including information for them and their families informing them that the medical center is a tobacco free area and just give them a heads up from the beginning that they won't be able to smoke on the medical center campus. Has that solved the problem 100%? No. I don't know whether I may have told the council my first encounter was with a rather large gentleman that I encountered right after we implemented the policy at the medical center and he was coming out of the hospital and he immediately lit up and I said excuse me, sir, but you can't smoke here. Well, he was about 6'6", about 275 and he looked at me and he said, what the hell are you going to do about it? And I said, well, I'm going to ask you nicely not to smoke here again. Probably going to stop right there. So the implementation ends up being very interesting, but as Anthony said, you know, once you ask somebody nicely, hey, you know, this is a tobacco free campus, most of the time we don't get repeat offenders. Most of the time they get the message and the next time they go find an area other than on the campus to smoke. And I think that's where our concern lies because they will go to the next closest area where they can smoke and that will be just on the other side of the road. Well, this is a trite saying, but this is not an event, this is a process and it will take us a long time to get people thinking about this is a smoke free area. I think how long it took people to get used to the idea that you couldn't go into a bar and smoke here. I mean, you know, the first, right after you all passed that ordinance, you know, for weeks after I went in there, it would go into a place there would still be people smoking. Now everybody understands that's the rules and it's accepted and it will take us a similar time frame to do it at the university. Well, again, I'm concerned about just moving it to another location. In fact, back when you first had the ban against smoking inside the hospital, all you had to do to, and I don't smoke, but all you had to do to breathe a lot of smoke was just walk outside the door and you were just, you know, you were almost suffocated with the smoke. And so, while I do agree with you that we need to create a more healthy environment, I'm not sure this is accomplishing that. I think it's just moving it to another location. So, thank you. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Mayor. Again, I think, you know, we have no control over what UK does on UK's property and I applaud this and I applaud your promotion of good health. And we have no control over the state roads and what they negotiate, but we do have a responsibility with our cities, streets, and sidewalks and the neighborhoods that surround them. And I think you're missing the concern that I'm putting forward and that is what I hear from you is you've even terminated employees that students can be disciplined if they smoke on campus. But if they cross the street, they're not going to be disciplined. So, they're going to cross the street into the neighborhoods. Many of these are, you know, Columbia Heights, Woodland Avenue, part of Rose Street, Namedian there, Cooper Drive. I don't have a list of the streets because the map we got was beyond my visual ability to see exactly which streets were there. But I think what you're not hearing from me and maybe the concerns, it's not that we object to UK going smoke-free. It's not that there's an objection to moving the problem so it looks really nice all around UK. All the sidewalks are, nobody's there smoking, but you cross the street into the neighborhoods and there they are smoking and being the ashtray. And that's, I had one constituent said, I've been fighting and fighting and fighting and fighting all these issues for so long. If this, if you all ban smoking on our city sidewalks to the curbs so people have to cross the street to get to my house to smoke, I'm moving after 20 something years of living in the neighborhood. And that's how, and this is somebody who's very anti-smoking by the way. So, the concern is all we're doing is moving the problem and what right do we have legally to say we're going to pick and choose this street, this street, this street where private citizens in the community, whether they're students or faculty or just, you know, Joe the plumber walking down the street can only, can't smoke on a city sidewalk when it's not illegal to smoke and it's not illegal to smoke on other sidewalks. So, that's my strong concern and I have heard from, I mean, the neighborhood folks are pretty up in arms about this. Well, I have heard you and I think that was why I indicated that we would continue to work with you. We understand that this would simply be the first step and that we would have a lot of work to do going forward as we try to manage. We don't know, you know, where they're going to go. You know, what the message is, is, you know, when you come to the university be prepared not to smoke and that isn't going to work on everybody. But over time, that's the message we're trying, don't, be prepared not to use tobacco because we're not going to accommodate it. And so, you know, not that we're trying to keep anybody away but if they're intending to smoke. They need to cross the street. Or they need to go somewhere else. Yes. And again, I applaud your efforts. I applaud the education and smoking cessation programs you have. But I think we have a responsibility to our neighbors and our streets and our residents. Thank you. Appreciate your view. Thank you. Council Member Martin. I don't know if I'll need you or not but you seem to be the guy. That's fine. I just came from the University Board of Trustees meeting for two hours and you'll get to read about that in the news tonight. So this is just a little bit of a continuation. So yeah, you already got the headlines. So there won't be smoking in either Cole Arena or Cole Stadium then? Right, right. Just to clarify that. No. We wouldn't want to set fire to the Cole so no, there won't be any smoking there. You know, I applaud UK for going smokeless. It really takes courage to do that. And smoking is really our nation's largest health hazard, I think by far. Yes. And it's the biggest health problem in the state of Kentucky because it contributes to, you know, the most, the highest instances of disease, both diabetes, stroke and heart disease. And so, you know, as an institution that's charged with education, we feel it's an obligation of God. We're trying not to complicate other people's lives and I think, you know, Councilman Lawless has a legitimate concern and that's something we'll have to continue to work with. You haven't heard me finish yet either though. Okay, that's fine. You're not allowed to pile on, you know that. That's right, that's right. Well, smoking and tobacco I think is one of Kentucky's great shames. We have promoted tobacco for years because it helps our folks pay the bills and that's important. But it's at the expense of a huge public health issue and many, many deaths, millions of deaths. But smokers aren't criminals. They're our brothers and sisters and aunts and uncles. And I have some degree of discomfort with someone smoking, you know, going out to the far boundaries of just over the UK jurisdictional line to smoke a cigarette and someone saying, hey, you, you know, you get out of here, you can't smoke here. And that just doesn't sit sort of right with me and I don't know if I can articulate that. I have a concern about folks having to cross the street because clearly if they used to smoke in the buildings and then they were smoking in lobbies and then they're smoking just outside of buildings and now they're smoking on sidewalks, they're probably going to continue to go outside. And it really is not their fault. Nicotine is just one of the most addictive things known to man. And until we raise children who don't smoke at all, it's going to be, we're going to have this problem with us. I would like UK's efforts on sort of mediating this smoking problem through its own services to sort of have time to take effect before we really just go that next level and say, hey, you, you know, you can't do that here. Go somewhere else. Because I think that that seems to have pushed them on to city property. These folks are taxpayers. They pay, those sidewalks are built with their tax funds. And I don't know, I just would like time to think about this a little more and maybe study it some and for the council to sort of chew on a little bit. Thank you, Mayor. Any further discussion? Do I hear a motion to adjourn the special meeting? I'd like to move this issue to Intergovernmental Committee, please. Make a motion. Alright. That motion would be appropriate. Motion is to move it to the Intergovernmental Committee and Council Member Feigl has seconded Council Member Lawless's motion. Any discussion on the motion to refer? Alright, Council Member Blues. What would be the purpose of that? I think that this has been already fully discussed. Would there be something, something new, Council Member Lawless, that we would want to discuss and consider? It would give us an opportunity to hear from more people or I can withdraw that motion and move to table it. I think it probably needs to be removed from the docket, doesn't it, if you want to do that? Well, the motion on the floor for the moment is to refer it to the Intergovernmental Committee. Now, that's what we're discussing. And if you support that, ultimately you'll want to vote yes and if you don't, you'll want to vote no and then we can take up any other motions that may be appropriate at that time. Council Member Feigl. I guess the reason that I would like to see it moved to InterGov is I do think it's a problem that we need to think about and chew on a little more as Council Member Martin suggested. And there might be a way that we can provide some relief. This may not be the way but, you know, there may be something that we can do. But I think if we were given a little more time to think about it, it would be helpful. So that's why I would like to move it into committee. Thank you. Further discussion? We still don't have the ability to vote electronically or do we now? All right. Then those in favor of referring it to the Intergovernmental Committee, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay electronically. Motion carries by a vote of eight to six. Is there anything further to take up at the special meeting? Then those, do I hear a motion to adjourn? I have a motion by Council Member Stennett to adjourn, seconded by Council Member McCord. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right, the next item we need