# Urban County Council Meeting - July 1, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · July 1, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1448 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1448?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-07-01 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: June 18, 2026 - **Length**: 15,358 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Council convened on July 1, 2010, at 7:00 P.M. in Lexington, Kentucky, with Mayor Newberry presiding over the session. The meeting addressed four agenda items in total, all of which were approved, reflecting a productive and largely uncontested session. Business conducted included the second reading of ordinances, approval of a resolution for a Wayfinding Sign System Project, approval of a resolution for the Sheriff's Settlement for the 2009 Property Tax Year, and approval of a resolution for a lease agreement with the Community Action Council. The Council took a total of four votes during the meeting, and no public comments were heard during the session. ## Attendance The following 14 members were present at the July 1, 2010 Council meeting: - Ellinger, Feigel, Gorton, Gray, Henson, James, Lane, Martin, McChord, Myers, Stinnett, Beard, Blues, and Crosbie **Absent:** Lawless No members were recorded as late. ## Votes and Decisions Four roll call votes were taken during the July 1, 2010 Council meeting. - **Approval of Ordinances (Second Reading)** [timestamp: 0:06:07]: Motioned by Blues, seconded by Myers. The ordinances passed unanimously, 14–0. All 14 members voted in favor: Ellinger, Feigel, Gorton, Gray, Henson, James, Lane, Martin, McChord, Myers, Stinnett, Beard, Blues, and Crosbie. - **Wayfinding Sign System Project Resolution** [timestamp: 0:28:37]: Motioned by Stinnett, seconded by Henson. The resolution passed 13–1. Voting in favor: Ellinger, Gorton, Gray, Henson, James, Lane, Martin, McChord, Myers, Stinnett, Beard, Blues, and Crosbie. Voting against: Feigel. - **Sheriff's Settlement for 2009 Property Tax Year Resolution** [timestamp: 0:29:07]: Motioned by Stinnett, seconded by Henson. The resolution passed 13–1. Voting in favor: Ellinger, Feigel, Gorton, Gray, Henson, James, Lane, Martin, McChord, Myers, Stinnett, Beard, and Blues. Voting against: Crosbie. - **Lease Agreement with Community Action Council Resolution** [timestamp: 1:41:46]: Motioned by Myers, seconded by Crosbie. The resolution passed 13–0, with 1 abstention. Voting in favor: Ellinger, Feigel, Gorton, Gray, Henson, James, Lane, McChord, Myers, Stinnett, Beard, Blues, and Crosbie. Martin abstained. ## Budget and Financial Actions The Council addressed several financial and contractual matters during the July 1, 2010 meeting. - **Wayfinding Sign System Project:** The Council considered a contract with Architectural Graphics, Inc. in the amount of **$383,918** for the Wayfinding Sign System Project. This represented the largest single financial commitment on the agenda. - **Sheriff's Settlement for the 2009 Property Tax Year:** A contract was taken up with Mountjoy Chilton Medley LLP in the amount of **$12,240** related to the Sheriff's settlement for the 2009 property tax year. - **Lease of Space at Carver Community Center:** The Council considered a lease agreement with the Community Action Council for the use of space at the Carver Community Center. No specific dollar amount was included in the available record for this item. No resolution numbers were available in the source materials for any of the items above. ## Appointments The Council acted on several appointments and reappointments to city boards and commissions during the July 1, 2010 meeting. - **Emma Gay-Lewis** was reappointed to the **Dunbar Community Center Advisory Board**. - **Hollis Hilty** was reappointed to the **Emergency Medical Advisory Board**. - **Marilyn Clark** was reappointed to the **Lexington Center Corporation Board of Directors**. - **Ronda S. Beck**, **Lynda M. Thomas**, and **Kyle Whalen** were each appointed to the **Library Board of Trustees**. - **Sally K. Lockhart** was appointed to the **Masterson Station Park Advisory Board**, while **Anita Britton** was reappointed to the same board. - **Kevin W. Weaver** was reappointed to the **Picnic with the Pops Commission**. In total, the Council confirmed nine appointments across six boards and commissions, including three new appointments to the Library Board of Trustees and two actions — one new appointment and one reappointment — related to the Masterson Station Park Advisory Board. ## Contested Items Two items generated notable disagreement during the July 1, 2010 Council meeting. **Wayfinding Sign System Project** The resolution related to the Wayfinding Sign System Project resulted in a split vote, with Council Member Feigel casting a dissenting vote. Feigel's opposition centered on concerns about a change order associated with the project. The resolution ultimately passed despite this objection, though the specific nature of Feigel's concerns regarding the change order — such as its cost or scope — was a point of contention among Council members. **Distillery District Public Improvements Program** The Distillery District Public Improvements Program sparked a heated discussion among Council members, with debate focusing on the procurement process and the cost of an engineering services agreement with Strand Associates, Inc. Council members raised questions about how the contract with Strand Associates was secured and whether the associated costs were appropriate. The discussion reflected broader concerns about transparency and due diligence in the awarding of professional services contracts. The outcome of this item was not noted as a split vote, but the level of debate indicated meaningful disagreement over the terms and process surrounding the Strand Associates agreement. ## Ordinances entitled to second reading [timestamp: 06:07] Several ordinances came before the Council for their second reading during this portion of the meeting. The items included amendments to the Land Subdivision Regulations as well as updates to the Code of Ordinances addressing waste management and stopping on the street. Council members Blues and Myers were among the key speakers during this agenda item. The ordinances were presented for their required second reading in accordance with standard legislative procedure before the Council. The Council approved the ordinances as presented. ## Resolution for Wayfinding Sign System Project [timestamp: 28:37] The Council took up a resolution to approve a change order related to the Wayfinding Sign System Project. Key speakers during this agenda item included Feigel, Crosbie, and Webb. The resolution was presented and discussed by the identified speakers, though the available record does not detail the specific terms of the change order, the dollar amount involved, or the particular modifications to the project scope that prompted the change order request. Following the discussion, the Council approved the resolution. ## Resolution for Sheriff's Settlement for 2009 Property Tax Year [timestamp: 29:07] The Council took up a resolution to authorize a letter agreement for the preparation of the Sheriff's Settlement for the 2009 Property Tax Year. Stinnett and Henson were the key speakers during discussion of this item. The resolution was approved by the Council. ## Resolution for lease agreement with Community Action Council [timestamp: 1:41:46] The Council considered a resolution to authorize a lease agreement with the Community Action Council for space at the Carver Community Center. Myers and Crosbie were the key speakers on this item. The resolution was brought forward to formally establish the lease arrangement between the city and the Community Action Council for use of space within the Carver Community Center facility. The resolution was approved by the Council. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (14-0): Approval of ordinances given second reading - **Motion** — passed (13-1): Approval of resolution for Wayfinding Sign System Project - **Motion** — passed (13-1): Approval of resolution for Sheriff's Settlement for 2009 Property Tax Year - **Motion** — passed (13-0): Approval of resolution for lease agreement with Community Action Council --- ## Full transcript Ms. Henson? Here. Ms. James? Here. Mr. Lane? Here. Ms. Lawless? Here. Mr. Martin? Here. Mr. McCord? Here. Mr. Myers? Here. Mr. Stennett? Here. Mr. Beard? Here. Mr. Blues? Here. Ms. Crosby? Here. We have a quorum, so we will proceed. The next item on the agenda is our invocation, which will be brought this evening by Father Jay Pierce, who is a retired Anglican minister here in our community. Father Pierce. Good evening. Let us pray. Blessed are you, Lord God of the universe, for your goodness we have been brought to this day, a day in which we ask your blessings on the elected people of this assembly. As they undertake to do the business of their fellow citizens of Lexington and Fayette County, remind the Council, Lord, that they stand in a long line of accountable people, beginning on the day the framers of our Declaration of Independence announced to the world a representative form of government. As they go forward to faithfully make decisions for the welfare of our community, Lord, remind them that our history calls them to abide by our Creator's objective for the freedom to which we were led and are continually to be responsible. Honesty, wisdom, charity, and justice. And the whole congregation said, Amen. Thank you, Father Pierce. We're now ready for the reading of the ordinances entitled to second reading. So, Madam Clerk, if you will proceed, please. Thank you. Ordinance number one, an ordinance amending Article 5-4H2 of the Land Subdivision Regulations to provide an alternative engineers and land surveyors certification for subdivisions that do not require any infrastructure. Ordinance number two, an ordinance amending Section 16-4 of the Code of Ordinances to provide that dumpster collection service will be provided as described in the Division of Waste Management's Dumpster Service Guide and subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Environmental Quality that the Director of Waste Management may exempt properties with insufficient space or special circumstances that properties otherwise subject to dumpster requirements may be approved for roll cart service provided they are in compliance with Section 16-4.18. Ordinance number three, an ordinance amending Section 16-4.1A3 and 4 and waste generation does not require dumpster service and that the property must change to dumpster service if waste generation increases. Ordinance number four, an ordinance amending Section 16-6D of the Code of Ordinances to clarify requirements for dumpster concrete pads, amending Section 16-6D of the Code of Ordinances to provide that the Director of Waste Management may designate the location of placement of roll carts, amending Section 16-8D to provide that improperly prepared refuse must be abated within 48 hours unless violation constitutes an immediate danger when the Urban County Government will issue a citation and immediately abate the condition and bill the property owner. Amending Section 16-10 to change the Commissioner of Public Works to the Commissioner of Environmental Quality to provide that roll carts shall be placed in front of the residence, that containers shall be placed at the curb between 4 p.m. on the evening before collection and 5 a.m. on the day of collection and shall be removed by 7 p.m. on the day of collection. Containers will be kept in the rear yard or in the side yard when not at the curb for collection, that civil fines may be assessed for continuing roll cart violations and to provide that property owners may provide specified management company or designated representative information to the Director of Waste Management. Number three, an ordinance amending Section 15-1A of the Code of Ordinances relating to stopping on the street to add food products to this section, amending Section 15-1B of the Code of Ordinances relating to stopping on the street to add food products to this section to allow for a citation for a violation of this ordinance and increasing the fine to a range of $25 to $100. Number four, an ordinance authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Department of Agriculture which grant funds are in the amount of $6,780 Commonwealth of Kentucky funds are for the Vintage Kentucky A Toast to Henry Clay Wine Festival, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Urban County Government for the expenditure of funds and appropriating funds pursuant to FY2011 Schedule No. 16. Number five, an ordinance amending Section 21-5 of the Code of Ordinances creating two positions of Enterprise Systems Developer Grade 116E in the Division of Enterprise Solutions and authorizing the Division of Human Resources to advertise internally and appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 17. Number six, an ordinance authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with the Commonwealth of Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Department of Highways for funding in the amount of $100,000 for the Flight 5191 Memorial at the Arboretum which does not obligate the Urban County Government for the expenditure of funds and appropriating funds pursuant to FY2011 Schedule No. 18. And number seven, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fayette County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures and appropriating and reappropriating funds Schedule No. 19. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve those ordinances? I have a motion by Council Member Blues and a second by Council Member Myers to approve those ordinances. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, we will proceed to vote. Those in favor of approving the ordinances, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Council Member Myers? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Blues? Yes. And Ms. Crosby? Yes. Thank you. Thanks. Those ordinances are approved. We are now ready for the ordinances entitled to first reading. Madam Clerk? Mayor, there is a second reading ordinance. When did you want to recognize that? That needed to be walked on? Is that regarding the eligibility counselor position? It is, and I think the Administrator, or Artie and I had spoken, and we thought it was a first reading, but it's actually a second reading per the Clerk. That was my understanding as well, but if it is a second reading, now would be the appropriate time to take that from the table. Mayor, I move that the ordinance creating the eligibility counselor position Grade 110E in the Division of Community Corrections be removed from the table and placed on the docket under first reading of ordinances. That would be under second reading. Second reading of ordinances. We have a motion by Council Member James and a second by Council Member Myers. Any discussion? That motion is non-debatable, so those in favor of taking it from the table, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Madam Clerk? Thank you, Mayor. This will be Ordinance 7A for second reading. An Ordinance submitting Section 22-52 of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing one temporary position of social worker, Grade 111E, and creating one temporary position of eligibility counselor, Grade 110E, ending three years from the date of passage of this ordinance within the Division of Community Corrections. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the Ordinance? I have a motion by Council Member Ellinger and a second by Council Member James to approve the Ordinance. Any discussion? All in favor, please indicate by voting aye electronically. All opposed, vote nay electronically. Madam Clerk, if you will call the roll again, please. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Ms. Feigel? Yes. Ms. Gorton? Aye. Mr. Gray? Yes. Ms. Garza? Aye. Mr. Gurney? Aye. Ms. Feigel? Aye. Ms. Gorton? Aye. Ms. Henson? Aye. Ms. James? Aye. Mr. Lane? Aye. Mr. Martin? Aye. Mr. McCord? Aye. Mr. Myers? Aye. Mr. Stennett? Aye. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Blues? Aye. Ms. Crosby? Aye. Thank you. Thanks. That Ordinance is adopted. Now I think we are ready for the reading of Ordinances entitled to first reading. So, Madam Clerk. Ordinance number 8. An Ordinance amending 16-90B and 16-90E of the Code of Ordinances and creating subsection 16-90J related to preparation of stormwater pollution prevention programs. Number 9. An Ordinance amending section 21-5-2 of the Code of Ordinances abolishing two positions of child care program aid grade 107N and amending section 22-5-2 of the Code of Ordinances creating four positions of equipment operator grade 108N in the Division of Family Services and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 22. Number 10. An Ordinance amending section 21-6 of the Code of Ordinances providing that employees terminated during their probationary period as a result of excessive absences due to a serious health condition or illness may apply for other positions prior to 12 months if medical documentation is provided and approval is obtained from the mayor or his designee. Number 11. An Ordinance amending section 21-5-2 of the Code of Ordinances abolishing one position of human resources analyst grade 115E and creating one position of payroll analyst grade 115E in the Division of Human Resources. Number 12. An Ordinance amending subsection 12-1BPM-106.4.1 of the Code of Ordinances Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government to clarify that the penalties may apply to each structure or dwelling unit located on the real property and that the maximum civil penalty shall be $10,000 for each parcel of real property. Amending subsection 12-1BPM-107.26 of the Code to change $1,000 to $10,000 per parcel of real property all effective on August 1, 2010. Number 13. An Ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the Kentucky Department of Education Division of School and Community Nutrition to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application and to accept this grant if the application is approved. Number 14. An Ordinance authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a grant from USA Football for an equipment grant of football helmets to be provided to a child care food program for operation of the Nutrition Program at the Family Care Center in FY2011. The acceptance of which does not obligate the Urban County Government for the expenditure of funds appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 20 and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 14. An Ordinance authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a grant from USA Football for an equipment grant of football helmets and appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 21. Number 15. An Ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet which grant funds are in the amount of $500,000 federal funds are for the Legacy Trail Enhancements, the acceptance of which obligates the Urban County Government for the expenditure of $125,000 as a local match. Appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 23 and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 16. An Ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the U.S. Department of Justice to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application and to accept this grant if the application is approved, which grant funds are in the amount of $90,054 federal funds are for the Project Safe Neighborhoods Program for the U.S. Department of Justice. For the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Urban County Government for the expenditure of funds. Appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 24 and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. And Number 17. An Ordinance submitting certain of the budgets of the Lexington and Fayette County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures and appropriating and reappropriating funds, Schedule No. 25. Thank you. Seeing no further motions, we'll proceed to give second reading to the ordinances entitled to second reading. Madam Clerk. Resolution No. 1, a resolution accepting the bid of Veolia E.S. Technical Solutions establishing a price contract for lighting and universal waste disposal for the Division of Waste Management. Number 2, a resolution accepting the bid of T.P. Mechanical in the amount of $39,000 for HVAC system assessment for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number 3, a resolution accepting the bid of Heartland Petroleum establishing a price contract for used oil recycling for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number 4, a resolution accepting the bids of Galls Incorporated, Lawman's and Shooter's Supply, Bluegrass Uniforms, Bluegrass Fire Equipment, Kentucky Uniforms and U.S. Calvary establishing price contracts for fire recruit equipment for the Division of Fire and Emergency Services. Number 5, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a letter of agreement with Mt. Joy Chilton Medley LLP for appropriation of the Sheriff's Settlement for the 2009 property tax year at a cost not to exceed $12,240. Number 6, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an amendment to the Revenue Enhancement Agreement with PRA Government Services LLC doing business as RDS for revenue discovery services decreasing the payments to RDS during the amnesty program to 25%. Number 7, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a software license agreement with Data Compression Technology doing business as DCT for support for software that enables viewing of data transferred from Internal Revenue Service at a cost not to exceed $40,000. Number 8, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with the Commonwealth of Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Department of Highways to reimburse the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet up to $216,098.97 for installation of a mast arm pull system for the Newtown Pike Extension Project Phase 4 Main Street to Versailles Road. Number 9, a resolution ratifying the Probationary Civil Service Appointments of Esther Moberly, Program Specialist, Grade 112E, 1006-3464 biweekly in the Division of Waste Management, effective June 28, 2010. Reginald Lyons, Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N, 15.040 hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective June 28, 2010. Ernie Young Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N, 12.620 hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective June 28, 2010. Lisa Spielman, Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N, 12.459 hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective June 28, 2010. Larry Green, Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N, 13.971 hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective June 28, 2010. Ernie Young Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N, 12.606 hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective June 28, 2010. Bruce Lee, Equipment Opperator Senior, Grade 109N, 12.606 hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective June 28, 2010. Alvin Callaway, Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N, 17.541 hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective June 28, 2010. Alex Taylor, Pump Station Supervisor, Grade 115E, 2200 biweekly in the Division of Water Quality, effective June 21, 2010. Ratifying the Probationary Sworn Appointment of Justin Halsaber, Fire Lieutenant, Grade 315N, 17.268 hourly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective June 14, 2010. Matthew Galati, Fire Captain, Grade 316N, 22.368 hourly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective June 14, 2010. Approving the Unclassified Civil Service Appointment of Scott Dawson, Evidence Technician, Grade 113N, 20.725 hourly in the Division of Police, effective June 28, 2010. Approving the Unclassified Civil Service Appointment of the Office of the Urban County Council of Jonathan Hollinger, Aid to Council, Grade 000E, 1009-2308 biweekly in the Council Office, effective June 21, 2010. Number 10, a resolution accepting the proposal of the public group doing business as publicsurplus.com for the Internet sale of surplus vehicles and equipment not to exceed 7% commission of gross sale proceeds. Number 11, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a memorandum of understanding with Fayette County Public Schools for attachment of wireless communication equipment. Number 12, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a modification to an agreement with the Commonwealth of Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Department of Highways to extend the agreement from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011 and reimburse the Urban County Government up to $300,000 for operation and maintenance of traffic signals and electrical traffic control devices on the state primary road system. Number 13, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute change order number 3 to the contract with Wilbur Smith Associates for the Wayfinding Sign System project, increasing the contract price by the sum of $34,971.06 from $307,895.89 to $342,866.95. Number 14, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute change order number 1 to the contract with Hall Contracting Corporation for South Elkhorn Pump Station improvements for the Division of Water Quality, increasing the contract price by the sum of $27,987.00 from $3,842,000.00 to $3,869,987.00. Number 15, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a First Amendment to the amended and restated grant agreement with the Cabinet for Economic Development, the State Property and Buildings Commission and Belkan Engineering Group, Incorporated, retroactive to January 28, 2010, to include additional terms to the amended and restated grant agreement approved pursuant to Resolution 308-2009 at no cost to the government. Number 16, a resolution authorizing the Division of Emergency Management 9-1-1 to purchase equipment, software, hardware, licenses, and peripherals and any related installation and maintenance services for expansion of the existing Central Kentucky 9-1-1 infrastructure network from AK Associates, a sole source provider, at a cost not to exceed $96,663. Number 17, a resolution authorizing the Division of Emergency Management 9-1-1 to purchase equipment and related peripherals for expansion of the existing Central Kentucky 9-1-1 infrastructure network from Engage Communications, a sole source provider, at a cost not to exceed $33,532. Number 18, a resolution authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute Change Order No. 2 to the contract with Schroeder Construction, Incorporated, for a pump station upgrade at Haley Pike Landfill, increasing the contract price by the sum of $7,498.34 from $358,816 to $366,314.34. Number 19, a resolution authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute agreements with Lansdale Neighborhood Association, Incorporated, $750.00, Bellowood Neighborhood Association, Incorporated, $650.00, American Society of Certified Engineering Technicians Conference, $225.00, Zandale Neighborhood Association, Incorporated, $500.00, Fayette County 4-H Council, Incorporated, $650.00, for the office of the Urban County Council, at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. Number 20, a resolution authorizing the Division of Human Resources to internally advertise for all vacant positions from July 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010, and authorizing the Division of Human Resources to advertise externally if a qualified internal applicant pool does not exist within two weeks or 14 calendar days of any internal advertisement. And number 21, a resolution authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute change order number one to the contract with Conch Construction, LLC, for the Radcliffe Road stormwater improvements project, increasing the contract price by the sum of $22,739.70 from $257,357.25 to $280,096.95. Thank you very much. That concludes the reading of resolutions entitled to a second reading. Is there a motion to approve? I have a motion by Councilmember Stennett. Do I hear a second? Councilmember Henson has seconded that motion. Any discussion? Councilmember Feigl. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question on number 13. This is a change order number three to the contract with Wilbur Smith Associates for the wayfinding signs. And I may have dismissed something along the way, but it looks like that in our resolutions on first reading, we have a contract for design of the signs, if I'm not mistaken. So I'm curious about what this change order is for. Ms. Feigl. Yes, the change order is for the contract had included this phase of the project, which this would provide inspection of the signs going in, plus changes that would need to be made that the signs were all done by Wilbur Smith some time ago. So there was concern that some destinations would change. So that would need to be taken care of prior to construction of the signs. These items were in the contract, but there was no pricing for it. So what we've done is negotiated this change order to now provide those services. You'll also have a reading on the construction and installation of the signs. So this is not an additional, it was just a change order to provide those services that were in the original contract. I guess I'm still not understanding that. I'm sorry, but the signs were already designed and made by Wilbur Smith? They weren't made. They were designed, and it actually predates me whenever this activity took place. I think the original contracts may be as much as three years old now. But they did a study and actually designed the signs. It was, there was a period of time before the decision was made to go ahead with that sign. However, the original contract included the ability to negotiate this piece of the work. The original contract was made only for that design phase. Okay, so I don't know then if it's appropriate for me to ask, what's the difference then between that and under first reading number 22? What's number 22? Number 22 is the actual construction of the sign, not the design, but the construction and the actual installation. Wilbur Smith will be, if there are any last minute changes that need to be done, Wilbur Smith will take care of the design changes. And these are allowances for work. If we do not need, if there are no changes needed, we would not spend the allowance piece, but we would spend the money for the inspection of the installation of the signs to make sure they go in right. And he would do the inspection, Wilbur Smith would do the inspection. Wilbur Smith will do the inspection, will do the design changes necessary on the signs. The other firm, which is the first reading, that is a contract for building the signs, actually constructing the signs and installing the signs. All right, thank you very much. Council Member Crosby. My question was on number 13 also, but I think I may hold off until we get to 22 because I think my question now relates more to 22 than 13. I just want to make sure I understand, though, on 13, it's strictly design and then inspecting after they're installed. Is that correct? No, that's not absolutely correct. It would be for any changes that were needed in the signs prior to the construction of the sign. All the locations have already been selected. They all had destinations put on them some time ago. If those destinations have changed, for instance, if Applebee's Park had changed name, Wilbur Smith would take care of doing the preliminary work, any change in that design, and then that would go to the construction firm, which is first reading. Also included in this is once those signs are made, it includes inspection of the sign to make sure it's made properly and inspection of the installation to make sure that they go in in the right location, they're oriented properly, they don't put the wrong signs in the wrong places that have these destinations on them. They'll take care of that inspection through this changeover. Is that clear? I guess as clear as it's going to be to me. Please. I think you answered my question that after they're installed, they come back and inspect them to make sure. They will inspect them during. That's their duty as part of this contract. Yes, but there was two pieces to your question. And it was the first piece that was not accurate. They will do that inspection of the installation. The other function, and if you can recall your question and ask it again, that was why I wanted to correct. My question was that Wilbur Smith, that they are responsible for design and this is for the design and design change and then inspection after they are installed. I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood your question. Yes. If there are changes that are required on the signs prior to construction, Wilbur Smith's piece will be to make sure those changes are done properly and the inspection of the signs once they go in. Okay. I think my next question is for 22. I'll wait. Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion on the resolutions receiving second reading? All right. Those in favor of approving those resolutions, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay electronically. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Ms. Feigl? No on 13. Yes on the rest. I will denote that in the vote. Ms. Gorton? Aye. Mr. Gray? Yes. Ms. Henson? Yes. Ms. James? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Mr. Martin? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Aye. Mr. Beard? Aye. And Mr. Blues? Yes. And Ms. Crosby? No on 5. Yes on everything else. Thank you. Those resolutions are approved. We're now ready for the reading of resolutions entitled to first reading. Madam Clerk? Mayor, I think we'd like to ask a question on number 22 before it gets read, I believe. All right. We have a question with regard to number 22. So Commissioner Webb, if you could come back to the front, please. Actually, I don't know if Mr. Markham is in here because I briefly talked to him beforehand, and I was hoping he might be able to explain to the council because I know some of us are getting some calls regarding the way the bid went out for this. We were told that a letter had been sent out to 50 different companies requesting a bid on this. And, of course, we get phone calls saying that we never received the letter, and so I was hoping maybe you could explain the process. I'd be happy to. Wilbur Smith actually did the design. They put together a spec book, and there were some modifications to that original design, so that allowed for that increase somewhat in that section because the original design was changed recently. But Wilbur Smith created a bid document for us that we sent over to Lynn, and Lynn issues those for us. Typically when Lynn does an issue, our office will notify contractors because contractors are typically the ones bidding on those projects. We have commodity codes for contractors, and then we have commodity codes for suppliers. The contractor commodity code for sign installation was who this was sent to, and there was 50 contractors locally that had the opportunity to respond. Some of the pushback we're getting, and I'm also getting those calls as well, is the fact that the sign suppliers were inadvertently not notified of that. They were notified through some other means, which are typical ways of doing that, but they weren't specifically notified of that. So from that, we have a commodity code on one end for contractors, and suppliers is a totally different commodity code on another end. So we did not pick up that commodity code and e-mail those notices to those actual sign suppliers. So with the, so I can understand this, then would the contractors have to find the people who can make the sign? So there's a partnership. It could have gone reverse. It could have worked either way, yes, but typically on a project like this, and why my staff may have done that was the fact that a contractor would typically go out and sub that work under them out to the sign suppliers. They actually would do the installation. They would bring a sign supplier on to the bid because basically they're just going to be providing the signs. The contractor is going to be doing all the labor and the concrete work and things like that. So it's fair to say that none of the sign suppliers, unless they saw it advertised, okay. That's correct. Thank you. Anything further on number 22? Council Member Lane. Just for the general public, could you describe the scope of the work on this? I mean, what all is involved? It's not just painting a sign, but what else is involved? Well, it's basically an engineered detailed schematic drawing that's been designed by Wilbur Smith for the installation of the signs. It's concrete work. It's cuts. It's putting in a structure to support the sign. It's then replacing that concrete back to its original state so it looks decent. It's got prevailing wage in it, so those types of rates have to be applied to all the people that are working on the project. So it's much more complicated than just a sign. Do these signs have electricity? Are they lighted? I'm not for sure if some of them are lighted or not. Okay. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gray. The signs that I think it's worth mentioning, Brian, that they're fabricated. These are fabricated metal. I don't know what the composition is, but I think it's a metal base, right? Yes, it's a metal base, and it's a much more industrial type setting than just a typical go out and buy a sign. It is more complicated than that. There are specialty fabricators generally that do this kind of work and would respond to a bid or offering an RFP like this, and architectural graphics. I don't know the firm, but just I'm not aware of the firm myself, but I know just in the name itself it would indicate that the firm has a specialty business associated with this kind of signage, which if it's done properly and well and right, which is what Wilbur Smith's role should be, is to ensure that. That's correct. We'll have good work. Yes, that's correct, and they have done installations like this all over the country and have committed to the fact that they will use local labor to install the signs. Mr. Webb? Council members, I have a mock-up of that sign. We had it on display. I have it upstairs, which I can bring it down at the end of the meeting or sometime as appropriate if you're interested in seeing it. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Mayor. I just was curious. I mean, I realize this is first reading on here, but there are a specified number of signs, are there not? Yes, ma'am, that's correct. And there are specifications for how those signs are going to be installed? Yes, ma'am. That's in the spec book. Right. So what's the likelihood that we're going to have a couple more change orders with this? Because I'm looking at the total cost. I believe that your number of change orders will go down unless there becomes a need to add signs somewhere. Basically, you are correct. The sites are identified. Many of them are on state right-of-way because they're wayfinding signs bringing people into locations in town. They're already permitted. Unless we find one, I guess we could get requests for an additional sign or a change. There could be a change that occurs in a destination before we get all the signs up or right after. That might create a change order, but it should be very close to what it is today. And is there a limit on how much the change orders can add up to? I mean, what percentage of the contract can change orders be? I would defer to Brian on that. This one cannot specifically have a change order without bringing it back for approval. Well, most change orders do come back for approval, though, don't they? Yeah, they do. But what I'm saying, you technically cannot increase this without bringing it to the body. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Just one follow-up question. Here again for the people that are watching on TV. Could you go over the states in which there were companies that bid on this? In other words, this is sort of a specialized product. It looks like they were bidding from all over the United States on this assignment. And I thought maybe that would be of interest to the viewers. Fort Collins, Colorado, Charlotte, North Carolina, Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Norcross, Georgia. And then we had one from Lexington. Thank you. Any further discussion? All right. Madam Clerk, if you'll proceed to give first reading to the resolutions entitled to first reading. Resolution number 22, the resolution accepting the bid of Architectural Graphics Incorporated in the amount of $383,918 for the Wayfinding Science System for the Department of Public Works and Development and authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute any necessary agreement with Architectural Graphics Incorporated related to the bid. Number 23, a resolution accepting the bid of France Incorporated in the amount of $33,400 for the HVAC Cooling Tower Replacement, Kearney Hills Golf Course Clubhouse for the Division of Parks and Recreation and authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute any necessary agreement with France Incorporated related to the bid. Number 24, a resolution accepting the bid of Northeast Industrial Manufacturer Incorporated, in the amount of $9,990 for Recycling Dumpsters for Parks for the Division of Parks and Recreation. Number 25, a resolution accepting the bid of Morelia Design and Construction in the amount of $299,968.51 for the Maxwell Street Sidewalk and Bike Lane Project for the Division of Engineering and authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute any necessary agreement with Morelia Design and Construction related to the bid. Number 26, a resolution ratifying the probationary civil service appointments of Carolyn Null, Program Specialist, Grade 112E, $1,246.56 biweekly in the Division of Water Quality, effective July 1, 2010. Benjamin Krebs, Municipal Engineer, Senior, Grade 119E, $2,278.08 biweekly in the Division of Water Quality, effective July 1, 2010. Steve DiDuoti, Database Administrator, Grade 117E, $1,664.80 biweekly in the Division of Enterprise Solutions, effective July 1, 2010, ratifying the permanent civil service appointment of Dora K. Bryant, Administrative Specialist, Senior, Grade 112N in the Division of Building Inspection, effective July 18, 2010. Number 27, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute the second and final renewal of the Annual Program Management Services Agreement with Tetra Tech, Inc., for the continued performance of services related to the EPA consent decree and authorizing initial payment of funds in an amount not to exceed $1,766,000 and any further payments pursuant to the terms of the agreement. Number 28, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an Engineering Services Agreement with Hazen and Sawyer PSC for three sanitary sewer system assessment final reports and three sanitary sewer system and wastewater treatment plant remedial measures plans for the Division of Water Quality at a cost not to exceed $2 million. Number 29, a resolution authorizing the Division of Waste Management to purchase equipment and related peripherals for relining the baler at the Materials Recovery Facility from IPS Balers, Inc., a sole source provider, at a cost not to exceed $33,233.20. Number 30, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute certificates of consideration and other necessary documents and to accept deeds for property interests needed for the Isaac Murphy Memorial Art Garden Trailhead at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 31. Excuse me, Madam Clerk, I think Council Member Ellinger has an issue. Okay, Council Member Crosby. Mr. Markham, is he still here? I have a question on 31. Do you know if there's been any issue with the procurement process regarding receiving federal money and if the federal guidelines have been followed regarding this one? We have made inquiries with the state to ensure that that process will satisfy their requirements for future funding. They do not foresee that it has any problems or flaws with it, but they have not given me a definitive final answer at this point in time. We have reviewed the statute that defines the selection for professional services for the state. This process followed those criteria, which is qualifications-based, capacity-based, experience-based, but they have not given us a definitive answer yet. When do you expect to have an answer? Well, let's see. I talked to them on the 30th, and they expected an answer forthcoming. I've talked to about four different people down there who all tell me that an answer is forthcoming, but no one has given me a definitive. So I really can't give an answer because I've been working on this since, like, the 21st. There's more questions. I'll stop. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor Gray. Brian, you and I have had a conversation about this project in the hallway. I spoke with Billy yesterday about it. I'm unable to support it really on the basis of the procurement process that we have engaged on this is, from what I can tell, is new to the government. That is, qualifications-based on a scope of this significance. The original estimate that the council approved through the bond in November in the $2.2 million, what was it, $2.2 for the town branch, which I certainly support and supported then, within that $2.2 million, the estimate for engineering for these services was $1.1 million. The scope of work was roughly $14 million. That is the construction scope for the sanitary, the storm, the town branch trail, and the streetscape improvements. $1.1 million as a percent of $14 million is about 6% and change, which is a, actually in today's market, being in the business, that's a pretty healthy fee. It's not one most companies, most engineering firms or architectural firms or design firms would certainly turn down. This amount is closer to 11% or 12%, 1.6, almost 1.7 million. And it's my understanding that the way that we engaged this process, we interviewed the firms, several firms, and we did not ask for prices in that process. We did not ask for fees in that process, which is consistent with a qualifications-based model. I understand that. Then after we selected a firm, we asked them for what they would like to see as a fee is my understanding, and they offered $1,658,000, which is roughly, again, I'm willing to be corrected here. I'm just trying to explain the reason that from my point of view, dealing with this sort of environment, this purchasing on a regular routine basis, I'm unable to support it for that reason. And if I'm missing something, I'm asking for that to be corrected. Thanks, Brian. I think your numbers are correct. I think that the things that we have talked about are the complexities of this project and the number of entities that must be engaged since this is a state road, since it is historical in nature. Those things have driven that fee up higher. But the real underlying issue with the dollars is the fact that until we do this feasibility study, we have no idea what, where this trail is even going, how the roadway is going to be done. If the roadway is going to be realigned, then it must have other entities involved. The federal highways have to become involved. All these things, the outreach for all the neighborhoods is part of this feasibility study. The survey is part of this feasibility study. And so until we get the feasibility study, we can't really hone in on the scope. So, therefore, if you ask for a fee in that type of a setting, you're not really going to get a very good fee to begin with if you ask for the fee up front. So we need to use the feasibility study to establish what our plan is. Then we go back to this engineering firm, and then we talk about what the fees are going forward. To me, and I talked to Bill a little bit about this, if we want to modify this to be a $508,000 agreement just to cover the feasibility study, then come back. Is that all right with you, Mike? That's something we can do. But until we have that feasibility study done, there's no way to hone in on a scope or what the design is going to be or what the design is even going to look like. I would like to point out, too, in this contract, this contract has a total amount. Whenever you look at the contract, the hard amount is $508,000 for the feasibility study. The contract allows you to terminate it at any point. It could be terminated at that time, but the items that fall under that, and there's a number of items. These are all provided as an allowance. Trail design, topographic survey, trail design for 5,800 feet at 30 percent, trail design at 100 percent. Along with this process, the contractor will go and do presentations to the planning committee and one presentation to the council to bring you up to speed on the feasibility studies. What's below that are truly estimates of what they think it would cost, but even they would admit to you that we don't know. Some of these items may be needed, some may not. In other words, there's traffic analysis, and the amount on that is put in as $50,000. Based on the feasibility study, a traffic analysis may not be required. However, the state may require it. So there could be $50,000 there that you don't need to spend, or it may be a simple traffic analysis which costs much less than that. Right-of-way easement surveys and plats is another item. There's an amount in for that. It's not a very large amount, but the feasibility study, again, and what you choose to do on past that feasibility will determine what needs to be done. In other words, there's a list of activities that they feel may be involved in a pricing on those. We may, the feasibility study may indicate that the trail must go on the road. The design for the trail, the cost for that design should go way down if that's the case. If it indicates that it can't go on the road, it may go up, but something else may go down. So those items underneath the feasibility study are items that can and change, that we can go back and renegotiate, but gives us an estimate of what the cost of the service is going to be. For any of those options, or for any of that work beneath the feasibility study, the contractor must be authorized through a letter to proceed with anything below the feasibility study. We will go, the meetings will be done with the planning committee. I would assume that there would be a recommendation on a number of things, a presentation done to the full council, and a decision made with what moves forward. If items are selected to move forward, we would negotiate that and get approval to do that letter to begin the next phases. All right, Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. Brian, I've got a couple questions, sorry. On the side, was STRAND given any type of preference in this process? No. So the fact that they had undertaken previous work for LFECG was not a factor in this bid at all? It's not a preference. That's just part of our listing of qualifications and experience. So when you're talking about a preference, they came in with a lot of relevant experience that actually did increase their, I guess, their ranking in the process. So would it be fair to say that given points for prior relationships with the city would tend to leave the same contractor in place? Say that again? Is it fair to say that allowing a company, I guess, points on the rating system for doing previous work with the city, that would tend to give them more work, wouldn't it? Previous work, yes. But it's really important to understand the complexity and the similar type of work that they had done on limestone specifically, which was undergrounding of utilities, mass infrastructure repairs, dealing with all of the local utilities in that process, and understanding that they also had a working knowledge in a streetscape type process in permitting with the state. But you're talking about permitting experience with us. Through us, yes. You're not talking about having experience in Louisville or experience in Owensburg or experience in Atlanta. Is that correct? That's correct. They had several projects, yes, for us. So did you tell one of the other applicants that they probably wouldn't ever be the recipient of one of these contracts because they don't work for us? I think probably in the conversation, and I can't recall exactly the things that we talked about, but I think if you don't have a level of experience that is similar to what we're requiring, you have to have a level of experience to compete with somebody who has that level of experience. But you're talking about having a level of experience in doing work for us. Not necessarily just for us. It can be any other government entity. But it has to be a government entity that is doing the same types of projects that we're looking at and that you can demonstrate that you had a similar experience with that size of project and with the complexities of that project. It can be other government entities. It doesn't just have to be LFUCG. Well, I've got a couple calls about this, and so I've got some concerns about it. So I hope that maybe we at least don't try to second-read this at this point. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. I want to go back to the original bond that we did for $2.2 million. Back in November, there were three items that we included in that bond. One of them was $1.1 million, and I don't have it with me. There were two other items. So if we raise this one up to $1.6, it seems like we're cutting $500,000 from something else or maybe minimizing something else that's not getting done. Billy, do you have that original? There were three things on that list. I do, Council Member Stennett. The three amounts that were requested by the developer were $1,200,250 for design and construction of trails, $988,841 $841 for streetscape design, $999,780 for the funding for the art in motion bus stop and other public art, and the Council voted to approve the bond for the design and construction of the trails and the streetscape design. So if you look at the contract, several of the tasks that Commissioner Webb referred to are tasks that are required to achieve both projects. And so the agreement addresses several of those tasks that have to be accomplished before we can complete both projects. And I'd also like to say with regard to the selection, the selection committee was made up of the Division of Purchasing, Department of Public Works, Councilmember Blues sat in on the selection committee, the DDA, LexArts, the Division of Engineering and District 7. It was also very important since it's a state route that we have District 7 on the selection committee and that this engineering firm is qualified to do work on a state road. We use qualified based selection to allow for the opportunity of state and federal funding in the future to help reduce the amount required to be funded by the LFUCG. That's the reason that type of selection was used. We received proposals Bill, hold on. I got the mic right now. So I appreciate all that additional information. Somebody else may want to ask you those things. But what I see on here, going back to the number, $980,000, only about $600,000 of this is actual trail dollars. So are you saying the original estimate was too high on the trail piece? No. If you look at I see number 3, number 4, and number 13. Right. If you, these are rough percentages. But for instance, the feasibility study, half of that cost is going to be allocated between the streetscape project and the trail project. So that's a shared cost between the two projects. Okay. Then speaking of feasibility study, I think Commissioner Webb, why not just do the study first and then come back and give us an honest, more accurate design bid on this whole project? One of the pieces of the feasibility study is the survey that will be done. And through experience now, remember we did a laser scan survey. And for the streetscape, very large area laser scan survey. During the design of the streetscape work, we found issues with transition of that information from one contractor to another. So our intent was to incorporate that survey with a contractor who would potentially do the design. We didn't have extra cost in the transfer of information. Okay. So in your best estimation, we can't do the feasibility study first and then wait? I mean, it's worked in the past. We've done it on other projects. Yes, we can. Absolutely. And the contract would allow us to go ahead and do the feasibility study and stop. Takes seven days notice. They can't do any work below the feasibility study without a notice to proceed from LFUCG. Thank you, sir. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. As Commissioner Webb said, I served on the evaluation committee. And I think that the process was painstaking, was thorough, and that the evaluation group saw that there was a very complicated design project here and construction project following. And we thought that Strand's proposal was the strongest based on a number of factors. We kept in mind that this is a project that's going to have to be, we're going to have to work very closely with, you know, with the state. And we needed that kind of experience and that sort of cooperative relationship. We were also very cognizant of the fact that when the council unanimously approved the $2.2 million for this design, that we, as we acknowledged at the time, we were putting a good faith payment forward, our confidence that, you know, in the TIF, in the distillery district project, and also the fact that this is a public works project with taxpayer money and we are, while we're committed to the success of the distillery district project, we are also committed to the best value for our taxpayers. And that is our obligation. And I'm very confident that this contract has been worked out in conscientious detail, in good faith to the developer, to the taxpayer, and to the council. And we will be involved in this throughout the process. I think that, as the commissioner said, when the feasibility study is carried out, we will have the results of it and we can act accordingly. So I'm confident that this is a sound contract and I'm hoping we can go forward with it and get the work moving sooner rather than later. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Mayor. Just, Dr. Bluth, quickly, I don't think that, obviously, we unanimously voted for this and I think most, or at least in my opinion, I'm supportive of the project and have been since day one. My issue is simply about the procurement process and whether or not the federal and state guidelines have been followed. And I think what we heard from our Director of Purchasing is that he's getting some answers to some of those questions. As far as the procurement process, Brian has been actively trying to pursue a confirmation that we have. Our review has led us to believe that we have met the requirements of quality-based selection. We will try, before a second reading, to get that confirmation from the state in writing. We have been told, yes, it is, but we have not received that in writing. We'll try to have that. My point was going to be that maybe we should just table this until we get that confirmation because we could do, if you should get it by Tuesday, logically, we could do, there could be a first and second reading on this that night, but if we don't have it by Tuesday, then I don't see any reason of why we should even address it until we can get confirmation. I understand that was your opinion, but I know, or the opinion of LFBCG, but we still have not gotten a response and if it's different, then clearly, I think we need to know that. We will also be happy to have Strand and Associates present for the next council meeting. We'll try to have that confirmation in writing for the next council meeting and if there's any other questions that you'd like to pose now, we'll try to make sure we have those answers. Our intention is not to hold up this design process, if we can agree, however, I would tell you that in Public Works, if you're not satisfied with it or you're not comfortable with this, we're also willing to go back and do a fee-based, but fee-based will cut out our ability to get grant, federal and state grant money moving forward. My comfort level is not with the fact that we've done this process. It's making sure that it followed the guidelines and that's all I'm asking. I don't necessarily think Strand needs to be here. My questions aren't directed towards Strand. It's trying to find out about the process and the answer from the state. I guess I would like to just make a motion that we table this until we get a response from the state and make sure that we have followed all guidelines and at that time then, we can put it back on the agenda and go forward. So moved. We have a motion and second to table item number 31. That's non-debatable. So let's proceed to vote and let's do it electronically. Madam Clerk, if you would arrange, yes sir, no, there isn't. If you would arrange for us to vote electronically and those in favor, please vote aye electronically. Those opposed to tabling the motion, please vote no electronically. Motion fails by a vote of five to eight. So we are ready to return to discussion of item 31. If there would be more, Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Mayor. Was an RFP done on this and did the RFP specifically ask for the different elements like a feasibility study and all of the other elements? Yes, it was. If we chose to just move forward with the feasibility study, would you have to re-bid this? No, not at this point. You know, it really becomes an issue of what you do at the end of the feasibility study and how you proceed forward and is that data still transferable to someone else if you chose to go on another path. But at this point, you know, the contract is being negotiated, it's here for first reading. If we wanted to change that, it would be up to you guys if you wanted to change that in some way. Okay, one other question. The way this is written right now, if it's approved as written, is there any reason that it would automatically come back to Council after the feasibility study has been completed? I think that's what Michael and Billy are trying to say is once that feasibility study gets done, that's where we're stopping and that's where we're coming back to you. We've had these same conversations with STRAND as well that, you know, we're getting to this point, you don't have any authorization to move forward with anything, we bring the feasibility back and then you decide what we do going forward. Council Member Feigl, we actually have the dates that we would be coming back to the Council if you'd like those. I mean, we're going to be coming to the Planning Committee twice and to the full Council once for approval before we would go forward after the feasibility study. Then I guess I'm curious then why we're approving $1.6 million if the feasibility study is only $1.5 million? Why are we going ahead and approving the amount if you have to come back to Council for approval? Well, they have to come back to us before they go from one stage to the next. If you have a copy of the contract, that listing that you see, they would have to come to us to get permission in writing before they could go forward with the next stage. And as Mike said, you can cancel it with seven days' notice. If there's a procedural way to change this amount to $508,000, I think that's fine. That would be my inclination is to approve the $508,000 for the feasibility study. Is it appropriate for me to make that motion at this point? Yes, it would be appropriate to amend at this point. Okay. Well, then I would like to make the motion then that we approve, we amend this motion to change this figure to $508,000 to go forward with the feasibility study. I have a motion only to amend item number 31. Is there a second? Council Member McCord has seconded. Council Member Feigl's motion to amend item number 31. Any discussion on the amendment? Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. I can appreciate the caution that Council Member Feigl has announced here, but it seems to me completely unnecessary. It's been explained that in order to go forward beyond the feasibility study, a council will have to sign off on next steps. So I'm not going to support a motion that is an unnecessary, that adds an unnecessary step in this process. The cautionary note has already been implanted in the nature of the contract. Thank you, Mayor. Any discussion on the motion to amend? Council Member Feigl. I just wanted to make one other comment. I also wanted to just reiterate that I am very supportive of the distillery district project. I think it's a great thing for our city, but I do think that to approve this amount of money for something that we don't know what we're purchasing is a little troubling to me. We know that we can get the feasibility study for $508,000, but we have no idea what the rest of that funding is going to go for because the feasibility study is what's going to tell us what that money goes for. So I think it's premature to approve the entire amount. Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion to amend? Then let's proceed to vote on that. Madam Clerk, let's do so electronically. Those in favor of amending the resolution to change the amount to $508,000 in order to move forward with only the feasibility study, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay. And the motion fails, the amendment fails by a vote of four to nine. We're now back to the discussion of the resolution number 31. Anything further? Council Member Feigl? Vice Mayor Gray. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to make it clear as much as I can, again, why I am not voting for this. Number one, qualified or qualifications-based procurement is a significant process to engage. We are not accustomed to that process. Our government does not have the experience to base its commercial decisions. And it takes no more than looking at this contract and the numbers on this contract to see that. The original estimate included a percentage fee of 6.5%, which is a reasonable fee for engineering services for a scope contemplated like this. We are now about to pass on an engineering assignment that represents a fee of almost 12%. There was no price competition in this that I'm aware of. If I'm mistaken, then help me. I live in the world where, in the private sector, where this does not occur. And I understand that you all may be upset with me for saying that, Billy and Mike, but that is my experience. And my responsibility is to express that. When I finish, yes, sir, if that's appropriate, Mayor. Who wants to speak? I'm just saying. I'm sorry. I thought you wanted to finish first. I would like to. Okay. Go right ahead. So I hope that it's understood that this has nothing at all to do with any absence of respect for the work that you all do. I respect that. I respect the work of the committee. But in today's world, committing to a contract where we have asked the vendor what price they would like to have without competition is, to me, irresponsible. And I can't escape that. And that's why I am not in favor of doing this as much as I am fully in favor and have been for ever since this project was imagined in favor of the project. Thank you. Mr. Van Pelt. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to reiterate again that the reason that we did not use competitive pricing and that we used this selection process was to allow us to access state and federal funding in the future of the process, in the future of the project to reduce the cost to the LFUCG. Thank you. Well, let me ask another question while you're up, Billy. Do those requirements also suggest that we are to pay any price that is offered to us regardless of what that amount is? The requirements suggest that the fee be negotiated with the top qualified firm. Okay, right. So negotiated. The basis of negotiation, in my view, would be that we would have some benchmarks, some baselines. Those baselines would be the previous estimates or the estimates for the project, which were 6.5%. Did we ask Strand, can you do this project for 1.1 million? Can you do it for 6.5%? That in my world, that in my view would be negotiation. Did we ask anything like that? It was difficult to ask them for a fee of that nature, not knowing the full complexity of the feasibility study and the three alternates that we're asking for them to submit for approval of one, it would have been difficult. They would not even, no one would have assigned a fee to it. That's why qualification-based is based upon hourly rates and percentage of overhead markups and things of that nature. And I understand that. And I understand that they're going to bill that on the basis, they're going to bill you, your billings will be on the basis of reimbursable costs, hours, and this is a ceiling, right? I mean, this would be the 1,600,000, 1,659,000 would be a guaranteed maximum in a sense. I don't think that that can even be determined at this point, Vice Mayor, because the scopes, the design of where the trail is actually going to be going, the realignment of the roadway, all of those factors have to be calculated into the scope, and then the scope at that point, you can, at that point you can put this out and have a competitive bid on it. Well, and I think, I'll finish by saying that in my view, the feasibility phase of the work could also be competitively bid, that prices would be appropriate for that scope of work. That's in my view. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. And let me take two steps back, and I want to applaud Brian, you, and others, because about a year and a half ago, we had a long discussion about quality-based selection. In the engineering architectural world, there is professional services. We operate in a little bit different fashion than a lot of places, a lot of other municipalities, to our detriment, to the detriment of having competitive bids. Now, mind you, this was before the major recession, we got into this and so forth, and that does change a lot of dynamics, but when we sat, and I called that meeting, and we all sat in the fifth-floor conference room, and said that, you know, we want to move to this because of what Billy said. You open yourself up for a lot more resource when you abide by QBS. And so, one, I want to applaud you on moving forward on that. What I think this shows is the need for us to have that process in place to either adopt it as a government or not, and, you know, my sense is, or my feelings is, are that, you know, I support the distillery district. I think that, to Councilmember Feigl's point, what I would like to see is for us to put a hard stop at the end of the feasibility, which is already built in the contract, but to come back and say, this is what we're really looking at. This government cannot build the distillery district, or even the public portion of that. It just doesn't have the money to do it. If it's going to, if that public portion is going to be built, it's got to come from the federal government, from the state government, and I think that by using QBS, we are at least setting ourselves up to win long term. Short term, we've got a problem because our process is such that we've got something here that is causing a great deal of heartburn and conflict and so forth. So one, I just wanted to back up from all this and say thank you because we are moving our government to something that we are behind in. We don't have the expertise to really run QBS like we should, and I think that that's something that if someone wants to put that into committee and form that and start moving, I think that would help you tremendously. But I do appreciate what's going on, and it's not lost on me what the subtlety of this is. I have a little bit of heartburn of seeing $500,000 more for something, and so I think that that gives us an opportunity to learn from this and do something. But I did want to stop and applaud you all. And as we move forward, if this passes, I would say that we just reiterate to our folks that the sentiment of this council tonight was we're going to put the brakes on, and we need to have some value-based engineering where we're saving a lot of dollars. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. During the bid process, did the second firm have the same type of discussion about cost that you had with Strand? We shortlisted three firms, then we brought the three firms in for presentations. The presentations were based upon questions. The questions that we used, typically what we do is we ask for clarifications on the proposals. There's no use of rehashing the things that are in the proposals again. It's things that we want to have clarified. There was seven questions that were submitted to two of the firms. There was an eighth question added to the other firm, which was the third-ranked firm, about some clarification that we needed in their proposal. We only give them a brief window of time, and so therefore we don't want them to talk about things that we don't need clarifications on. So are the seven questions questions that you would typically ask of a firm when you're not doing the qualifications-based procurement, or were these new questions for you all? These were just clarifications based upon discussions that the committee had when they were shortlisted to the three. Things that they wanted to be further discussed. So I'm unclear, the two of them got seven questions, and those were the same questions? Yes. And then the third got eight questions, seven of which were the same, but the eighth was. And they all, and you had discussions on this cost formula, whatever the vice mayor was talking about, with all of them, or just one of them? This cost formula is really just the process that you go through. There's no cost discussed in this process. The process, the Brooks Act that was passed by Congress back in, I think, 1972, clearly defines that price cannot be used in a qualification-based selection at this point. You can only base it upon qualifications and capacity of the firm to do the work. And then once you get your shortlist, you interview those shortlists again. Then once you get your top three, you can only begin negotiations with number one. If you cannot come to a negotiated price with number one or those negotiations break down, you move to number two. Same thing with number two. Then you go to number three. And so that's, the price, the negotiations for price did not come into play until we had our final ranking and we had a number one that we felt was the most qualified. And so the law is you can only get costs from that. At that point, yes, until those negotiations would break down and then you would move on to the next one. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions with regard to item 31? Madam Clerk. Resolution number 31, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an engineering services agreement with Strand Associates Incorporated for the distillery district public improvements program, streetscape design, trail design and construction at a cost not to exceed $1,659,091. Number 32, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute lease agreements with Area Health Education Center, Blue Grass Community Action Agency, Legal Aid of the Blue Grass, LexCare, Lexington Fayette County Urban League, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, National Association for the Advanced of Colored People and West End Community Empowerment Program for use of space at the Black and Williams Neighborhood Center. Number 33, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute purchase of service agreements with Baby Health Services, $16,650, Big Brothers, Big Sisters, $9,520, Blue Grass Community Action Agency, $27,750, Blue Grass Domestic Violence Program Incorporated, $75,000, Blue Grass Rape Crisis Center, $69,380, Blue Grass Technology Center Incorporated, $2,780, Center for Women, Children and Families, $46,250, Chrysalis House Incorporated, $37,000, Blue Grass Comprehensive Care Center, $291,140, Community Action Council, $166,500, Hope Center Incorporated, $740,000, MASH Service of the Blue Grass Incorporated, $158,000, Moveable Feast Lexington, $37,000, Nursing Home Ombudsman Agency of the Blue Grass Incorporated, $46,250, Salvation Army, $200,000, and Sunflower Kids, $23,130 to provide services to the public at a cost not to exceed $1,946,350. Number 34, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Purchase of Service Agreement with Urban League of Lexington-Fayette County for supportive initiatives designed to enable African Americans and disadvantaged citizens to achieve social and economic quality at a cost not to exceed $61,510. Number 35, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Purchase of Service Agreement with Road to Home Ownership Incorporated for the provision of educational programs to economically disadvantaged and low to moderate income families at a cost not to exceed $29,660. Number 36, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Purchase of Services Agreement with Roots and Heritage Festival Incorporated for the 2010 Roots and Heritage Festival at a cost not to exceed $39,350. Number 37, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission for purchase of services for FY2011 at a cost not to exceed $166,960. Number 38, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute agreements with awarding Class A Neighborhood Grants for stormwater quality projects to the Gardens of Heartland Homeowners Association Incorporated, $36,565.31. Manithorpe Neighborhood Association Incorporated, $29,794. The Woodfield Homes Association Incorporated, $7,748.35. The Living Arts and Science Center Incorporated, $6,886. Friends of Wolf Run Incorporated, $5,000. And Friends of Wolf Incorporated, $5,000 at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. Thirty-nine, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with the Kentucky Department of Agriculture for the Senior Citizen Center to serve as a distribution site for the Farmer's Market Nutrition Voucher Program at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 40, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with ABDEC for a four-year lease and maintenance of a copier for the Senior Citizen Center at an annual cost not to exceed $3,430.56 and subject to sufficient funds being appropriated in subsequent fiscal years. Forty-one, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security for extension of the Portable Interoperable Communications Tower Project through December 31, 2010 at no cost to the Urban County Government. Forty-two, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a statement of compliance with the Commonwealth of Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for bridge posting requirements. Forty-three, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Fayette Fiscal Court and Sandra M. Varelis, Fayette County Judge Executive for the FY 2011 County Road Aid Fund Program for Fayette County. Number 44, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute change order number one to the contract with Precision Painting Company, Incorporated for exterior painting of the Phoenix Building, increasing the contract price by the sum of $7,550 from $47,445 to $54,995. Number 45, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute amendment number two to the contract with HDR Engineering, Incorporated, formerly Quest Engineers, Incorporated, for design of Citation Boulevard Phase III, increasing the contract price by the sum of $62,500 from $914,307 to $979,807. Number 46, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with OmniSource Integrated Supply LLC for inventory services at a cost not to exceed $20,000. Number 47, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute amendment number six to the contract with Nesbitt Engineering, Incorporated, for design of the Meadows-Northland-Arlington Public Improvements sub-phase 3C, increasing the contract price by the sum of $32,000 from $228,458.78 to $260,458.78. Number 48, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute amendment number three to the contract number 4150 with GRW Engineers, Incorporated, for additional design services on the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Project at an additional cost not to exceed $29,800. Number 49, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute change order number one to the contract with LM Partners Limited doing business as ATS Construction for the Lexington Streetscape Phase I South Limestone Project, decreasing the contract price by the sum of $9,295.01 from $13,146,557.19 to $13,137,262.18. And number 50, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Central Indiana Truck Equipment Corporation, a sole source provided for purchase of 16 Kyle Python Multipack Refuse Bodies not to exceed $161,358 each for a total cost of $2,581,728. Thank you very much. Are there motions? Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. In Tuesday's Budget and Finance Committee meeting, we discussed the RFP for the annual financial audit. Last year there were two bidders, one being our current auditor, which would be their fourth year auditing our FY 2010 books is what we are talking about. And we chose to stay with, the subcommittee chose to stay with Mt. Joy Chilton Medley. So Mayor, I move to place on the docket for tonight's meeting a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a letter of agreement and any other necessary documents with Mt. Joy Chilton Medley LLP for the performance of professional financial auditing services of all FY 2010 Urban County Government funds at a cost not to exceed $103,380. So moved. I have a motion by Council Member Stennett and a second by Council Member Blues to add that item to tonight's docket for first reading. Any discussion? Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Stennett, do you know if the additional information that we had requested that was not included in their proposal has been received by Purchasing? I see Brian coming forward. Yes, we got it on the 23rd and I emailed it to you. You may not have gotten it yet. Thank you very much. We did get it. Thanks. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mayor. Any further discussion on the motion to add that item to the docket? All in favor of adding that item, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed no. Motion carries. And that is item number 51. Council Member James, I overlooked you a moment ago, I'm sorry. That's okay. I have an additional item to add. I move to place on the docket under first reading a resolution approving the unclassified civil service appointment of Elishia Howard, eligibility counselor, grade 110E, $1,100.32 biweekly in the Division of Community Corrections, effective July 6, 2010. Do I hear a second? I have a motion by Council Member James and a second by Council Member Myers to add that resolution to tonight's docket. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed no. Motion carries. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on the docket a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a lease agreement with Community Action Council for lease of space at Carver Community Center. So moved. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Myers, seconded by Council Member Gordon to add that resolution to tonight's docket. Any discussion? All in favor? Council Member Mark. Mayor, I'm going to recuse myself from this vote. Thanks. Thank you. Your recusal is noted. All in favor of adding that item to tonight's docket, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. We'll add that as item number 53 and we'll add Council Member James' resolution as item number 52. Madam Clerk, if you could give first reading to all three items, please. Resolution number 51, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a letter agreement and any other necessary documents with Mount Joy Chilton Medley LLP for performance of professional financial auditing services of all FY 2010 Urban County Government funds at a cost not to exceed $103,380. Number 52, a resolution approving the unclassified civil service appointment of Raleeshia Howard, an eligibility counselor, grade 110E, 1132 biweekly in the Division of Community Corrections effective July 6, 2010. And number 53, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a lease agreement with Community Action Council of Lexington, Fayette, Berman, Harrison, and Nicholas Counties, Incorporated for the lease of space at the Carver Community Center located at 522 Patterson Street. Thank you. Are there any motions? Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to ask for a suspension of the rules and get second reading to number 52. Thank you. Is there a second? I have a second by Council Member Crosby, and there may be others. For a second reading, Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. I ask for a second reading on number 25, please. Thank you. Others? Council Member Lane. Yes, sir. I'd like to suspend the rules so I get a second read on resolution 44. Thanks. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. I neglected to add number 30. There were some time issues on number 30 that require a second reading tonight. Thank you. Any others? All right. I have a motion to suspend the rules for purposes of granting second reading to items 25, 30, 44, and 52. Did I miss any? Those in favor, suspended. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Can you read 52? It's not printed, so we know which one that is. That's the one involving Ms. Howard and appointing her. Okay. Thank you. All right. All in favor, suspending the rules for purposes of giving second reading to those resolutions, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Madam Clerk. Resolution number 25. A resolution accepting the bid of Morelia Design and Construction in the amount of $299,968.51 for the Maxwell Street sidewalk and bike lane project for the Division of Engineering and authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an unnecessary agreement with Morelia Design and Construction related to the bid. Number 30. A resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute certificates of consideration and other necessary documents and to accept deeds for property interests needed for the Isaac Murphy Memorial Art Garden Trailhead at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 44. A resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute change order number one to the contract with Precision Painting Company, Incorporated for exterior painting of the Phoenix Building, increasing the contract price by the sum of $7,550 from $47,445 to $54,995. And number 52. That was the walk-on. A resolution approving the unclassified civil service appointment of Relecia Howard, the Eligibility Counselor Grade 110E-1132 Bi-Weekly in the Division of Community Corrections effective July 6, 2010. Is there a motion to approve those resolutions? I have a motion by Council Member Lane and a second by Council Member Ellinger to approve those four items. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll proceed to vote. Those in favor of approving those four resolutions, please indicate by saying aye. Excuse me, I misspoke. Please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay electronically. And Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Ms. Feigl? Yes. Ms. Gorton? Aye. Mr. Gray? Yes. Ms. Henson? Yes. Ms. James? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Mr. Martin? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Yes. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Blues? Yes. And Ms. Crosby? Thank you. Thank you. Those resolutions are approved. The Chair recognizes Council Member Myers. Thank you, Madam, or thank you, Mayor. Sorry about that. I've been called worse today. I have too, matter of fact. The Administration has asked that we go ahead and ask for a second reading on the lease agreement with Community Action. I thought at first we were just going to wait until Tuesday since we have a meeting, but they want to go ahead and get that done. So in support of that, I make the motion to suspend the rules and give second reading to number 53. I have a motion by Council Member Myers and a second by Council Member Beard to suspend the rules to give second reading to item number 53. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to recuse from this vote. Thank you. Very well. If there's no, nothing further, those in favor of suspending the rules, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Madam Clerk. Resolution number 53 for second reading. A resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a lease agreement with Community Action Council of Lexington-Fayette, Bourbon-Harrison and Nicholas Counties, Incorporated for the lease of space at the Carver Community Center located at 522 Patterson Street. Do I hear a motion to approve? I have a motion by Council Member Myers, a second by Council Member Crosby to approve item number 53. Any discussion? I will note your recusal. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to say my wife is a consultant with the University of Kentucky and they are consulting with Community Action Council at this time and so it would be inappropriate for me to vote on this. Thank you. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll proceed to vote. Those in favor of approving item number 53, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay electronically and Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Ms. Feigl? Yes. Ms. Gorton? Aye. Mr. Gray? Yes. Ms. Henson? Yes. Ms. James? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Mr. Martin? I denote you disqualify. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Mr. Lewis? Aye. Ms. Crosby? Aye. Mr. Gray? Aye. Thank you. That resolution is approved. There is nothing further. We'll proceed to item 7 on the agenda, communications from the Mayor. A motion. Move approval. I have a motion by Council Member Gorton, seconded by Council Member Stennett to approve the communications from the Mayor. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Item 8 is for information purposes only. That takes us down to announcements. Are there any? Seeing none, we'll move. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. As a matter of housekeeping, there's a discussion today in the Special Investigation Committee meeting as to whether or not we had a final date on which we were supposed to execute our report. And after the meeting, after reviewing the tape from the meeting in which the motion was made to create this committee, or actually to ask the Vice Mayor to create the committee, Mr. Beard made the motion. He moved that we form an investigative committee to take up the question of reorganization and all other auxiliary or ancillary parts of, including the allegations of fraud. The Vice Mayor then inquired as to the time frame. Council Member Beard indicated that it would be by the first meeting after Labor Day, which is actually September 9th. Then Council Member Blues made a motion to amend that to include at least an interim report that would be provided by July 6th. Later on in the meeting, Council Member Vice Gray indicated that he understood that it was at a minimum an interim report. Council Member Blues repeated that it would be his intent that an effort would be made to conclude the process, but at a minimum to provide an interim report if it can't be concluded before the break. And then Vice Mayor Gray restated the motion including the amendment for an interim report before break. Council Member Stennant asked if it was July 6th and Council Member Beard stated in advance of July 6th. So as a matter of housekeeping, I would ask that the Vice Mayor go ahead and clarify in a memo to all Council Members that the final date for the Special Investigation Committee to release its final report is the first meeting after Labor Day, which is September 9th. And I don't know if I need a motion on that or not, but I don't think I do. The question is, you need a motion to ask him no. Okay, I don't need a motion, okay. So if the Vice Mayor could just provide that memo in writing, then we've got that settled. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to inform the Council that Council Member McCord and I will both be running in the Bluegrass 10,000 on Saturday. This will be our, for each of us, our 30th consecutive participation in that event. Between the two of us, we represent the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. I shall go no farther with that metaphor. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Lane. Yeah, I just want to make an inquiry. Before we extend the investigative committee through Labor Day weekend, I think it would be appropriate if the investigative committee give a briefing to Council Members as to the issues that require them to extend it through that date. That's what you're talking about. I misunderstood what you were saying, Mr. Myers. When we made the motion, we are giving a briefing with interim report on July 6th, and it's already been voted on and approved that we would terminate the activities on September 9th. So I don't know really what you're asking for, to tell you the truth. Okay. All right. Well, I misinterpreted what Council Member Myers said. I thought we were going to get a report out by June, July 8th or 6th or whatever date that was, and then we would know where we're going from there. That is not the case. Okay. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. Since Council Member Blues brought it up, I guess it's a matter of who's going to blink first between the two of us with this Bluegrass 10,000 Endurance event. But with that said, I want to invite all Lexington to come out to probably one of the best weekends and best events that we do in Lexington all year round, all of the 4th of July festivities, and all of the folks across LFUCG that make that possible, I want to just say in advance thank you, because I know it's going to be a very long weekend, but so many folks, you know, come in and enjoy everything from the race down to the fireworks. And so I would just encourage folks to come out and participate in something on July 3rd, having the 4th of July on the 3rd. And again, I appreciate everyone that has put forward their efforts to already make this a successful event, but, Mayor, I appreciate you and your staff and what we're going to see on Saturday. Thank you. Penny Ebel is in charge of special events in our office and has been working hard and had to make a lot of adjustments this year and seems to have made those well, so I hope you'll all come down and enjoy the day. Any further announcements? Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to follow with Council Member Myers. Council Member Myers has done a great job. He brought on Roger Crittenden, who is the judge of the Franklin Circuit Court, who knows as much about open records and open meetings as perhaps any Kentuckian alive. And so all those cases have gone through his court, so I think he's an excellent choice for there. And I appreciate Council Member Myers bringing the date back. It sort of occurred to me sometime as we were waiting during closed session that perhaps a clean-up date was important to put in, and I support, certainly I support the work and the efforts of Council Member Myers, and I appreciate the opportunity and sort of the effort to try to make sure that everything is clean on it, and so I appreciate the Vice Mayor as well. Thank you, Mayor. Any other announcements? Is there any public comment tonight? Does anyone wish to address the Council? Do I hear a motion to it? Second. Is there a motion by Council Member Stinnett, seconded by Council Member Crosby, to adjourn? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries.