# Council Environmental Quality Committee - August 20, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 20, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3089 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3089?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-08-20 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 17,983 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Environmental Quality Committee met on August 20, 2013, at 11:00 AM under the presiding officer Stinnett. During this meeting, the committee addressed six agenda items, heard six public comments, and took six votes. The committee approved the April 23, 2013 Committee Summary and the Internal Audit Waste Management Audit. The Distillery District Update was deferred to a later date, while the Empower Lexington Plan: Public Component was tabled. Two items—Monthly Financials and Items Referred—were presented for informational purposes only. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on August 20, 2013: * Stinnett * Mossotti * Gorton * Akers * Farmer * Scutchfield * Myers * Clarke * Henson * Lane * Kay No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of the April 23, 2013 Committee Summary** [timestamp: 0:08:33] Motion by Scutchfield, seconded by Clarke. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. **Motion to Amend Original Motion to Include a Floodplain Study** [timestamp: 0:52:33] Motion by Akers, seconded by Scutchfield. The motion failed by voice vote. **Motion to Proceed with Recommendation One and Defer Recommendation Two** [timestamp: 1:00:03] Motion by Gorton, seconded by Myers. This motion addressed proceeding with Town Branch Trail easements and design engineering while deferring street design and engineering. The motion passed by voice vote. **Motion to Amend Previous Motion to Include Streetscape Design and Construction in the Distillery District** [timestamp: 0:59:00] Motion by Akers, seconded by Gorton. The motion passed by voice vote. **Motion to Conduct a Follow-Up Audit on Internal Waste Management Audit Findings by October 31st** [timestamp: 1:44:18] Motion by Henson, seconded by Myers. The motion passed by voice vote. **Motion to Table the Empower Lexington Presentation** [timestamp: 1:48:42] Motion by Scutchfield, seconded by Scutchfield. The motion to table the presentation to allow full discussion at the next meeting passed by voice vote. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting included appropriations totaling $2.5 million for two infrastructure projects. **Town Branch Trail and Town Branch Park** An appropriation of $1,700,000 was approved for design and engineering of the Town Branch Trail and Town Branch Park in the Distillery District. **Street Design and Engineering** An appropriation of $800,000 was approved for street design and engineering from Broadway to Manchester. ## Public Comment Six speakers addressed the meeting with concerns focused on the Town Branch Creek corridor, the Distillery District development, and project planning processes. **Town Branch Trail and Connectivity** Henson [0:12:53] asked about the extent of the Town Branch Creek corridor and whether the planned trail would connect to downtown, emphasizing that connectivity is essential for both development and public access to the area. **Build America Bonds and Funding** Gorton [0:15:18] expressed concern that Build America bond funds originally designated for the Distillery District should not be diverted to ineligible projects, such as street design work outside the district boundaries. **Creek as Central Feature** Clark [0:23:03] stressed that the creek should be recognized as a key attraction and central focus in planning efforts, rather than being overlooked in infrastructure discussions. **Project Sequencing Concerns** Akers [0:34:22] argued that the street design project is premature without completion of a floodplain study and establishment of basic utilities, including sewer access. **Infrastructure and Investor Needs** Lane [0:41:10] emphasized that potential investors require clear plans for access, utilities, and street design before committing to development in the Distillery District. **Audit Follow-Up** Myers [1:22:00] requested clarification on whether audit findings had been addressed and asked that the auditor be contacted for updates on the status of those recommendations. ## Contested Items The August 20, 2013 meeting included three significant areas of disagreement among council members. **Use of Build America Bonds for Street Design Outside Distillery District** Council members were divided on whether Build America bond funds should be allocated for street design work extending from Broadway to Manchester, outside the Distillery District. The core concern centered on whether this use of funds aligned with the original intent of the bonds. Some members worried that directing money toward this street design project would constitute a diversion from the bond's intended purpose. **Timing and Scope of Floodplain Study** A heated discussion emerged regarding a proposed $500,000 floodplain study. Council members debated whether this study should be included in the current project scope and timeline. Beyond the question of timing, disagreement arose over the study's cost and whether it qualified as an eligible expense under the bond funding guidelines. The debate reflected concerns about both fiscal responsibility and compliance with funding restrictions. **Follow-up Audit Process** A procedural dispute developed over the proper mechanism for mandating a follow-up audit. Council members disagreed on whether the council possessed the authority to directly order a follow-up audit or whether such action must be routed through the Internal Audit Board, which oversees the audit process. This disagreement centered on governance structure and the appropriate chain of authority for audit-related decisions. ## April 23, 2013 Committee Summary The April 23, 2013 Committee Summary was presented for approval at this meeting [timestamp: 0:08:33]. **Action Taken** The summary was approved unanimously on a motion by Scutchfield and a second by Clarke. ## Distillery District Update The committee reviewed recommendations regarding the use of $1.7 million in Build America bonds for infrastructure improvements in the Distillery District. [timestamp: 00:09:03] **Scope of Work** The proposed funding would support design and engineering for multiple projects: * Town Branch Trail design and engineering * Town Branch Park design and engineering * Street design work from Broadway to Manchester **Key Discussion** Committee members Gorton, Akers, Henson, Clark, Lane, and Myers participated in the discussion of these recommendations. **Motion and Outcome** The committee passed a motion to prioritize the trail work as the first phase of the project. A follow-up audit was requested as part of the approval process. The agenda item was ultimately deferred. ## Internal Audit Waste Management Audit [timestamp: 1:18:06] The Office of Internal Audit presented findings from an audit of Waste Management operations, identifying several purchasing and accounting violations that required corrective action. **Key Findings** The audit revealed the following issues: - Improper fiscal year recording of transactions - Lack of uniform policy governing Waste Management procedures - Incorrect fund coding in accounting records **Speakers and Discussion** The presentation involved speakers including Salih, Bourne, Feese, and Henson, who addressed the audit findings and their implications for departmental operations. **Outcome** The body approved a follow-up audit to be completed by October 31st, establishing a deadline for the Office of Internal Audit to reassess Waste Management's corrective actions and ensure compliance with proper accounting and purchasing procedures. ## Empower Lexington Plan: Public Component Kay presented on the Empower Lexington Plan's public component during this agenda item [timestamp: 1:48:42]. Due to time constraints during the meeting, the presentation was not completed. The item was tabled to allow for full discussion and consideration at the next scheduled meeting. ## Monthly Financials The committee reviewed monthly financial reports during this agenda item [timestamp: 1:49:44]. Key speakers in this discussion included Stinnett, Gorton, O'Mara, and Stone. The review focused on two primary areas: * **Water Quality Fund** — Discussion centered on the fund's long-term obligations and their financial implications. * **Landfill Fund** — The committee examined expenditures associated with this fund. No action was taken on the matters presented. The session was informational in nature, with the committee receiving and discussing the financial reports without moving forward with any formal decisions or resolutions at that time. ## Items Referred No specific items were discussed under this agenda item. The committee noted that future items would be referred for review. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of the April 23, 2013 Committee Summary - **Motion** — passed: Motion to proceed with recommendation one (Town Branch Trail easements and design engineering) and defer recommendation two (street design and engineering) - **Motion** — passed: Motion to amend the previous motion to include streetscape design and construction in the Distillery District - **Motion** — failed: Motion to amend the original motion to include a floodplain study - **Motion** — passed: Motion to conduct a follow-up audit on the internal waste management audit findings by October 31st - **Motion** — passed: Motion to table the Empower Lexington presentation to allow full discussion at the next meeting --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm out. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Approval of the April 23rd committee summary. Do I have any corrections, additions, or motion? Second. Got a motion by Council Member Scutchfield, second by Council Member Myers. Any comments, questions, additions? All right. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. First up on our agenda is the update for the distillery district, and this was brought to us by Vice Mayor Gorton. Commissioner Poulsen, I assume you'll be the lead person on our update, so if you're ready to go, you want to take it away? I will try. She has to. Amy has to. Did you want to say something? No. It's the second time. It's the second time. Good morning. It's the second time. Good morning. We should have something. There it is. So I'm going to give a quick update to the last presentation we gave. Actually, the last presentation was given by the engineers, just giving the feasibility study. and we were asked to come back and give some recommendations. So that's what we've done. I'll give a quick kind of overview of where we've come from. Let's see if I can get this done. None of the buttons work. I think it's turned on. There we go. It's called a power button. Just real quick, we'll just go over the overview of where we've come from, the RFP update, and then also what the recommendations that we're making. So, again, originally $2.2 million bonded back in 2009. There were Build America bonds, of which we still have about $1.7 million remaining. It's probably just a little bit less than $1.7, but I figured it's easier to round up. The focus of the bond was on these three things, design and construction, and Town Branch, streetscape, and then feasibility study was added a little bit later. The RFP that was done in 2010, again, feasibility study, and then after which developed construction documents and plans for the Town Branch Trail and developed construction documents for the Manchester Street's improvement section. So that was what the RFP was designed to do. And here's our recommendations. Again, going to be quick, to the point. Next steps to encourage development. which is one of our big goals here, is how do we encourage development in the distillery district. One of the two recommendations we have is for trail park or trail slash park design and engineering. We've been already working to acquire those easements in the distillery district along the trail as those properties, as those parcels have been sold. We've been getting easements put in there for the trail. We want to make sure that we can get the rest of those easements and then also do the design and engineering for that trail as well as the Town Branch Park so that we can actually have a trail starting from downtown that will lead into the distillery district. It's kind of looking at it coming from both ways. We're currently Town Branch Trail is coming from the other direction out at Masterson, and we would like to build it as well coming from this direction. If we do the design and engineering and get the easements all locked up, we should be able to move forward with construction. Hopefully we'll be able to get a CMAC grant or others. Those are some other grants that are coming up soon. We hope with design and engineering and easements in place, it will be much easier to get those grants. The second recommendation is street design and engineering. Again, design and engineering to connect Broadway to Manchester, which works with the Town Branch Park as well, and then street design or streetscape design also along that corridor. This is one of those things that we think will really help with the development of Distillery District of Manchester is making that connection a little more concrete. And, again, to be brief, that is the main recommendation. $1.7 million, it goes kind of quickly. Very brief. And to the point, we have a couple of council members signed up. Council Member Henson first. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Derek, for the update. And I would just have a question about the town branch, I guess the creek itself. And what kind of perimeters are on that? Is it the entire corridor from Jefferson to four, or how far out does it go? Does the actual creek go? Yeah, the distillery district itself. The distillery district stops at Oliver Lewis. Okay. And then goes to, I believe it's Forbes. Okay. Because I had been contacted by some folks that was interested in doing some work along the creek and getting it cleaned up. I believe Council Member Akers may be working with them as well, but I was just, you know, they would be volunteers. There would be, and I'll tell you, there are some folks who have purchased property in there that are working to do the same thing. And I'm sure we would be happy to help connect those two groups because they're doing their best to kind of clean up the site of the old, it's the Pepper, isn't it? Pepper distillery. Pepper distillery. Yeah. And their goal is to really kind of clear out the, they've actually taken down some of the old walls that were put up that impeded the view of the creek. and they're really trying to clean out the creek as well as the area around it just to create some really good views and some places for them to possibly build patios and restaurants. And I know that, I'm not sure who owns it, but there's a rock house that's closer to Forbes that has real historical value. The McConnell House. Pardon? It's the McConnell House. Okay. And it is on Manchester. It's fairly close to the Pepper Distillery. It's on the other side of the road. Right. And that's one of those things that we've been trying to figure out is, you know, how do we, it is a key historic building within that site, within that district. I think the question is, would we be able to use funds to acquire that? I'm not sure if we'd have the funds. So that's one of the things we're going to look at is to see what that might cost and to see if we can get that on the, you know, on the town branch trail. Okay, thank you. Yes, ma'am. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for your report. Back in 2009, when we did the bonding, and whenever this project first came up, the thinking for this bonding was that the money would be used in the distillery district. and one of the fears of some of the folks who've been, some of the citizens who've actively been advocating for distillery district improvements was that money would get taken from these bonds and spent outside the district. And so I'm wondering about the number two recommended approach, which is design and engineering in an area which is not in the distillery district, and if there is not an alternative to put this money into infrastructure or something in the district, which was its original intent. And actually the plan is to make that connection to the district easier. One of the issues that we hear from the distillery districts is the difficulty in lining up to getting to Manchester. And this really covers, too, its design and engineering as well as streetscape design along Manchester, particularly on that first part coming from the kind of dividing line between the east and the west districts is the railroad bridge. and our focus would be on streetscape design for that area as well as lining up Manchester to better connect with Broadway. In talking to Barry McNeese and others down there, they really do relish the idea because it does make it easier and, I won't say diverts traffic, but makes it easier for traffic to get there, which we think is one of those things that really will help those businesses that are already there along Manchester Street, particularly in the east section, which is kind of thriving right now, and that's really where our focus, we think, will be with the streetscape design and engineering as well. These improvements, though, don't go into the distillery district, correct? They do, yes. No, they do. Well, it says Broadway to Manchester. Right, and it would also, but the second bullet is the, can you pull this up again real quick, is the streetscape improvements, which will also be along that east section of Manchester. So where exactly is that planned? From the railroad bridge to where? For the streetscape improvements, it would be to Oliver Lewis, but then you would also have the other part, which would take it, how do we connect up to Broadway? So it's kind of a combination. See if I can get there quickly. Now, are you, how certain can you be that you will get a CMAQ grant and how certain are you that the town branch trail park design will stay within its budget at this point since it's kind of early? Right. You know, I think you're never certain about getting a grant, but with everything else, the best way to get a grant is to have a best application. I think in terms of improving our application, it would be having those easements and having design and engineering done would be the best application that we could put in because then all we would need to be getting the grant for is the actual construction. Having everything else taken care of, the engineers and engineering love when we just get to construction because all the other stuff is taken care of. So if we can get everything else handled, it will lessen some of the time from when we get the grant to when construction can start, and it will also lessen the amount of the grant, which would make it more feasible in terms of getting that CMAC grant. And from what we hear from the state, CMAC grants should be opening up fairly soon, although we have been hearing that for a while. but we hope to get the application to be able to go as quickly as we can in terms of that application. Okay. I would hope that the council, if council would agree to this, I would ask that you not do anything at all with number two until number one is insured, both budget-wise and knowing that we're going to go forward with it because the Town Branch Trail and Park, you know, right now in the back of my mind, Taste Creek sidewalks are rearing their head, and we know how projects can be. We get in the middle of them, we bid them out, and oh my gosh, the cost isn't even this, it's twice this. And my fear is that if we go ahead with number two, that we may not have the money we think we have for the trail and the park. So I would hope that as a council, we said that we want trail and park and that we would go ahead and pursue that first. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Chair. Good morning. Good morning. I guess what my concern was was the same as the vice mayor's going ahead and doing number two and one together. From what I understand, and maybe Council Member Stinnett can recollect this, he had asked for something from the developer, either a contractor or some type of agreement, correct, in reference to this whole project. Have we received anything like that yet? I think what we're doing is getting to this stage and then starting to do the negotiations about what we would need from the developers in that developers' agreement. I think it's key to see what the recommendations would be here before we can go forward and do a developers' agreement. Okay, so you're assuring us that this won't go forward until we have an agreement from the developer talking about what contingencies are involved as far as this project. That's my concern. I mean, I hate to go ahead and start on all this and find out if for some reason it's not feasible. Yes, ma'am. Okay. I think, again, in fairness to the developer, I think it's best for us to have an actual recommendation to move forward before you can do an agreement so that he'd know exactly what he's getting out of the side as well. But that's what our anticipation is. Once we have the recommendation to move forward and what we're going to move forward with, we would then go forward with the developer's agreement to make sure that both sides are in writing what exactly we're doing and what they're doing. Because I've been approached by private parties that have invested in this development that said that they have basically lost their money in this investment already. So that's my concern. I don't want us to put the cart before the horse on this, so I would appreciate that if we could get that information to us before we go ahead and go any further. Okay. All right. Thank you. Council Member Clark. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate the presentation, and I'd just like to say this is one of the, to me, this is one of the more exciting things that we're doing in Lexington right now. It doesn't seem that way in terms of progress or neat things that are exposed, but it seems like to me it's awfully important. One of the things that I would take some exception to, not that I have any great suggestions, But I'm also concerned that we not diminish the importance of the creek itself. It seems like to me that that's such a drawing card, that we're doing infrastructure and the plans talk about everything but the creek itself. And it seems like to me that we don't have a plan for the creek. and yet that probably is going to be the one thing that gives us the connectivity that we need so desperately. So I'd just like to suggest that in these plans, in the future, that we really look at what we want that creek to look like as it comes through the distillery district, because that's a drawing card as much as anything. And I'm used to disagreeing with the vice mayor. She's not listening to me, but she and I do this a lot. but one of the things that I think is really important is the idea of connectivity, because I think if you're going to ask for grants, we need to see the connection between downtown and the distillery district. And so I think that's awfully important as part of the overall plan, even though I certainly understand the vice mayor's concern about the money itself. But I'd like to see us really work on the connectivity. And I'd also like to know, let me say, that's one of the things I've been concerned about. Because as I drive down there and look through that area, I see tremendous bottlenecks between downtown and distillery district, which is going to play against us, I think, somewhat. Because of the viaduct and Oliver Lewis and all that, there's just no connectivity. I'd like to know if you have any ideas about connecting Broadway to Manchester. What's the idea there? Well, I think that's the key, and that's what we have to get the designers and the engineers involved. And really, that is. Both one and two are ways to connect Distillery District to downtown, one via the trail, one via the road. It's also working on the streetscape within Manchester in that east section. And I think it really is. It is vitally important. Again, we've been for a very long time, if you look, and we actually have a diagram if you want to see it, the Trail, Town Branch Trail is now, the terminus is Oliver Lewis. It's at the bridge. It just ends there. And I think that's kind of what we said. That really kind of is a disservice. It really should go the rest of the way to downtown. I mean, you don't want it to just sort of ride the trail in and it sort of stop there. There will be a connection to the Legacy Trail when that comes in, but I think everyone's also going to want to be able to ride that extra little bit to downtown. And that's why the design engineering for the park and the trail, to really make a trailhead at downtown going towards the park, or going towards the distillery district, which has not really been in play at this point. The trail is currently under construction coming from, again, Masterson Station. It's still a ways away. But now we could connect sooner to downtown and, again, make it one of those quick connections. And coming in two different directions, I think, is really going to help with getting people to know more about the Town Branch Trail. It's also really going to help the distillery district. And that's the other part, which is the street design and engineering, which is to really make that connection. And talking to those that are down there right now, that is a real issue, is getting to Manchester. It's, you know, where is it? How do you get there? It's fine if you're from here. but making it a little easier to get there, again, via walk, bike, or car, we think is going to really help make the distillery district take off. That is one of the issues they have is getting there. These two things we think will really help to get people there easier and really connect it to downtown much quicker, much easier, which is ultimately what the distillery district we think really needs and what they think they need too is to be able to be that first place a little bit away from downtown. That's really unique. I think you're right. The stream, the creek is vitally important. If you haven't been out there recently, you should go because they are uncovering more of it. I mean, the pepper distillery owners, having taken down some of the walls that have been built over the decades, you really get a chance to see what the creek looks like, and it's really impressive. And, again, I think this is a way that we can try to get them closer to downtown and to really make that connection to make it easier for those businesses to take off, which is ultimately what we're really hoping to do. So is the planning for the trail itself take into account what the stream is going to look like? I think what we hope is that we can do some of that with the design engineering. I'm not sure if we can do too much stream design, and I don't want to say yes when I'm not sure what the requirements are from division of water quality in terms of what we can do to that stream. but we will look to see what we can do and if we can put some improvements in there, at least for future improvements that can come out of it. But we definitely, we really want to take advantage of the creek in terms of the trail. I mean, it really is the thing that, you know, when you're there and you see it, you know, the rumors always surround Lexington. We're the largest city in America, not on water. I've heard that forever. I don't know if that's true or not. But when you're there, it really is a beautiful creek. It is. There are some views that just you don't feel how close you are to downtown, and I think that's really one of the big selling points that we've been hearing about for years. How do we really uncover that? How do we make that connection to downtown so that people can really get there quickly? Again, we're working on the connection from Masterson, and people can come from out there, but we haven't thought about the connection from downtown. This will really do to really make that connection to downtown and open up that vista, those vistas for the creek, and hopefully those businesses as well. That's what I'm particularly concerned about, And I think this is a great project, and we need to go full speed as much as we possibly can. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman McKay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for allowing me to speak, though I'm not a member of the committee. Commissioner, thanks for the report. Pretty much following up, on recommendation one, Can you give me, or the committee, the council, a ballpark estimate of what the division of the budget would be between acquiring acts, between acquiring easements and the rest of the design and engineering? Well, what we're doing right now, and I would love to be able to give you what I can't, because right now what we've been doing is trying to get those easements donated. As parcels have been sold recently, we've been talking with the new property owners. about putting these easements in. So we've actually been able to acquire a few without cost. We hope we can keep doing that. We hope we can minimize the amount of money that we would need for easements. But we know we're probably going to need some. So at this point, it's difficult to say. There are quite a few different transactions that have been going on recently in that area, splitting the parcels up and sales that have been going on. We hope that we can continue to do this, but we realize there are probably going to be some that may not want to do it. So far they have been. The new property owners have all been very much buying into the idea that we can get this trail here. It will only benefit them greatly in what they want to do with their business. So we hope we can keep that going, but we realize there will probably be some, and there will be some places as well that we will have to probably purchase. And I think that goes back to Council Member Henson's question about the McConnell House. I think we're still trying to figure out which ones we might be able to get donated and which ones we would have to go and purchase. So at this point, it is a little bit difficult to say which ones or how much of the budget will come from that. I think we can probably come up, and this is what we'll do. First off is getting what we think the specs will be for design engineering. That will probably be a little bit easier to come up with a round number, and hopefully we'll be able to use the rest for. That will give us a better idea of what we would have for the easements. Okay, and is it the intention to, in this phase, complete the easements that you would need in order to design a trail? We hope out of this phase our goal is to get all the easements acquired that we would need and do all the design and engineering for the trail so that what we would need to do is go after that money just for the construction of the trail so that we have everything else taken care of. That is our goal. Okay, and in this phase is design and engineering. Does it also include a floodplain study? It does not. Is that included anywhere in the budget at this point? It is not at this point. Can you say a little more about the thinking about that? Since last time I raised this question, I thought that a floodplain study was premature, so I'm not disappointed that it's not in the budget, but I'm curious if you can say more about why. It seemed to me last time people thought that they needed to do that. That was the recommendation from the consultants, as I understand it. Well, some of it we'll have to go back to, and I'll kind of see if I can get one more slide back here, too. The Build America Bonds and doing studies out of the Build America Bonds. The Build America Bonds would like us to basically to do things rather than to do studies. Design and engineering, we feel, is one of those things. Doing the floodplain studies a little bit, again, one of the issues that I believe you raised in the last presentation. We've done a lot of studies. We'd like to see things actually done. I think others would like to see that as well. It has been one of those things that we have discussed greatly. I think the bigger issue has been the Build America bonds and whether or not it would be covered or whether we'd have to reimburse it, how we would have to reimburse that I think is the big issue. Okay. I have a question about the second recommended approach, which will echo a little bit what's already been said. Again, do you have a rough idea of the allocation of $800,000 over the two bullets? How much are we talking about for the leg from Broadway to Manchester and how much for the rest? Yeah, I think at this point it's too early to say just because I think the alternatives haven't been laid out completely in terms of how they would get over to Broadway to Manchester. I think that's the big part we'd have to go for to determine at this point is what are the different routes that we could go and getting some basic cost estimates on those before we go too far. I think we would like to make sure that we have a significant portion for streetscape or an amount that really can do some streetscape design for that Manchester corridor as well. So we are very cognizant of trying to make sure that we are covering both of those bullets to their fullest. Okay. My time is up if I can make one last comment, and that is, so far as I know, this connection from Broadway to Manchester has not been on the table before. I can see how a case can be made for it as crucial for the development of the corridor, but it seems to me that case does need to be made in more detail before the council ought to agree to shift money away from the specific area that was designated into the additional corridor. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. I agree that the connection of Broadway to Manchester seems premature, and ending in Oliver Lewis and understanding that that's a bridge over a parking lot, and to extend Manchester to Broadway would require that it goes over and above or through the convention center in Rupp Arena around somehow. I don't know, because I'm not very good at spatial. But I think that that certainly seems premature to do when we can't develop the area and we can't encourage development of the area if we don't have the floodplain study and if we don't have sewer access. And I know that the new owners of the Pepper Distillery are talking about building their own private pump station, which is great for them and great for us, I guess, that we'll get business out of it. But are we going to expect every person who buys property along the west end of Manchester to build their own pump station? We've actually been talking to them as well and in talking with Charlie Martin with them. And what they are kind of in discussions about is getting the various different property owners down there to work together on building kind of a larger system that would connect to the trunk line that's across the railroad track and then dedicating it to the city, in which we would then do maintenance for it. I think that's kind of a bigger issue. It's very similar to the way things are done in subdivisions now that are new developments. As Charlie Martin has said, he doesn't build sewer generally in these new developments, so I think that the idea is how do we help them move forward as best we can, and those are some of the things that have come up from the developers as well. How do they help pool their assets? I think they're also in agreement with you. If they can work together, it benefits them all, And I think they're trying to figure out how they can work together from the different property owners to build that station to get the lift over to the trunk line and then kind of basically turn it over to us in terms of that maintenance for longer term. We talk a lot about infill and redevelopment, and it just seems to me to have an area so close to downtown within the urban services boundary and not have access to water and sewer and then be planning to extend a road for an area that doesn't have basic infrastructure seems, I don't know, farsighted or nearsighted, one of the two. Also, the current trail actually ends at Alexandria Drive. It starts in McConnell's Trace subdivision and extends a mile and a half or two miles over to Alexandria where it ends. Have the easements been purchased or acquired from Alexandria and is the intent of the design and engineering of the trail to extend from Alexandria all the way up Manchester to connect those. There are various different sections, and I actually have a fire up the other PowerPoint. I do have a couple slides that show where we are right now. So this section, to Alexander, if I'm correct, that's where we have right now. And what we're working on is this next section. The construction is not started here, but I believe this is the next section that will be built. And then trying to get from there, where the green line ends, across New Circle Road is the next section that they are working on as well. The goal is, and you're right, there are a lot of sections between here where this ends, where the green line ends. and even where this red line ends in this next section, to get to distillery. But the goal is, yes, to build all the way from McConless Trace all the way down to the distillery district. And, again, the idea being that that's one direction, but coming from downtown is the other important direction to get to. And, again, with the terminating, right now you can see kind of where the terminating is. And this came from the work by the engineers that presented the last part of the feasibility study. You can see the big red dot that I superimposed on there is where Trail End currently ends. So the goal was to take it to downtown. You can see there's a connection to the Legacy Trail that will be made at some point. How we get through the distillery district is still one of those things that we'd like to – this is where we will nail down those routes. The recommendation was to kind of come down the street and then in, but the – let's see if I can get the laser pointer. this section here within the pepper distillery this part is where we've been talking with some of the property owners that they've actually asked if they could if they could build it themselves and the questions we've had and this is just coming from the feasibility study largely because of this section right here this crossing this is why the recommendation was to come here rather than right here this is a difficult crossing but they have been in discussions with us to see okay if we build this you know can we build that and we said it's just absolutely we We can work with you on if you guys want to have that connection, which is why it was recommended in this dotted line to begin with. But we would build it to the same standards is what we've talked to them about as the trail. And, again, trying to get people on this trail as much as possible along the creek is really the goal in that section. But, again, going back, if we could go all the way back from this to where we are back here, there would be a couple other slides as well. We still have to work on how do we get it from its current terminus to the distillery district. There are a couple other sections. That's why we think it's important to build that last section, the other trailhead coming from downtown to get us there. So the money that's $800,000 would be to design and engineer the trail, what sections specifically? This section in here. And also pulling it through the Town Branch Park and design and engineering for the Town Branch Park in that area. So it would not connect to Alexandria? It can't at this point. There's not the money to do that whole thing, to do the entire length of the Town Ridge Trail. Can you also tell me on your second recommendation how much the streetscape design would cost out of the $800,000? Again, I think at this point it's a little too early. As we're looking at the different potential routes of how to get from Broadway to Manchester, to say how much that might cost, I think we'll have a little better sense once we start talking with some of the engineers about what the potential routes are and what those costs may be. Because you're right, there are some great changes there that will be difficult, and those are the things that engineers, we kind of need them to help us with. Okay. Okay. Thanks. That's all for now. Councilmember Lane. Thank you, Chairman. Yeah, thinking about the distillery district, it seems like we need to be thinking about what's going to go there, like distilleries, breweries, hotels, residential development offices, attractions, restaurants, and retail. And it's been my experience that in order to get somebody to come in and spend millions of dollars to make an investment, We need to have an idea of how you would get access to downtown and where the utilities are and, you know, the street design. I think those are all really critical in people making a decision to invest money. And so I think we need to, you know, move the street design and engineering up on the schedule with everything else rather than delay that because I think it's going to be difficult to recruit somebody to come down there and invest money if they don't have a plan already to look at. Anyway, that's just sort of my two bits. And the other thing about it, I was not aware that we had limited utilities for water and sewer there, and I think that's also critical. I mean, you can't get a permit to operate a business without sanitary sewer, so that's really critical. And, you know, maybe the city ought to be, you know, looking into working on that also with the developer. Right, and we are. I think the key is with the $1.7 million is how to use it the best to try to get those lifts. And I think you're right. I think with $1.7 million, with, again, going back to what the original RFP talked about, was building that trail, getting that design and engineering specs is a very important part of it, and then trying to make those connections with downtown to really, as you said, help with investment in there to see those connections to downtown. Now, downtown is vitally important for the distilling district to really take off. The sewer issues are a very large issue, and we've been talking with the property owners about how we can go about doing it. But I think with $1.7 million, it's very difficult to even really touch some of those. Well, that was what I was going to say. I think that's a very small budget for the scope of the work to be done. We might need to be looking at providing additional funding for that. And, again, I think we've been in talks with them recently about how we can, again, And the private owners that are in there are really trying to make a go of this, and we're trying to do what we can to assist them in that. And I think that's where Charlie Martin's been very instrumental in talking to them recently about how can they work together to build a larger system rather than each one having their own pump, to build a larger kind of pump for the distillery area and to really have that tap on so that they can then dedicate it over to the city. Okay. Well, keep up the work, and maybe you need to come back and ask for more money, too. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lane. Everyone signed up for a second time. I want to ask a couple questions, and we'll take our second round. On the Build America bonds, have we got a legal opinion on the use of the money on a feasibility study since the primary purpose was actually construction? And also, Mr. O'Meara, since you're standing up, is this part of the same Build America bonds that we look at refinancing coming up here in September, October? Yes and yes. I'll take the last question first. We are looking at the feasibility of refinancing our Build America bonds with sequestration. They will be technically in default in September when the government shorts the rebate that was promised for 20 years. However, the bond market is pretty unpredictable right now, and what looked like a very favorable refinancing in April is questionable at this time, So we're bringing to council the documents to allow us to time the market, and when it does look favorable, then we would be able to refinance those. Right now we're looking at refinancing only bands of that rather than all of it, and so it's kind of unknown whether this piece would be part of the refinancing or not. So there's your second question. Your first question is, a Build America bond is for capital expenditures only. so those which can be capitalized. Well, when you do an engineering study and build it, the engineering study is part of the capitalized cost of the construction of the project. When you do an engineering study and stop, there isn't anything to capitalize. So that's where we are in the use of Build America bonds for this specific project. Very well put. Speaking of the original scope of the project, maybe Commissioner Paulson, the original scope was design and construction of the trail. I don't think this council has changed their opinion. That still is what the money should be used for. and I feel like on the second piece that you're adding in here for the Manchester piece should be part of the Arts and Entertainment District because what we, when we, and I was on the council, I say we, but back in 2009 when we approved this bond, it was for design and construction. There's no construction dollars listed in the recommendations. So the second piece I, too, have an issue with as well as others on council. You had mentioned the CMAQ piece. Where does this project fall? Because there are two other trails waiting for CMAQ money as well. One is the big one over out in Hamburg, the Brighton East Trail, waiting for the bridge that will connect miles of trails. Where does this, how do you place this on the priority list for CMAC grants? Well, I think it's probably going to have to come from behind those that have already been, you know, where we already have applications. I mean, I think we can jump it. I think we'd love to try to put them as highly ranked as possible. From what we've been told from other communities, there are many communities who have kind of stopped going forward with CMAC grants. because they can't actually spend them. They've had difficulty actually using the money. So we're hopeful that we can actually get multiple CMAC grants for these trails, particularly if we have very strong applications. And let me really quickly touch. I think one of the things that we have not done here very well, I have not done very well, is illustrate what we're talking about in terms of those connections that we're talking about from kind of the high street extension. And I think what I will do is, if you'll let me, I'll come back again with a better illustration of what we're actually discussing as well as what we think is the importance of it to making that connection, both trail-wise and road-wise. But I think that would be a lot more helpful to you. And, again, we should have a better idea of at least some of the potential routes that would do that. Okay, back on the scene, I wouldn't want this project taking press over other ones that have been waiting for trail money. Absolutely, I understand. And then the last thing on the floodplain issue, we still need to do the floodplain study, But on the sewer and the floodplain, how does this fit into the CAP program that was instituted July 1? Because there's not capacity down there to add additional sewer capacity. You're right. But what there will be, and this is what Charlie's working on, this should be the first area. Once they finish the tank in this area, it should open up capacity for this entire area as well as downtown. The 4 million gallon tank that's 2015 or later? Oh, I wish I knew. I don't think it's 2015. I think it may be sooner than that. I'd have to get Charlie to tell you exactly what it is. but the capacity should be there within the next year and a half, two years. I think it's before 2015, but I won't swear to that. So how would a private pump? They would still need capacity, so that's not something they can build right away anyway. There's always the credits that they have for what the existing use is. I'm not sure what. And also it depends on what their current use would be. So it depends on the use of that facility. So I hesitate to be able to say that they don't have capacity. It depends on what their record of capacity is and what they intend to use it for. I think the current pepper distillery owners, I think they're using it at this point more as an art studio. At least that's one of the uses. In the future, they have plans to go and do other things there, and I think it may coincide with when the capacity frees up in that area. Very good. We'll have an update hopefully next week on CAP, and we can discuss a little bit more. We have back up Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To speak to Councilmember Clark's concern, I think there's no question that eventually we're going to need the connection through the Arena Arts and Entertainment District. I think we all understand that. Councilmember Stenet is correct. That was not part of the original scope of these bonds. these bonds and and I understand they were sold with non-specific terms I get that money can be taken from them and put other places however I think that what we need to do is first do what we said we would do with these bonds and that is acquire the easements for the town branch trail to go through the distillery district, do the design and engineering, and then see if we have money left. And I think Council Member Akers is absolutely correct. Number two is premature. Taking the connectivity, which we know we'll eventually need, and setting aside money from these bonds right now to do that is premature. And so with that, I would like to go ahead and make a motion that the administration look at these bond monies specifically right now for the Town Branch Trail. as you've proposed here, the easement requirement, the design and engineering, just as they were originally meant to be, and go ahead forward with that before anything else is done with the rest of the money, particularly a new project which was not in the original scope. Second. We have a motion by Vice Mayor Gordon and a second by Council Member Myers and Scottsfield. Any discussion? Council Member Kaye and then Council Member Ager. Again, I can't vote on this since I'm not a member, but I would hate to see the committee make a decision on that before giving the administration an opportunity to make the case that this would in fact meet the original intention, which is to get that development along Manchester Street move forward. I'm skeptical, as I think other people on council are, but it seems to me before we make a decision, we ought to give them a chance to show how that would be integrated and how it would, in fact, have the kind of impact that it needs. So I hope the committee would not move forward on that motion at this time. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Mazzotti, then Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. If Vice Mayor Gorton would incorporate in her motion an amendment stating that we would also have the floodplain study incorporated in that before we move any forward, I would so move. Can you repeat? I wanted to incorporate the floodplain study in that motion, that we have that done as well. Okay. There was an amendment to the motion to incorporate the floodplain study in the first original motion. It was second by Councilman Scutchfield. Is there a discussion on the amendment? Vice Mayor Gordon and Councilman Akers. Can you remind me the cost of the floodplain study? The floodplain study, I believe the estimates were $500,000. And, again, I would have to check, but I don't know if we've done a floodplain study for developers before. I think that would be – I'd have to go look. I could probably find some information, but I think that's something we have not done before, and that would be a significant amount of the money, the small amount of money that we have. $1.7 million is pretty significant. I mean, not that significant when you're talking about the things that need to be done in this area. That would be a pretty significant chunk of that money. And it seems to me that when we discussed this previously, we were going to set a precedent by doing a floodplain study. And I think also, as Bill has mentioned before, I'm not sure if this is a Build America bond issue as well about doing another study. That's right. I would have to look to bond council to see if it would qualify to be capitalizable. Just to use the rest of my, just for another couple seconds, what then sounds like it would work is to go ahead with the motion, and we could come back once we have the answers to this and add in or not, the floodplain. I'm just not sure if not doing the floodplain first would be the most sensible way to approach this, because if you end up with a lot of issues as a result of the floodplain, your easements and your design and engineering may change. Well, if I might, since I'm still on my time, if I might, back when we did these bonds and we talked about the Town Branch Trail, people have hoped that the Town Branch Trail would go through no matter what. This is a long-term view of our trail and our connectivity that way. So I would argue that we need to go ahead with the Town Branch Trail and ask you all to find out the answers to whether we can use the bond money and whether we should use the bond money for the floodplain study. because in the past developers have done the floodplain studies. So I would hope the council would look to complete what we said we would in 2009. I think this is one of the frustrations of bonding and projects is that we do go back and forth, and a future council can change what a past council has thought was a good idea for our planning and our moving forward. But I would argue that we need to go ahead and at this point, because there's so many unanswered questions, not approve the amendment, we could go back in the future and get that if we need to. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. I also do not support the amendment for a couple of reasons. We've already set a precedence by paying for and completing the feasibility study, which generally is not something that the city does, and that borders on whether or not that's legal under the bond. And so in order for it to be legal, then we actually need to build something and design and construct something. So I think that we don't need to drop another half a million dollars into another study. And I would like to, well, I guess we should just wait on that amendment, and then I'll make another amendment. Thank you, Chair. Councilor Lane, on the amendment. Thank you. Well, I think it would be a good idea if we had a complete reassessment of what the money is for, what it was allocated for, and just give an update to the council. Because that was in 2009, and I don't remember every detail about that. So I think that would be very helpful if we had some type of an opinion of what we can use the money, what we can't use the money for. The other point I would make is that maybe our priorities are wrong. I still feel that we need to know how to connect the distillery district to the rest of downtown so that we can attract investors to come in there, and that ought to be one of our top priorities. So that's my thought on it. But I'm pretty open to doing what is best. But I think in order to determine what is best, we need to have a lot more of an update, a really thorough update of what we can and can't do, what needs to be done, approximately how much it's going to cost so we can make a better decision, rather than just sort of voting on it today. Thank you. Any other discussion on the amendment? Okay, seeing none, all in favor say aye. All opposed? Aye. All right. That amendment cancels. back to the original motion to proceed with the first item bullet point on the recommendations. Any discussion on that? Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. Considering that the focus of the original bond, as Vice Mayor Gordon stated, was the design and construction of the trail and streetscape improvements, and then later the feasibility study was added, I think that we should focus on actually design and construction of the trail as well as the streetscape improvements. So I know that her motion included design and engineering, and I'm not sure if it included streetscape and exactly what... But could we at least include or say design, engineering, and construction of the Town Branch Trail section in the Distillery District is what I would like to amend. Thank you. We have a motion to amend and a second by Vice Mayor Gordon. Discussion on the amendment. Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, that passes. Can I ask a question of just a clarity? Because I'm not sure at this point. At this point, the amendment is to focus on recommendation number one first and then move to number two? No, just number one. Just focus totally on number one. So the streetscape design aspect is not going to be mentioned at all? It's not in the motion. Okay. That's what I'm trying to get clear on. So it's just to focus on the trail and not on the streetscape recommendations? Correct. Okay. Any discussion on the motion, original motion? Okay. Seeing none, let's vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, that passes. That was on the original motion. Yes, as amended. I apologize. Any discussion? Any other motions to be made in regards to this presentation? Any? Got it. Okay, before we go, can you change the seconder, Stacey, on the original motion? It was Councilman Myers. Oh, thank you. And then Councilman Clark. I understand the motion, and I don't really disagree with the motion, except I think it's when you look at the topic that we have here in front of us, it's the distillery district update. It's not the trail. It's the distillery district update. And I think we must have an overview of this. And I'm not sure the motion makes it clear. I mean, maybe it did make it clear that we're, forget the second one, let's focus on the first one. I don't think you can focus on the first one unless you're looking at the overall picture. And I would be very concerned that we're doing it piecemeal like that because without the second one, the first one is much, much less effective. And so I just want to comment there, and I guess I should have done that before we voted, not that it would have made any difference. But I want to be sure that we don't forget to go ahead and look at the whole picture rather than assuming that we do one thing at a time without looking at the eventual effect of what the distillery district and the trail is going to occur. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Clark. Council Member Gordon. I wholeheartedly agree with you, Council Member Clark, and that is why we should go out and look for different money for number two so that we can get it going. I don't know where that money would come from. I know money's tight, but you are correct. It's just that I think if we start stripping off pieces of the original intent, which we know we want to do, the town branch, we'll never get it done. So you are absolutely right. We just need to go out and find more money, maybe in our fund balance, which I hear is going to be something we won't like. It's on my list. So I think there are other opportunities, and I agree wholeheartedly with you. We don't need to forget about this. May I respond very quickly, Chair? Two seconds. Two seconds. Oops. There you go. Yes, and I agree. And I'm not sure I was talking just about the money itself, but about the work of the staff and the commissioner and everything that's going to tie all this together. It's not just the money. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. I agree with Harry. I think it does seem to be a little confusing as to I'm not against the trail. I'm not, you know, I certainly think our streetscape is important if we're going to be developing an area. But it just seems to be a piecemeal. And I would, it's kind of like building a house and still starting with the foundation. You're starting with your sidewalk. You know, I'm just not, I don't feel real comfortable with the way everything is laying out. So if we could have some better clarity, and I know that these funds were set aside for the trail, I voted no, but I could have voted abstain. But... And again, if I can, real quickly, I mean, going back, they were set aside for the trail and for streetscape. And, again, I think starting where they started and to where we are now, I think it is something we have to remember. The success of one is very continuous on the success of the other in terms of we have to make this connection. Distillery has to make a connection to downtown. I mean, it's essential for the distillery district. I mean, if you talk to those in the distillery, they will say the exact same thing. Their market is going to be people moving from, you know, coming to downtown from, you know, and, again, we do have this Rupp and Arson Arena project that is moving forward. And I think stopping at the front door of it or the back door is one of those things that we have to be looking at. And that's really, from a planning perspective, that's what we do. And I think it's a little bit, I don't want to say short-sighted, but it's important to think about both projects. And this is not taking money from one to the other. This is really trying to find a way to make sure that they're integrated so that the one helps the other. Again, in talking to those that are down there right now, when talking to them about these recommendations, they were probably more excited about number two, or at least as excited as they were about number one, because they see the value in it. As a property owner, as a business owner trying to get a business going, they see, they know the value of making that connection to downtown. The trail is important, but if the trail does not go to anywhere, it's not going to be that important. And that's why, again, the recommendation one is design engineering for the Town Branch Trail and the Town Branch Park, and making that connection to downtown explicit, getting that trailhead there. And then also really working, again, a lot of people are going to come there from roads, and I think that is an important aspect of it. It is tied very closely with the extension of High Street, and trying to figure that out I think is important with moving forward. I mean, one may impact the other. I think it's very important to at least look at how these things could work. And that's why if you'll let us to come back with a better understanding, a visual representation of what it is that we're talking about, that would help greatly. I really don't want you guys to characterize this as taking money from distillery because that's not the way the folks in the distillery have thought of this at all. This is helping get people to the distillery district and really making it more of a destination than kind of in many ways. Right now it's almost a leapfrog destination from downtown, and making those connections with downtown is vital for their success, and that's really what we'd like to be able to show you. And again, we can get you a better representation when we have better ideas about what those potential routes would be to get there. And I also think it's important, you know, if we look at, again, you know, the streetscape aspects are a recommendation in Section 2 is to do the streetscape design as well, which was to, again, extend upon that part of the eastern section of distillery, which is the part where we've got businesses right now that are functioning. And with $1.7 million, it's how do we take that small amount of money to get the maximum amount of lift. And I guess another question I have for you. I'm not sure at this point, and we'll have to find out, and we'll find out as the design and engineering goes on, if 1.7 is not enough to construct the trail, then what do we do with the bonds? And I think that was our thought, was that 1.7 million is not enough to do design, engineering, easements, and construction. And that's why we didn't make that the recommendation. So I think that's the reason that we feel we have to go out and get those other funds, because to what we've seen in talking with those, just design and engineering of that, I don't know if that's enough. And I guess I just ask you is if it's not enough, then do we just build part of it? Hold on. Before we have a lot of people want to jump in here, good question. We were an hour into this committee meeting. We've got several other things on the docket. We can obviously pick this back up next month with the additional information that Councilman Lane asked, what the original intent was and the language in the bond. I think that will shed a lot of clarity as well as can the floodplain be paid for with this middle American bond or a different source. So we'll give another five more minutes of this discussion, then we'll postpone the rest of it until next meeting because I think we've already had a motion that passed. And Council Member Myers has not spoken yet, so I'll jump to him first and then Councilman Lane and Akers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. I think we're all in agreement from a 30,000-foot level, but I think what we're trying to say is this is about getting things done. It's about getting things completed. And you just mentioned what if we don't have enough money to do the whole trail? Do we do part of it? That's part of the problem. I can give you an example of a trail that we got a $455,000 grant from the state back when Ernie Fletcher was the governor. We still don't have it done. And now we're talking about managing expectations because six, seven, eight years later, it costs more. So if we had gotten this done back in 2009 instead of 2013, there probably would have been enough money to get the trail done. So that's what we're saying. We committed to doing that when we passed those bonds. Let's get this piece done. We're not saying that we don't want to do number two, but we want to make sure that number one does get done. Real quickly, one of the reasons that we said let's focus so much on easements, acquisitions, and design engineering is it then makes the amount that we actually ask for for construction is much easier to anticipate. As with other sidewalk and trail aspects, the part that is very difficult to estimate is right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, those sorts of things. If we can get that part done, it makes the construction part much easier for the estimate. It makes it again. Then we are just down to we get the money for construction, it's built. Well, I think we're all going to see a pretty hefty fund balance that we can talk about how we do the rest of the trail if we don't have enough or phase two. But we really want you to get number one done. That's what we're saying. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Well, I would just like to remind Council that in 2009 we were in a recession, but that recession has continued on and on and on and on. And this is the worst environment for any type of real estate development. And you can look at all the other developments around downtown. They're sort of in limbo right now waiting for the economy to improve. I still say that the top priority ought to be how to connect the distillery district to downtown because it's going to be very difficult to get other investment if you can't show how that's going to work because I think that's critical. And, you know, as I said, I'm not against the trail, but I just think that both of them are important. Those are just the realities of today's. And I think that our developer of the Distillery District itself has less assets than some other developers, and it's very difficult to get new loans right now. So I think everything's on hold until the economy starts to pick up. But to have this plan in place, I think, would be very valuable. Thank you. Councilman Rakers. Thanks, Chair. Last time. Derek, I agree with you that we probably don't have enough money, And that's, I guess, my frustration. I mean, I wanted to include streetscapes in this motion. But looking at $1.7 million, I don't think that's enough to acquire easements to design and engineer the trail and then construct the trail. So I think that we do have to do it. But I want to see something done. It has been five years or four years. And my question would also be, why haven't we already done the design and engineering for the trail? What has been holding that up for the past four years, and how long will that take? And then how long will the, I mean, all of this will take years into the future. And you're talking about even designing and engineering to extend and connect to Broadway. I mean, that's going to take years. So nothing, the people, the property owners and the distillery, the citizens, all of us are not going to actually see anything completed for still another two, three years. And so, I mean, I guess my first question is, why hasn't the design and engineering for the trail already been completed in the past four years? Feasibility study. I'm sorry, the feasibility study. The feasibility study. And that took four years, three years? Again, I'll jump back to when the feasibility study came about. And this is stuff that predates me, but the RFP was put out and the completion of it are, you know, I believe it finally was started in 2012. I'd have to pull up the other presentation. But 2011 is when the RFP was finally granted and went and started, the construction started. And there were issues about, in terms of completing the feasibility study, there were questions about the floodplain study that came up. And there are a host of things that people needed input upon and people stopped. And I believe sometimes before, again, before I came around, there were questions about, can we do the feasibility study? I mean, can we do the floodplain as part of this? How do we include that? So those are things that did slow it down. I will say, constructions of trails, constructions of roads is not a quick business. It is a slow business just because of, again, right-of-way acquisition, utilities, relocation, construction. These are unfortunate. It's not the fastest of projects. So how long do you think this design and engineering will take? I think it depends on how quickly we can get the RFP out, how quickly we can get the roofs laid down. I hate to give guesses. I don't want to tell you. Six months? A year? We could say a year. We could say we could be done in a year, I would hope. And I would much rather tell you a year and be done earlier than tell you six months and be done later. And I would ask that if you do apply and pursue the CMAC grant, that then we use that money to try to connect the Alexandria stopping point to the Manchester. We continue to build trails or sections of trails and keep talking about we're going to connect them all over the city, but we're not, and we haven't. And so I think that we need to be serious in our commitment to connect trails and to connect Masterson Station to downtown that we've promised people for over a decade. And so I think we need to do that also. Thank you. I agree, and we are working on the CMAC grants for and other grants to get Town Branch Trail built this way. Again, I think the importance of it is not, if you talk about building it and having it be short-sighted and not connecting anything, the current plan of ending it, you know, starting in the distillery district and ending it at Oliver Lewis is the epitome of a stop at one point. That's why we think it's so vital to take it to downtown, so it actually kind of connects up to. Well, once you get to Oliver Lewis, there's plenty of roads that do connect you to downtown quite easily. I mean, it's not like that's a dead zone. I mean, going the other way, that's a problem when you just stop off at Forbes Road and then you have nowhere to go. And we are building from that direction as well. Thank you. And our last speaker is Council Member Myers. Then we'll come back to this our next meeting. Two quick questions. What do you need from the council to get started? Well, I think according to Council Member for State, we're going to come back next month and provide a little bit better explanation on some of the questions you've asked today as well as provide a little bit better understanding of some of these things. But we just passed a motion. So if this motion gets reported out and the full council adopts a motion, then we can hear your update later. But once that motion is passed, that's the will of the council. So what will you need past that to get started? I think I still need some clarity about some of the questions that we've had. We've had questions that have been asked today about whether or not we should start. I think it might be premature to start before having a little more to answer some of the questions that we've had. Okay, can you get those questions to us in the next week or so, the answers? I'll defer to Council Member Stanton who said he wanted to extend it to next month but if you can get the questions answered to us before then we can already start looking at that information there's no reason to wait another month so I can get some of those questions to you I think the answer about whether or not we can show you those connections to downtown and how those other aspects in terms of the trails in terms of the connection to the street that we're asked about I don't think we can get that in a week, no okay, my second question is how come the developer hasn't done the floodplain study? I believe you'd have to ask the developer. I'm not sure about exactly why they haven't gone forward with it. I think part of it is because of the questions that have been around about whether or not we would be involved in it as well. I mean, I think there's a host of questions there that are probably better directed at the developer than to me. Okay. I would like to ask if we can add the developer to the next meeting. Because when this was passed in 2009, there was a lot of questions. I know you weren't here. There was a lot of questions from some council members, and I was one of them, about the commitment of the developer, how much money he was going to put in because it doesn't seem like he's putting a whole lot in. And the government's borrowed $2 million. We've been paying debt service on this money since 2000. I'm not sure when the bomb was actually sold, but we've been paying debt service on it all this time with nothing happening. And so a lot of the hang-up is the floodplain study. That's usually the job of the developer. They need to come to the table and tell us when they're going to do that if they expect us to keep putting taxpayer money into this project. We'll work on that invitation for next meeting. Thank you. And then follow-up for next meeting, you'll check on the floodplain. if we can include that in this bond or not. The 2009 review of the original intentions of the bond and then the overall distillery plan as connectors, et cetera, and you'll bring all that as soon as you have it or next meeting, whichever is easier for you. I know you have a lot of other things on your plate, and you'll invite the developer for next meeting so we can continue our discussion. And, again, the motion that was passed was to move forward with just the recommendation one, not to say we won't address number two next meeting, but right now everyone agrees to move forward with number one for sure. Okay. All right. Next item on the agenda is the internal audit on waste management. And we received this a few months back in regards to our Department of Internal Audit and review of some of the purchasing procedures. And, Mr. Salee, you're here today to kind of walk us through this audit. And I know some counselors at the time had questions. I'm not sure if they still do. Okay. I mean, it's been about three months since you completed your work. But hopefully we're listening and maybe you'll have some questions. and you'll walk us through it. And then also Director Feast is here and Commissioner Maloney to answer any questions to committee. If there's any specific follow-up you want to ask them as well about the audit. Take it away. Thank you, Chairman. On April 26, 2013, the Office of Internal Audit released the Waste Management Expenditures Audit Report. The report contains seven findings and a risk observation. The findings and the recommendations are summarized as follows. There were various purchasing policies and procedure violations that were noted. We recommended consistent adherence to purchasing policies and procedures with additional training for waste management staff having purchasing responsibilities. Multiple expenditures were recorded in the wrong fiscal year. We recommended consistent adherence to accounting procedures for the processing of year-end expenditures. And we also recommended additional training for waste management staff having purchasing responsibilities in this area as well. A written policy was needed for employee uniform purchases. We recommended development of a written policy regarding the purchase of employee uniforms, addressing how much may be spent on each employee based on the position and job duties, and the circumstances for which additional employee uniforms, if any, might be purchased. We recommended uniform purchases for each employee be clearly tracked to enable management to monitor and review the purchases for appropriateness. We also recommended bulk purchase of uniforms be eliminated or otherwise closely monitored. We noted the incorrect use of a 211-5 disbursement report to pay $108,000 expenditure before fiscal year end and recommended consistent compliance with the policies established for the use of the 211-5 form. Council approved accounting coding was not consistently followed, and we recommended that waste management ensure expenditures are recorded in the proper fund and account in compliance with council ordinance and resolutions and also that such expenditures not be incurred until the final approval of the contract by the council. Expenditures were charged to incorrect sub-departments and we recommended waste management request budget requests, or budget transfers rather, when necessary so service costs can be recorded in the proper sub-department. We also recommended Council consider making this a budgetary requirement in order to better track service and program costs within the various divisions. Uniform allowance was not reported on employee W-2s, and we recommended Waste Management discuss with payroll whether or not the purchase of uniforms for employees should be treated as a fringe benefit and included on the employee's W-2. There was also one risk observation where purchasing procedures allowed invoices to exceed related purchase orders under certain circumstances. We recommended purchasing reconsider the benefits versus the risk of this current policy. And if the policy was going to be retained, consideration should be given to specifying those instances in which it would be acceptable for the invoice cost to exceed the purchase order cost, as opposed to the blanket language that was in place in the purchasing manual at the time. We noted that the commissioner management responses concurred with each of the recommendations that were in the audit report. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Committee members, the audit is, again, on pages 11 through 22. Are there any questions? First up, we have Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Salih, for coming in today. A couple quick questions. Which of these findings do you find that must be addressed or really need to be addressed immediately? Well, we rank our findings high, moderate, and low, depending on their severity and how quickly they need to be addressed by management. Can you explain those? Because some of the council members are new. Could you explain the different ratings and what they need, please? Sure, we have to. And they're on page 13 as well, if you want to follow along. Yes, that is also included in the kind of the background section of your report. We have a priority rating process, and it's designed to assist management in its evaluation of the findings, so we assign a qualitative assessment for the need for corrective action. A high priority represents a finding requiring immediate action by management to mitigate risk associated with the process being audited. A moderate represents a finding requiring timely action by management to mitigate the risk associated with the process being audited. and then a low represents a finding for consideration by management for correction or implementation associated with the process. And I believe I've got a copy of the report here. The first five findings were rated a high. Finding number six was a moderate. Number seven was a moderate. Risk observations, they're not considered findings per se because they're not a violation of policy procedure. They're just there to enable management to understand that we see something that we consider a risk. So we don't give them that kind of rating. It's informational in many ways. Okay. Being that it's been three months since the audit was completed and you've got, I think you said, five of these are rated high that need immediate action. That's correct. Do you have an update on what action has been taken on those five specifically? The last information I received back in the middle of June was that some SOPs were basically in draft form that were going to be considered by a committee. and I don't know which committee this was, but it was a committee within the Division of Waste Management, as I understand it. And that was the last information I had about it. I was told that these procedures might change. And so I don't know if the committee's met yet. I can't answer that question. But what I was told was the committee would have been meeting in August to consider that along with some other stuff. Okay. Could I maybe have somebody, either the commissioner or the director, please come up and talk about those five that need immediate action and where you guys are at on those? Please. First of all, I want to thank Mr. Sally for being and giving us, going in and checking some things out. Overall, we appreciate him and understand that we were in control most of our summaries and audits, and I appreciate the hard work. So the second thing I want to talk about, if you look back at the uniforms back in 2010, 2011, and 2012. Richard, can I read it for just a second? I only have two minutes left. Could you speak specifically to the five rated high and where you guys are? That's what I'm trying to say. Okay, I'm sorry. Most of them was the uniform problem. And it was back in 2012 when I was just CAO. They approached me about problems we were having with the uniforms, about how the bills were not getting paid for it. They weren't getting it in. So I met with Todd Slayton. We were able to make some changes on that and correct that problem. That problem had been fixed. I will let Steve talk about the other two. But the main important thing that I've noticed, the big ones were the three of them, was the uniforms. And they brought it to my attention when I was CAO and doing both of them. But I want to commend Todd for helping us because the company was not working well with us. But I'll let Steve go ahead and explain and lower it on the other ones. Okay, and as he comes up, can I ask, when you got those corrected, is there a process where you report back to the auditor and let him know that that's been done? I'll just make a quick statement. Could you come up to the microphone? Could you come to? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Laura Bourne, and I'm in charge of the purchasing. If you can pull the microphone down for us. Yeah, there we go. We're good. Sorry. I'm Laura Bourne, and I'm in charge of all the purchasing operations in our division. When we received the audit report, even though we haven't put an SOP because it has to go to HR, we have completed and put in motion all the transactions that the auditor required us to do. The uniform policy, I was not aware of the information that had to go to accounting for putting on the employee's W-2. I got that corrected and got that in motion. So all the things that were in here, even though it's not in an incorporated SOP, the staff has been met with, the instructions have been dealt with, and the procedures have been set up. Okay, thank you. Is Mr. Feast coming up to add on the other two? Right. I'd just like to basically I would want to reiterate the things that Ms. Bourne said, that all of the issues that have been brought up, we have put forth things like uniform policies to all of our staff members that deal with purchasing. As far as the use of the 211.5 form, we've also addressed all those things, and those are in written format. Okay, my time's up. I could just ask a quick follow-up. So the SOPs that were being done, were those going to come to this committee or some committee inside your shop? Those would be going back to the auditor. Okay. I think they've already been sent back. Is that correct, Lauren? I haven't received them. Oh, you haven't received them. I thought they had been sent back. I sent all the findings for them. They're just not within our complete SOP. Okay. Can you get that done for us and then send all that to the auditor and then send our committee a copy of that when it's all completed? Please. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mr. Feast. I was curious, when do you normally receive your monthly operating statements from the finance department? Well, we construct them ourselves soon after the first month. When you say we construct them ourselves, you don't get a written report? Laura does. I'll have her speak to that. Okay, well, Yari. When we do our budget, there are certain things that are outlined on what requested in the budget. Each month, at the end of each month, say July, everyone will get August 1st when we have our staff meetings a copy of every expense in our budget outlined and what's recorded, what we've spent encumbered in the balance. And at the staff meetings, everyone that's involved in expenditures in our division get a copy of that. Okay. When you meet with the department heads of the Solid Waste Division, what happens if they're over or under budget or whatever? What do you do to make the judgment? I address that at the meeting. I give them a summary of where we're over and under. And if anything's going to be over, we have a purchase request that everybody has to send to me for me to review and look at the account number before it is approved. If there is a problem with something being over, I give that to Mr. Feast to see if a budget amendment is necessary or if we need to do this project as opposed. So your data are primarily related to the purchase of materials or supplies. Yes, sir. Is it not the overall operating statement for the entire division? Yes. You have all the labor costs, fuel, things like that. You have all those costs you're monitoring? Yes, sir. Okay. Well, do you feel that the financial data you're receiving are highly accurate or you're able to make adjustments in operations? I guess that would be a question for Mr. Feast since he would probably make the adjustments in operations. I think sometimes the information is a bit delayed. But, you know, we also have a monthly budget meeting the third Thursday of every month for the Division of Waste Management where we go. And so sometimes that information is, you know, it may be possibly a few weeks old. Right. All right. Well, you know, my question is, do you feel like our accounting system is providing all the needs that you have so that you can, on a monthly, on a timely basis, make changes or corrections where things are over budget, under budget, too many hours, too much fuel? Do you have a lot of control when you're able to make adjustments in operations that way? In general, you know, it's usually responsive. You have to, you know, at the end of the year, that's the most challenging aspect is to figure out exactly where you are at the end of the year and make sure that you can make all the purchases that you actually need. All right. Well, if your costs are running out of control like halfway through the year and you wait until the end of the year to make adjustment, could that mean you could be way over budget or way under budget? It's possible. We don't typically run over budget in a lot of our areas. We're usually within the range. When we have our monthly budget meeting, in terms of the overall budget, we may have certain accounts that get low, but generally between operations and personnel and the capital expenditures, we're usually in pretty good shape. Well, with regard to the incident that the audit covered, did you catch those errors on a timely basis like the month after they happened, or how did this arrive that there was an audit of this because there was a problem? With the situation with the uniform, that was a little bit of a unique situation. We had great difficulty about two or three years ago when we'd gone to kind of an overall government vendor. And the vendor was where we would submit orders sometime in March or April, and we wouldn't receive those items until sometime six months later, well into the next fiscal year. and we were obligated to pay those, and obviously those got charged out of the wrong fiscal year. And so we knew those things were going to happen. It's just there wasn't really anything we could do about it. And since that time, we have changed to a new vendor, and things are working much better. We were spending an inordinate amount of administrative time and hours just managing uniforms, and it was kind of a headache. But since that time, we're able to get those requisitions and deliveries turned around pretty well. Okay. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Henson. Thank you, Chair. I had some questions, I think, for Bruce about the process of auditing and how do you determine what division to audit. Is it caused upon by, I know this council has requested audits, but is it routinely certain divisions are audited? Well, what the process primarily is, is every year I go through what I refer to as a risk assessment process. I look at the financials. I look at the operational side of the various divisions. and I work with my deputy director, and we put together a list of what we think are some areas of potential risk to the organization. Risk can be based on money in, money out, changes in management, prior audit findings, complexity of the process, decentralized operations, parks, for example, is decentralized, so they've gotten a number of audits. We bring that list to the internal audit board, and then the board deliberates over that. and they decide they have the final decision on what is going to be in our standard audit plan each year. So they may add some areas to audit. They may take some away. So they have that decision. They also have the final say on the budget for them. So it's a preliminary document we bring to the board, and we explain to them why we think certain areas, certain divisions, or functions within divisions need to be looked at. And then the board, which was created by the council, then makes the decision as to, okay, these are what we want you to look at. strike this one, add this one, and so forth. And then what follow-up is done once you have your findings and you make your recommendations? What follow-up is done to see that those are being met? The primary process, first of all, there's only five auditors in the Office of Internal Audit, and that counts myself and my deputy director. So we're spread thin in terms of being able to cover this organization. But the primary process that we have is after a number of months have expired, I will send out an email to the directors that have been audited within the last six months or a year or whatever, and I will say, okay, we did an audit of this area in your division on such and such a date, and here's a copy of the report just so it makes it easier for them to go back and say, okay, here's what was looked at. And here's action plans that you state you implemented to try to correct the problems. Give me an update. Give me an e-mail telling me the status of your action plan. They send those to me. I incorporate those into a tracking mechanism. Those are discussed from time to time in the board meetings as the board requests. And we may also go back from time to time and do a live site review. Now, the site reviews are done primarily in areas where there were a lot of findings, in particular where the audit objectives were not met. So we're trying, again, using the staff we have and looking at how much other work there is to do, we'll pick three or four areas that we audited previously, maybe within the last year or two. They've had plenty of time to put their action plan in place. We'll go back and do an on-site review and audit against the findings that were in the previous report. Those are also included in the annual audit plan that I put forth to the board. And then the board can, like I said, they can take them out. They can add more to them. As the board so desires. Thank you. Welcome. Mr. Selle, in summation of this discussion, another councilman has questions. I think we need to work on our follow-up. I think sometimes there's areas in the process that we can ask, either through a committee or a council motion, to do follow-up, and you designate one audit or that would do follow-up work. If there is an audit that we find needs follow-up on, I think that's a good policy to have. maybe we can adopt a new policy and take it to the board and see if there's a way to do a follow-up process. Because obviously you don't want to follow up every single audit we do. But there may be a time and a process that we can develop to follow up on certain ones. Well, I would recommend to you, Council Member, if Council Members have a particular audit, they're interested in a follow-up, that they would submit that to the board as a request and have that for the board's consideration. And that way, as I mentioned, the board was created by the council to oversee that process. So submit that to them, and then they will give it consideration. And if they say go do it, we'll do it. Okay. And I have a couple questions for Director Feese and maybe Mr. O'Mara, Brad Stone, whoever wants to speak on the financial side of the house. Have the employees been retrained on our purchasing procedures? Yes. Yes, they have. They all have been retrained. And are the supervisors now in play? Because in one of the findings, the supervisor was absent. Has that supervisor been caught to speed as well and is now supervising the employees? Yes. Okay. Yes. And then the landfill money that was misappropriated, has it been returned to the landfill? It's $108,000. We have not at this point. Now, I'll give you a little history behind that. When the landfill fund was first created, 100% of the landfill disposal contract was paid out of the landfill fund, just like this invoice was. three or four years after the landfill fund was established, in order to build up the landfill fund enough to be able to actually close the landfills, we started using some monies out of the urban service fund. And so at this point we, of course, closed the landfills. And so I think it's an open question as to whether we move back to actually funding all of the invoices or actually paying all the invoices out of the landfill fund. This was about a $200,000 bill, something like that, maybe $240,000 invoice, I think. Well, in our package it says $108,000. Well, yeah, that was the section. That was the amount of money. That was just the total invoice. There was about $240,000, $250,000. Okay. I mean, I think we need to hear a response from the administration as to, one, going forward, what the policy is going to be. I mean, what landfill money should be used, should the landfill items and urban service money should be used for urban service. I know we're talking about this on the Waste Management Task Force, but not addressing it in its audit finding, I think, is problematic. I think we need to make a decision. Do we return the money, or do we say from this point on, we've got to start being a little more accountable? Because these are dedicated fees. As you explained, it goes way back on the landfill fee. It should be for collection and disposal. Chair, I can answer both of those questions. Somehow I knew you could. I read the audit yesterday. Shame on me for not reading it in April. But we can make that transfer tomorrow. Just as soon as we have it identified that it was paid out of the wrong fund, the fund that owes the money will reimburse the fund that does. That's called due to due front. It's part of accounting every month. And so that's just, in my opinion, a non-issue. As soon as it's identified to us, accounting can make the transfer. The other is pretty cut and dry in my mind, too. We have two different funds. We have the Urban Service Fund, which is tasked to collect the garbage, and we have the Landfill Fund, which is tasked to dispose of the garbage. And it was my understanding that the budgets and the expenditures were tracked and expensed that way. So we'll be glad to make any adjustments if they were not upon identification. Well, I know there was some mix-up on the budgeting codes that when we passed the budget. Have those been corrected? We know which fund is actually going forward being charged to what accounts. I don't know that specific question, but I do know that there can be an invoice, and part of the invoice is paid out of one fund because of the nature of the service. And that same invoice, a second part can be charged to the other fund because of the nature of that service. And if one time the total invoice was paid out of one fund, we can correct that. That's what I understood was the situation. I just want to make sure the budget that we pass each year, the money is being appropriated and spent correctly, so that as we do our analysis, as Councilman Lane alluded to, and our work on the Waste Manager Task Force, we can look back and see where money was spent and where, you know, going forward, what adjustments we need to make. And that was my understanding of how the budget is prepared. Okay. Councilman Hinson is up next. Thank you, Chair. I guess, Bruce, I'm sorry. How long typically would it take you to do an audit this size? I believe this one was budgeted for 400 hours. I'm not really sure right now. How long? I think it was budgeted for 400 hours. Okay. So that's all the way through the whole process. That's 10 weeks. Well, it's not necessary 10 weeks because you've got your field auditor, then you've got my reviewer, you've got your deputy director's reviewer. But most of that time is for the field auditor. Because we have seven findings in this audit. Yes. And of the seven, five are rated high priority. So I wanted to make a motion that we receive a follow-up audit. it was six months would be october but i i didn't want to put you in a you know well under a lot of pressure to get it done as i as i told council member senate uh if if the board if the council would take it to the board and ask the board for this and allowing the board to do the job the council set it up to do which is to oversee the internal audit function Okay. Bring that to the board as a request. The board meets on September 10th, which is just a few weeks away. Okay. And bring that for their consideration. I think that would be the best process. Okay. So I'll hold off. No, you can still make your motion, and we'll send it to the full committee, council. Okay. Okay. So I would like to make a motion that we have a follow-up audit on all of the findings by October 31st. Second. There's a motion and a second on the floor. It's to do a follow-up audit on the internal audit recommendations 1 through 7 and do it by October 31st. To begin it by October 31st. Yes, I'm sorry, begin by October 31st. Discussion. Councilor Myers. I guess I have a question. I'm kind of struggling with the part, Mr. Solly, where you're saying that you can take that to the board for their review. It would seem that if the council asked for this to be done, it would just get done. But the way that you're couching that, it sounds like we don't really have any authority here to ask for that. We have to... No, I'm not saying that at all. Maybe we would have the authority to ask for it, but we don't have the authority to request that it be done. We just have to ask you guys if you're willing to have it done. Well, that's not what I was intending to state. I'm just stating that the council created the board to oversee the function, and so by taking it through the board, that maintains the full flow of the process. If the council wants to make a resolution to do so, then the resolution is what it is. I don't know if council member, I know council member Beard is not here, but council member Lane is if he has a comment about that since he's on the board. Well, maybe as our representative on the board, you could maybe expedite that. Yeah, may I say something? Quickly. Okay, the idea of the internal audit board is it's comprised of members of the council and the administration and outside experts in accounting and forensics and auditing. And the idea is to have it as an independent board that's not beholden to any one entity of government so that it can be fair and impartial. So we run into a little bit of a problem if we make resolutions that are sort of demanding we need this by this time because it would be up to the board to make a final decision on that. But I could say that being on the board, I know that the audit board does follow-ups already, and something like this that's very of high interest to the council, I think they would probably respond to that in a very timely basis. Thank you, Councilman Lane. Vice Mayor Gordon, then we'll take a vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to clarify your motion is simply to go back and look at and be sure that the recommendations have been followed up on. Okay. Incorrected. Thank you. Can I make a clarification, too? Typically, before we do a follow-up, we give management ample time to put their action plan into place because it is management's responsibility to do that. So to the extent that action plans are not put in place, there's not going to be anything to audit except to state that the management plan is not yet in place. So I want to make sure that's kind of understood. All right, Kessler Myers, there's a follow-up. Do you remember how much time you gave management to put the action plan in place? We give, in any audit report that we issue, the standard allowed time is 30 calendar days, and that's approved by the board. That's actually pretty generous. I think the state auditor gives people between one and two weeks. We give them 30 calendar days to put their response together. And then as far as how quickly they have to implement their action plan, That depends upon the complexity of it. Of course, some can be put together rather quickly. Others will take time. They may take funding. It depends on the nature of the situation. Okay. Thank you. Okay. There's a motion on the floor and a second. Ready for a vote? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. That motion passes. Anything else on the internal waste management audit? Okay. Moving right along. Given the amount of time we have left, I know the Empower Lexington has a rather lengthy presentation. I don't want to cut them short on our discussion. So, Council, if there's a motion, Council Member Scotty. I'm sorry. I would move that we would table this item so we can have full discussion to the next meeting. Okay. A motion and a second by Council Member Scotchfield. Is there any discussion? Is that okay, Susan and everyone out there, to move this to the next meeting? Will you all be able to still present? I know you've all been sitting there a while, but we don't want to rush you through it. Yes, I can certainly appreciate the time element, but we are not giving the presentation. The community stakeholders group is. Amy Soner was prepared to do that. Okay. So we'll have to get with that group and see if they can do it. If we can come back in October, that would be okay. I'm sorry to make you sit through today. Next meeting, right? We had a surprise item on the agenda that took a little longer than normal. Thank you. Yes. If you can do it. We just want to make sure we give you ample time. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We'll put them on first. Absolutely. All right. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All right. Any objection? All right. Last is our monthly financials. They're in pages 50 through 54. Are there any committee questions on those monthly financials that we need to review? And next month we'll try to have a sanitary sewer update as well, since we haven't had one in a while. Any questions on monthly financials for Mr. O'Mara? All right. Our items in committee, our last topic. We'll put Empower Lexington number one next committee meeting. We'll also have an update again on the distillery district. We'll try to limit that to at least half an hour, so it won't take up all the meeting. And then we'll also have a presentation from Rick Cluitt about climate adaptations. He's asked to address 15 minutes to the council about that process. And then last but not least, we'll have a CAP update on the capacity assurance that went into effect July 1, just to kind of see where we're at on that process since it was mentioned today as well. Anything else for next meeting? All right. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Motion and second. All in favor say aye. Aye. We're adjourned. Thank you. Yeah, yeah, oh yeah Put a candle in the window But I feel I've got to move