so so so let's go ahead and call the work session to order if we could please um thank you my understanding is we need to have another public hearing on the urban services district so let's go ahead and call that to order does anyone wish to address the council on that topic seeing none we'll adjourn that public hearing and proceed to the work session agenda first item is public comment on any issues that are on today's agenda does anyone wish to address the council okay number two we have a docket to approve do we hear a second i have a motion by council member ellinger and a second by council member henson to approve the docket any discussion yeah i'm gonna do that now mr mayor there are two ordinances under first reading which will need to be decided if they need a hearing or not all right we can take that up now does anyone wish to um have a public hearing on either of those two ordinances if council member lawless thank you mayor um under ordinances for first reading number 18 um there has been a change in the wording um since it was passed by the planning commission and i've been advised by law that um we will have to have a public hearing on that it's an nd1 overlay in montclair um and i would suggest throw out the date of uh february 2nd at five o'clock or the end of our work session on february 2nd the note here indicates it has to be heard by january 26 oh it does i'm sorry i didn't get that well then how about uh tuesday january the 25th at five o'clock after work any objection to that date all right is there a motion then to have a hearing on that date yes sir and do i hear a second i have a motion by council member lawless and a second by council member blues to schedule a public hearing on item number 18 on january 25th following the work session correct council member thank you mayor um let's see bill sally is here i have a question um since this is a technical change of wording and it's my understanding everyone is on board with it do we have to have a full-blown blow-by-blow public hearing or can we simply you know have the meeting and someone present the changes and we vote on it my understanding i've not talked with anyone in the law department but my understanding was a public hearing was the only way to remedy this i don't know if anyone from from law is here that's familiar with it or not but the discussion and the portions could be limited to five minutes five minutes five minutes or whatever yeah i think the council can set time limits at the hearing okay thank you yeah council member lawless um these changes were made friday and i didn't find out about this issue until late last night and i did talk to rochelle a couple of times about this so thank you any further discussion on the motion that number 18 be scheduled for a public hearing on january 25th at the conclusion of the work session at five o'clock or um well would you rather say the conclusion of the work session or five i don't know if we have to have a time or i believe we have to have a time all right five o'clock all in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye opposed no motion carries is there a motion with regard to number 17 i hear a motion to be put on without a public hearing i make a motion to put on number 17 without a public hearing do i hear a second second by council member stennett to council member ellinger's motion that 17 be scheduled without a public hearing um any discussion all in favor say aye opposed no motion carries we're now back to the motion to approve the docket council member lane i think you had a motion to amend the docket thank you mayor i moved to place on the docket for the november 18 2010 council meeting the following items one a resolution approving the amended 2010 general term order for the fayette county sheriff and the fayette county clerk and two a resolution approving the 2011 general term order for the fayette county sheriff and the fayette county clerk so move second have a motion with council member lane second with council member martin any discussion all in favor of amending the docket to include that matter please indicate by saying aye aye opposed no motion carries we're now ready to discuss the docket as amended any further discussion all in favor of approving the amended docket please indicate by saying aye opposed no motion carries item three is the approval of the november 9th summary do i hear a motion is there a second is there a second second i have a motion by council member beard and a second by council member gordon to approve the november 9th summary any discussion all in favor say aye opposed no motion carries we have a few budget amendments to consider today is there a motion move approval i have a motion by council member gordon and a second by council member ellinger to approve the budget amendments any discussion council member since these are funds coming over from this fiscal year um can we have a uh a copy of all the grants that these uh budget amendments are are funding or will fund if we receive them for each category can we get a list of those thank you mr barrow if you'll take care of that for council member stinted i'd appreciate it any further discussion all then in favor of approving the budget amendments please say aye opposed no motion carries we're ready now to under to take under consideration the new business items move approval have a motion to council member gordon second by council member blues to approve the new business items any discussion all in favor say aye opposed no motion carries i think we're ready for the quarters commission uh report but uh council member beard will be giving that thank you mayor um quarters commission meeting uh met on november 9th we did not have a quorum so we could not actually uh take any formal action we did discuss though several things uh the fy 11 budget allocations not only as for existing projects but project maintenance is requested in the next draft budget allocation include funds for to maintain several existing projects projects council member martin suggested that mr query and the tree board offer their assistance regarding determining the appropriate funding levels to maintain existing projects council member martin stated that he thought the commission should allocate funds to maintain existing projects and delete or reduce any new projects until maintenance is uh is done uh tim query stated that m2d is working with the landscape vendor to develop a short-term and long-term maintenance plan for for sales road i brought up the allocation that had previously been made for landscaping short street uh taking somewhat exception to the fact that short street is uh a long stretch not a not a corridor but um council member blues had uh quite the opposite uh opinion on that not that it was a not a quarter but they thought that the landscaping as relates to across from the opera house needed to happen um we also discussed the allocation support of the new town pike art and motion bus bus and art shelter and there seemed to be a general support for this allocation mr query also discussed at this point the ash borer treatment project for the public who has not been following this uh the emerald ash borer will kill so it is estimated 500 000 trees in fayette county and um i cannot imagine what 500 000 less trees in fayette county is going to make us look like but we need to stay on top of finding something to replace those if we can't uh stop the emerald ash borer and it's expensive to try to stop it and uh we then invited kensi gleason to the microphone and uh we discussed uh council member martin discussed the southland drive pedestrian and bicycle project meeting adjourned at 11 50 thank you mayor thanks any questions for council member beard all right council member james if you'll bring the intergovernmental committee report please thank you mayor um committee or council members pages 24 through 27 um are it are the minutes from the or the summary from the intergovernmental committee um there were no action items to come forward to the full council um so i'll just ask that you refer to um the summary for updates on the committee thanks man any questions for council member james i thought i saw mr van pelt here just a moment ago all right um i apologize mayor he'll be right back all right i think in your packet you have a copy of the powerpoint presentation which you went to go retrieve and uh as well as a map um which gives you an update of the pdr farms that are in the program well i'll tell you what while we're waiting for him to return and um getting the presentation loaded up let's go ahead and do as many council reports as we can getting the presentation loaded up let's go ahead and do as many council reports as we can and then we'll pick back up if if there are council members who wish to wish to make a report let's go ahead and get that process rolling council member martin thank you mayor uh this evening at the uh rosa parks elementary school uh the beaumont neighborhood association is having their annual meeting neighbors are encouraged to come out and attend they need a third of the of the all the members to be present for a quorum so we hope everybody will drop by and and vote for your board member or officer and also i mayor i just want to make a a quick comment i have been working on on on my road list as everybody else has and uh the streets and roads told me that they might actually get some more roads done so i'm going to try and get that into them but i think for the benefit of my other council members i i came up with i have about three hundred thousand dollars to to take care of these so i'm uh for roads that are average about 45 on our scale of 100 uh we only have allocated less than half of the amount needed to even keep up with the ones in the 40s and so i urge our my fellow council members to to consider uh allocating additional funds this year uh for for paving of the roads thank you mayor council member beard thank you mayor uh two uh things first uh lands down neighborhood association meeting at seven o'clock on next monday and then uh move approval of their ndf list for this week i have a motion by council member beard second by council member gorton to approve the ndf any discussion all in favor say aye aye all opposed no see any other council member wish to report all right um i will tell you i don't have oh i don't have a report council member lawless uh just quickly the mentel park neighborhood association is hosting its annual fall meeting tonight at 7 p.m at the ashland elementary school they will be electing officers at their annual meeting and everybody is welcome to attend thank you thank you any further council reports all right any does anyone wish to comment to the council on matters not on today's agenda all right we're moving right along here um do we want to send out a search party for is he is he all right uh i tell you what let's go ahead and do the closed session as mr askew is here he went to get mr van veld um if let me see if we get do we have okay do i hear a motion we go into closed session i haven't i haven't have them um mayor yes i move that we go into closed session pursuant to krs 61.8101c for the purpose of discussing pending litigation i have a motion but council member james second by vice mayor gray all in favor of going into closed session please say aye opposed no motion carries and for the benefit of those of you who are leaving so thank you and thank you for your patience we're here today for the 2010 PDR update I know you've received the PowerPoint in your packet and we're most happy to announce that we are at over halfway to our goal of 50,000 acres by the year 2020 and as you can see we're at 25,344 acres also draw your attention to the Excel spreadsheet that you received in your packet this information is required by the ordinance for you to see each year during our update okay he's working on it are there any questions before we get started we have several board members here today we have Marianna Moore Neighborhood Council representative Debbie long the historic preservation historic preservation representative and Kristen Clark Fayette County Farm Bureau and Margaret Graves who has the chair of the Rural Land Management Board and has been since its inception so we'll get started as I mentioned we're at over 50% of our goal by 50,000 acres by 2020 and I don't think there's any question that our rural landscape is our global brand identity you've seen some of these statistics before it's our rural landscape is the unquestioned base for our equine general agriculture industry and all of its related infrastructure and services PDR protects the factory floor of the horse industry we were the successful host of the games but also the we have an equine cluster here that supports the equine industry that we see and all of its ancillary industries such as equine vets and architects and insurance agents and people that make feed for the horses and all of those services landscaping services it just kind of goes on and on because of the rural landscape we have here it's created an equine cluster our tourism industry 1.6 billion dollar a year industry as of 2007 with over 23,000 jobs associated with the tourism industry I think it's very interesting the last point six over 60% of tourists that visit Lexington they visit it to see its farms during the 1996 expansion of the urban services area we expanded by 5,400 acres there was a significant amount of 10 acre lot development between 1990 and 1998 we lost over 4,700 acres of our farmland to 10 acre lot development if you look at your map you can see some of those small lots indicated and there were a lot of suburban intrusions with traffic on rural roads and people and animals and others trespassing onto adjacent farming operations if we took 4,700 acres and put it inside New Circle Road we could have gotten 20,000 typical residential lots but instead we got 429 so the rural service area land management plan was created to respond to the 10 acre lot development the goals of the program to purchase conservation easements on 50,000 acres out of 128,000 in that horseshoe that you see around the urban services area to protect the ag and equine economies as we said and to protect our sense of place it is a voluntary program the landowners that are eligible have to have 20 acres to participate and we use a fair objective ranking system that's outlined in the ordinance the major components of the program the ordinance adopted by the council in 2000 the board that oversees the operation of the program and our ranking system and funding these are the board members and the groups that they represented it it is a broad cross-section of the community and this is the same cross-section that came together in the mid-1990s that worked on the rural service area land management plan that plan gave two major recommendations one was to go from a 10 acre minimum to a 40 acre minimum and the other was to implement a purchase of development rights program these are some of the things that the board does we meet on a monthly basis all of our meetings are open we meet on the 12th floor in the conference room and our meetings are usually the first Monday of the month at 3 o'clock and we welcome any and all of you to attend the ranking system is heavily weighted towards agriculture geared primarily to acreage road frontage soil quality and ag improvements it's also geared heavily towards environmental factors such as watersheds scenic resources historic cultural assets and reconsolidation of some of those farms that were platted prior to the moratorium in August of 1998 but we also give minus points we don't want to create the the emerald choker around the urban services area so if you'll notice on your map I think there are only about four easements that touch the urban services area and we want to allow for an expansion at the at the right time and in the right place so it's not a program that prohibits growth how do we determine the value of the easement we do a before and after comparison we also have it reviewed by someone that's on the state appraisers board before it is considered by the Rural Land Management Board funding this is perhaps the most important slide of all the the LF you see G has invested twenty eight million dollars twenty eight million seventy two thousand but we've received thirty three million five hundred twenty two thousand and matching grants so we've we have a one-to-one match on the twenty eight million and a two-to-one match on the five point four million we've we've tried to do more with less as we all have over the last few years as you can see the adopted budgets that are listed there we've decreased our operating expenses by a hundred and sixty two thousand dollars annually but since FY 08 PDR also makes good economic sense because farmland contributes more in tax dollars than it receives in public services this was a cost of community services analysis that was done in 1999 by the American Farmland Trust and farmland uses about 93 cents in services as of 1999 for every dollar it pays whereas other types of development uses a dollar sixty four in services for every dollar it pays this is the breakdown of the farms in the program 226 farms with 36 donated easements on just over 1,600 acres 121 equine 92 general lag I don't think we should get hung up too much on the types of farms because the important thing here is that we're protecting the land agriculture will continue to evolve over time these farms will likely change in their types of operations but at least we have protected the land in the next round the filing deadline was June 30th of 2010 there were 39 applications on 3200 acres and the initial ranking and final ranking are complete some other places that we've been compared with are listed here I don't think any of us would argue with the fact that Sonoma Marin and Napa counties all represent the wine industry so they have a global brand they understand protecting that brand they've been at it a lot longer than we have some of these programs have been in place for 30 years so we have some good company there it's also a global issue these are other countries that have farmland preservation programs around the world where there's a big sort of pressure point between growth and farmland preservation and it's also an issue because countries that don't have enough productive farmland are purchasing farmland from countries that do and those the wealthier countries are doing that buying the land from the countries that aren't as wealthy and there are 90 investment funds globally that invest in productive farmland and the two last bullet points about China and just our overall agricultural output in the future I think are pretty sobering so the 10 benefits of the program we've already talked about a lot of these but I think encouraging infill and redevelopment within the urban services area and supporting the reduction of our carbon footprint protecting our watersheds retaining a good bond credit rating communities that have a very strong vision for who they are and where they're going have a much better credit rating and communities that have sprawl and we want to protect that land for the future any questions yes councilmember beard really good are you ever presented with the idea of somebody wanting to cut their farm up into parcels and say you can have parcel one three four and six or and we'll keep the old homestead and where the barns and paddocks are well when someone applies to the program we do have farms where if there's a 200 acre farm the owner may only want to conserve or put 150 acres in the program and retain 50 acres separately an example would be if there is an owner where there's an equine operation and the owners concerned that if that if he passes away he doesn't want his spouse to be saddled with the rest of the farm though he would give her the opportunity to sell off the 150 acres and then she would retain the house and 50 acres does that answer your question yes it does thank you councilmember Stenner Thank You mayor Billy thank you always enjoy getting these updates every year the programs obviously has had some efficiencies the last couple years so we appreciate that given our budget woes but a couple questions I have for you one how what do you what is the board doing and what are you doing to balance obviously PDR has a positive impact in many ways but also as we've seen in Boulder Boulder Colorado it has a negative impact at times when PDR doesn't go hand-in-hand with the infill infill and redevelopment efforts and other efforts to control growth so how are you all working to balance that because obviously we don't want to create such a boundary that prices of real estate inside our urban core rise so much that we can't afford them but what are you all doing do you all have someone with an affordable housing background on your board as well well when the program was implemented the thought was that we want to preserve our farmland to attract people and businesses here so we want to have that brand so people want to move here businesses want to come here people from all socio-economic backgrounds want to live in Lexington so from that point you know we will we want to get the people to move here but yes we have to have housing you know we have over 9,000 acres of available land inside the existing urban services boundary for development so I think that we've seen the product we see infill and redevelopment downtown in terms of workforce housing or affordable housing you know I think we could certainly work on a program that's modeled off of the PDR program in terms of assembling blocks of land of that 9,000 or more acres and putting that together and reselling it to a developer who would want to build workforce housing I think that's a great idea and we would certainly support that if there's a way to design a system that we acquire land strategically to do that I think we could come up with a similar point system and when you're working on the awarding the contracts when do you begin to offer contracts well we we don't start the process until we have a budget that's been approved by the council okay and just in a real short time frame what we do we get an application as I mentioned we've already gotten all of the round 10 applications so those will just sit there until July 1 of next year everybody knows where they're ranked when someone applies and they get their ranking and then once we have an approved budget then we look at which how many farms can we appraise how many can we afford but we start conservatively and if we think we can afford 15 we may appraise the top five and see how much those are and then if we get accepted offers then we'll appraise another three or five and we just sort of proceed in that manner so your assumption is that as soon as the budget is approved in June that July 1 you start offering contracts out there every year since the PDR program was implemented the general fund has advanced the acquisition of conservation easements until any bonds are sold and then when the bonds are sold the general fund is reimbursed and what would happen if we never sold those bonds but what did the contract say if we don't sell the bonds we're in a town like we are now in and I wasn't here for the bond discussion last week but I was here for the council meeting and I want to mention the fact that we've already recognized as a government we've recognized the revenue for the FY 11 the current fiscal year's federal match grant so we we that went through as a budget amendment to recognize that two million dollar grant from the feds so that that two million in the budget was the local match for the federal grant that you all have already recognized so you've already recognized the revenue from the feds and the bond funds that were in the budget they were part of the approved budget we knew that we were going to have bonds to provide the two million for the PDR program so I guess you know do we do we have an approved budget on July 1 I think that's the assumption that the board is operating off of that's something that probably will need discussion because that's not how it is the bonds until they're sold you can't spend that money we have that same policy across government we do we have an order of firetrucks this year we haven't done things for public safety because again we haven't issued the bonds so that's an administrative decision that this council needs to look at closely because it ties our hands when we have other critical needs out there and I'm not saying PDR where they fall on that list but we have other needs that we are not bonding on purpose because we've approved bonds in 0809 and 010 that we still haven't bonded yet that we still haven't proceeded with those projects even though they were budget approved we haven't proceeded and that's a major thing we need to discuss this so just keep that on your radar as we're applying for federal assistance maybe we need to change the process with PD on how we're funding it and timing that that's okay I'm just saying we need to look at that because no one else in government has that authority even though we passed the budget until that bond sold they're not ordering these this equipment for public safety etc so we need to really look at that and that's that was my point to ask you that sure but you didn't answer the question what specifically says in the contract with the PDR owners what happens if we don't bond it either party can demand performance I mean is it in the contract because we weren't clear the other night it was in there or not and let me just again reiterate that every year that the PDR program has been in operation the general fund has pre funded the easement acquisition and we were not aware of anything being different than any other year and this is something that I've kept a very open line of communication with Commissioner Runke from the beginning and we haven't done anything different this year and we've done in any other year so I think from from our standpoint and and I'm you know I'm glad we're having this conversation we have an approved budget by the council we have a budget amendment that's been approved by the council recognizing two million dollars in matching grants from the feds it's already been passed by the council so from our perspective once we have an approved budget and we have an approved budget amendment recognizing that federal match the local match is there from our perspective why would we approve a budget amendment to recognize a federal matching grant if we weren't going to provide the local funds well again we've approved a lot of bonds in our budgets the last three cycles that we haven't bonded yet and those projects have not moved forward some of which are in public safety which would I guarantee if you put the vote out to the public it consider those bonds a lot more important than buying farmland Thank You mayor well and I just want to make sure for the public we're not buying the land we're just buying a restriction on the land councilmember Alex and actually those are the questions and I was going to ask I just wanted to know I just get to follow up and I think you answered but if we had not gone ahead with that bonding in our workshop on on Thursday what was going to be in the performance of those contracts and what were the conditions on those contracts well I'm not an attorney our chair is an attorney and it basically it says that either party can seek specific performance of the terms of the contract and you know just very candidly we have we've had a relationship with our federal funding partner now since 2001 and they've awarded this program 18 million dollars so before we go forward I think we and before we jeopardize any credibility that we have with them I think we need to take a long hard look at you know do we have an approved budget you know we have we've recognized the agreement we've recognized the revenue from the federal match and I don't know I think we're jeopardizing the credibility of the program if we adopt budgets and adopt and and pass budget amendments and then back out councilman Senate and councilman Ellinger we would be happy to sit down and talk talk with you in more detail about the process for making easement offers and the landowners acceptance we we make those offers based on an appraisal and then the landowner has a certain time period to accept or reject or counter offer and then once we have a signed contract we are legally obligated to proceed to closing so what what I hear you saying is quite different than the way that we have been operating to date and if we need to look at changing that we can sit down and and talk about it but under up until this time as soon as we knew that our budget was approved we proceeded under the understanding that those funds would be available and we could proceed to make those offers and and to enter into those contracts if what you're saying is we need to change that then let's sit down and talk about it but that's not the way we've been doing it what we've been doing it is based on approved budget making offers entering into contracts we'd be happy to provide you with a copy of that contract so you understand exactly what the terms are but you know if there are things you would like us to look at we want to work with you but we but we have been operating this way for 10 years and had a great deal of federal matching money and state matching money provided to the program I think that's probably is important that we we look at this process because I know Thursday we were looking at not doing any of the bonding funding any of those and send those to market just because of the financial economic issues that we're in right now and yours program and a couple others went on and went through and one of the reasons that we did is because we said they were under contract and I think that's what we need to decide what we mean we say they're under contract and when that actually does become final on when that contract is going to be executed because I think what how we've done it with the other things is looked at you know we were going to do the project if we go ahead and do the bonding and if we go to the market there's a there's a lot of things that we have just like we say with the firetrucks that we decided not to go through with that right and generally the PDR bonds yeah we did generally the PDR bonds have been a small portion of a much larger bonding project and we're just a small portion of that we don't control the timing of that so we but we would be happy to work with the Commission of Law and the Commissioner of Finance to to address that issue the federal the federal program has also changed some of their deadlines and that sort of thing so we've had to adjust to that as well I think it'd be beneficial because when we were in that meeting on Thursday we weren't quite sure what at that point we could or couldn't do yeah when we're under once we've offered a contract and it's been signed then we've legal legally obligated ourselves to buy that conservation easement so I think the council probably needs to sit down with you all and discuss that so we both have a meeting the minds on that sir thank you councilmember blues thank you mayor I certainly agreed with councilmember Stanek councilmember elder that that we that we do need to review the process if if we're not certain there that we're not all on the same page before we go forward with with considering FY 12 budget in the in the next several months one of the things we do have to remember however is that unlike other other budget items where there's going to be a lag time between the the the budgeting and then the the authorizing of this of the sale of bonds is that with other things we don't know that and in fact we we we we don't even expect that we're going to get match grant funding so it's imperative that when when when this council approves let's say a two million dollar budget item that we all understand that this that this is bringing in matching funds and that that strikes me as a serious obligation to follow through with the you know with the bonding so that has to be part of this discussion as well in addition to the fact that what we're talking about with PDR is a major economic development engine for this for this community and PDR what we all have to recognize is is that it has really transformed in many ways this economy and the policies of this of this government thank you mayor councilmember Gord thank you mayor well councilmember blues said some of the things I was going to address the matching money and the economic engine I did knowing that many people eventually watch our meetings I didn't want to clarify something councilmember Stennett said we were buying farms we are not buying farms we are buying the development rights which those farms give up their right to develop but they still own their farm the government does not own their farm and I think it's important for the public to know that that is actually what we're buying I personally think that it would be interesting to and I look forward to the discussions that we'll be having but it would be interesting to look at how many other industries have this same economic impact on our county it would be a very interesting comparison and we'll work to provide that information and then I think the other thing that we need to be working on as a council is looking at these are basically I see them as incentives for businesses the farms are businesses they have a product they have an economic impact so I think as a council we should be I think as a council, we should be also looking at incentives for other types of businesses, particularly those in town. And we have had some beginning conversations about that, but we have not gone forward with any of that. And to me, all of our businesses are important. And if we segregate out one segment of our economy and say, it's not that important, we don't need to do this program, I think we need to look at all of our business and look at it in totality. So thanks for your presentation. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. Billy, at what point do we have to accept the grant money? That's offered and then we match it, correct? Well, you know, I've never had that question, and I'll see if there's a restriction in our agreement and get that information to you. Because I was just curious. Sure. If we obligate ourself to that grant, then we're obligated, correct? Right. So we couldn't say, well, we're going to bond it, but then back out. And just to clarify, a million of the two million was a bond that was approved in the last fiscal year. What is the, once we reach our goal, what, okay, and this may have been in the information, I'm sorry, but how many years is it going to be before we reach 100%? Before we reach 50,000 acres? Right. Well, hopefully in 10 years. 20 years. Yeah, it's a 20-year program in the ordinance. And we've been at it for 10 years. That's correct. And our total cost would be? For the entire, I mean, basically you could double it and say it's $122 million from all sources, local, state, and federal. We spent $61 million to date, local, federal, and state. Yeah. And how much of that was the local dollars? $28,072,000. So I know that to a lot of folks that seems like a lot of money. Right. But, I mean, this is something that's going to last a lifetime. And the bonds that were sold at the beginning of the program are, you know, if they were 20-year bonds, they're half paid off. So, you know, we're paying our bonds down as we go. I just, you know, I have to believe that this is an investment in our identity, that it's something we need to continue to do. And, you know, because once it's gone, it's gone for good. And I appreciate very much how efficiently you have operated this program. You know, I'm worried, too, about our infrastructure. We're running behind on paving streets and, you know, but it's like kind of robbing your child's college fund to get the car repaired. Something like that is the way I see it. The PDR being the college fund. So I know it's hard times, but I still think this is a good investment. So I appreciate your work. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question for Mr. Askew. Yes, our first question is who legally has the authority to sign a contract for LFECG? Well, it would be the mayor. Can you? But the contract is not, I believe in this instance, I believe that the council has authorized this board to execute contracts. I believe that's correct. There's actually an ordinance in place that deals specifically with this program. But I would need to check that. Okay. Can you check on that for me? And then also, I guess, are any other contracts signed or money spent before bonds are actually sold? Because I know we've had conversations here where we were getting ready to do something, approve something, and we've been told we can't approve it because the bonds have not been sold. I'm probably not the right person to ask. I really don't know. But let me make this suggestion. Given the questions that have been raised, it might be helpful for us to visit and report back to you about the contract, what's in place, the contract that we have with the federal government, and those kinds of things. And then we can report back. We'd be happy to visit with Billy and Ms. Graves and Mr. Askew and get back with you. Any questions you all have about that, we'll look into it. Okay. Thank you. Real briefly, will Thursday night be, Ms. Askew, would you be able to do that by Thursday maybe, or is that too soon? We can be ready Thursday night. I can't speak for everybody else's schedule, but we'll try to have a report back to you Thursday night. It would be helpful if we knew exactly what it was. I've been following the discussion. I think I understand what the questions are that you all have raised. But if there are any questions, if you could submit those, we'll try to answer all of them at one time. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member James. Thanks, Mayor. I don't know who my question is for. I had emailed Billy. I think I emailed you the night that we were having the meeting. You did, and I thought that had been resolved. No, we never got a contract. All I was asking for was the copy of the contract for us to review for the wording. But just so that you all know, the Fayette County Rural Land Management Board is an instrumentality of the LFUCG. I'm sorry, Billy, I only have a certain number of minutes. Okay, go ahead. And you can do that afterwards. A little bit more, can you describe purchase of development rights? And I've sat in on the rural land management. I've met with Margaret. I've met with Knox. I've talked with you. And does purchase of development rights, does that keep it from ever being developed, or does it give the government the ability to determine how it's developed? So would there ever be an opportunity for the government, since we've used our dollars along with other federal and state dollars, to be able to say we are now realizing we are in need of, say we reach our peak with those 9,000 square miles within the inner core, and we now need to do something. Do we have the right to then come in and say we need everything we've purchased the development rights to, we need to be able to do something with that at this point? Well, that's one of the reasons we have negative points, is we're not butting up against the urban services area, because we know there's going to be an expansion in the future. It's a matter of when, where, and how. So in that regard, the ordinance addresses that issue. But let's say that there's a situation where there's an easement that touches the urban services area, and there's an expansion in that direction. So if you look at your map, there's one on Old Frankfort Pike. And there is a provision in the ordinance that allows for extinguishment after a certain period of time. So if federal funds are involved, for example, it's 30 years. But that landowner would have to come back and put another farm in the PDR program of like acreage somewhere in the county. It's a no net loss provision. So the 50,000 acres could change in terms of how that looks and how the green appears on your map. So if that were to happen, then we would have to shift that 274 acres somewhere else under conservation. Does that answer your question, Council Member? Would it have to be outside of the urban service boundary? It does have to be. Well, our program is only outside the urban service area. Has it ever been discussed that we look at trying to do any preservation of land in the urban areas? I think there's a green space trust in place, and that is administered in the Division of Planning. I'm not exactly sure what the status of it is, but I know that there's a green space trust for that purpose. Okay. And I guess, I don't know, would they deal with farming? Or do they only just the green space? I don't think we would preserve farmland inside the urban services area, because that's land that's already been slated for development. If it's inside the urban services area, we've already said we're going to provide services. It's going to be developed. Only by zoning, right? Right. So taking that on the reverse, then why wouldn't it be that we would just use zoning for the PDR area as opposed to paying for the rights? Because the zoning can change with eight votes on a Thursday night. I mean, we could go back to a ten-acre minimum. We could, you know, the Council could vote to do away with the urban services boundary. But the fact is the conservation easements are there, and they run with the title of the land. Zoning can change, you know, on any Thursday night. Is that bad? Is it bad for zoning to be able to be changed by a majority of the people? It's not my position to make that judgment one way or the other. Okay. All right. Thanks. That's all I have. Thank you, Mayor. Sure. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Mayor Newberry. Thank you, Billy. I just wanted to ask if this year, as I recall from our committee, the Budget Link Committee, this is the first time or one of the few times that we actually knew up front what the match was going to be. Is that correct? Yes, you are correct. We knew in advance what the allocation was going to be for the PDR program, and we worked with Council Member Crosby's link, and the whole reason that the council approved $2 million for the PDR program during the council link process was because we knew that we were getting the $2 million match. You're exactly right. And back to the first part of the question, is this the first time that's happened? Or out of 10 years, what would be the first time? One or two. So we have funded this program without even knowing what? That's correct. A budget's been passed, and we've applied for the money and hoped to get it. But I think that this year, particularly, knowing that we had the federal match in place helped. Do you foresee that being something that we will know again up front prior to our budgeting process? Yes. Because I think actually this year it was much easier than maybe in years past to go through, because we actually knew how to budget for it. But I don't disagree with many of my colleagues, and I'm not just going to say PDR. I would say globally this is maybe an opportunity to be able to open the lines of communication with not just you all, but many programs that we fund and look at how we're funding and the sources and what level we can continue to do things at. But I just wanted to point out if this was the first time or if that was something we've been doing in previous years. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. Of course, I represent the 12th District where many of the PDR dollars are invested. I just wanted to remind council members that this is one of the few economic development grants that we have in the rural area of Fayette County. And if you consider that we've done three TIF programs here in Fayette County. We just redid the Lyric Theater to help in renovation over on the east side of town. We just did streetscapes on Vine, Main and Limestone to help revitalize the downtown area. So I think that investing $2 million compared to the other millions we've invested in other parts of our community is a very reasonable amount. Now, having said that, I will agree with Council Member Stennett. You know, money is very tight. And so all of our council members are looking at how we're investing the money and under the circumstances that we're in. And I would just like to say, being a real estate guy also, that these real estate deals take months to put under a contract. There's a lot of appraisals and evaluations and comparing one form versus another, doing the rankings and all that. It's not something you can just get the money and then issue the contract the next day. You have to do a lot of research and negotiation in the process. So I think we probably would not be discussing this today, except that our finances at Fayette County are very, very tight. But I believe that we have to keep in mind this is a very important program. And in addition, for each dollar we put in, we're going to get a dollar from the federal government. We're basically making an economic injection into our farmland in the amount of $4 million this year, which will help the farmers and the people that own Inquan Farms there too, cattle farms, all kinds of farmers can reinvest that money into their business and strengthen our agribusiness here in Fayette County. Those are just a few of the thoughts I had as your representative for the 12th District. I'd like maybe to say I've got a couple of minutes left. Mr. Braves or Mr. Van Pelt, if you want to add a few comments, that would be great. Thank you, Council Member Lane. I just want to say for clarification purposes, the Fayette County Rural Land Management Board, Incorporated, is an instrumentality of the LFUCG. Its articles of incorporation are filed at the Secretary of State's office. It was empowered by the council in 2000 to implement the PDR program in a nonpolitical way so that it didn't look as though any council or any administration was having say in the easements that were being acquired. So that's why the board was given that authority to enter into contracts with other governmental agencies, with private entities, and all of that is in the ordinance, which is on our website. Thank you, Council Member Lane. I just wanted to address Council Member James' question about why could we do this with just zoning. And as the chair of this board for the past 10 years and a very avid advocate for it preceding that, it's very important to understand what we're gaining when we buy a conservation easement. With zoning, zoning is very important, and it's critically important to the success of this community, and Lexington-Fayette County has been a leader in land use planning for over 50 years. But zoning can change, and it can change with the vote of a council or a planning commission. When you buy a conservation easement, that farmer who enters into that agreement is permanently agreeing to restrict the use of their farm to agriculture. So it doesn't change. It's reserved for agricultural use in perpetuity, and that's the intent of the program, and that's why it can't be accomplished with just zoning. And that's part of the value of this program beyond just the economic development. So I just wanted to clarify that one point. We are going to meet with the Commissioner of Law and the Commissioner of Finance to answer your questions about the timing. Thank you very much. I would like to add just one more thought. There is a silver lining in our acquisition of the development rights, because if you look at our financial statement, you will see, I'm not sure the exact amount, but I think it's somewhere around $40 million in development rights that are shown on our balance sheet as an asset of the Durham County government. And so, you know, when we invest in these, we actually own the rights, and they become a part of the assets of our local government. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I do have some degree of heartburn with my fellow council members over our shortage of funds. This is just a desperate economic time for us. We don't have enough funds to keep with our roads and infrastructure, and the 2011 budget is going to be dire. There's no question about that. I think that although we have put PDR in our budget and the good intentions that it represents, I think the real pressing problem is that we're maybe for the first time in a very long time possibly going to be running out of bonding authority or running up to a position where our bond rating will be downgraded because of the amount of bonds we have outstanding because of the financial condition of the city. So we want to, I think, keep in closer contact with the rural land management board in these difficult times. But I think the importance of PDR, as I see it, is in the map that you brought to us. And I think the question is, are we going to allow Fayette County to turn into baby farms and these higher density residential developments? Because once that happens, as you all said, it's gone. And so there's very important interests that are in balance here. And so I think I guess the point I'm trying to make is that while we go through this time of difficult economic conditions, I think we have to work together and maybe coordinate more closely than we have in the past on how we and when we issue these bonds so that we can maintain the financial integrity of the city while also doing and helping you to do the good things that you do. So I think it's going to be a time of closer coordination and closer communication. Obviously, I don't want to see, you know, Fayette County and our horse industry and the agricultural industry that brings us fresh produce for farmers, market, and things like that, go away to someplace else. And so this is, just for the public to understand, this is sort of what we're talking about is, are we going to allow our rural land to become so dense in terms of small lot sizes and residential lots that our horse industry ends up going someplace else because it's just too much density. So it's a very real thing that's at stake. But we all just have to work together and balance these very real interests, our financial needs with this program. Thank you, Mayor. Do you have any comments? I think that I agree that the key to the program is acquiring critical masses of contiguous farmland. And as you can see on the map, we are, those masses are coming together. We have 11 blocks that are over 1,000 acres of contiguous farmland, and that's what's going to keep the ag industry here. And we're just trying to preserve 50,000 out of 128,000, which is about 27% of the county. Council Member Wallace. Thank you. About knowing you had the grant this year when you came, because I was part of that link also, I think it's fair to say that in prior years, even when you didn't know the exact funding you would get, there's never been a case that even though it was put in the budget that you didn't get the funding, yet the amount that you were, like, you got 1 million instead of the anticipated 2 million that we bonded 2 million. We've only matched the grants that you were hoping to get, is that correct? Yes, ma'am. The other thing I wanted to say is I think a lot of people, because we're known for our horse industry and, you know, equine thoroughbred farms, that a lot of people don't realize that that's just a very small portion of our agricultural community and that this isn't about giving wealthy horse thoroughbred horse farms money not to develop. It's a lot of family farms, cattle, produce, other kinds of agricultural products that these farms are used for. And so I think that that's really important for the general public, because that's often what I hear about PDR is, you know, why are you giving these wealthy horse farms money not to develop, when in fact it really is more about the family farm, many of them struggling, being able to, with that money, buy equipment and keep their heads above water, transgenerational family farms. So that being said, I think it's very important to note the amount of revenue we as a community get from not just the equine business, but, you know, what we would, a lot of us consider everyday farming. Thank you. Council Member Lawless, one point that you raised about what we pay the farm owners, the participants, it's roughly $2,600 is the average price per acre for a PDR to date, $2,600. Council Member Stennett. Mayor, you know, often when you ask questions, people often feel like they have to be defensive of the program and that you're not in support of the program. But that's not the case, why I bring this up, Billy. Just so you understand, you know, we have to look at bonding as a whole package. Every program in government is asking for money right now. And as this new administration takes over, they've got a very serious decision to make for FY12. Do we have dollars to continue bonding or do we not? And it's going to play a big factor into what happens to the funding for PDR in FY12. Because right now we gave preference to PDR in this year's bonding because you had contracts. Fair or not, that's what happened, and that's the truth of the matter. And what we've got to prevent is a shortage in funding for PDR, because I do believe in the program, and we need to find ways to fund it properly. But we also need to understand that if we do get in crisis mode, what we can do as a council, to keep the program moving, but yet make sure we're fair to all programs and all needs across government. Because as Council Member Martin pointed out, there could come a very real time next year that we don't have any bonding capacity, long less the payment to keep the payment going. That's the real problem in our government right now is the cash flow to make the payment. That's the only reason I brought that up, just so we're clear. And so we may need to revisit the process. And when we accept grants, we may not need to put any bonds in the budget. Because Council may decide we won't bond anything in the budget, if that's the problem, and we'll just wait and bond it after the budget. So there's several ways to do it, but we just want to make sure we're on the same page, and you all have clear direction as to what happens when there is a crisis in our budget, so that you don't lose funding or we don't violate contracts that we've already entered into. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. I, too, have been concerned about where we are financially, and wringing my hands and saying, oh, woe is us, and such. I did come up with an idea we might be able to resolve this, however, and that is we can pull the home fleet in and sell two-thirds of the cars. Now, does that sound like a ridiculous, I mean, we've got collective bargaining tied up in that, but that doesn't make any difference just because we signed that doesn't mean anything. That's a ridiculous extreme, but it's a parallel type of thing that I'm hearing. Billy, do you have some people teed up for the next cycle already? It was on one of your slides, Council Member Beard. We have 39 applicants on 3,200 acres, but no commitments have been made because we don't have a budget. I would probably advise that you don't do anything with those folks until we get this ironed out. There's so many things we need. I had a long discussion with Council Member Martin about our road paving. We're at the point now where almost like a black hole, it's just going to come up and suck everything in. We'll not be able to ever catch up, and that's not acceptable either to our constituents. I do want to say also, I know this is somewhat sensitive, I don't want them to really think I have any idea of doing that, but I was just using that as an illustration. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I guess I'd want to kind of echo what Councilman Stennant and what Councilman Beard said. I think that the danger for you guys is that your posturing that you take, and you came to my office when we met and Knox was with me. The posturing that you are putting yourselves in the position of is that it's this program at all costs. And, you know, we talked about the fact that this wasn't put on a referendum, that the people in this community didn't vote for this program. That doesn't mean it's not a viable program, it's not a good program. And I know when I talk, you always think I want to end the program, and that's not true. But it concerns me when it's this at all costs, as if nothing else in this community matters. And, you know, there's got to be a tipping point at which, just like we've heard, our bonding capacity is almost reached. If our bonds are downgraded, and here you're going to come and be defensive again, you've got to understand that there's more to this community than just this program. And, you know, if someone were to say, I'll give you a new car, I'll give you the face value of your car plus another $5,000, the Contra for Cash program, if you want to trade your car. And one of the things those people found out was later on that they ended up getting taxed on that $5,000 that they received. At some point this community is going to have to have a conversation about when we get in dire funding situations like we're currently in, and we're going to be in the next two years, and if you go back over this budget cycle, I was the one that kept talking about our bonding capacity cap. And the conversation changed focus from that to cash flow at some point, but I kept going back to what those actuarialists said when they came in and presented that PowerPoint presentation, once we get past that 15% and our bonding rating drops. You guys have to at least understand that every comment that's made about your program is not one in a move to try to kill the program. I mean, we even talked about what happens in a year if, for funding reasons, we can't put any bonded money into the program, but it doesn't stop the program. I understand your concern is what? That if we hold off on a year, that gives people traction to eventually kill the program. I don't think this program will ever be killed. I think you're going to get your mark at the end of the 20 years. Hopefully you get it before then. But we do have some flexibility to allow this community to breathe when the budget is as tight as it is and our bonding cap is what it is and our bonding rating may change if things don't improve. Sure. Thank you, Councilmember Myers. I just want to say the board and I, we all operate at your pleasure. You're all my bosses. You appoint the members of the board, and this is your program, and we're just implementing it for you. Let me say, I've got a couple minutes left. No one is unhappy with you or the board, okay? Please don't take the conversation today or subsequent conversations to mean that. There's none of that at all. We're simply saying that the budget is tight and we may need some breathing room. That's all, okay? So we like the board, we like you. No problems there, but we may need some breathing room. Thank you. Councilmember James. Thank you, Mayor. Everything he said, plus what I'm about to say. I know that I've had a lot of conversations, and I think typically the inner city council members have either expressed their concern about the PDR program or have voted not in favor of it and such. And I can tell you from where that's rooted, and it's rooted from the fact that it would be very easy right now to add to one of the mayor's three H's, an additional H, and that's homelessness and housing issues. I've sat in meetings since 2007 discussing affordable housing trust fund, and over and over and over again it's been said that we need to get the votes. We've got to get the votes. We've got to frame it to get the votes. And what I heard Margaret say a little bit ago is for PDR, it was to remove the thought that you had to get votes on something. It was to remove the politics out of it. But on the opposite side, we're hearing that about the affordable housing trust fund. The same type of brand that's being created that you believe is the touristy brand. I know a lot of people that aren't affiliated with the horse industry. They can't relate to it. I want to relate to it. I think it's beautiful. I think it's wonderful. I think it's great. It's a great brand for the city. The brand I'm trying to not have is a brand of homelessness, which is we saw during the WED Games was moved. We had to move. We had to shelter. I don't know if you watched what was going on, but there was a lot of things happening in the urban core because of that issue. When we don't fund a solution to affordable housing and we give land for people to not develop something, because that could be developed for housing, but we give money for people to not develop something, we are then countering the problem that's happening here in the urban core. So it's tough year after year to say, but they have a goal. The goal is sometimes absent of the things that are being created, the problems, because the goal is trying to be reached nearly blindly. And it's really tough because everyone wants the brand of the farmland. It is our distinct character. But it needs to be more, and I'm not asking for PDR to come up with the affordable housing thing, but the kind of the way that it is, as Council Member Meyers said, the way that it's postured, it's tough to come different when that's the way it's being postured. And it's so strong you can't even, there are people that are going to walk in here and vote yes to PDR no matter what's going on. We could have homeless people lined up, camped out in front of the city hall, and they're still going to give money to the PDR program when we know that there's a lack of housing that exists, affordable housing that is existing in our city, per our own plan created by our own city folks. There's a lack. Knox-Vonago was a part of the discussion. He was part of that group. We know there's a lack of affordable housing, but we still pay to not develop. So that's, and I'm not anti-your program either. I think it's, I've said it before, it's very, whoever was able to champion that through, I applaud them. Because they were able to sell a brand. And it's like Coke. You'll never forget what that cursive C looks like. It's always there, cursive C. So it's, I mean, yay for PDR, but I think I'm asking, I'm saying all this to try to brand it to our council members that we've got a bigger issue, not bigger, there are concurrent issues that are happening that we can't just blindly, at all costs, go for PDR. And then ask, we've got some people sitting around this horseshoe today that have said we've got to have economic impact studies to figure out if we need affordable housing. So we're going to spend money to try to figure out whether we need to create when we can see the result of that, but we can automatically come in and vote with almost no problem at all to fund PDR program. That's the struggle of an inner city council representative and a council representative that sees affordable housing as an issue that's not being addressed when we're paying people to not develop something. So thank you. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. From where I sit, I guess my take on it is that we're halfway in, and it's kind of like being in the locker room at halftime, and we're talking about the job we've done, and obviously you all have done an incredible job. And I think as Council Member James said, I think it's applauded the vision and determination that so many of you all had and your predecessors had to get us to this point. I think the thing that I see and am encouraged by is the conversation, Billy, that we've had, because this is some of the things I was telling you last year heading into Budget Knox, our conversation heading into Budget, that this is where we were coming to, that it was getting very, very tight. It's very tough to be a district council person, whether you're inside the urban core or you're in a district that doesn't have any green space left, and really stand up in neighborhood meetings and talk about this in the manner that it should be talked about. And I think the pressure and the crisis that's been created by our financial situation is a good thing, and if you've heard me talk at all up here, I always talk about don't waste a crisis. And I think that that's what I would tell you walking out of here to be encouraged is to let's not waste this crisis, that we are at a fork in the road, and I think the PDR program at the halfway point has been successful doing things a certain way, and now to be successful, we need to be very creative and look for what are those wins that really allow, in all honesty, a new generation of advocates. I mean, I think that's at the core of what's really important. You know, farms don't go away if people are making money on those farms. And what we want to do, or what at least I want to do, I won't speak for anybody else, is try and put money into this ag economy in a way that farmers don't have to sell their land, they can farm. That takes a different train of thought, and what we've found is that by sharing some of that, we found this with the Legacy Trail. When you take a trail across a farm, it doesn't kill a farm, it actually creates a whole new generation of advocates that say, this is really cool, we want more of this. And so working across the state with the farm community and how resistant the farm community has been to Rails to Trails and all these things, I think they've been approached incorrectly for years. But I think that the farm community needs to understand that those types of things are really the future. Those are the types of things, especially if we're talking about a PDR program that is publicly funded, that the public should have some sort of access to that farm or some sort of enjoyment to that. And I think that creative ideas to that end are where the future, where we go in the future. And I look forward to working with you all on this because, again, what you're finding is that the old way of thinking, we won't be able to keep going down that road very much longer. So let's not try and do that. Let's look at these new ideas that are wins for you and wins for folks in the urban core and in these districts and that put us in a position to win as a community because us versus them won't work anymore. And I think that what we've done is, you know, I guess my biggest complaint, I guess, to the farm community, and I'm just going to say it openly, is that the only time we ever see the farm community is when it's jeopardized, when there's a zone change or something like that. That's when there's a very vocal protected all costs type thing. And I understand that and I applaud that. And with Noxus Group and with some of the things that we've done, we're starting to move a little bit closer to that. But it's very difficult when we all need to be at the table finding these very creative solutions. And so for me, what I will offer up at this point in time is I'm willing at least to be one council member that would like to meet with you all, talk about what we can do going forward very tangibly from a policy standpoint, from a process standpoint that put us all in a position to win so that it isn't an us versus them or, oh, gosh, this is the only time that I hear this or we keep coming back to the same arguments and having the same friction points. Because I do think we've got an opportunity. Now, what we do with that is what we do with it and those of us in this room are going to have to do with it. So, again, I see it as a glass half full rather than a glass half empty. And I want you to walk out of here knowing that there is some encouragement that we have the opportunity to do something to take this for the next decade into a very positive direction. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. I think that council members have opened up or started a conversation that certainly will continue, and I think we do have to remember that this is about our program, our policy, that we have charged Billy and the Rural Land Management Board to do a job, and they have done it superbly. We would not want them to do it in any other way. They've been entirely responsible and entirely successful, and we should all applaud what they have done in carrying out their charge given by this government, by this council. And it's now up to the council to determine how we want to proceed. One of the things we do have to understand, and I think it's beyond this particular conversation here, is what PDR is and what it's supposed to do. And I would say respectfully, Council Member McCord, it's not about access to horse farms. That's not what we're buying. What we are buying is the preservation of an agricultural economy and an agricultural base in a setting that is and must be antithetical to intrusions upon the space itself. So we've got a lot of conversation to do yet, but again, I think it's something we should welcome. We should all be ready to engage it, and I hope that no matter what, we can applaud the job that Billy, that Margaret, and the board have done. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. Just one last thing. I think sort of on a pinpoint, it's the balance between our financial situation and the fact that we're not the horse capital of the world if we don't have any horse farms. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. I just see you all lined up, so we don't always let you talk. So I was just going to say, is there something that you all want to follow up on? I know Knox got up, and is there something you all would like to say in response? I'll just say on behalf of the board that we look forward to further dialogue with the council about the direction of the program. We certainly understand the difficult financial situation the city is in. We're very mindful of that, and we look forward to working with you. Knox, you stood up, so I didn't know if there was something you wanted to add. No, thank you. I just, you know, on behalf of the Fayette Alliance, we also look forward to always examining how the community can grow and grow sustainably. As an organization, we do strongly support the benefit and the funding of the Purchase of Development Rights Program. But what Council Member McCord said about, you know, the farming community being proactive in growth issues beyond just what affects their back doorstep, that's precisely why our organization was formed four years ago. We are an alliance of ag, development, affordable housing, preservation interests. Since our inception, we've supported over $500 million of development projects. So we as an organization see the funding of the Purchase of Development Rights Program in concert with other urban development programs, such as what we are examining with the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and other tools, the land bank, that these are all complementary programs that, if pursued responsibly and feasibly, can truly make us a world-class city and a world-class landscape. So with that, I appreciate your all's help and leadership, and we look forward to being a part of the dialogue. Thank you. The last one, Commissioner Waromka, you came down here and were going to say something, and then you went back there, and I think we were talking about the bonding. Was there anything you wanted to add into this discussion? Because you sat there for a while, and then you finally went back, and I didn't know if there was something that we need to know. Thank you. I was actually going to talk about it on Thursday, but it's probably appropriate here, and as Billy pointed out, I think it's no surprise to any of us, all the years previous, that our practices have been not just with PDR, but across the urban county government. We had a large fund balance-slash-savings account, and as budgets were approved, various divisions moved forward with those budgets, and then we would bond, and there would be reimbursement resolutions, and that's kind of how business went on. And so as we came into these challenging times, when I joined the government, it wasn't because I joined the government, but anyways, as we faced the challenging times that we've been through together this past year and came into this new year and we knew that our budget was extremely tight, life as we know it changed, and so procedures had to change. And we've talked about cash flow at our various meetings, et cetera, Council Member Ellinger, but I think it's important to point out that, you know, there were past practices of, oh, well, we've got this savings account, we'll pre-fund these items, and then, you know, we went to market and we got the bonding, and then we had reimbursement resolutions. Well, you know, those are the kinds of things we've been talking about that those practices have to change because we're in a much different time. So I know that's part of the overall bonding conversation that we've been having, but I thought it was important to bring that up today because whether it's this or public safety or, you know, parks or whatever, we have had conversations with every director and said, we can't cash flow your expense. We've got to wait and have those conversations as part of the bonding process or looking at our cash flow if it was an operating capital item. So I think it's absolutely appropriate for us to be having these conversations. We just had a timing difference as far as how a PDR had been set up and the grant matching and those kind of things. So thank you for letting me say that. Thank you. I think that's important. Thank you, Mayor. If there's nothing further, thank you for coming. And a motion to adjourn would be in order. I have a motion and a second. Motion by Council Member Ellinger, seconded by Council Member Blues to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries.