I'm rushing home, just as soon as I can I'm rushing home to see your smiling face And feel your warm embrace to make me feel so c-c-c-c-c-c- So I wanna tell you, baby, mama I'll tell you, baby, I'll tell you, baby I'll tell anyone who's I can comprehend I'll send it in a letter, baby, tell you on the phone I'm not the kind of girl who likes to be alone Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Thank you. Greetings and And I will call the meeting of the work session of the council to order and begin with public comment for issues on the agenda. Mr. Mundy, nobody has signed on for issues on the agenda. All right. Well, that allows us then to move on to item number two, which is requested rezonings and docket approval. And ordinance number 10 relates, I think, Council Member Lawless, to your district. Do you want to make a motion regarding a public hearing on that one? Yes, sir. It seems we have someone that wants to speak, but I was going to put it on the docket for a hearing. Because that was requested, it's been requested. All right, okay. So there is a motion. We'll need to discuss timing on that motion. Yes, we need a date. All right. You have... Mr. Simpson is here representing one of the parties. Is that right? That's correct, Mayor. I represent Lee and Phil Greer, so whatever day is convenient for you all, that's fine. I think there are several neighborhood folks here also. All right. I'll let the. I stay out of the... Is there a suggestion on the date? Well, it has to be heard by December 26th, and we have several breaks coming up. So. All right, there's a suggestion of the Council Member Stennett. Would you like to make a question? What about the 20th of November at 6 p.m.? Because the 13th is our first Tuesday back. I'd hate to do it that day with so many other things going on that day. November 20th? That is not a good date for me. All right, we're going to need to do this the way we do most of them, I guess. We'll put out, Council Member Stennery has suggested the 20th, November 20th at 6 p.m. All who can do it on the 20th, hold up your hand. All who cannot do it on the 20th. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. All right. Okay. All right. She didn't suggest it. All right. How about the 19th at what time? 4. Councilman, 19th at 4 o'clock. All who cannot do the 19th at 4 o'clock, hold up your hand. Can you do 5? They're out of town for Thanksgiving. 4. Can you do 5 o'clock? It's Thanksgiving. How about 5 o'clock? Council Member, will 5 o'clock work? All right. All right. Looks like we've got a sufficient number. So once again, Council Member Stanton, that's what date? November 19th, 5 p.m. November 19th, 5 p.m. All right. And how many people can be here? We're 13. Well, if we'd rather do it on a work session day, I mean, I'm just trying to pick a day that everybody's happy with. We can go to the 27th since we have two people absent. After Thanksgiving. After Thanksgiving. That way everyone can be here. Okay. You want to try that then? All right. All who cannot attend on the 27th. At what time, Council Member? Stand at 6 p.m.? Hold your hand up. If you cannot do it on the 27th at 6 p.m., well, it looks like it's unanimous. All right. All right. Depending on what long term I may have to be heard. Okay. All right. So will we accept, Council Member Lawless, would you amend your motion to include the date then? Will that be all right? Would you? Yes, I move that we have a public hearing on November the 27th at 6 p.m. Second. Motion by Council Member Lawless, second by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. I'll approve the docket. Second. Motion by Council Member Ellinger to approve the docket. Second by Vice Mayor Gordon. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Council Member Henson. I have a walk-on for the docket. All right. I move to place on the docket for October 25th a resolution specifying the intention of the Urban County Council to expand and extend partial urban services district number 5 to provide street lighting and garbage and refuge collection services for certain properties on the following street, Malvone Road. So moved. Second. Motion by Council Member Henson and second by Vice Mayor Gordon. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. I have a motion also to place on the docket for October 25, 2012, a resolution specifying the intention of the Urban County Council to expand and extend the full urban services district, number one, to provide street lighting, street cleaning, and garbage and refuse collection services for certain properties on the following streets, Glendova Road and Codell Drive. Second. Motion by Council Member Beard and second by Council Member Myers. Is there any discussion on the motion? Yes. Yes, sir. Being a resident of Glendover Drive, or Glendover Road, this is not anywhere close to my home. For the public, for the purpose of understanding. For the information of the public, right. Any further discussion on the motion? All right, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. Since we are moving items to the docket, I have one as well at this time, and I'll save another for later. And this is to add the Commissioner of Planning, Preservation, and Development as a non-holding member to the Corridors Commission, which is consistent with having commissioners or their designees from certain departments represented on the commission. So I move to place on the docket at the October 25 Council meeting under first readings of ordinances, an ordinance to amend Section 2-465 of the Code to add the Office of the Commissioner of Planning, Preservation, or his designee as non-voting members to the corridor commission. Second. Motion by Council Member Belize. Second by Council Member Beard. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. Thank you. I have no one else signed up. Council Member Lawless. Thank you. I'm not being able to log in on the screen. I move to add to the docket a resolution amending Resolution 303-2012 relating to the establishment of a residential parking permit program for the 1200 block of Castle Road as recommended by the Lexington Parking Authority. Second. Motion by Council Member Lawless, second by Vice Mayor Gordon. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right, hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. We can move now or we can vote now on the motion to approve the docket by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any further discussion? Or let's take a vote, rather. Okay. All in favor of motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. Next on our agenda is summary approval. Is there a motion? Move approval. Second. Motion by Vice Mayor Gordon, second by Council Member Blues. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. And item number four, Roman numeral number four, budget amendments. Move approval. Motion by Vice Mayor Gordon to approve. Is there a second? Second. Second by Council Member Beard. Is there any discussion on the motion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next item, moving right along. New business. Motion by Vice Mayor Gordon to approve new business items. second by second by Council Member K. Several, did you say? Thank you, Council Member K. Is there any discussion on the motion? Yeah, we're having trouble logging in, aren't we? Okay. Well, Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question first on item letter D, as in David. What is Item D? This is a rental sales agreement for Crowne Plaza for $2,500, which the amount doesn't bother me as much as it's meeting space for a promotional process for police sergeants and lieutenants. Help me understand this process. Are we expecting a large volume of our – I assume this is currently hired police officers coming in to take the test? This is our current officers, yes, to take the promotional test. It's a week-long process. There's role-playing. There's a consultant that comes in, and there's also outside raiders that come in. Is this something that will be done here in the next month or so? It's scheduled for November the 12th through the 16th. And how many openings do we have in sergeant and lieutenant levels in our division of police? I mean, I'm just looking out. We're a lot of officers short on the street. Yes. And here we are still going through a promotional process. I'm just trying to figure out how many are in that that we need to fill versus patrol. You may not be the one to answer that. John, I don't think you're the one. Yeah, I think that. But that's what I'm talking about. And Commissioner Mason, you may be well equipped for this answer, but it may be that we need a police chief here. Yeah, and that's fine. You don't have to answer today if you don't have it. But if you can give us how many vacancies we got that we're trying to fill versus how many does it leave on patrol empty. And it's also not vacancies that are currently existing. But the promotional list stays valid for a time certain. It may be one year. Two years. That was my last question. This is people that will be taking the test now that 18 months from now could be promoted. So it's not that we have vacancies currently. Then I'm good because I didn't want us to, a year from now, we're not going to have enough officers hired to fill their spot. No, no. This is for a two-year period to have people in the ready to be promoted as the process creates those vacancies. Okay. Thank you. And Council Member Stenet's question is always timely and always good, and I would endorse it, the inquiry. In fact, since it comes up routinely, I think it would be useful for us to get maybe the chief to give us a report on it and on the process. Is that fair? Sure. Always useful to be reminded. And, Mr. Maxwell, I've got another question on Jay. This is an agreement with Urgent Treatment Center for Occupational Wellness Services for three years. Yes. Is this not something we can do at our wellness center and not have to outsource? It is, and we are in the process of transitioning things to the wellness center. This contract with UTC is, even though it's a three-year contract with a one-year Evergreen, it is one that has a 60-day out clause, and there's no exclusivity, nor is there any minimum services required. So it's just another option for our employees? It's an option. Plus, there are some things that the health center won't be able to do from a 24-7 perspective. on drug screens in the middle of the night or injuries in the middle of the night, those kind of things. And this is for any employment injury for all of them? And what's the cost of the contract? Well, there's services that are provided that are outlined per service cost. Can you give us, you know, today, but a ballpark of what we're spending on this contract? Sure. Based on, you know, past claims? Sure. Mr. Richard. To answer your question, we have moved the hepatitis B shots to the wellness center. We're going to start the audiograms here shortly, and we're doing some DOT physicals over there now, so we are transitioning it over. Good. That's good to hear. And then the last question, Mayor, on items K and I just had a comment. These are mutual aid agreements in assisting our public school system with some of their law enforcement, and I'm glad to see us being so cooperative and willing to assist. I know last Tuesday we had a discussion on we need assistance on salting our roads in the wintertime. So I would just be very cognizant of keeping this in mind, that everything we're doing to work with the school system, I would hope as Mr. Maloney continues having that conversation on salting our roads, that we get the same cooperation back. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member of the Senate. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. I had a question on item H regarding professional services agreement. I think that would be Mr. Martin or Mr. Maloney. Yes, sir. How are you doing today? Good, how are you? I was just wondering how the fees were set for that and if this company would do all 82 projects or just a portion of them. No. Their fees are based on an hourly rate. they will not likely be due all of these. We advertise this with two requirements. One is that they be pre-qualified by the Transportation Cabinet since they use similar type of folks. And we also limited it to companies that had offices in Fayette County trying to be responsive to some of the requests that we were getting to try to target some of our work here in Fayette County. this individual was the only respondent that we had out of 11 that were on the transportation cabinet's list that are in Fayette County. So as I say in my description in the memo is that he can get us through I think for the first few projects and we'll probably look to expand the list. But I didn't want to go through the process of rebidding and delaying things further. Okay. Thank you for your information. Thanks, Charlie. All right. If there's no further discussion, then we can take a vote. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next on our agenda is presentations. Motion approved. Motion approved. Continuing this motion by Council Member Ellinger, seconded by Vice Mayor Gorton, to approve the NDF. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next on our agenda is a report by Council Member Ellinger on Budget and Finance Committee. Thank you, Mayor. The Budget and Finance Committee met on September 25th. We had three items on the agenda. The first one was the committee summary, which was passed unanimously. The second was the monthly financial report. Mr. O'Mara presented the monthly financials. The general revenue fund was ahead of budget revenue by approximately $1.2 million. He said several economic indicators were in positive direction. Those included the unemployment rate, building permit activity, and home sales. The final issue in the committee was the affordable housing trust fund. This was put in Budget and Finance to look at the money to help with the trust fund. And we went over the background of this issue, and then Mr. Ford spoke on how much the premium tax would increase to $1.9 million annually. He also noted that the final proposal came in Council in March 2010, which would be a half percent increase in the insurance tax. We had numerous people who spoke, citizens and council members, in favor of the proposal. And Council Member Stinnett said that he asked for several pieces of information, including an inventory of affordable housing, options available now, an inventory of funds allocated at present to affordable housing, and finally the role of the Lexington Housing Authority. We are going to keep this issue in committee, and we are waiting on the Homeless Committee report that's going to come out And because they're looking at this, we adjourned at 225. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Ellinger. Next is a report by Council Member Blues on Environmental Quality Committee. Thank you, Mayor. The Environmental Quality Committee met at 11 a.m. September 25 when there were three principal agenda items, the first being the five-year solid waste plan, which was presented by Waste Management Director Steve Feast. He discussed a number of issues, the five-year plan for collection, disposal, reduction, recycling, littering, and enforcement. He covered a number of topics, including the zero waste goal, plans to regulate private waste companies, the need for a construction debris diversion program, and several others. Following the presentation, committee members had questions. No motions emerged from that discussion. The second item was the Bluegrass Airport water quality management fee exemption request. Bluegrass Airport Executive Director Eric Frankel and Chief Engineer Mark Day appeared before the committee to request that the airport's runways, taxiways, and public ramps be exempted from the water quality management fee. The rationale for the request was that as public facilities, facilities, these areas should be entitled to the same status as exempted railroad tracks, state and federal roads, and urban county streets and roads. Discussions centered on the precedent such an exemption might set the possibility of the airport appealing to the waiver process, which was established by ordinance, and the fact that streets and roads are connected to the stormwater system, but runways and and like surfaces are not. Council Member Ellinger's motion, seconded by Council Member Lane, to amend Ordinance 16-403B so to exempt Urban County Airport Board runways, taxiways, and public ramp areas from the water quality management fee, fail 226. The third agenda item was on the matter of littering. Patricia Knight, who is chair of the Keep Lexington Beautiful Commission, reported that the state legislature at its last January session recently revised state statutes to allow municipalities to prosecute littering violations as civil and or criminal offenses. Ms. Knight requested the committee to forward an ordinance to council for the purpose of providing this new enforcement tool. Following questions by committee members regarding enforcement procedures, Councilmember Henson moved and Councilmember Ellen Gerv seconded a motion to recommend creating Ordinance 14-105 to Council. The motion was approved unanimously. And so, therefore, I move to place on the docket for the October 25, 2012 Council meeting an ordinance creating Section 14-105 of the Code of Ordinances pertaining to creating a civil enforcement system for littering violations and taking other related actions. So move. Motion by Council Member Blue, seconded by Council Member Henson. Is there any discussion on the motion? Regarding that motion, Mayor, I sent copies of the proposed ordinance to all Council members electronically and also put hard copies in the boxes last week. Susan Bush and Mark York from the Division of Environmental Policy are here to respond to questions. And Council Member Henson, who is a member of the Keep Lexington Beautiful Commission and worked on the creation of this ordinance, will also be happy to respond to questions. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. All right. Is there any further discussion? All right. Then we can take a vote. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. I didn't catch Council Member Martin's hand. Thanks. Council Member Martin. So, Dr. Ballouza, this did not go to our environmental committee. Is that right? Yes, sir, it did. It did. And was passed unanimously by all members present. Perhaps this was a meeting when I was in northern Kentucky, I guess. I'm sorry. I didn't hear what you just said. This must have been a meeting when I was out of town. All right. Thank you, Mayor. All right. So I'd already ask for the yay votes. All opposed? No? The motion carries. All right. Anything further? Council Member Blues? No. My report is concluded. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, sir. All right. Next on our agenda is Council Member Lawless, Public Safety Committee summary. Thank you, Mayor. The summary can be found on pages 38 through 40 of the packet. The Public Safety Committee met two weeks ago on October 9th. We had two items on the agenda, and there were no motions to bring forward to Council on either issue. The first item was taking a look at non-emergency calls to E911. In attendance was Commissioner Mason, David Lucas, and Sean Coleman with the Division of Police. David Lucas gave a report out. He said that since LexCall extended their hours in 2009, the non-emergency calls have decreased. There was some discussion about staffing morale and call volumes. The commissioner said the current system is working and there is no need to consider a change in the routing at this time. The item was then removed from committee. The second item was related to tornado safe rooms and hazard mitigation assistance, and it was presented by Pat Duggar. She talked with the committee about the Hazard Mitigation Grant Plan, which provides grant funding to states and localities to implement long-term measures after a major disaster has been declared. She discussed the criteria involved to become eligible and updated the committee of Lexington's status at this time. This item will remain in committee. Again, the summary is in your packets for your review. And thank you. That concludes my report. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Lawless. Next on our agenda is a report by Council Member Farmer, Planning and Public Works Committee. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate it. Planning and Public Works met on October the 16th. We approved our summary as our first item of business. Second was the repaving program and use of municipal aid funding. This is the follow-up discussion to one that actually happened during our report out last month and then went back to committee for discussion there. The subject is using the potential to bond $13 million for paving and using $1.5 million per year of the MAP money to pay it back. Council Member Stenet began a discussion on the paving needs in Fayette County. He said that council needs to review how they're going to use municipal aid funds going forward. he suggested implementing a long-term road plan. Council Member Henson reminded the council members that we have a $27 million deficit in terms of paving right now. And Council Member Blues followed up and asked if we could count on MAP money in future years. Council Member Stinnett said that the LFUCG averages $3 million per year. Vice Mayor Gordon asked Commissioner Jane Driscoll how this bond would look in context to the LFUCG's overall bonding capacity. Commissioner Iskell said that it would add $1.4 to $1.5 million in debt service each year. This payment will come before certain other obligations. Gorton asked if there were debts that were rolling off any time soon. The commissioner said that the debt service is downward sloping and that there were debts that would be rolling off. The discussion continues. Further, Council Member Lawless says that a road can disintegrate quickly. Jillian mentioned a street in her district that did just that. Going to the top of page 43, in response to a fair amount of questions, the commissioner said that rating agencies have affirmed that their ratings for us, or these are bond rating agencies, have confirmed that their ratings are stable and she does not expect the LSUCG to be downgraded in terms of its bond rating. After that, there was a discussion. I passed the gavel to Council Member Ellinger and made a motion to approve what was in the packet at that time, Scenario 2, which is to add a $13 million bond that would be paid with $1.5 million per year in MAP funds for paving. That was seconded by Council Member Beard and passed by a motion of 8 to 1. And I will so move now on behalf of the committee. Second. There's a motion by Council Member Farmer, second by Bunchman Gordon. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next on our agenda was the Newtown Pike Extension update. Andrew Grunwald said that Central Bridge was awarded the KYTC contract to reconstruct a portion of the lower town branch box culvert. Construction will begin in October of 2012 and continue into mid to late spring of 2013. On April 5th, AU Associates was selected as the developer for financing construction, constructing the rental units in the new neighborhood. it. Gurnwall moved his presentation to Phase II, the Versailles Road to the South Broadway portion. He said that design plans are 60% complete. He said Phase II utility costs are estimated at $5.4 million and construction costs at $16.1 million. Funds are programmed but not authorized. Finally, he spoke about Phase III, the Scott Street Connector. He said the final design had not begun. Utility costs are estimated at $3.5 million and construction costs at $8.7 million. Funds are programmed for beyond 2014. Then we changed our order in order to take a ZOTA issue as brought to us by Council Member Martin to begin a text amendment in relation to permitted signage in professional offices in mixed-use zones. Martin began his presentation on a zoning text amendment for permitted signage in professional office and mixed-use one zones. His proposal would allow a third wall-mounted sign for buildings with two street frontages that are three stories or higher with the following restrictions. The signs must be on different wall faces. The signs may not face an adjacent residential zone unless located on a street frontage. The revision would extend third-sign exemptions for professional office projects to buildings with three stories or greater, which are three stories or greater. Martin told committee members that the language was drafted by his council office in consultation with the LFUCG planning staff. Chris King came to the podium and said that he was comfortable with the draft. At that point, Council Member Martin made a motion to approve the initiation of a ZOTA for Article 17.7E and send it to the full council. Council Member Beard seconded, and the motion passed without dissent. And I now so move on behalf of the committee. Second. Motion by Council Member Farmer and second by Vice Mayor Gordon. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. There was one last item, just another report, Mayor, and that was on the Todd's Road widening update. And while it's all very interesting, I really don't want to read it all. Bob Baird was called to speak and provide the committee members an update on the Todd's Road widening project. He said that the project will begin on Todd's Road near Andover Drive and will extend 1.6 miles southeast to the future Polo Club intersection just east of the I-75 overpass. The project will widen the extending rural two-lane section of Todd's Road to an urban two-lane section, plus a center turn lane, bike lanes, curb and gutter, and sidewalks. The design plans are approximately 60% complete. The funding and reimbursement agreement for the contract modification was recently approved by the Council, and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet and design changes are proceeding. He made further comments about the possibility of splitting Phase II into two sections. If split, Phase II would be from Kim Bolton Drive, Cypress Point Way to Andover Forest Hill Drive, and Phase IIB would be from Polo Club to Kim Bolton, Cypress Point Way, all with the idea of being done before August 2015 and the opening of the new elementary school in that area. The right-of-way acquisition process will begin when the design is complete. $1 million is programmed for right-of-way acquisition. Construction funding is estimated at $10 million and is spread between two physical years. However, SLX funding programming is being reexamined to see if all of Section 2 could be done as one project. There were other comments, and that ended the update. We then took up committee referrals and things to be removed, and mercifully we adjourned shortly thereafter. That would be my report, Mayor. Thank you. Mercifully. Thankfully. Mercifully. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. All right. Next on our agenda is a presentation by Mr. Ed Gardner of our Department of Law regarding the collective bargaining agreement for FARA majors. Thank you, Mayor. Ed, thank you. Those of you that are keeping score, this is the fifth out of six total public safety collective bargaining agreements. We are in negotiations for the sixth as we speak, so hopefully that will be coming to you fairly shortly. Once again, I'm proud to present, on behalf of the administration, a hard-fought-out collective bargaining agreement between the administration and one of our fire unions. I certainly want to thank the members of our bargaining team, Chiefs Harold Hoskins and Rick Jordan, again, Ashley Case from HR, and again, Clay Mason and my commissioner, Janet Graham, and Jane Driscoll, and then most particularly at the table, Ryan Barrow, the money man, as I call him in the negotiations, was there and was instrumental in getting this agreement. In your packet, there were some highlights of the agreement. I'm not going to belabor them, but I will hit on them for purposes of the, you know, mainly the public, and just so you'll know what went into this. The first change was really to the alcohol and drug-free workplace policy. There was just some clarifications there about the ability to get a confirming blood test. If there is a problem identified in the first blood test, there had been an issue in a specific incident that gave rise to the concern there. That is consistent with what we did in the Firefighters, Lieutenants, and Captains contract, and it is consistent with what our practice is throughout the government, is my understanding. Article 19 in discipline is one of the real positive things that came out of both the fire negotiations. That allows the implementation of suspensions up to two weeks without having to go through an arbitration process in advance. More major discipline cannot be implemented until after that process, but the union was agreeable to letting the lesser written reprimands, lesser suspensions, not have to go through that process. They still have a right to grieve, still have a right to contest it, but it can be implemented, which puts it more along the lines of how our civil service system works for those types of discipline. There is an increase of compensatory time that can be accumulated in Article 25. That's something the union wanted because of the realities of what their jobs are, but my understanding is that the administration will have controls over that to some extent to avoid any abuse, obviously. It'll start sounding familiar now because the other contracts all included reductions to vacation time. These union members are also agreeable to the first two years. They will receive two less hours per month of vacation accrual. And they do not have swing holidays and fire. They specifically list all their holidays. But two of those holidays being Good Friday, actually three of the holidays are going to be suspended, if I've got it right. Good Friday, September 11th, and the day after Thanksgiving. and then holiday premium pay is also going to be suspended for the first two years of the agreement. That's getting paid extra when you have to work on the holidays. Bereavement leave, there's a slight increase there from one calendar day to 32 hours, remembering that these are still 24-hour. Their pay is based on the 24 on 48 off arrangement. There's change to injury leave. Again, this makes consistent with the firefighters there's a potential that a person can stay on entry leave for two years if they have a specific return to work date. The idea being we don't want to make people retire on disability if they can come back to work within a reasonable time. There is a provision in the scheduling of leaves article. It was agreed that if the Commissioner of Public Safety causes an emergency and that causes someone to have to work comp time, there would actually be a payout. those situations of the comp time in lieu of just taking the time. Obviously, those situations are very rare, and it would be only in extreme circumstance for the commissioner to do that. The uniforms and equipment, Article 39, is consistent with the firefighters' lieutenants and captains. We'll create a quartermaster-type system beginning in July of next year for this group. There's a reduction to clothing allowances of $100 reduction in the first year and a $75 reduction in the second year. So there are some cost savings there. Again, this is a very small group, only about 20. So the numbers in terms of dollars are not great. But I want to emphasize, as I did the last time I was in front of you, that the sacrifices that this group has agreed to is along the lines of what the other unions have done. And finally, the pay schedule, this sounds familiar too. There's a rights freeze for the first two years of the contract, meaning there will be no structure movement and no cost of living adjustment for the first two years of the contract. At the beginning of the third year of the contract, step movement would resume. And at the beginning of the third year, there would be a 1% across the board step schedule increase, so a structure move of 1%. And then at the end of that third year, there would be a catch-up step if the individual is eligible for another step. And finally, and this is, again, I think something that while it appears that it's going to cost money, may actually save money over time, and that's the creation of another step at 1.5% over the current high step, again giving more longevity, something for someone to stay for as opposed to going out a year early on retirement. The term of this agreement is three years, and it's the same as the firefighters, detainants, and captains. We have done four-year agreements in police and corrections. One of the reasons for a three-year agreement here, we did discuss at the table the possibility of a four-year, is to try to stagger the collective bargaining agreements. We've got a situation or had a situation where we had so many agreements coming due at the exact same time, not within a month or two, but exactly the same time. it's impossible to get them all negotiated in a timely manner so that you don't fall into what we call the evergreen clause where they just continue. So we could have worked a four-year deal, but the three-year deal separates out this contract, and I think that will be good when the next round of negotiations comes about. As I mentioned, the financial impact of this contract is not great because of the small numbers, but I would remind the Council that in the original firefighters, lieutenants, and captains, there was a $4.7 million savings over the three years of that contract. The two years of no pay, no structure, the reduction in vacation, et cetera, in this contract falls in line with that and becomes part of that $4.7 million savings, again reflecting the sacrifice of this union in agreeing to do that. I'd be happy to try to address any questions. We've also got Chief Hoskins here if there are specific questions about operations. Thanks, Ed. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Gardner. I appreciate you coming and talking to us about this. I've asked this on, I think, all of the contracts. So are there lobbyists paid for under this contract, or are they under the other contracts? Well, this is another situation, and I'll look over my shoulder to make sure I'm being right. I think there's a combination between the two contracts, and I confess to you I should have after your question, but I didn't look up the specific number. But we've got that answer in the room if you need. That would be great, yeah. And I guess for the council members and those at home, the collective bargaining contracts provide that a member, in this case of the fire department, can essentially be assigned to the General Assembly when it is in session in order to lobby the General Assembly for issues that are supported by the fire union. I think that's a safe way to say it. I just spoke to the president of the union, and he is actually the only person that is given time to do this. Others can use his time instead of him, but there's only one at any particular time. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Councilman Martin. Anyone else have any question or comment for Mr. Gardner? Ed, thanks very much. Thank you. Commissioner Graham did a nice job of praising you just recently, and I think on behalf of the city and the council and administration, I want to thank you, Ed, repeat what Janet said, reinforce it. Thanks for your institutional knowledge and for your leadership and for the whole team that worked together on not only this one but all of the contracts. And it certainly is a team effort. Thank you. Thank you. All right, next on our agenda, we've got two presentations by Pat Duggar. These presentations emerged out of the Council of Link's meetings earlier in the year. One is on the animal plan for disasters and on the outdoor warning siren system. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Appreciate being here. And I'd like to say that we have Susan Malcolm with the Lexington Humane Society and some of her staff here. So if you have additional questions, since they're so intimately involved with this plan, that they'd be happy to answer as well. Just real quickly, I just want to tell you about the legal mandate. It was passed federally in 2006, and it basically was one of the federal unfunded mandates that came along. And it was mainly in response to the animal-human issues that were developed during Hurricane Katrina, although animals and pet sheltering have been an issue as long as there's been disasters. And basically what the plan requires, the Federal Pets Act requires, is that local governments, state governments, have a plan for the evacuation, rescue, sheltering and essential needs of household pets and service animals during a disaster. In 2003 and 2009, most of you are familiar with the ice storms we had at that time, and that certainly showed us locally the need that there was for emergency animal sheltering. We did have lots of people that would not go to a shelter if they could not take their pets, so it did show us locally that there was a need for this. Human life and safety is at risk if people endanger their lives or the lives of the rescuers for the sake of their pets. Sometimes you have to go rescue the animal or the people there, and if we can get them to leave safely and go to a shelter, then you minimize that risk to the pets and to the people and to the rescuers. And in 2009, basically FEMA did decide and declared through their policy that pet sheltering is a refundable item during a federally declared disaster. So if we had a presidentially declared disaster in Fayette County and we had costs incurred from pet sheltering, those costs could be reimbursed just like many of the other costs we would undergo. Some of the facts is that Bluegrass Chapter of the American Red Cross does provide general population shelters in Fayette County, but they only permit service animals in their shelters, not general pets. And then not all owners plan for their pets before or during a disaster. We try to encourage that and get people to do that, but unfortunately they don't do that. So there are people that have the need for pet sheltering. Basically our current situation is this. We have a verbal agreement between the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government and the Lexington Humane Society and the Lexington Fayette Animal Care and Control for sheltering of animals during a disaster. And this is basically limited to about 100 animals. It could come or go just a little bit from that, depending on their current population and some other things. After their resources are exhausted, we can provide additional resources. We do have, through my office, a pet sheltering trailer that has some supplies and equipment in it. We also can help supplement them with volunteers through the CERT, the Community Emergency Response Team members, and potentially an additional location other than their location if that's necessary. If it goes over 100 animals, then Lexington Humane has an MOU with American Humane, and so does Kentucky Emergency Management. So we have two possibilities for the implementation of an MOU if the need becomes greater than 100 animals. Some things we're still working on is the formal agreement and some amendments possibly to the contract to allow some suspension and some disaster and emergency situations where animal care and control can be reimbursed for overtime for resource expenditures and some other things. But we do have the process ongoing, and we're going to formalize the agreement and get into some of the specifics as we move forward in the next several months. But that's kind of where we are with animal sheltering. Thank you very much. You want to move right on into the warning system? Sure. Thank you, ma'am. We can take questions in or comments after done on both of them. You ready? I'll start while Chris is pulling it up. I just basically wanted to give you a few facts about the system. We currently have 27 sirens, and they all have voice capability. They're primarily located in the parks. There's a few others that are not in the parks, but primarily they are in the parks. The life expectancy of an electronic siren is approximately 15 years, and that information becomes real important as we go through a few other things in the slide presentation. The very initial installation of outdoor warning sirens in Fayette County was done in the late 70s with some grants. Six of the original sirens have never been upgraded, and they are over 33 years old, and that's why we have so much money going into the maintenance of sirens. We have 14 sirens that are 12 years old, and then you can see in your packet in the presentation, the siren with voice, and again, this is going to depend on the atmosphere and things like that, it will cover around a fourth of a mile around each siren, which is roughly a population of 24,000. The siren sound, which is a half a mile, collectively will reach a population of about 104,000. Just roughly to give you a little bit more history, there were eight sirens installed, then seven, then one, for a total of 16. All those were done with grant funds. Then in 1997, when my office became more involved in the situation, we basically took all of the sirens down because from the time they were installed in the late 70s until 97, there was no maintenance done. So most of them did not work. So we took them all down and were able to reuse 11 of the original 16 sirens. and they were refurbished by some folks in Division of Police and Fleet Maintenance and Parks and we lost five total. They just were not able to be repaired. Then in 98, we bought 10 new sirens with grants, added two more in 99, and then UK actually added a siren that's part of our system in 2000. Today, these four sirens we just recently were able to upgrade were are the oldest sirens that we have. and they are to the dinosaur age that we can't even buy parts for them. We have to literally send them back to the factory to have them rebuilt and refurbished, which means since we can't get parts, when those sirens go out, they're basically sitting there not working. So we have that possibility of having those sirens not working at some point in time. These are the next set of sirens that we've been able to upgrade to the newer technology, and all but one of these were done with grant funding dollars. The one at police headquarters is an exception to that. We basically put that up for the World Equestrian Games and it was a combination of old siren parts that we were able to get from Madison County when they updated their siren system and some old parts we had from some of our older sirens that we had refurbished. These are the newest old sirens that were installed in 1999-2000, but you can see being 2012, almost 2013, they too are getting near the end of their life expectancy and need to, again, to start having them refurbished and upgraded to newer technology. One of the things that the committee had asked for was some cost associated with the sirens. So I just put a real quick sheet in there so you can see how much had been spent by local dollars, federal dollars, et cetera. And then the funding requests that we have made over the years. We've requested sirens almost every year and have really gotten very little money to improve and continue the outdoor warning upgrades or new sirens. The siren maintenance costs prior to 2001, building maintenance, parks, and rec, and police contact maintained the sirens out of their own budgets. And then after we really started getting into the maintenance, when we put them back up, they realized it was going to be an expensive endeavor and decided that they needed to ask us to do that. So we started asking for maintenance money. This is just roughly the funding that has been requested and approved over the years for siren maintenance. And then you can see on the right-hand column the upgrades we started in 2009 with Tates Creek and Constitution. Again, that was done with grant funding. Jacobson Park was done with another different type of grant funding. idle hour and lands down and all of this is in your packet. Then this is the thing I think that you are most interested in. The siren replacement cost is one of the things the committee asked us to put together. To repair the six or now the five oldest sirens, because like I said, we just recently last week got Shilatoe upgraded with grant dollars. At the unit cost, it's going to be $53,566 for the siren itself. And then for installation of that siren, roughly $5K, another $30,000. So roughly $84,000 to upgrade the oldest sirens we have. Then we have the middle sirens and the cost there to do those. And then to put in all of the sirens, one of the things we had hoped to do to make the messaging more clear is you can update the sirens with a digital chip, and you can literally have prerecorded messages that you just pull and play rather than the dispatcher having to read that message over the loudspeaker and something going awry. So that will give us the capability to do that and make that a little bit more efficient and more timely and also make the message clear. For new locations only, we had talked about adding some additional sirens to the outdoor warning system. If we went with new sirens at $20,000 apiece, it would be $123,000, and the installation of that is about $42,000. And that's to install them just like we have the electronic with the voice. If we were to do a siren replacement totally that's non-voice, unfortunately you just can't turn off the voice on these. You have to install a totally different siren. And it does have, will last longer. It has a longer life expectancy than 15 years, but you do lose the voice capability and the messaging capability. But to do that at all 27 sites, it would be about $503,000, and the installation would be $194,000. And then we'd also have to modify the controller in dispatch in order to do that, and I was not able to get a price for that at the time. So that's kind of a rough, quick rundown of where we are with the sirens. I just want to emphasize again that those four way back in the beginning are the ones that we're most worried about because, again, when those go out, they just sit there unable to be utilized until the manufacturer can send us a retrofitted park back. And those are the ones we most currently need funding to get updated so our siren system will continue to work. Thank you. Thank you, Pat. I have Council Member Beard signed up to speak, comment. Thank you. A clarification, Pat. In your slide, you had four parks, refurbished warning sirens in place today, no update since 1997. That means they're operable? They are operable at the moment, yes. Well, for whatever reason, I've only lived, I'm not going to tell you how long I've lived in Lexington, but I've never heard the sirens, ever. Another odd thing about it is that two out of the four sirens are in my district. Well, sirens are intended to only be for the outdoor population. They're not intended to be heard in your home. So maybe you're just never outside when they go on. That may be. Or if I run quickly to my car, they won't catch me. Okay, thank you, Pat. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Mayor. Pat, what sound do these sirens make? That's a good question. For a test, which we do the first Wednesday of every month, they actually do a Westminster chime. and then they have a voice message. For a tornado warning, they do a three-minute wail. And then the only other sound that we use is if we were under an attack by a foreign country, and that's a very large tone wailing up and down kind of. So when they're chiming, that's just a test? When they're chiming, that is the test. Okay, because I didn't realize that for a long time. I just thought it was time to go to church for somebody. And I just wanted to make sure that people said, no, that's the warning. And so I just wanted to let people know when it chimes, it's a test, not a warning. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Council Member Stannett. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Pat, for reiterating that these sirens are not meant to be heard indoors. That's correct. We get a call like that all the time as soon as they go off. I couldn't hear it or I couldn't understand it, but it's for the parks. and people outdoors are the main thing. So thank you for reiterating that, and thank you for the Humane Society for all the work you do in preparing for our animals, because a lot of people forget about the animals and what do we do. I was just curious, do we keep a list of hotels and facilities that do take pets in the event that we can direct people? We don't. We used to do that, and it changed so frequently it was extremely hard to maintain. But what we'll do during the – and I think the Humane Society does keep a list like that, And since they're in the EOC with us helping man that desk, we usually get that from them at the time. Okay, so we do have it available. Yeah, I think they have vets that also take, is that correct, vets that will take kenneling, you know, so if you don't have arrangements. So we have several of those lists as well. So they just call 311 during an emergency and direct that information? Yes, they'll transfer it over to the EOC and we can answer that call. Okay, thank you. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. Do you feel like we have a public safety issue and that we need to either add or replace some of the sirens immediately, or are we reasonably covered? I think that we need to do the updates on the four sirens on the screen immediately. Because, again, if they do stop operating, then we have no coverage in those parks. And we've had that situation, and it makes me a little nervous. but fortunately we've gotten the parts back from the manufacturer before we've had severe weather. Do you have plans to ask for money in your upcoming budget for next fiscal year, or do you have money in this budget for the fiscal year for replacement? The money that I had in this fiscal year I just spent to update Shillito. So, yes, I do have plans to ask for more. And then I think you had indicated you possibly could get grants. Is there grant money available now or not too much? The emergency management grant dollars we have been able to use somewhat in the past. We have just gotten the guidance and are reviewing that. I don't know if it's going to be eligible or not, but if it is, it's certainly something that we will look at, yes. Is there anything the council needs to do to assist you other than write out a blank check? We don't really need a blank check. Just $80,000 would be good. Okay. Thank you very much. All right, that's all. Council members signed up. Thank you. Pat, thanks very much. Thanks for joining us today. All right, that's all we have scheduled for presentations. We can now move on to council reports. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. First, I want to thank you, Mayor, and the folks who came out last week for the ribbon cutting at Clay's Mill Road for the first phase of this road. After 30 years of talking about it, we finally have a large chunk of it done, and I appreciate you, Mayor, making it a priority, and the folks at District 7 and Woodall and our engineers making this a priority. So it was a good day, so I appreciate you being out there. Just real quickly, last Tuesday I had hoped to ask a couple of questions to Parks regarding the press conference that was held, I believe the day before, with the naming of the skate park inside Kirk Levington. And it was my understanding that the skate park was given a name by a corporate partner who had generously given us some cash resources for the infrastructure of that park. And while I'm deeply appreciative of all of our corporate partners and such partnerships, I merely wanted to ask and see what our contract looked like with that particular partner. and it's interesting because the reason why I guess it struck me about this particular press conference and this announcement was that for my entire eight years on this council, I've pushed as hard as anybody to try and get outside dollars to build some of our parks' infrastructure and not always just relying on our own stuff. And so, one, I was very appreciative that we were doing that. But, too, the amount that we had been given to name this park kind of threw me because I'm very familiar with Council Member Myers and the work that he's been doing to build a world-class skate park. And I know some of the numbers that he's trying to raise and to attract folks here with a substantial amount of money for naming rights. And so they were very incongruous, and so I just wanted to ask some questions about that. But so I sent an email when I got home to Commissioner Hamilton and to a number of parties, the council included, and folks who I thought either had the ability to help answer the question or would want to know the answers to those questions. And what happened next was probably the most surreal thing that's happened to me since being on council. And first off, I want to thank you, Commissioner Hamilton, for your professionalism. You truly are a true professional. and I am very appreciative of you and the role you're in. However, the way that my question was treated by certain folks inside our government, certain employees, was not acceptable. I wouldn't want an employee talking this way to any member of our public, but much less an elected official who has spent a lot of time trying to help that particular division. So, one, it was very off-putting to see the email response I got back, and every one of you as a council know what I'm talking about. You'd seen it and were covered and copied on that in my subsequent emails. And so what started out as just a simple request for some information and looking at our contract with this particular corporate partner to say thank you has raised a lot of questions, a lot of questions that need to be answered and they need to be answered publicly by our park staff. And specifically, I know other council members have questions with regard to this, but specifically for this council member, one, I want to know exactly who was the person that negotiated this particular deal for that particular price and why that was done. And I would like to know, you know, what were the commitments made around that, what has been communicated to other folks. and especially you all because how many times has it come up that we've wanted to name something and someone has wanted to name something and we've been told over and over there's this process, there's this process and you've got to go through the Parks Advisory Board and so forth and so on. And to get back that this naming situation was going to go before the Parks Advisory Board tonight or later this week whenever they meet without us knowing or anything like that, that begs a lot of questions now. And so, again, what started out as a simple inquiry has turned into something a little bit more, and I think that it begs some more questions to be asked. And so with that, I will just leave it for other council members that may have questions. Thank you, Council McCord. I do think Commissioner Hamilton is here to answer perhaps questions or comment on this as well. Commissioner Hamilton? First, I would like to offer a public apology to Councilmember McCord for the response that he received. And we have taken action there. You are all elected officials and should be treated with that respect. And I sincerely apologize for everybody that works for General Services and also the government. So please accept our apologies. I think that Council Member McCord raised some very good points in his original email. And that is that we should, the sign, the naming rights on that park is no longer there. That should not have been a naming situation. We should have put there, if you go back to the contract, that contract talks about what they do for us if they have that phone contract. And what they do for us is they can give us some things, like they gave us the skate park elements. And what we should have done is we should have put a sign up there that said, a temporary sign that said, skate park elements donated by Cricket, not the cricket skate spot. And that was a mistake on our part and one that I think you very well pointed out because it does bring the whole issue up of if you did name a skate park, what is the price of naming a skate park? Is it $15,000? Council Member Myers has a much larger skate park, and we don't want to compete on that basis. So I think it really made us, this was a horrible week because of what we did, but it made us really think. And I sort of went back to my experience at KET. You know, we have, there's more at KET than a naming policy. You have an underwriting policy because it sort of comes real close to this. You have a public television station that can't just sell itself to the highest bidder, just like a park system can't sell itself to the highest bidder. But there has to be a KET, and I've gotten those again because we're looking now at, for lack of a better word, underwriting policies as well as naming policies. And what we're doing is I'm going to take a look at those underwriting things at KET because they tell you, here's a spot, if it's a 30-second spot, it's worth this, if it's positioned here, and this is how long you get to keep it. To me, sort of all this comes, it's sort of all the same thing, that we need to look at this this way. And I think you raised, I would have never come to this issue if you hadn't raised the question. And I think it was a very good question. So we are going to proceed to think down this line and come back to you all with something that line. Thank you, Commissioner. Anyone else wish to speak to this issue right now? Councilman McCord. Let me just come back to that again. Commissioner, your professionalism is duly noted, and you've been a joy to work with it every time I've ever worked with you. and I appreciate you falling on the sword for some of these folks. And it's one of those deals where it's not you that needs to apologize. But at the end of the day, what I've found in working with parks a lot is there has been a real pushback to trying to get some of these naming things done, trying to aim for larger amounts of money and doing things. You just go back to the Fifth Third Pavilion situation and some of the frustration that was had there in that, you know, in trying to get these policies put in place to where we have some idea of what's going on. And so at the end of the day, what this also brings up is the lack of coordination between, again, a council member who's been very vocal about skate parks. I mean, everybody knows George Myers is about skate parks and trying to do something world class. And so for our parks folks who work with Council Member Myers not to know that and to do something like that, Again, it begs the question of I don't understand that, and I would like to know who was the person having the communication with cricket and saying this is what we're going to go do. Because I know it wasn't you, it wasn't a killer. I don't know that exactly. Terry, do you? Was it Rudy that did the cricket deal? You can say whoever it was did it. Excuse me, Councilman. Would you repeat the question specifically for me? Very simply, who worked with Cricket and said, we're going to name this for this amount of money? A fellow named Rudy Cruz works for Parks and has been our liaison with Cricket. Let me make clear, I hope, that it was never our intention nor Cricket's desire to have the spot named for them. They frankly weren't interested in having the place named for them. They really just wanted some recognition for their donation. It was our intention, as Sally suggested, to have something that said, these elements donated by Cricket Wireless. That was our intention. Somehow it turned in, unfortunately, to a sign that said the Cricket Skate Spot, which suggested ownership, and it really wasn't our intention or theirs. I really hope that they don't become embarrassed by all of this. they did what they wanted to do, which was to quickly give us $15,000 in their corporate year. They wanted to see something there this summer, and they wanted to know what could be quickly done. We showed them a number of parks, including Berry Hill, and they told us they really wanted something in a different location, and they decided, after giving a list of parks, that they wanted to be associated with Kirk Levington. So they didn't want it, but yet we gave it to them, And if Mr. Cruz is our liaison, then Mr. Cruz needs to stand at that microphone and tell us what the thinking was behind it, because as I'm hearing, it wasn't you, Jerry. It was then Mr. Cruz that was doing it. And Mr. Cruz is also the one that sent the very inflammatory email. So I think that would be very good for maybe the council to have some questions for him. But at the end of the day, if they don't want it, then why does it happen? And I go back also, Council Member Ford, if you remember, some of our employees that had felt somewhat unprofessionally treated in solid waste from a director and standpoint, from the standpoint of the director and some comments, and some of the apologies that were made from that microphone from those folks that had done that. I think that's the same type of thing that we're looking for here. I think that what I see sitting here is there's a whole lot of questions around are we doing deals inside here that are confusing? Are they inconsistent with council policy? If so, then we need to have those folks that are making those things stand there and answer some questions. I think, again, I think you raise a very good issue, and I think that what we've done is we're not thinking big enough, you know, and we don't, and I think that that's why you want to see us update this master plan that we're going to do on the 11th, because we really don't have what you would call a development policy. And when we don't have that, then it's just 15 here and 10 here. So we're going to try to do that. All right. Thank you, Commissioner. Is this regarding this? Yes, it is. All right. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you. I guess, first of all, what is our policy then? I know I saw that email, but what are we right now when we look at naming rights and what's the process it has to go through? Because I know this has been an issue before when we wanted to try to do things. We've usually had a pretty standardized kind of way about going to do that. So what is it? How did this become the naming and how did that person get the authority to do that? I'm kind of lost in how this happened. We skipped a whole step. I mean, that never should have happened. We named that the cricket skate spot, and it would have had to have gone through, back through, in order to name it, it would have had to have gone back through the advisory board, and it did not. And how does that slip through the cracks? How does that happen, and how do we have a press conference on that? That kind of amazes me that that can happen. And again, I think our intention was to honor Cricket for their donation and to thank them publicly, but it wasn't to name the place. We wanted to simply thank them for their efforts and their generosity in making a new amenity appear in the community. It wasn't the intention to name the place. The name got placed on a press release which got more coverage than any six press releases generally get here, unfortunately. and there was a skateboard size 10 inches by 30 inches placed over there above our rules sign that said the cricket skate spot. It shouldn't have said that. It should have said the Kirk Levington skate spot donated in part by cricket wireless. And so there was no intention to name it, but it certainly has the appearance of our having done something. We apologize. But don't ever let me mislead you. There is a skate, there was, it's not there now, but there was a skateboard that said the cricket skate spot. And I certainly don't want to do anything that would not allow the corporations who want to come out here and want to help support us. So I don't want to in any way discourage them, but I just think that we make sure we have to go through the right protocol. I think you're exactly right. because we want to keep it as standardized as possible, and I know we all feel that way. There's just no, I mean, I can't stand up here and give you a very good reason for why this happens. It's just a mistake. I apologize. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. When I played football at the U.K., my football coach used to say when we watched tape, he said if you're going to make a mistake, make it full speed. He could tell if we were wrong in our technique and we hesitated. If you make a mistake, go full speed. There's two issues here that I would like to address. I think we all are aware of the communication that Council Member McCord is referencing. I think we were all privy to it. Council Member McCord is deserving of an apology. and I doubt not that efforts have been made to express that to him. I don't think that it is akin to the issue of solid waste that we had a year ago. Let me clearly state that. So in regards to that protocol, my colleague across the horseshoe is deserving of such, and I think such will be rendered. I would offer to our parks official, to our commissioner and our director, don't be apologetic for being entrepreneurial. I probably have more parks in my district than most council districts. And if you guys can be creative and can build bridges and relationships with corporate partners that seek us out, I say go for it. I'm a member of the Parks Advisory Board, as is Vice Mayor Gordon, and I think we have a meeting tomorrow. I'm all for policy and protocol, but the practical matter is, What would this park board member say if a corporation says we want to invest X amount of dollars here for this purpose? I think it's very unfair to the corporate sponsor in question. I hope cricket will continue to engage LFUCG. I also want to talk about the dimensions of what we're talking about. I haven't had the fortune. It's been quite a while since I've been to Kirk Levington Park. But for what I understand, and I hope you guys had a great event in naming that at that time, but my understanding is that dimensionally and within context, we're not talking about the same thing. We're talking about a, and Jerry, if you can help me here, We're talking about a much smaller area in comparison to what Council Member Myers is envisioning for Berry Hill Park. So going by the naming policy, I don't see where the harm is. I don't see where if a business person or corporation is willing to make an investment that we cannot afford, yet our constituency will deem the benefit of to recognize them as such. What is, I might be missing something. It's about 50 by 70 feet that we're talking about. So did we rename Kirk Leamington Cricket Park? No, sir. Okay, thank you, Jerry. So we recognize a certain spot where they place their investment. Secondly, the question I think I would have is our corporate sponsors are under no obligation to partner with this government. They're also under no obligation for us to direct or dictate whether their investments can be laid. Is that correct? That really doesn't make sense for this council to say, corporate sponsor, sir, madam, we want your funds, but we want you to do with it what we want you to do with it, where we want you to place it. That doesn't sound very fair to me. So, again, I hope that we can resolve the issue that Council Member McCord did in regards to the communication. But I don't want us to – this government will be making a huge mistake if we fail to present ourselves friendly to the very corporate sponsors we need, particularly for our parks and recreation system. Thank you, Mayor. Councilman Poirot, does anyone else wish to speak to this issue? Okay, Mr. Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner and Jerry, thank you for appearing before us today to give us more information on an ugly situation. It was just said that there wasn't much harm done, but there was. This was beyond this situation. And first, I want to appreciate or give my thanks to Cricket, because they are stepping forward and are being a good community sponsor. It's a shame that their name has been brought into this foe. But having said that, we do need a policy as to what type of organizations we're going to let be named in our parks, what type of money we're going to take them from who, because it goes well beyond saying, oh, I want to give money to Lexington Park and Recreation, but we need to dictate from who, because obviously we've got into this conversation a lot lately about advertising on our websites and who should be allowed to put their minutes and what neighborhood organizations should or should. I mean, it's a bigger issue than just this part, but it goes through government-wide. Who should we be accepting dollars from, and where should we be willing to accept those dollars for? Do we want to start putting it on the back of police cars? Do we want to put them on ambulances, fire engines? I mean, there's a whole number of things cities across the country are doing to balance their budgets. So starting with this little situation, there's a much bigger overlying problem, and that's marketing. What are we willing to give up as a government and as a community to let people advertise in our public spaces? And I think that's where this conversation ultimately needs to go. So I appreciate the way you're trying to handle it. But there was harm done. Make no mistake about it. And there needs to be some repercussions in terms of our policy, how employees treat council members when they ask a question. It's okay to have Snickers and things behind. Okay. We all are human. We do things. But when you put it into a public spotlight as an e-mail, it takes it to another level. And I appreciate both of you willingness to be here today and stand up for it. And what is the situation of the park as we stand now? There's no sign-up, but we are going to put in a new plaque that says? At this point, there is no sign-up because we have never gone through the proper procedure for any naming of that skate spot. Okay, so you'll appear tomorrow before park advisory? We did not put that on the agenda. We felt that that needed to be discussed with the council first and find out what the council felt about this before we asked the Park Advisory Board for anything. Well, again, let's not slight cricket, and we're not trying to dictate where they need to put their money. This has nothing to do with that. They've offered a gift for this location, and we should honor them with that. So the quicker you do it, the better, I think, for all future sponsorships and for cricket. Okay. The quicker we can honor them. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'll add to just what some of the Council members had said and recognize and appreciate Council Member McCord for actually bringing this forward when it's a difficult issue. And appreciate, Commissioner, how quickly you addressed it and recognized the inappropriate patterns here. And then began working on the problem, as Council Member Stennett just said. One of the benefits sometimes of a difficult and challenging situation, it does reveal to us opportunities for improvement. And, in fact, Commissioner Driscoll earlier in the day said that Louisville, who we're working with a little bit closer these days, has struggled with the same issues and began working on a protocol, policies that impacted, that reached across all agencies of the government, and steps that they would take and might be helpful to benchmark with them. So thank you. All right. Council Member Myers, on this issue. Yes, sir. There's more on this. Oh, I didn't realize it. All right. Forgive me. I shouldn't have spoken before. Thank you, Mayor. And Commissioner, thank you very much for coming in today. If you could come up just for a second. I want to start by saying I appreciate Cricket. I'm sorry that their name was brought up. I wish that we could have had this conversation without the name of the actual contributor ever being brought into this conversation. But I appreciate very much what CRICET has done here and their continued support for our community and their continued desire to invest in our community. As we move on, Commissioner, you sent an e-mail back to Council Member McCord. And let me just read a paragraph in there because part of this conversation has been about policy. And it says, as you're aware, the Division of Parks and Recreation has a naming policy in place. The policy requires the Parks Advisory Board to vote and approve any recommendations for naming of parks, facilities, et cetera. Those recommendations are submitted to the Urban County Council for final approval. In this particular situation, we must admit that we have gotten ahead of ourselves and not observed the proper protocol. So I guess we've heard one council member say that we don't have the right to tell an investor what they can do or where they can do things, but really that's the policy that you were talking about from the TV station. That's what they do. If you have someone like Fifth Third invested $750,000 into the pavilion, you can't have them invest $750,000 one day and then build a pavilion two blocks down the street and only charge somebody $100,000 to name that pavilion. That doesn't work. It's not just. You have to come up with some type of policy that lets people understand what investment-to-recognition ratio they'll be. And that's part of what happened here. But I want to go back because the director said that it was never intended to name this after the investor. And that's what I'm trying to figure out how it happened because I had a conversation with you when I heard this was going to happen. And the reason that that was important to me was for the reason I just stated. If you have somebody that invests the type of money that we're already getting in to this other skate park, then you can't let someone else name something for $15,000. And you said to me then that you would check with the director to see what was going on, and you got back with me and said that it was not going to be named after them. So the question's been asked several times by different people, and I know you're not really the person to answer the question, but I think you may be the person to get to the answer of the question, and that is, then how did it happen? How did the mayor end up at a press conference where he's doing that when that was never the intent, particularly after I asked you to check on it, and you did, and you were told by the director it wasn't the intent? I also today looked at the minutes from the September 26 Parks Advisory Board, and at that point it was called the Kirk Levington Skate Spot. So something happened between the time I answered you and September 26th that changed the name. Right. And I don't know that. Can you find that out? I will try to find that out for you. Okay. The other thing I would say is that, you know, and I'm sure that Councilman Martin may bring this up because it came to my mind. And he's talked a lot in these meetings about the fact that we have to approve a load of dirt as the council. And so if we have to approve the load of dirt as the council, how is it that this can happen? And the reason I'm asking that question is, and really I guess here's my question. If you go back and read, because Council Member McCord had this started, he asked for the documents to show what took place. And part of that is that Parks is able to siphon off a service and then sort of put that out for sale. almost to the highest bidder. I don't know that this was bid, but originally what happened is Parks was able to take the cell phone contract and go to a cell phone provider and say, if you give us X number of phones and X amount of service, then this is what we're going to give you in return for that. And to me, that doesn't seem like good government. It seems like to me this government ought to have a policy of using one cell phone company for all cell phones. And I know that various links over the years have asked the question of how many cell phones we have in this government and how many different companies we have issuing contracts. And so the deeper question that I want answered from somebody, and maybe it's the law department, I'm not sure who, but how is it that parks can take something like that service and then go sell that out to whoever wants to invest to give them what they say is worth providing that service? I will discuss with Commissioner Driscoll and with Commissioner Graham the cell phone. I do know that this was issued, that cell phone, the request for cell phone service was issued by an RFP. And it is up, when I looked at it the other day, it is up for renewal in January 2013. I think that legal has helped me look at this, and I don't think, and Glenda, I know that, but I'm going to make a statement. You correct me if I'm wrong. I think that everything was kosher and fine with the RFP itself. And I know the question you're asking, how do you issue that type of RFP? And that's a broader purchasing question. Right, because if we allow different divisions to take whatever services they contract for and do it this way, then we're going to have an infinite number of contracts. Yeah, the state's on one cell phone. Right, with all different types of services. And it seems like purchasing or somebody in government ought to be managing that whole process so that we don't have one particular service siphoned out in that manner. I'll talk to them about it. Okay. Yes. If I may just add, cell phones was one of our areas that we agreed need to have review and look at all the contracts, et cetera. So actually have Todd is leading up a group that's looking at who has cell phones, what are the contracts, what policies are in place today, what changes may or may not need to be made. And we're still gathering information. There are collective bargaining issues with that. So it's a complicated issue, but we do have that in our plan, our annual plan to work through. Okay, and my final question is, can somebody in government, whether it's finance or law or budgeting or whoever, ask that question, are there any other departments in government that siphon out one particular service or good and do it that way? And if so, don't we need to do something different there? We can look through agencies' issues. We'll work together, the three commissioners, work together to get that information to you. Okay. And then, Commissioner, you're working on that policy right now that you said is sort of based on KET. We're starting to look sort of in a field to find out what various people are doing. And then I'm looking at KETs, too, because it comes back to what Council Member Stenet said. that public TV looks at what's appropriate for children. You can't just have everybody advertised. And Friends of the Skate Park has people here asking them what we're doing and how come we're not moving faster, but part of the thing that we're working on is how do we come up with a list of things when we do fundraisers, and for this dollar amount you get this, and for this you get that. And so that's going to be a part of your policy. And then that will be discussed here. Thank you very much. So now I've got Council Member Lane, Council Member Martin, Vice Mayor Gordon. Who else? And Wallace. Okay. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. Well, your earlier comment about sometimes when things get messed up, there's a benefit to that. And it made me think of two sayings. I thought maybe I'd share them right now. The first one is a person who never makes a mistake never does anything. And so I think, you know, you're going to take a certain amount of risk any time you take an initiative. And then the other thing that I always like, if you can be right more than half the time, there's a good chance you're going to be successful. So I think if we sort of be philosophical in looking at this issue, that that would be good. And I would like to suggest that we develop a list of potential facilities, parks, locations, or whatever that we could offer to the public as a company or an individual or an association or whatever to sponsor and come up with the guidelines on how we want to do that, how much it would cost, and some restrictions on how we would do it so that we do have a policy on that. And I would like to make a motion that we put this issue into the General Government Committee. And it would probably be right away, but we probably couldn't address it until around the first of the year because we're about to run out of time. So I would like to make that motion at this time, Mayor. It's a motion by Council Member Lane, seconded by Council Member Beard. Is there any discussion on the motion? Discussion on the motion, Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to clarify that the, and I was going to make the same motion, that the issue that's being referred to the committee is not the Cricket-Kirk-Levington issue, so that they can proceed with their work and to get that part done. Is that fair, Council Member Lane? Yes, sir. And I would just like to say that I really appreciate Cricket sponsoring this facility, making some of their services available. and we need more companies like that to help us. So I think it's a good win-win for everybody. It's a good marketing opportunity, and it's good for the government and our constituents. Thank you. Council Member Lane, thank you. Did we vote on it? Yeah, we voted. No, we didn't. Do you wish to speak on the motion? Anybody wish to speak on the motion? Council Member Ford. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mayor. Just for clarity, what exactly is the issue that we're placing into committee? I welcome to support Council Member Lane's motion just for clarity because we talked about several issues here. Okay. The issue that would be put before the committee would be the procedure for underwriting or sponsoring one of our facilities or parks, how that would be done, how it would be contracted, basically the guidelines for doing that, and working up a list of the facilities and maybe with the recommended pricing for the sponsorship. All right. Council Member Martin? Would you include naming rights? Yes, sir. That would be part of it. All right. Vice Mayor Gordon? Just one brief comment on the motion. I trust Commissioner Hamilton that you'll look at the naming policy that's in place. it only has to do with people, naming facilities after people. We went through a long process, Council Member Henson will remember, about naming the Valley Park Neighborhood Center after Jesse Higginbotham. So the only, to my knowledge, and Mr. Hancock can confirm this, our only policy that we have in place has to do with people, naming things after people. people and they have to be deceased. Well, actually, Vice Mayor, there's a section there that says parks has the authority and doesn't need to come here if we want to name an element or a piece of a park after a flower or a natural phenomenon or something like that. Then there's a third piece to the policy that talks about corporate or philanthropic rights and what they might be and that there needs to be a certain period of time and all that. So in my mind, it does speak to corporate naming as well. And that policy actually, I believe, was approved by this council. Yes, it was. Yes. So if we're going to, I think that policy then, again, should actually go into committee. If the council decides to vote to support this, then the council may want to redo its policy that it approved. I agree. This brings up a lot of issues. For instance, something we've been working on that's not in the policy is what percentage of the total cost of a new feature should be included in a donation in order to qualify for naming. And that's something that ought to be addressed. It ought to be a substantial piece of a particular cost. So I welcome this. My only other comment about this is that we had an extensive discussion at the last Parks Board meeting about donations, and I hope this piece of that discussion will go right along with this motion. The discussion centered around if a sponsor comes to the city and wants to sponsor a certain thing, then we should not automatically have them do that. We need to see if that's in our parks master plan, if that's something we really want, because it's one thing for outside entities to decide what they want, and they'll give money for it, and then we may never get funded what we've identified as needs in our parks. So I think that will probably be part of that discussion. Thank you. All right. Does anyone else wish to speak on the motion? All right. If not, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. Back to the original. I believe Councilman Martin was next, then Vice Mayor, then Councilman Lawless. Oh, she's okay. The Vice Mayor said that she said what she intended to say. So Councilman Martin, then Councilman Lawless. Thank you, Commissioner Hamilton, Jerry. Thank you for coming in. And I appreciate Council Member McCord bringing this issue to light because obviously we've illuminated something we needed to know about. I want to echo the mayor's comments because I think that the really casualty in this is cricket. And another number of council members have said that as well. And so they say no good deed ever goes unpunished. And that's particularly true here at the council and in city government sometimes. And what I don't want to do is sort of be the dysfunctional family that is airing its dirty laundry in public and driving, you know, sort of scaring away our investors. It is tremendous that the Parks Department works with investors to find other funds available to provide features to the public and that investors such as Cricket will come forward and want to do something just for the public, for the citizens. And this is a feature that the citizens get to enjoy that they don't have to pay for. It's a gift. And we appreciate gifts, and we appreciate the Parks Department being good stewards and looking out. We all make mistakes, and obviously I'm looking forward. I was going to make a motion to put this in general government. Obviously that's been done. But we thank Cricket, and I apologize to Cricket, because I think that this is they did what they were supposed to do. and city government's a complex thing and things are whizzing by at the speed of light so with that I guess I'll just leave it so thank you, thank you Mayor Thank you Council Member Martin Council Member Lawless Thank you very much I just want to say that I agree with Council Member Lane that people make mistakes stuff happens and I think that we as a council need to refrain from calling out employees that are out there trying to do their job to the best of their ability when possibly they don't have the guidelines set forth that we need to give them. And, you know, this little skateboard thing is, you know, it's unfortunate, et cetera. But there are certainly people, directors and people in management in this government that have refused to return my emails and then told me things, et cetera, where huge damage was done. So I didn't call them out, and I don't think it's appropriate to do that. So I think in the future we need to refrain and be as professional as we're asking other people to be. So thank you to Parks and to the folks at Parks who are out there hustling. We've talked about wanting to bring more in, and it's a learning experiment and a learning exercise, and I fully support the motion to set a clear policy and guideline. Thank you very much. Councilmember Ford. Thank you, Mayor. Perhaps I should not, but I'd be remiss if I didn't as we close out this topic. Again, I think we support Councilmember McCord in regards to dealing with the communication. There was perhaps some injury there. But as we close out, and I look forward to working in Ed's committee, Aside from an administrative dot and I and crossing a T, I fail to see the injury that's taking place. When we leave Chambers today, there's a skate pad in Kirk Levington that those kids and those families can benefit from. I don't see the injury. I really don't see the injury or disadvantage. I don't know if Council Member Myers has a belief that the investment made at Kirk Levington disadvantaged your project over in Berry Hill or has injured your efforts there. I guess that's the underlining question, and perhaps we shouldn't go into it here now, But, again, I look forward to supporting whatever administrative steps we need to do. But at the end of the day, let's go about providing recreational opportunities and building bridges with business. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Ford. All right. Next on our next signed up for Council Report is Council Member Blues. Council Member Blues. Well, thank you, Mayor. I just want to announce to fellow Council members and to the public that at Thursday night's Council meeting, Mayor Gray will issue a proclamation in honor of Harry Sykes. He was Lexington's first African-American city commissioner. He was first elected in 1963, and he served four consecutive terms. Mr. Sykes is a man of signal achievements and accomplishments over a very long lifespan, a former Harlem Globetrotter, former mathematics teacher at the old Dunbar High School, and most of all, a Lexington government official and a civic leader. Over a span of several years, he served as Mayor Pro Tem, acting city manager, acting chief administrative officer. He ran for mayor in 1971, losing a very close race to Foster Pettit. In addition to his governmental duties, he has served on a number of boards and commissions. He was the founder of the Lexington Fayette County Urban League and its first president. He's been honored with numerous awards over the past many years, including the Outstanding Citizens Award by the Council of Christians and Jews in 1969. And at Thursday night's council meeting, he will be honored with the proclamation declaring Thursday, October 25, Harry Sykes Day in Lexington. Preceding the brief ceremony at the beginning of the Council meeting at 6, there will be a reception in the lobby of Government Center starting at 5 p.m. Council members, you are certainly all invited. The public is welcome. We expect to see many of Mr. Sykes' old friends and his colleagues and many members of his family. The public is welcome at both the reception and the Council ceremony, honoring one of one of Lexington's most distinguished citizens, and I think we all look forward to that. Thank you, Mayor. That's my report. Thank you, Council Member Blues, and thank you for illuminating the legacy and these enormous contributions of Mr. Seitz. Council Member Myers. Mayor, that was some earlier. Okay. Thank you, sir. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I have one item, and this is something that Rick Curtis and our government brought to my attention. It's called Holiday Mail for Heroes. The American Red Cross has an effort ongoing until December 7th to receive greeting cards, which will then be sent by them to our veterans and our members of the armed forces and their families. And so I wanted to highlight this because it's an easy way for our citizens to simply get a greeting card or write a note of thanks, put it in an envelope, and address it to Holiday Mail for Heroes, P.O. Box 5456, Capitol Heights, Maryland, and the zip is 20791. And then the packages or mail will all be screened and boxed up by the American Red Cross and sent to our military members around the world. And I wondered if I see Dottie Bean in the audience, if we could get that on our little GTV3 screen that puts up some of these special activities and events. And it does end December the 7th. So I think it would be great if our community participated in that. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. All right. With no other council members having indicated they wish to give a council report, we can move on to the mayor's report. Is there a motion to approve? Who is that? Council Member Lane made a motion to approve. Is there a second? Was there a second? Council Member Martin? Okay. Thank you, sir. Mayor, I have. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I need to recuse and let the record show I'm recusing from the vote on the exploring of Lexington Board as my wife is the interim director. Thank you, Mayor. Duly noted. Thank you, sir. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I have emailed council members about the issue of the Board of Adjustment nominee, and we have scheduled a confirmation hearing on November 15th at 5 o'clock p.m. So I move to amend the mayor's report to remove the Board of Adjustment nominee until after the confirmation hearing and all the financial forms, et cetera, are received by Council. Second. So a motion by Ambassador Gordon, second by Council Member Luz. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Just a real quick mention for an issue that, for a celebration that was not quick in the emerging at all. And if Council Member Ford, did you mention the opening, the dedication of Charles Young? Vice Mayor, did you? No. Did we all forget it? I had not, Mayor. Oh, my goodness. Well, listen, I'm going to defer to you, Council Member Ford. I'm going to defer to you so you can talk about it. Well, Mayor, I'll just be brief, and if you wish to share your thoughts, I definitely appreciate your presence and the presence of the Vice Mayor on Saturday. Council members, I hope that everybody did receive in your mailboxes a copy of the program that talked a little bit about the history and the event of bringing back the Charles Young Community Center to life. I think that there was a lot of foot traffic and visitors that came to the open house between 1 and 3, and then we shared at the formal program from 3 to about 4.30, and then the reception that followed. It was just a good day, and I think that there's excitement for that facility. I think we're all very appreciative. I want to say, and she's already left the room, Commissioner Hamilton and her staff and General Services and Parks went well above the call of duty to make it a very engaging and joyous celebration. Thank you, sir. And, you know, Council Member Kaye was there full force, full time as well. And after I had spoken, I recognized that I missed my notes to recognize Steve and all that he did, along with Peggy, along with Council Member Henson, there were a lot of folks who had a piece in the reemergence of the Charles Young Center. And thanks to all of you all for having your head and your hearts pointed in true north. Vice Mayor? Mayor, we just voted on the motion to amend the mayor's report. so I think now we need to vote on the motion itself. All right. All right, now we can vote on the motion. Is there any further discussion on the motion to approve the mayor's report? All right, hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you. Is there anyone, Mr. Mundy, anybody signed up for, no one signed up for public comment? That means I'll accept the motion to adjourn. Oh, wait a minute. Hold on. Everything. Council Member Lawless. Thank you. I need to get a flag to wave because I'm so short. Thank you, Council Member. You had an ally. Yes. I want to remind people that there's still a lot of things going on downtown and on festivities, but one that has become quite the annual event is the Thriller Parade or the Thriller festivities. And these Halloween, the pre-show activities start at 6 p.m. on the Sunday, October 28th, on the Centerpoint Block. and then the thriller parade and extravaganza. So I wanted to remind everybody about that because that's become quite the event in Lexington and in the 3rd District. Thank you. Recognized by USA Today, someone said this week. That's right. We've got more zombies than any city our size east of the Mississippi. We do have a sign-up for public comment. Vivian Collins, Ms. Collins. Ms. Collins, I don't know if you know the – are you aware of our protocol for public comment in terms – There's a three-minute – I'll be short because I've got to go to work. Okay. Well, we appreciate you being here. Thank you very much. Thank you. And if you'll just give your name and your address. That's part of our protocol. My name is Vivian Collins, and I'm one of the owners of a rather large commercial property on Manchester Street. It's 1211 Manchester Street. And it's directly across from Pepper Distillery. And through the years, I've had some questions as to where we are on that project and the status of it. If anyone here knows, the status of it. That was moved, or the status question was moved into a committee. The Vice Mayor made the motion for it. And Vice Mayor Gordon, you want to speak to it? Yes, thank you. Thank you. I made a motion to place the floodplain study and an update on the project into the Environmental Quality Committee, which Council Member Blue's chairs. I don't know if it's scheduled yet. So that should be on our November agenda. But if you're interested in the status of the engineering work that's been underway, then the person at the very back of the room right there with his hand holding up, his name is Derek Paulson, and you can talk to him about that. Does that have to do with the floodplain, the map revision? The issue that's in committee has to do with that dimension of the possible project. If I'm understanding this right, that has to be to get the revision before you can start construction on the property? Well, there are a number of regulatory procedures that are required, and that's what an engineered study would involve. And that's the sort of thing that Mr. Paulson could help you with in terms of the details associated with that. Okay. And my next question goes to, I think, and you all can correct me if I'm wrong here, 2009, maybe 2010, we sold, the city sold approximately 2.2 million in bonds, general obligation bonds, for this project? I don't know the exact number, but that is, that's an approximate number, yeah. Who would have the accounting for that? The Commissioner of Finance. Okay. Her name is Jane Driscoll. And does that $2.2 million, that's taxpayer money, does that go towards the $20 million threshold that the developer has to reach in order to tap the $25 million? Ms. Collins, I think we all appreciate the inquiry, and we appreciate your coming here. We all know how tough it is for citizens who have a question to come before the Council. Many of the questions that you've got are the questions that Commissioner Paulson is better equipped to answer because he's got this project in his department. Okay? And regrettably, the three-minute time period has expired, but you have illustrated your questions, and we're doing our best to help you get the answers by directing you to the person that has those answers. Okay, because it's been a long project. and we've got a large property. Thank you very much for being with us. Thank you. All right. That's all we have signed up for public comment. Is there a motion to adjourn? There's a motion to adjourn by Vice Mayor Gorton. Is there a second? There's a second by Council Member Myers. Unless there's objection, the Chair will rule that the meeting is adjourned. Thank you all so much.