Music Hello We'll call the Greetings and we'll call the the meeting to order. This is a work session of the Council. And first on our agenda on February the 7th is a public comment for issues on the agenda. I don't have anyone signed up for a public comment for issues on the agenda. If you are here and wish to make a comment on issues on the agenda, just hold up your hand. All right. We don't have that. We will recognize Council Member Lane. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. John Darnel He's with SCORE, and he wanted to make just a one- or two-minute comment to the council, and I wonder if we can make an exception to the agenda. Yes, sir. We'll speak. We'll make an exception for that. John, please come up to the podium, and please give. We have a protocol of name and address for public comments. Name and address. And three minutes. Yes, sir. John Darnell, 233 Barrow Road, Lexington. I'm John Darnell. I'm a volunteer with the SCORE organization for the newer members of the council. That's the Service Corps of Retired Executives. I'm here today just to thank you for the $5,540 that you give us. That's 53% of our operating budget. Thanks to your money, we counseled with a greater number of individuals this past fiscal year we met with a greater number of folks for the second time, about four times as many, and we performed about ten times as many online cases. Our total client sessions this year was about 1,009 companies or individuals that want to start a company in Fayette County and the surrounding counties. If you divide those client sessions by the money that you gave us, that comes out to $5.49 per client session. So we feel like we're giving you good value for the money that you've given us. And we've got a group of 21 retired executives or individuals, majority of which, have owned their own company. So just wanted to thank you for the money that you give us. We couldn't do what we're doing in the community and helping young business people without you. Mr. Darnell, could you give your number where somebody wanted to call for help, if they could call your organization? And we may be calling you here from the Irvin County Government. Well, we'd be glad to help you, but your issues, we don't want you. Do you have a phone number you could share that somebody wanted to call you for help? We just got to change it. 231-9902. Thank you. Thanks so much, John. Thanks, John Darnell, and thanks to others who are here today representing this final organization. Next on our agenda is rezonings or docket approval. We have no council meeting this week, so we don't have a docket approval required. Next on our agenda is the approval of the summary. So motion by Council Member Ellinger, seconded by Council Member Beard. Is there any discussion? All right. Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next on our agenda, budget amendments. There are none today. Next on our agenda is new business. Move to approve new business. So motion by Council Member Ellinger, seconded by... Council Member Stennett, is there any discussion on new business? All right. Hearing none, we can take a vote. Then all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next on our agenda is continuing business and presentations. First, I'll ask for a motion on the NDF. Motion by Mr. Stennett, second by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Planning and Public Works Committee update, Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. We met on January the 24th. We had four items of business with no motions, just by way of a brief overview. Our first item of business was the Design Excellence Task Force, brought to us by Councilmember Blues, who commented that since September 2010, the task force met and determined there is a need to permit, encourage, and inspire design and infill of existing space using consistency to build, quote, a great American city. He outlined the work that they have been undertaking and intend to be done by the end of the year, and we asked them to make one more report to the committee before that time. There were no motions. Second on our agenda was the harboring of animals, which originally was brought to us by Council Member Beard in relation to a horse that was harbored illegally within the urban service boundary. We've asked for verbiage on that to come to our next meeting. We'd also, as an outgrowth of the discussion, or the issue was a discussion about other types of pigs and goats, and we had some verbiage relating to them, which we intend to take up again at the next meeting. Next, I gave a quick overview of our comprehensive plan work group, which meets basically every other week, and we're vetting through the goals and objectives as submitted to us by the Planning Commission. We're making really good progress, and we'll have that back through to the committee, hopefully with everything done in March. And then lastly, we were taking up the Valley View Ferry as brought to us by the Environmental Quality Link from the budget discussions earlier last year. And subsequent to that, one of our aides, Paul Schoeniger, has been made a part of the Valley View Ferry Commission. and at the time of our planning committee meeting, both Vice Mayor Gorton and Council Member Beard requested that CAO Richard Maloney present revenue numbers and ridership information at the next committee meeting. I've had subsequent conversation with the CAO, and he will do so. It will just not be at this meeting. It will be at the following month's meeting. There were no items at this time referred to the committee. We had a motion to adjourn. That concludes my report. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. Next on our agenda is the Environmental Quality Committee update by Councilmember Blues. Thank you, Mayor. The Environmental Committee met at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, January 31st. My thanks to Councilmember Kay for attending and helping to make quorum. The Division of Water Quality Director Charlie Martin provided an update on the stormwater program discussing performance standards and the consent decree supplemental environmental programs with particular reference to the Coldstream SEP. He provided Fund 4051 financial data and information on other water quality initiatives. In addition, Mr. Martin discussed the stormwater flooding priority list, pointing out that there are still 52 outstanding uncompleted projects with an estimated capital cost of $122 million. The consent decree requires that LFUCG spend $30 million by January 2021 on the priority list projects. Finally, Mr. Martin discussed the litter collection initiative and its impact on water quality, and he referred to the incentive grant projects awarded to community groups and commercial entities, all of which support water quality initiatives. Committee members had questions about the water quality fund balance, bonding capacity, the Coldstream supplemental environmental project, and long-term maintenance issues. Next on the agenda, Acting Commissioner of Environmental Quality Susan Bush provided a detailed update on the Greenway Program, referring to the maintenance budget, planning and acceptance policies in the Greenway Manual update. Councilmember Stenner inquired about the maintenance budget and recommended that it be a single line item rather than spread over several divisional budgets. In response to Councilmember Farmer's question about LFUCG's policy to defer Greenway acceptance and acquisition, Keith Lovin from Engineering said that for the time being, Greenway properties are being held by developers or by homeowners associations. Referring to the financial reports provided in the packet, Councilmember Lane requested more detailed information on certain of the categories. CAO Maloney responded that the administration will provide the requested data. No motions were brought forward. Following brief public comment, the meeting adjourned at 2.25 p.m. Thank you, Mayor. That's my report. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Blues. Council Member Ellinger, update on the report on Budget and Finance Committee meeting. Thank you, Mayor. The Budget and Finance Committee met on January 31st at 1 p.m. We had three items in the committee. The first one is the Board of Agriculture Review Fee Structure. Betty Kerr with Historic Preservation gave us a PowerPoint presentation. They looked at doing application fees for two levels. There was a $20 application fee for permits would be for the applications that would be reviewed by staff. Approximately 65 of these would be of the applications. And there would be a $50 application fee for permits that would be reviewed by the Board of Agriculture Review. And these reflect about 35 percent of them. There would be about an average of 400 applications a year, which would raise about $12,000 per year for LFUCG. A motion was brought forward by Council Member Lane to come back with three-tier fee arrangement, with one being no cost and the other two reasonable levels to offset cost of handling but not to exceed the cost. It was seconded by Council Member Farrer, but this failed three to four. We will keep this issue in committee. The second item was activity-based costing. Council Member Lane stated this gives us the opportunity to carefully manage day-to-day operations of our government by budgeting and evaluating expenses against budgets to government to see how much it is costing us to provide services. Chief Administrative Officer Richard Maloney said they want to break down each division's costs and they would like to put the budget back in the hands of the divisions. Jane Driscoll, our Commissioner of Finance, stated analysis a key for them. They have put steps in place to provide better information of specific activities. This issue will also remain in committee. And the final issue was other business. Vice Mayor Gorton asked about the CAFER. Commissioner Driscoll said they have an electronic copy. She said they have not received a management letter, and they won't until they have an A-133, which is when it's completed. Commissioner Driscoll said it is typical at the end of February, beginning of March. When they receive it, hopefully we'll have this at the next budget and finance meeting on the 28th. We adjourned at 1.50. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Ellinger. Next on our agenda is an update on our wellness clinic operations. Melissa Luker. Melissa has been the project manager on creating the new system, and you were asked, why don't you give us the context for the presentation. Thanks, Melissa. About a month ago, Council Member Stenna asked for a brief update on the transition into the new health center and how it was going. So I've just got a brief update here to kind of let you all know how we've done the first month of business out there. So we opened on January 11th. We had an open house. It was attended by around 250 employees, retirees, their family members, spouses, et cetera. Everybody that attended was very excited. We had all the practitioners were on staff. They got to tour the center. That day they saw they had about a half day of seeing patients due to the open house. They've been, sorry, I have the thing. There we go. Okay. So since January 11th, since the opening, through the month of January until January 31st, they had 266 patient encounters. So for 15 days of operation, that averages about 19 patients per day. I've received several questions, some things that were confusing for employees and retirees. One of the biggest questions I've gotten is from retirees, and they're asking if they're eligible. They've called to go out there. They've went out there. They're saying they're not in the system. Marathon doesn't have them. Well, some retirees are on our health plan. If they are a regular civil service retiree, they retire and they go under the CERS retirement system. Can you show that? And what I've got here, I've got two insurance cards, and this is what I've been telling people. This is the easiest thing I can do is I'll ask people when they call, do you have your insurance card in front of you? And if they say yes, I will ask them. It's kind of difficult to see, but I'll ask them what it says under group name. And on the top card, you can see it says LFUCG. That means that they're eligible to go to the health center. So if you all get calls from constituents and they're asking, you know, I went out there, I couldn't go, the first question is ask them what the group name on their health insurance card says. The bottom card, if you can scroll up please, Chris, it says for group name, it says Kentucky Employees Health Plan. That card is the retiree's card if they're under the CERS system. That means that they're not in our health plan so that they cannot access the wellness center. So that was one of the major questions, concerns I've got since the opening. The second is about walk-ins. People have just gone out there and walked in thinking that it was a walk-in clinic. It's not a walk-in clinic. It is by appointments. But I've talked with Marathon about this, and they have assured me that if anyone wakes up sick and they're sick that day, to call and they will be seen, but they prefer people not to walk in. Their model is not to have a waiting room full of people and everyone have to wait for two hours or whatever they would like to get people to come in and go straight back. They don't like to have people sitting in the waiting room. So that was another one of the issues that we've had concerns is about walk-ins. So the hours of the clinic are on there and so is the number. so everybody should have this by now. They should be able to call and make an appointment. If they wake up sick, they can just call out there and they will be seen that day. Another concern that Council Member Senate raised at that meeting about a month ago was people receiving packets that were not on our health plan. We had an issue with the file that was sent to Marathon Health that has been corrected. Every Friday morning at 9 o'clock, a new file is sent to Marathon Health. So they have our updated eligibility every week. So they have the most up-to-date information on who's eligible to go to the center and who is not eligible to go to the center. That really concludes my update. Like I said, this was just going to be a brief update. It's only been open about a month. So it's going well so far. So I'll take any questions. Thank you. Council Member Stennett and Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for bringing this to us and giving us this update. One thing also that's occurring, I think some of us got an email on, is that apparently on the HSA accounts, there's a monthly service fee being charged. Can you either give us an update or find that information and send out a blast email so people understand? Because I thought it was supposed to be credited back every month, too. Correct. This was brought to my attention on Friday, and I've since talked to the consultants, and Humana. If you're charged a fee on your HSA account, you're not supposed to be. Humana is looking into it, and they are going to be crediting it back. And they said there's a switch or something that they can trigger that will turn the fee off. They will not be charged the fee. It will be going back into their account. Robin with Humana said she couldn't guarantee that it would be fixed by the end of today, but it should be fixed by tomorrow. So if you look on your account detail and it's showing a $3.75 fee, don't worry. It's going to be credited back to your account. Very good. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Melissa, for your report, your update. I've heard really good comments from several employees who've used the wellness center. I just had one quick question on the retiree eligibility. how many of our retirees actually are eligible? I believe it's about 1,000 retirees that are in our health plan. Okay. And it's mainly police and fire, and then there are some old city retirees. Okay, so most of it's police and fire. Do you know how many old city retirees there are? I think I was told it's less than 20. Okay. So it's very small. Okay, so all others are in the CERS and are not eligible to use it. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Vice Mayor Gordon. Anyone else? Melissa, thank you very much. I was going to say you're also just, I think it would be worthwhile for the council to know and for employees to know that you're having a weekly update collecting information from those in HR, for example, in human resources who are receiving objections, concerns from our employee users or retirement population users as well, right? Yes. And that's being coordinated through. Daniel Fisher in HR. Right. Okay. And so I think it would be worthwhile any council members to, if your feedback, direct to Melissa. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next on our agenda is Commissioner General Services, Sally Hamilton, who's going to talk to us about parking garages. Those that are remaining. Well, before I began, there was a cadre of people that worked on the parking garages, and they're all in back of me, and they're here to answer your questions concisely and accurately, along with myself. But when we had to choose somebody to do this presentation, I was the chosen one, because the rule was you had to be as old as the government parking lot, parking garage or older. And so consequently, I was the one. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the parking garage proposal with you, the transfer of ownership and management to the Lexington Parking Authority. In this discussion, we're going to point out and emphasize several points over and over again in this presentation. And that is going to be the deteriorating state of our garages, the escalating cost of repairs, the appropriateness of the parking authority as a vehicle to assume responsibility for our parking garages, and describe how the MOA intends to accomplish our goals. Our first slide shows these parking garages, and you're very familiar with them, but I do want to draw your attention to the one on the bottom left and make this point. That is the Victorian Square, because when we talk about transferring the Victorian Square garage, we are also speaking about transferring those five storefronts there. They're called the Broadway shops. Now, the benefits of the transfer to the Lexington Parking Authority. We have overdue capital maintenance and repairs that can't be addressed without a plan and proper funding, and we don't have the necessary resources to really make these structures whole. Public safety comes first, and the existing potential liability of these garages far exceed their property values. The Lexington Parking Authority was established to manage, maintain, repair, and operate these garages. Garages are the business. LFUCG's responsibility is to try to find the most efficient and cost-effective way to deliver these services to our citizens. The fundamental goal is to offer good parking downtown to support business and events. Now, most of you are much more familiar with the history of the Lexington Parking Authority than I, but let me just review it for just a second. You passed a resolution for this parking authority in 1980. In 2005, you empowered it with authority. And then in 06, you approved a five-member board for the authority. Its purpose, you gave it its purpose, it was to acquire, own, maintain, operate, and repair existing and new parking facilities. Its mission, provide, maintain, operate adequate, high-quality, customer-focused parking, and encourage economic growth for both visitors and residents. Now, let me talk about the shape of these garages. What kind of shape are these garages in right now? You're going to see on the left-hand side the name of the garage, then the age, and then a column called initial, and then 211 and the increase. That column that's initial, and let me take the annex as the example. In the annex, in 2006, the initial cost of that repair to the annex garage was $2,152,000. We didn't do that, so I don't want you to think that that initial means that we made those repairs. We didn't make those repairs, and so today that cost moves to $3,400,000. which is a 36% increase. Now, at the Victorian, you saw that the initial cost of the repair was $637,000 in 2006. We did do some of those repairs in 2007, so today that cost is $318,000. You can see at the transit that it's moved up the cost of those repairs to 32%. The courthouse, 33%, and the government center, 35%. So those total costs of those repairs are getting larger and larger, and that hole is getting deeper. It's now 42%. Many of you have asked, what would it cost if we replaced some of these garages? We didn't just repair, but we estimated a replacement cost for them. Again, we've listed those garages on the left side. We have kept the same number of parking spots that they have now and the same square footage, so we didn't alter those garages at all. And then we included the construction costs, the infrastructure costs, the demolition costs, and all the soft costs included. We didn't include the cost of any land, and we kept the basic footprint as if that garage were rebuilt exactly where it is. And you can see those costs coming down the right-hand side of that column. The annex is 2-3, the Victorians 8-1, and I don't need to read those figures. You can see those. Okay. Up to this point, we've gone over what are the benefits of this transfer, why the parking authority is the appropriate vehicle, the capital maintenance and repair cost, and what would be the replacement cost if we decided to follow that. Now I want to turn to the MOA and talk about how the MOA deals with the problems and proposes a solution to them. The first thing that the MOA does is it transfers the ownership management repair and the maintenance of these facilities as is to the Lexington Parking Authority. When I say as is, that means they assume the liability and the repair. The transit, the annex, and the Victorian, those transfers occur once we sign the management agreement. The courthouse transfers after final debt service payment, because if you remember, that is that debt service payment that concludes in 2013, and that was the Administrative Office of the Court's Debt Service. Now, we never transfer the management or the ownership of the government center. That stays with us, that garage. The real property or the Broadway shops transfers, as I've mentioned to you once before, with the Victorian garage. When we transfer these facilities to the parking authority, we'd be transferring the leases, the subleases, any management agreements we have, and any other contracts on those particular garages. The parties, meaning LFUCG and the Parking Authority, will work together on financing the repairs. But that is in how to do the financing and in placing the financing. The Lexington Parking Authority is the entity that will be primarily responsible for the payment of the debt on those repairs. The repairs are planned in a particular order. In that order, and of course like any other order, it's subject to change. But what the prevailing sentiment is, is that the annex would be fixed first. It is in a state of quite disrepair. The Victorian probably would be fixed next, and that happens because these garages have to be staged. You can't take the annex and the transit both out of service at the same time and have enough parking. So we would do annex, Victorian transit, courthouse, and last, the government center. The purpose is here that public parking spaces would be repaired first. The LFUCG's Commissioner of Finance is added as a voting member on the Parking Authority's Board. All current employees, and this has been quite a topic of conversation, all current employees will continue to park at no cost. cost. Employees hired or transferred downtown after the agreement is signed may pay the Lexington Parking Authority 50% of the current market value of a space. Now the question has been asked, how much money do you think that is? What's 50% of market rate? Well, 50% of market rate right now is about $25 on a monthly basis. The Lexington Parking authority will work with users on the operation cost and management spaces and that includes their validated parking anyone that provides services to LSU CG as a board member volunteer commission member will park at no cost in the Lexham parking authority will carry liability insurance for all these facilities and their employees. Now, LFUCG has the right of first refusal if there is any sale or transfer of these parking facilities. We can also acquire these facilities based on the pay. If we want them back, we can acquire them based on the payment or the assumption of the outstanding debt. The Lexington Parking Authority will report annually to you. And finally, the Lexington Parking Authority Board has approved this MOA. The Chairman, Mr. Frazier, is here today to address any questions that you may have, and also Gary Means, the Director of the Parking Authority. Now, without any slides, I'd like to sort of just summarize here a moment. I'd I'd like to conclude by saying this proposal makes a great deal of sense. Our staff in general services has done the best possible job they can do, and they have really tried. I never want to cast dispersions on them in this parking proposal conversation, but their job is not parking. The parking authority's job is how to run good, efficient parking. They can focus, the parking authority can focus on garages and pay the debt service that it takes to prepare them. And by doing so, we can improve the business prospects in downtown Lexington. And above all, we'll have very safe and sound garages for our citizens and residents. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Sally. Thank you, Commissioner Hamilton. I have several council members signed up. Vice Mayor Gorton and then Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Commissioner Hamilton, very much. First, I want to say I appreciate the work that you and the Parking Authority Board and the Parking Authority have done on this. Those of us who were on the Council in 2005 absolutely anticipated that we would make a gradual change to the parking authority, including our garages. So I'm really happy to see that this is coming to fruition. It's the way it was meant to be. I do have a few questions. You were kind enough to send us the memorandum of agreement on February 3rd. And I wanted to know a couple things. On page 3 of the agreement, under item E, which talks about the parties agreeing that they'll work together to obtain preferable and desirable financing. and it says that if at all feasible, the parking authority shall be primarily responsible for payment of any debt issued. So what does the word primarily responsible mean and if feasible? Does this mean something other than that the parking authority is responsible? The intention, I'd like to separate security versus debt service. We, Lexington Center Corp., along with the airport, we would consider in broad rush, early planning stages, that the parking authority will be treated similar to them. Both of those entities, we carry security. Essentially, we are the parent that co-signs on the loan for our kid, but they are responsible for the debt service. The airport services debt, Lexington Center Corp. services, they pay the car payment. Okay, so it's a very similar arrangement. Yes. Now, on page four of the memorandum of agreement on number five, this is what the commissioner talked about in terms of agreeing. both parties agree that LFUCG employees hired after the transfer may be required to pay the parking authority 50% of current market parking rates. Did you have conversations about all employees of LFUCG being able to park free? Yes. What were those? Yes, ma'am. We certainly did. And it was a very thoughtful conversation because we knew it was a major issue. We went through and we looked to see how many employees were parking in these garages. And, John Machine, I think I'm correct with the number of 750. That was the number that we had down parking in there. We got to the situation where we were taking out, I think it came to basic economics, we were transferring these garages over to the parking authority, who we were saying, fix these garages, go out, make them profitable, generate revenue, and then at the same time we were saying, but wait, we'd like you to reserve future employee parking and not charge anything for it. And we felt it was too much to ask. It will present a situation, if in fact this is what happens, and I know it does say may be required, not shall be, it will create a situation where one employee sits next to another employee at work and one has free parking and one doesn't. And I think that will be problematic potentially. So I'm not 100% sold on that because I think down the line it could present some real problems in terms of equity among employees. And then just finally, on page 5, number 2, section 1, number 2, LFUCG shall assist the parking authority with identifying and procuring appropriate financing. What does that mean? What will our involvement be in procuring financing? Okay, that's Ryan again. Okay, thank you. I think that answers in conjunction with my previous comments. I think primarily security. Of course, we haven't vetted the full financing package, but that's our anticipation. It would be security. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. I want to go back to the financial piece. And, Ryan, will they be, I assume they'll be issuing revenue bonds. not our general obligation bonds and will they count towards our outstanding debt service for the city when we go to count our outstanding debt? I'd like to caveat with we haven't worked through the form of financing package. We'd like to get the approval today and we'll put that together. My anticipation would not be general obligation bonds. My anticipation is we would do some type of lease appropriation. So we would have funding in place for the debt service for, say, a year at a time. It would not be GEO. So it would be, again, similar to what the airport structure is and Lexington Center Corp. structure is. So it would count against our outstanding debt service. When we go to look at our models that we've been looking at the last couple weeks, we would add this, any bonds that were issued to our outstanding debt number? In terms of the models we've been looking at recently, that would not count towards it because we would not anticipate to make those payments on the debt service. However, there is another component. that we can't secure debt for every entity in the entire city, for instance. So there is some metrics they do for security. You're capped out on the security side and you're capped out on the debt service side. This would not count against debt service because we don't anticipate making these appropriations. So the rating agencies wouldn't look at it negatively versus us issuing it in-house or the parking authority. There's no advantage to the parking authority issuing it? What are you saying there is? Well, the advantage... Besides the payment, of course. The advantage is the partnership, and if we do provide the security, they're going to borrow at substantially lower rates and be able to borrow more funding to address more of these needs. Who would have lower rates? We're on the money. A revenue bond has a lower rate than a geo bond? The security is what's important in terms of the rate. So if we provide the security, they're going to borrow at substantially lower cost of capital. Right. So the rate's the same whether we do it or they do it. It could be slightly different, the lease appropriation versus general obligation. I think that's a huge point here. I know you want us to approve it and then you figure it out, but I think that needs to be figured out in the front of it because we've been down these deals before. I mean, I can give you a couple examples. I won't, but they've been good for the community in the long run. But we've been down these packages like this, and they always haven't been the best. So I would look at that. And, Commissioner, when we talked about it, I know Vice Mayor brought it up about the employee parking. I would echo her sentiments. I have a major concern, and it's probably a deal breaker, to say any employee that transfers down here based on their director asking them to come here and work or the administration, that we're going to start charging them to park. I think, you know, they're one of our biggest economic engines downtown at lunchtime, our employees. So take money out of their pocket and make them pay parking versus, again, Again, an entity that we created back in 2005 doesn't make a lot of sense. I'd rather that money be spent at restaurants or other things downtown while they're here versus parking. I think that's one of the benefits that we can offer of the very few that we can offer as employees. So I would be against that. And you didn't mention, I hate to say this, but elected official parking. So I guess the mayor and the council would have to pay. I didn't see that. I was on the slide. Well, let me put that slide back up there. No, they would not have to pay. And then the last point I want to make is, you know, I have concerns about getting rid of or transferring the ownership of this garage that's attached to our own building. I think it should be utilized for this building. And then the annex garage. You know, there's been a lot of discussion about where a new government center would be located. A lot of people think it should be located next door. And if that were the case, we would need ownership of that garage to be able to tear it down and rebuild it. And maybe at that time, I would be more comfortable entertaining the parking authority coming in and taking it over. But at this point, who knows what's going to happen to that property? Who knows what's going to happen to this property? But I think there needs to be some serious planning towards the future about how long we'll really can feasibly stay in this building with the conditions. I mean, you pointed out we deferred maintenance on our garages because we didn't have money the last three or four years. And look at the price tag differences. Well, how much of that has happened in this very building and what we're working in? It's getting even worse probably than our parking garages every day. So I think this is a little short-sighted, giving up those two garages, especially with the Victorian Square. It could pay for a bond itself for the revenue it's making, possibly, on our end. I don't know if you looked at that model, but it generates, what, almost $200,000 a year in income? It's about three. So, I mean, why not dedicate that money to bonding and fixing our own garages ourselves? Now, I agree, the parking authority has done a great job in managing parking in public spaces and other areas, and Victoria may be one we want to look at. But it also produces revenue that could be used in sectioned up out of our budget to bond to fix all of our garages and keep them in-house for now. So I'm still open to the discussion, but I think some of this really needs to be thought out. Thank you. Thank you. I think I misled you, Council Member Stendon, on the government center garage. We, and I apologize, we were not transferring that piece of garage over to the parking authority. So this building we're keeping? This building we were keeping. They would, and they wouldn't manage it either. We would keep this one. And the idea was that it was the last one on the list because they weren't owning it and weren't managing it, they would have to have sufficient cash to ever fix this one. So they would be agreeing to fix it, but we would still maintain it, own it? We would maintain it and own it. Interesting. We had a hard time giving it away. Well, I understand. That's what I was kind of contemplating here. But I would have a hard time understanding why that body would want to come in here and fix it then. How would that benefit this? I mean, obviously we would like it because we wouldn't have to take money out of the general fund. But how would that, as a parking authority we've structured, why would that be beneficial to the parking authority? We're not going to own it, maintain it, get any revenue from it. I'm James Frazier, the unpaid chair of the parking authority, I might add. Councilman Stemmen, a couple of questions. You're right on spot with regard to the bond issue. It's contemplated by the Lexington Parking Board that we're going to use excess cash flow to regenerate. We've generated since 2006 to effectuate a lot of these repairs. We're hoping not to have to go into the marketplace to get a bond. We're going to try to do the most we can out of our existing revenues. We've built up a fairly sufficient war chest. That plus what we make on a daily basis, we're going to do as much as we can without borrowing anything. So that will be the last thing we come to. But if we have to, depending on the size of the undertaking, of course we will. The MOA, remember, this memorandum agreement is nothing more than an agreement to agree. We've kind of got an outside framework, and quite frankly, I came to the mayor, the parking board did, and said, we think this is our mission. We think this is why we recreated in 2005 and started in 2006. I'm one of the original commissioners. I've been through this as my third mayor, and we're very invested with the parking. And I think historically you'll recognize, and I think you'll agree, that we've done a great job downtown on the on-street. The merchants are very happy. We've opened up their shops, so if I want to come shop downtown, I can find a parking place, whereas before it was a different story. So I think on the on-street we fulfilled the mandate, and it's our belief that the mission and what's set forth in the ordinance dictates that we try to do the same with regard to the parking garages. Now, it's a different animal to some extent, and believe me, there are deferred maintenance issues. And Commissioner has talked about some of them. We've had two separate independent companies come in here and analyze these garages from start to finish. And I feel very confident in the numbers. And they're big numbers. You've seen them. So the question is why would we take this on? I think it's our obligation. I think it's our job. It's our mission. Is it probably the best business deal for this Lexington Parking Authority? No. Is taking regarding the ownership of the repair for the government center a smart thing to do If we're not going to own it and not going to management, no, not in the private sector, but we're here to help. We're here to furnish parking for not just the public, but for you all, too. If we can get y'all's employees parking in this garage for free, it frees up a lot of spaces out on the street that we can utilize for the public. So I think it's kind of a lot of things altogether, but I hope that answers some of your questions. It does, and I appreciate that. What is your annual cash flow? I assume it's in the black. Yeah, we're in the black. We are a $1.5 million budget. We'll probably net about a half a million a year, and we've been in existence since 06, so you can probably do the math and figure out where we are. But I would caution you, you know, there's a fine balance between what we're charging people to come downtown and park versus making a profit. And I know I've had complaints even as of last week about the prices and some of the practices in certain areas of town. I know Council Member Farmer fought for Euclid, and they kept their old meters, and they love it over there. I know some people still have not gotten adjusted to the new meters. So I would just caution pricing it too high just to make a profit to fix garages. You're exactly right. And believe me, the pricing that we have done has been well thought out. We've studied it. We just don't go willy-nilly and knee-jerk in the night of these things. And Councilman Farmer spent a lot of time with me, as he well knows, and lobbied hard to keep the meters. And change is tough. Change is tough for anybody, whether it's Councilman Farmer's constituents or anybody's. But I think if you look around the different cities in this country, the type of meters we're using, the solar, the multispace, they're all the wave of the future. So I think we're just trying to catch up for things we haven't done for many years. Well, and again, I don't want this to seem negative, but you've done a great job, and I appreciate you being on board from the beginning. I've been here from the beginning of the infancy of it. So I think it's done a great job in our community to get parking more professional. I know it's opened up a lot of spots, so thank you for the work you and Gary have done. I appreciate that. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. A couple of three questions I'd like. First, the employees, present employees that are parking 700 employees, you're suggesting that we will not subsidize them in any way, shape, or form? The employees that are presently hired by LFUCG, they will park free like they are parking now. So now we're down to 1,400 or so. From 2,100, right? From 2,100 to 1,400. The sequencing of these, the construction and or demolition, whatever has to happen to... Yes, sir. to cost-wise, the $46,000 ultimate tab is going to be sequenced, I assume. It's not all going to happen simultaneously for several reasons. One is just the availability of parking spaces. Yes, sir. That's exactly right. But when you take 700 potential parking spaces out of the mix, will you cash flow? Or do you know? Are you talking about the whole annex garage itself? Any and all of the garages, because I don't know how you're going to sequence them and if you're going to overlap or whether you're going to do one at a time. That's not clear. Sir, the 700 number, you're talking about the employee parking? Yeah. So we ran our performance based on keeping the existing employees parking for free in the garages and using the other revenue-generating spaces to get the numbers that we're going to share. And my point is, is 1,400 spaces going to give you enough revenue to cash flow the debt that's going to be created? Yes. And in a lot of well-managed downtown parking programs, you take the proceeds from on-street and mix that with the off-street, and then that gives you enough to maintain the off-street. Obviously, the facilities are always the most expensive to keep up with. But the revenue-generating spaces that are available after the free parking, we feel like we'll be able to generate the surplus to make the payments or the cash flow that we need. It did help, by the way, downtown parking did help for 800 employees of Chase Bank to go away. And, James, in fact, you're all right on top of that situation. the cost per space i've always heard for above ground space fifteen thousand dollars of space thirty thousand for underground this works out to twenty one thousand three hundred and sixty nine dollars and thirty eight cents for space why is that is it easier to build a brand new than it is to retrofit and fix up? The cost for the new one also works out to about that number. If you looked at the spreadsheet that they had on the new construction, it's about $21,000, actually. So you have to roll in the other fees that go along with it. Usually when you're talking about $15,000 per space, it's just construction only, not site preparation or demolition of another garage. So it actually works out to about the same. And so, yes, in true business terms, like Mr. Frazier said earlier, Sometimes it doesn't make sense. But in the case of the annex, the option of not fixing it continues to get worse. It will become more and more unsafe to the point of there could be some failures in that garage. I gave up some time ago going in there myself. So, you know, at this point there is not enough money to fund a new garage. That's a great idea. The idea of planning for a new government center is a great idea, but there is not the funds available to demolish that garage, build a new one with some anticipation of something else to happen. At this point, and none of us involved with the parking authority liked the idea of $3 million going into a garage that may at some point need to come down, but we've got to do something now. It's continuing to get worse, and we've got to make it safe. The tinker toy approach or whatever that is on that ramp is scary to a lot of people, including those that are walking back and forth past it. It's an expensive endeavor, but it's what's needed to make that place safe and really to improve the reputation of the government. Because like you said, most people are looking at that and have been talking about that. I've got no question about that. I'd go over there with my super glue tomorrow and start if I could. And if it would work, it probably won't work. But anyway, the five spaces in the Victorian Square garage, the five retail spaces that have been on and off as retail and such, why is that being added to their burden, so to speak? Those five spaces, and I've looked at the legal memos about this, and to go into detail, I may need Dave Barbary, but it functions as almost like a condo. Those spaces are part of that garage, and to separate them becomes, I think, I'd say quite a legal maneuver to separate those. So that's why they went as one. I mean, they haven't been occupied. It's definitely easier to do it that way from a legal standpoint, and I think they also didn't want the, I think our own people didn't want the continuing management burden on those. I think you could probably come up with a way of parsing them out, but that would probably complicate the transaction a little bit. Well, it's just not their line of business either. Right. I will say, though, in good urban planning, first floor, street front garage developments are putting in that style, and retail and parking management groups all over the United States are taking that on as a part of managing garages. So it is a way of business. I don't feel real warm about retail downtown anyway because, obviously, Victorian Square in and of itself is selling out. Well, obviously it's a struggle, but managing those shops is going to be a bit of a struggle for either entity. It just makes the most sense to keep it in with that same property. Okay. If you'll take them, have at it. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, sir. I think one of the issues there, just as a commentary sidebar, is just what you were describing, actually giving the attention to the retail space as a business effort, I mean, which would include realtors, the fit-up, all that sort of stuff that goes into it as a component of the work effort. Council Member Lawless. Thank you. All of these garages are in the 3rd District. and I support this 150%. I'm so excited I can hardly stand it. And I don't get complaints very often about the parking authority or meters or whatever. In fact, I get a lot of real positive feedback. In fact, the complaints I get from the businesses downtown are about how the, like, Victorian Square, when they have Friday night or Thursday night live, they jack up the price of parking, making it event parking. And we've discussed that, that's counterproductive. And the privately owned surface lots that charge exorbitant amounts for events going on downtown. You all, I think, have worked a lot with Mr. Means. on my speed dial with residential parking permits, with concerns with constituents such as owners of the Chevy Chase business area trying to negotiate. You all have done some great things, the pay-by-mail or pay-by-phone. There's an app people can use. You can pay your ticket online. I mean, it's really you all have upped the service of parking tremendously. and instead of the retail parking issue, instead of people that worked at the banks or whatever parking on the street all day, there's now turnover. So there's more parking for people coming downtown. So I applaud what you're doing. I think it's very selfless, and I appreciate your volunteer work. I appreciate your hard work. But you all do an extraordinary job. And so I really hope that people will support this. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate you bringing this down. I'm usually on the receiving end of the parking authority's operations, and I think I've got everything paid up for the moment. But, you know, I like thinking outside the box. I like people who think outside the box, and so I really wanted to sort of walk down the path with you all in exploring this. I share some of my fellow council members' need for information about the business part of it. And so we don't yet have, I guess, do we know what our net revenues are? I think the current year, John, I'm saying $137,000 with these garages netted together. That's our net revenue from all these garages? You lose a lot on some and you make some on others. We feel like, and it has been as high as in the $300,000. It's just added expenses and some revenue issues. But we feel like we can enhance those revenues by doing some rate increases. We haven't worked through all those details, but also some savings. We've got plans for new lighting. Energy-efficient lighting can cut your utilities in half. And also with the garages being restored and new garage equipment in place, a lot of the maintenance costs will drop down. So we feel like we can enhance in the neighborhood of about $400,000 a year on garages. So if you take the $400,000 or $500,000 with the on-street and mix the off-street together, we're looking at maybe $900,000 to $1 million possibly in surplus. Well, part of it feels like we're creating something out of nothing because we've got these garages and we're not making any money that much on them. And we're going to give them to you, and suddenly you're going to make a ton of money on them. And so there's a disconnect that I haven't really caught up with on them. The fundamental assumption is that we're going to have enough net income to cash flow it. And if that assumption is not correct, then none of it works. Right. So can you send us some numbers? Sure. That would be great. Because that's what we need. I think we need to see that this is going to work. Because if it's not going to cash flow, doing this just doesn't do anything. So thank you, Mayor. Totally agree. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. Gary, you know I'm one of your biggest fans. Thank you. I can remember when there was major, major parking problems throughout downtown, and I think it was much, much better since the parking authority was created. Based on your experience, what do employers do? How do they handle employee parking? It's pretty rare that downtown employers cover their employees' parking. And I once heard our good friend, the late Sam Barnes, talk about the fifth, third employees. And he said a lot of their employees, where they may work at a branch bank, wouldn't have to pay to park. They feel being downtown and being at their corporate office, this is his particular experience, that they didn't mind paying the parking and they didn't feel obligated as an employer to pay for their parking. Some of the folks that work there pay in the neighborhood of $65 to $70 a month for parking in the area. Just how much, $5 to $7? $65 to $70 a month, some of that area. And so what would you say the average cost is? Our downtown is really interesting. The downtown core, the average is in the $60 to $70 to $80 range. There are some parking lots that are in the 90s nowadays. But you just get two or three blocks off the beaten path, and it drops down pretty rapidly to $20 to $30. But the average is probably in the $55 a month range, something like that. I think U.K. charges about $36 a month for their employees. That sounds about right. They go by the semester, I think. But, you know, I was just thinking that would be, it is something employees have been parking free, and I would be concerned about going a different direction. So, and I would think the parking is costing us, for providing the parking for employees is costing us something. Sure. I mean, a loss of revenue. and we will lose not much revenue on any of these parking structures. We wouldn't plan on losing any revenue. Do you mean? The city would lose revenue but not a considerable amount. By making this transaction take place? Well, this past year you surplused about $137,000. Right, which is not much. And we did no repairs. Right, and still left in the condition that they're in and wasn't able to fund repairs. Okay. But that's really the only objection I would have because I feel like you're an expert in the field. You worked in parking a long time prior to coming to LFUCG or the parking authority. So I'm confident that you could certainly handle these garages, and we would be in much better, safer shape, I think, by having the parking authority taken over. But I would object to the employees paying for their parking. Thank you. Councilman McCourt. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Hamilton, just a couple quick questions. I kind of share the same sentiments that my colleagues do about employees. And, you know, in maybe different times, this conversation takes a different tone. And the times that we're in and with what we've asked our employees to do up to this point in sacrificing it, that just kind of sits funny with me. So I just want to make sure that I put that on the table as to one of the things that I'm struggling with, with the plan. But the other question that I don't think we got asked was, if we do make the change, who has the liability still? Or liability in the garages or with the garages? The liability, when we transfer the ownership to the parking authority, the parking authority assumes that liability. Okay. For instance, we would not, as I said before, the government center, we would not be transferring. so we would maintain that before. But when we do that annex, the transit, the Victorian, once we transfer, we transfer that liability. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you. And then we've just torn down the Phoenix garage back here. Walk me through what happens with that space. Okay. When we tore down the Phoenix garage, our next thing when the asphalt plants open up is to blacktop that garage, that lot. I keep referring to as the garage again. We did not propose the transfer of that lot to the parking authority. Okay. And there were a couple reasons for that. One of them was that we felt that we needed to keep that back there for our employees. Okay. And the second reason was for some of the comments that you all have made here today about future buildings or so that we needed to keep that space in case we went a different direction in the future. So we kept that, and we're going to blacktop it, and then we're going to use, our suggestion is to use a gate, not a man gate. It's just everybody would have a card, and that gate would open. The Phoenix garage had about 146 spots in it. This one, when we come down to Blacktop and we put that gate in there, it'll have about 90. Okay. And what our plan is, is to put those employees that were parking in that Phoenix garage, and we have their names and numbers, back into this Phoenix lot and keep that parity. Okay. And then we also need some handicapped spots, but we feel that we can accommodate all that. Thank you. So those are our plans. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple more questions. If I understand correctly, we keep the air rights above the garages, correct? Yes, ma'am. And is this memorandum of agreement, is there a memorandum of understanding to follow this, or what would be the next step? You know, I asked when we started all this, I said, how many times we, what are our processes? And I'm going to quote Dave Barbary, and if I misquote you, you come up. We are going to, from this memorandum of understanding, then becomes, once this is signed, then we are, it's approved to be signed, then we are going to enter into a management agreement. Okay, well, that, and that management agreement will get a little bit more specific here. So the reference to the LFUCG employees may be required to pay, and that's after the management agreement, not after this memorandum of agreement, correct? Yes. Well, what's going to happen is if you all go ahead and consummate this, I think the timetable we were shooting for was hopefully by the beginning of next fiscal year all this would happen. and you all will have a very detailed management agreement presented to you. And the idea is everything will remain pretty much as is presented in the MOA. There may be some things that change slightly, but all of that will be in front of you at the time you basically go to execute that particular document. And the transfer of the properties would happen at about that same time. You have to see that also. Okay. I've heard several council members express concern about some employees not paying, other employees paying. So I would ask you if you can go back and look at what it would look like not to charge employees. I mean, the thinking would be, I guess, under this is that 25 or 30 years out, all employees would be paying just by attrition. So, I mean, I don't know. It seems like many council members don't like that part. So if you could go back and look at it, what that would mean to you to make that parking no charge to LFUCG employees, I would appreciate seeing that. And then the other thing is I'm going to assume, I'll address Mr. Frazier as chair of the board, that you are like other boards, Lexington Center Airport all of those entities that you have an independent audit each year is that correct yes ma'am we do we actually rotate the auditors but we have that done every year and we pledged as the document references to make an annual report to you and I think by adding the Commissioner of Finance quite frankly it might give you all a little more comfort level that you've got one of your own folks on our board to make sure we're doing what we say we're doing but yes ma'am we do we do do you recall all offhand what your audited fund balance is from fiscal year 11? I think we finished the year somewhere around $600,000. We're at $850,000 currently through December. For your fund balance? For your balance. Okay. Thank you very much. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Hamilton, you had said that referring to number 5 on page 4, You had said you thought that we parked 750 employees, but this refers to 550 employees? Or did I mishear you? I probably misspoke. We just got clarification later. We used that number. Excuse me. Yes, ma'am. So is yours 550? It's 550. I'm sorry. The number was really 550. We have access cards for the police over in the annex that added up to that figure, but they come and go and not very many of them use those. So it's 550 is the number I should be using. Thank you. I agree with the comments of the vice mayor and other council members that in a different time when you could anticipate enhanced revenue for the individuals of the government, I think that the idea of at some future point employees paying 50% isn't something that's out of the realm. However, I think in this particular time, and as we approach our second and maybe even as tough a budget as we did last year, to contemplate adding this charge on to someone who has not had a raise or an increase in at least two years can become rather burdensome because you add that on to increased costs for health insurance and other things, and it's very tight for all parties involved. So I guess logistically I would ask kind of to the council, well, do we want to, or would it be proper to make a motion to change this part of the memorandum of agreement or give instruction for it to be returned to us differently or rewritten before we would make passage on it? Because I think this is something that goes directly to people who work here and in the buildings downtown for the government, and I think it's something that we need to take very seriously. There are big numbers involved here. There's also individuals, and that's what I'm trying to cover is the idea that I believe we should, I would just make a motion that part of the memorandum of agreement be changed so that current and future employees, and I would let someone else work on the definition of what those are, not be forced to pay for parking where they do not now. I guess it's a way of making it simple, and that may not even receive a second. But I think it's part of something I'm interested to see what the council's disposition is on. There's a motion and a second. Motion and a second. I think it should be clarified that current employees, Commissioner, are not included. Yes, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misleading. No, I think you've said it a bunch of times. Current is fine. It's new and transfer in to the downtown. And I think that's what you're... And the transfer in is an addition in terms of verbiage from what was explained to me, and it's fine, I understand it. I'm just still not comfortable with the idea of adding this as a fixed cost for folks as they transfer in or are moved into the downtown. Well, maybe, just a suggestion, The proformas, I guess, I've assumed that your proformas were based on that model. So it would be worthwhile to get an adjustment. Or, Gary, can you do that? I mean, maybe the government then could make a transfer of those funds to the authority, the equivalent of what those funds might be going downstream, and make a commitment to that. Well, I think that's why we use the word may, to be honest with you, Councilman. I mean, remember, the actual management agreement that you're going to see and vote on will actually be the full nuts and bolts of how we're going to operate this. And I think the word made gives us some flexibility, and that's why we came today to hear what you had to say about it. So I think we'll take your comments to heart. So when we do the final version, if you do pass the motion, which is totally obviously in your parameter, it requires me then to take this back to my board because we voted on this, I have signed this based on my authorization, so if we change verbiage in this memorandum, I'll have to go back and amend it on my end. My thought is that because it's a may and not a shall, and we've listened to your comments, why don't you give us an opportunity to flesh that out in the final version of the management agreement. Thank you for those comments. I appreciate that. Then I would ask critical path-wise, if this motion is withdrawn and we ask them to come back, what do they come back with and what are our options at that time? Did you all understand the question? Jim, why don't you? Did you understand the question? Procedurally, I think what Councilman Farmer is asking is what flexibility, latitude, authority would the Council have to make adjustments, objections, and at what point in time? Is that accurate? That's close enough. Oh, absolutely. I think what we want to come back with is something you all like and can pass and agree to. But if you don't, there are certain line items you just can't live with. We're going to take those back and go back and do more work and see if we can come to some consensus and agreement with the two boards. Sure. So then generally speaking, you're anticipating being back to us in a month's time? We're trying to do this by the first of next fiscal year is our timetable. So we will come back to see you sooner than later. Yes, sir. All right. That's good on that. That was what I was after. And I think, then, Mayor, I would withdraw my motion in order to give them the flexibility to come back with us with a plan, I think, for the Council and the administration. I think the main, my interpretation, my understanding of the objectives of today's conversation, presentation and conversation, is to get just this kind of feedback and input. Okay. And then? If the seconder is okay, I would withdraw my motion. Okay. so that they can work on the specific that I was asking about as it refers to that one. Just to go back to the presentation itself and page 8 of it, I guess page 27 on our packet, what would be the nuts and bolts of adding the commissioner to the Parking Authority Board? And I know that that would then leave them with an even number to operate with rather than an odd number. and would that be something that would we contemplate other changes to the parking authority's ordinances, I guess? The mechanism to do that would be an ordinance change. You all have an ordinance for their board structure now, and the idea would be you would add that on through a change to that ordinance. So we could add it as proposed, or we could change it potentially to be a total of seven. Right. I might also add that the operation of our board is the chair does not vote, So in this case, as Chair, only time I will vote in case of a tie. So we will not have an even number. All right. The question had been thought about. That's good and fleshed out here, and I appreciate that. And then, I don't know, this is kind of one that Councilman Martin brought up. And I'm just, what's the magic wand? What changes? is suddenly you all have bonding capability to pay for repairs to the garage. But I would assume if there was revenue being generated by those garages now, we could bond that ourselves and make those repairs is my supposition anyway. I think that's accurately assumed. I think that what you've got to remember is if you're netting $139,000 roughly and you're not making these repairs that are needed for safety reasons and efficiency reasons, Look at the historical data. We took an on-street operation that was not making money or making very little money because this man knows what he's doing. Honestly, it's not me. It's Gary. Gary knows how to run a parking business. And I think it's just the efficiencies of knowing what you do, and he knows what he's doing. I think that's really it, Councilman. And I would go, and he's had help, and he's learned as he's gone along. I mean, we've learned from each other because, as was alluded to earlier, you all brought an answer to Chevy Chase that really didn't work in terms of how the businesses in Chevy Chase react to walking down the street to pay to park rather than getting out and parking and going in, which, in my mind, took away a unique selling proposition for us that others also enjoy, is the ability to pay where you park and walk away. There are applications for the paint display meter, and I think we've worked into a situation where they are working in other parts of town. I think we have a successful marriage, you and I. I think it's not. It's right. Marriage is a good term, by the way. Yes. This is one of those harking back to the resolution we sent to Frankfurt that some of us didn't vote for. one of the reasons I didn't vote for it was that as this relationship is one from which there is no divorce we are in these relationships and we cannot extricate ourselves from them nor in essence do we want to I just want to make sure in a couple of comments here that we are working on the same page and moving forward together because this does signify an opportunity for the parking authority to fulfill a destiny that it has had from the beginning and to help us with some structural needs I just want to make sure that we don't do it at the expense, at least specifically today, at the expense of some of our employees. And that was something I think you're going to work on. We hear you loud and clear. Thank you, sir. We do. Mayor, thank you. Yes, sir. Council Member Lane. Thank you. I guess I'll ask Mr. Means to come up. I wondered, do you have an idea what your policy will be with regard to the city's garages for fees at nighttime? We haven't worked through all those details, but we do feel like there's an opportunity for some low-rate charges to occur. We would never want to be at or above any of the market rates that are going on, but there's some opportunity there. The Victorian Square, they charge at night now already, do they not? Okay. The other point I wanted to make is that my offices are in the Chase building, and I've been there over 10 years. And it used to be that employees would just go out and park on the street, and I don't remember what the rate was, but I'm thinking it was maybe 25 cents an hour or something. And so for a couple of bucks a day or, you know, a buck to 50, they could park all day out there where the garages were charging $70.65 a month, which on 20 days, that's $3 or $4 per day. So what happened when the parking authority came up is the rates went up. The employees that were taking over all that parking space went into ground lots at $30 a month or went into parking structures. And then customers coming downtown to visit our company, to go to restaurants, there was always space available. Personally, I think you all have done a great job, and I think it's made the downtown a lot more viable for the people that work there and the businesses that are located down there. The only, I like your operation. I have studied these numbers some, and to be able to combine the on-street parking revenue with the revenues we can generate from the garages that we have, it's a good thing because it will generate enough cash so we can borrow money to either do it out of cash. So I think that's excellent. The only reservation that I have at all is that I don't want to see the parking authority spend a lot of money on a garage we may later, within, say, seven or eight years, tear down because we need to put something else there. That would be the only thing I would be concerned about. But other than that, you've got my full support. Thank you. We feel the same about that exact same topic, but like I explained earlier, there's some money that needs to be spent to keep it alive until that time comes that we can come up with a greater plan. Okay. Well, thank you very much. We would all like to be at the table for that. Okay. Council Member Blues. Just a quick question for the Commissioner on the Phoenix parking lot. Yes, sir. Ms. Hamilton, are we going to be able to make that parking available at night and weekends for the public? We had not talked at all, and we will, about that parking lot at night or weekends. We had just been thinking along employee lines. What we did tell the parking authority was we wanted to be careful that we didn't compete against them with any kind of metered parking in there because that lot was very valuable and we were keeping it and we didn't want to compete against them. We have not addressed that issue, and we will, about evening parking in there. And I don't know how that would work with the gate. just leave it up basically i guess so okay i don't see why it wouldn't be i mean i'm making a statement here about but we just leave the gate up and it would be available i guess it wouldn't compete against you all i'm hoping that might be possible i can see some difficulties there but especially uh if if a garage is closed down or partially closed down while it's under repair, that might be some help. I think that's an excellent idea. I think it's an excellent idea. One we had not considered. Thank you. Thank you, and I'll be happy to take credit if I can. Take credit. Take credit. Where credit's due. Council Member Lawless. Because of my extraordinary enthusiasm about you all taking over the garages, I just want to say I too would be concerned about employees having to pay and if it could be done on a seniority basis. If somebody leaves, that spot's still there. And somehow if we had to, that the government could subsidize to some degree those spots because I do think that our employees are working hard for doing more for a lot less now than they were a few years ago. And so I just wanted to make sure that I think that's something to think about. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. and then let them manage it. I mean, that could be a solution as well, too. Because if it's going to count against us the same way on our debt service, we're going to lose that money if we get them over to them anyway. So why not just earmark it towards debt service if that's an option, too, if you can bring that back. Thank you, Mayor. Are there any other questions? Councilman Lawless? Wouldn't this bond security issue be similar to when we bond private, nonprofit, churches, whatever, use our bond rating, but it doesn't go against our bond rating? It's the same thing. This is similar to Lexington Center Corp. in the airport in terms of we would be security, but we wouldn't service the debt. It would not be similar to the IDBs that we do for churches and stuff like that. We do not provide security. We just provide them a facility to issue bonds. So we haven't fully flushed it out. Our proposal did not include GOs. It did include the lease appropriation where we provide security. Currently, the facilities generate $130,000 in cash. If we migrate it over, the difference being they're going to improve operations and they're going to generate additional cash, plus they have cash cow in terms of on-street parking to dedicate towards this debt service. So in-house, about $130,000 positive can address needs. If they do it and we lend security, they'll use on-street parking revenue in addition to efficiencies that they develop that can then go to service this debt. Okay, thank you very much. Council Member Myers and then Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. Could you guys adjust your modeling, your cash flow, to the new model of never having the employees pay that 50%? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner, you had made a commentary about the kind of special handling for the garage that's attached to this building. Could you just review that once again? The garage here, the government center garage, would not be transferred to the parking authority, and they wouldn't manage that garage. What they would do, and I think Mr. Frazier had stated it earlier, what they would do if after the other renovations, the other repairs for the garage, and the cash flow proved feasible, they would repair this garage. And the advantage to them of repairing this garage, besides being a good citizen, would be that they would have more employees parking in this garage and therefore freeing up more spaces. Sure. That was clear enough. So it's added in as the fifth one, but, I guess is what I would say. But we're not conveying it. We're just waiting until it's the fifth one down to do anything with it or would come back and amend the agreement as we move forward at that time? I mean, based on what the needs are? I'm just, because I'm trying. No, I think you are expressing it correctly. It's the fifth one, and it's different. It's not conveyed. It's not managed by them. And it doesn't go into any of the first bond issues. I think you're correct. Mayor, can I ask you one? I don't know. Go ahead and try. You know, I'll try. Council Member Stenet talked about the idea that in looking for a potential place to have a government center, one of those potential places has been in conversation is the annex garage. So does this ostensibly take that off the table as a potential place if this goes in as one of the pieces of property that is listed as second for the ones that they would? And it does need to be repaired. There's no doubt about it. I'm just trying to get, again, kind of a critical path difference between. I looked at, no, that's a good question. I think from an urban planning model and examining that space, first you're looking at lots of moving parts and time and when a project like that would be able to be placed on the plate. The garage is in immediate need of repair. No matter what happens. no matter what happens. And if it is repaired, if potentially hypothetically downstream in 2, 5, 10, 20 years, the garage was still a meaningful asset structurally, you could build around it. I'm saying you could take down what's there on the main street and place something in its place back. So there are lots of ways to work around that planning issue is what I'm saying. There are not many ways to work around the parking issue and the urgency of the repairs right now. Thank you, sir. I tried. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to say thanks to everyone who came and talked to us about this. This is a very intriguing idea, and I think we can make this work in some shape and form. and I look forward to seeing the numbers. Commissioner, this is your third or fourth or fifth time coming to talk to us. No, that's fine. I just want to say that I just really like the conversation, the direct answers, and the thoughtful responses that you give. I just really appreciate you being on board and congratulate the mayor for bringing you in. Thank you. Oh, she was right there wanting a job. I like having Mr. Fresher next to me. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Martin. I do agree. We agree. I should have complimented Jim, too. I've known Jim a long time. Your tie is just lovely today, Jim. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah. And Commissioner Hamilton said that she had gotten a lot of good help on preparing this. Yeah, you're generous with that praise. Okay. Thank you. So I have nobody else signed up. No other council member signed up for comments or questions right now. Commissioner Hamilton, could you give us then a sort of a status of where you interpret we are right now and where that puts us moving forward based on your best judgment of what you would, in your preferences or your desires, like to see happen in this process. Okay. Now, I'm going to give you my desires, okay, which I don't think. Okay. I was hoping that what we would do next week is this would be on the council agenda, and that we would pass this MOA, and then it would have its second reading the next week, and then we would bring back to you this management agreement again. And this management agreement again would address the issues that you have asked for. It would talk to you about the financials. It would show you the cash flow. and when it shows you the cash flow if they can really make any money it also will address this big issue that we've talked about with the public, with our employees parking because this is not going anywhere until we get that management agreement until you see that management agreement a second time I mean, do you see that management agreement so what I was hoping to do, and I think Mr. Frazier shares that, is we would like to keep this on the agenda for next week, the first reading, and then the second reading, and then we would get this management agreement back to you all very quickly. And then hopefully after that, after the management agreement, then they would start to look at this financing and be able to give you a date of how they would do the financing and when they would start it. Now, is that pretty much what everybody feels? Did I make this up? So that's what I like. Okay. Okay. So between hypothetically an endorsement by the Council of the Memorandum of Agreement and the management agreement, which also would require the council's endorsement, right? Yes. We could work through the issues that have been discussed today. We could even have a workshop, maybe. I'm thinking. I'm just thinking out loud. Certainly. Where you dedicate adequate time to it, right? Mm-hmm. A couple hours or whatever it might take. Certainly, sir. Right? Okay. All right. Vice Mayor Gordon. Well, I was just wanting to clarify whether you were hoping to come back to work session with another presentation. I was hoping to come back to council. I think she already blew she's over next week, so it's going to be on there. Absent an additional action, it will be on the work session docket again next Tuesday, I think. As a new business item, David? Sir, yes. So then the changes that council members have asked for would come after this memorandum of agreement in a management agreement, which is a totally separate document that you would be asking us to pass after the memorandum of agreement. So the changes, potential changes, would be in that? Yes. Okay. Thank you. So effectively, there's nothing binding, then, in this memorandum of agreement? That's correct. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. Does anyone else have any comments for the commissioner at this point in time? All right. Okay. Thanks very much. We can move on, then. We're doing okay. He's worried about an event down the street at 7 o'clock. Next on our agenda are council reports. Council Member Sennett, you signed up for council report? Yes. All right, sir. Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple things. One, I don't see Richard. Is Richard still here? could you help us address the situation out back on the traffic flow the library seems to be sending traffic one direction we're sending traffic another direction and there's not a lot of traffic control so if you can you talk to engineer traffic engineering and get something out there tomorrow because there's just been some very serious accidents almost happen with cars going head to head and fighting over which way to go so if we can put some better signage up during this construction so everyone knows that would be very helpful a lot of employees are commenting on that and it's for their safety. And then also, as many of you know, earlier we had the discussion about the pools and the public discussion about removing Constitution Pool. We will be having a public meeting on that issue on February the 28th, 6 p.m. at Spenserian College. So if you are interested and live in that area or live in anywhere in Lexington and want input in on that plan for that area, please come out and voice your opinion at the public meeting. And then last but not least, over the last couple years, we've had many discussions there in council reports and in this government, in the community, many news reports about copper thefts. And I passed out earlier to each council member a draft ordinance and some statistics that show really how bad the epidemic is over the last several years. And briefly, I'll just go through a couple of the stats that you all have so the public can understand what we're talking about. Since November of 2010, we started tracking, along with the Department of Police, we started tracking how many copper thefts were being reported to the Division of Police. Again, these are just reported. A lot of people have stopped reporting these thefts on there. But since November of 2010, there's been approximately 1,450 reports through the end of last year, through December. We do have January's numbers now, and I can tell you they pop back up as well and have increased. The next slide we had was showing the case analysis. Basically, in summation, there's 127 arrests have been made on copper thefts. I can tell you, though, with other information, that many of those folks may have already been re-released back into our community. So there are some other issues that we'll have to address on down the road in working with our judicial system and making sure we can keep these people in jail once they do get arrested. The next slide will show you the economic value of the copper theft. Again, the last 13 months we've been tracking this, and every time they fill out a police report, we're getting the economic loss. The total through the end of last year is $5.7 million. Now, if that's not an epidemic in our community and it's time for the council to take a stance, then I don't know what is. because this is getting out of hand both monetarily and the efforts from the police department continue to increase in trying to stop this crime. And then last but not least, I'll put a chart in there for council members to look at. Here are copper prices, and if you compare the number of reports taken to this chart, you can see it follows the prices. So many people are watching those prices, and you continue to see a trend if you put the other charts on top of each other as when the spikes occur. And, again, our biggest month was September of last year, 175 reports during that time frame. So unless anybody had any questions today about the stats, I know our police department is here to answer how they recorded this. I'm going to make a motion to put this draft into the general government committee because what it does is it actually creates a permitting process to help regulate our scrap industry. Again, this is the scrap metal industry. We're talking about regulating and a better effort to give better information to our public safety folks. But it's more of a government permitting process that will regulate that industry. So I'll make that motion. Second. Motion by Council Member Stennett. Second by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. And Chair Lane, if we can hear it in the March meeting, that would be great. and I'll put another caveat, the state is also considering two ordinances as well. There's two different bills up there in Frankfurt right now circulating. Now, whether or not they pass, we don't know, but this will give Lexington an opportunity to move forward or something if they don't. And then last but not least, Mayor, over the weekend, we had a brownout of probably Lexington's busiest fire station, number two on New Circle Road, and had several citizens complain because they didn't know it was going to happen. We even had one citizen try to go to the station, and no one was there. And they didn't know where the next closest station is. And I've talked about this before. Commissioner, maybe we can publish on our website so citizens can see when this is happening and then put the next closest station so if they do have an emergency, where that might be. A better word to get communication out, a better way to get communication out, I would urge that. I know these are tough times. I know we're having to do things we don't want to do. but we need to communicate those better to the public. And I know your staff, it changes maybe daily, but if we could figure out some method of communication, I would greatly appreciate that. I know the citizens would. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. Franklin Circuit Court Judge Phillip Shepard today ruled that the redistricting plan is unconstitutional and set the new filing deadline for state offices for Friday at 4 p.m. and Lexington, I think, has suffered a great indignity by having its Senate district or one of its Senate districts ripped from its core and moved to western Kentucky. And I am hoping we had a conversation about this earlier, that the state legislature will revisit its redistricting and pass a new plan that respects that we are all Kentuckians and that we're all working for the better future for our citizens and for our children. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Martin. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I had a question for Commissioner Mason about I had requested a report from police and fire about the staffing levels and how those are going to be handled. That's set for the 21st work session. Everything was booked up until then, so we've got it on the agenda for the 21st. Okay. They'll cover brownouts and things like that, I'm assuming. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Hanson. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I wanted to just say something in response to Council Member Martin's comment about the redistricting on the state level And Mr. Schoeniger, who works for our council, told me yesterday that the Legislative Research Commission had called him to ask him how we had done our redistricting so smoothly. And so it's another chance to, I mean, it is, it was very smooth. The council did a good job with what was recommended by the committee, and it has been recognized on the state level. And I think it's another opportunity to thank our citizens who did that because it is a good example to others about how it can be done by an independent appointed committee. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Blues, then Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. As some of us will remember, we had a lengthy and fairly contentious discussion earlier this afternoon of the proposed noise ordinance. And I just want to say a couple of things about that. First of all, I think I can speak for all of my colleagues, however we may have disagreed on particulars, that the discussion does not reflect on the efforts over three years of several of our citizens and of LFUCG staff members who really gave up their time and their talents to this effort. And I really do want to reiterate how important it is and how grateful we are for citizen involvement in the legislative process, which can at times bog down. Secondly, I want to say, too, that we will, I think, think back on today's discussion, see where the sticking points are, have some conversations, and I hope that although the task force's work is done, that we can come back to council at some point and see if we can move forward with an improved noise ordinance. I think too much effort has gone into this process to let it evaporate. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Blues. Councilman Beard. Thank you, Mayor. I think just to remind the public, and for no other reason, one of the reasons why our redistricting went so well is that our appointments of the various and sundry people that were on the group to do the redistricting were nonpartisan as we are nonpartisan, which is not the case in Frankfurt. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, sir. That's all I have. No other council members showing up for council reports. We can move on then. There's no mayor's report this week. And we can open the floor. Nobody? No one is here today for public comment. So we do have a closed session. Vice Mayor Gordon. I move that we go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.8101C for the purpose of discussing potential litigation and pursuant to KRS 61.8101F for a discussion that may lead to the appointment or dismissal of an employee. Second. There's a motion and a second to enter closed session. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Council move into closed session now. Move adjourned. Nobody said no. No, it's just madness. You know it's going to be madness. Bye.