Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Hey! Hello, greetings. All right, welcome everyone. Welcome to this meeting of the work session of the council. And first things first, before we go into public comment, we've got a couple of little announcements. First, I want to welcome the vice mayor back. This is the first work session. She's already been busy at work following the birth of grandson Thomas Kassarskis. Did I do that right? Yes. And that's the proud parents are Abby, Vice Mayor's daughter, and Peter, son-in-law, all the way in Alaska. All right. Yes, ma'am. All right, next, Vice Mayor, we have a motion that we can take a proclamation early here. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. I thought it would be appropriate to honor our junior fire chief first and not make you sit through the whole rest of the meeting. So I move to move the presentation of the junior fire chief to the beginning of our meeting. Thank you. Motion by Vice Mayor Gordon, second by Council Member Lane. Is there, unless there's objection, we will, unless there's objection, we'll go ahead with the proclamation. Just one minute and I'll come down. Okay, here we are once again this year. Congratulations to our junior fire chief, Peter Ramirez, who is the son of Tommy Townsend and Teresa Santanello and a fifth grader at Breckenridge Elementary. So, Peter, why don't you come on up here with the chief. I know you've been busy all day today, and the chief is going to tell us a little bit about that. I want to also thank other members of our fire department who are here today. Peter is a student in Mindy Kuhn's class at Breckenridge, and he won the school's contest to create a brochure about fire safety in the kitchen. His principal is Michael Price. Fire Safety Week is October the 6th through the 12th, and Peter will help us get the message out about fire safety that week and throughout the year. So today I am very proud, along with Chief Jackson, to proclaim today is Junior Fire Chief Ramirez Day in Lexington. Congratulations, Peter. There you go, buddy. Cheers. That's yours. That's yours. That's yours. That's all right. There you go. Just to kind of give you a brief overview of the day, I started out this morning at 9 o'clock with Peter. I pinned him as the first official Fire Chief, honorary Fire Chief, for the Lexington Fire Department. department. His brochure, an example of his brochure is how to prevent kitchen fires, and he did a very, very good job of presenting how to stop. He already told me that he's really shy and he doesn't want to talk to you all. But he did a good job, and he won his school's contest and he's been a very good fire chief today. He's been to lunch with us, you know, farming like to eat, so we took him to get some barbecue. He's come to my executive staff meeting and he made some real tough decisions today. And now he's been to the blue building and we're going to send him home and then he's going to come back with us tomorrow. We're taking him out to the airport training center and take him through a burn. So he's going to have a full about 10 days of being with the fire department and he's been a like I said very very strong fire chief and um my job is the executive staff see you later this is my new assistant thank you yeah let's get a picture Peter with all the council members Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I should have said Peter is a proud constituent of the 5th District, and Council Member Farmer is making sure that he's escorted outside. Okay. Now we can begin the formal part of our meeting. The agenda with a public comment for issues on the agenda. Mr. Mundy, nobody signed up for issues on the agenda. All right, then that allows us to move to item number two, docket approval. There's no council meeting this week, so no docket. Allows us to move on to approval of the summary. Is there a motion to approve the? Second. Motion by Council Member Beard, seconded by Vice Mayor Gordon. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next on the agenda is budget amendments. There are no budget amendments this week. Next on the agenda is new business. Is there a motion? Move approval. Second. It's a motion by Vice Mayor Gordon, seconded by Council Member Kaye. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Moving on to continuing business and presentations. Is there a motion for the NDS? Second. Motion by Council Member Stinnett, seconded by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. And next on our agenda is the Environmental Quality Committee Summary, August 20th and September 17th by Council Member Stinnett. Thank you, Mayor. We have two committee meetings to review, and I thank the Council's indulgence for delaying the August 20th report out until today because actually the same topic overflowed in the two meetings, which we'll probably now go into next week's meeting on the 8th. But I'll go ahead and start with August 20th. The first item was approval of the summary. That was approved by a committee. The second item was a distillery district update. And we did have one motion coming out of the discussion and use of the $2.3 million bond that was bonded in 2008. And I'll go ahead and bring that motion to the full council for discussion today. A motion by Vice Mayor Gordon that the administration look at these bonds specifically for the Town Branch Trail as proposed in the presentation during the committee meeting. The easement requirement and design and engineering, just as they originally were meant to be and move forward with the trail before anything else is done with the funds. So moved. Second. Motion by Council Member Stentz. Second by Vice Mayor Gordon. Is there any discussion on the motion? And, Mayor, I believe Commissioner Paulson may want to add some light into this. And the reason we had a delay, Council, is because our follow-up meeting to this, there was some new information that was asked for from the committee. There were no motions on the next meeting, but I believe it would be appropriate if Commissioner Paulson can kind of give us an update as to where they stand in reference to this motion and their recommendation. Before we vote. Thanks, sir. At our last meeting, we were asked to provide more detailed information about the trail. of which we came back with the full cost being for the two sections, the west section and the east section, being more along the lines of $2.4 million, with the east section being included within the streetscape, which made it a little less of a trail in some ways, but much more of a streetscape project in other ways. A lot of the discussion that went on was what was involved in that streetscape. I was able to get a more detailed outline to everyone from Strand last night, providing much more in terms of what's involved in that streetscape. And from our side, I think we would say in terms of streetscape and trail, I think what we heard from several members of council at that meeting was that not necessarily wanting to build a small segment of a trail and that the streetscape itself is generally something that is done at the end of a project, not necessarily at the beginning of a project such as here. Where we would recommend is more along the lines of going for the larger hydrology study, which was also discussed at that second meeting as well, of which it would be about a $500,000 cost. We're still looking into – Commissioner O'Mara is still trying to get back with the bond council about whether or not that can be bonded, but in terms of what we feel is quite possibly the best use of those funds, it would be at this point, the floodplain study and then figuring out what to do with the rest of the bonds, the 1.7 that is still left. All right. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Commissioner. I think we have some questions for Commissioner Compulsin before we vote. All right. Anybody have some? I think you've got a list that chimed in there. Oh, all right. Council Member Lawless. this isn't exactly to the motion but it's on the topic so maybe I'll wait until after we may it's about the floodplain study okay is that pertinent sure okay I was doing some research And it seems that a huge percentage nationwide of the FEMA floodplain maps are grossly inaccurate. And I was wondering if we could investigate whether or not this is truly in a floodplain or not. Well, and that's what the hydrology study would do. As of now, the existing floodplain maps are the law. So we do not believe that the floodplain maps as they are reflect the reality of what it is. But the only way we can, we can't disprove that until we actually do a hydrology study. And this is a larger study that would cover the entire Town Branch watershed, which is a much larger area than was originally discussed in previous discussions about a floodplain. This would cover an area that is a very large section of downtown and beyond, including parts of the U.K. It would cover BCTC, IMAG. It's the entire town branch watershed. In talking with the folks from Strand, I asked them specifically, would this mean that floodplain levels would change for everyone or the entire area? And they responded that quite possibly they could, which would mean that it would cover a lot of projects in the downtown area, but also in future areas of infill and redevelopment as well, which, again, kind of brings it from the, for a private developer, to a larger public realm in terms of its benefits. So is UK going to bear part of the cost of that if UK is in that study? Yeah. I have not broached that subject. Yeah, sure. I think that's a really important one to broach. It is, but I will say this. I mean, they're a much smaller part of that map than we can talk about it, but I will say from a larger lift, they're a much smaller section. I hate to take money from this project to do a larger study. I think the thing to look about is not who benefits but how much of an area is benefited. The key here is that, yes, it would benefit them, but it would benefit a whole lot of other areas as well. and I think that it is a, in terms of the amount of money for the amount of benefit, is a good cost. And yes, they would benefit, but I don't think it would be a huge front burner issue for them at this point. Okay, thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Mayor. To follow on Council Member Lawless's question, Would the cost of the hydrology study be different if it was limited to only Manchester Street and the distillery district area? I believe it would. I can't give you the exact cost on that. So if we extend it past Rupp Arena, past Center Point, and included the Camp University, it would be more than $500,000? No, this $500,000 study is the hydrology study, which is for the Town Branch watershed. So it covers a very large area. Right. Okay. And what are the total number, well, first, what's the total fund balance of distillery district bonds? You said 2? 1.7. 1.7. The original bond was 2.2, of which we've spent about $500,000 on the feasibility study. And so if we spend $500,000 on hydrology, we'll have 1.2? Approximately. Right. And how many total phases are there of the Town Branch Trail? currently we are looking to fund i believe the fourth through cmac grant and there i believe there are two more sections before you get to the distillery section so that would be i think around a total of seven counting distillery if i'm correct i think yes they probably can answer that i'm getting the yes that's right from van meter okay so the number of phases that are complete are three correct and then complete and funded we are still working on the section that That ends at Alexandria. Okay. And then Townley is next, and you're applying for CMAQ funding? Correct. And then the next phase is also going to? It's not been put up yet for CMAQ funding. Okay. And that would be before the distillery district, though? There are two from Townley to distillery. There are two sections. And then there are two within the distillery district? I think we look at it more as one. It's just kind of two halves of it, the east and west section. We broke it up in here because it sort of fits logically. Sure. Just because of the way that the strand and the feasibility kind of broke it up, with the west section being much more along the town branch, the east section could go a couple different ways. But in the sort of the preferred one, it went along at grade on Manchester. Okay. Thank you. That's all for now. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner, thank you for your information that I saw this morning. And I had a couple questions. How much of UK area is in the town branch area? The best I can do is I can give you the map. When I look at it, it looks less than a third. Of all of UK? That's the way this map is showing, the Town Branch watershed. So there's quite a bit of UK, actually. Is that what you're saying, a third of the university? The map I have is not drawn to scale, so I can't give you a, like a, it's from Stantec. I got it last night, kind of around the same time I was able to do this. And I appreciate Council Member Lawless bringing this up. Would there be any advantage to the university to having this information? I'm not sure where their floodplain levels are, so there may not be. Okay, so in the consideration of them maybe partially funding it, then it would be based on whether they felt it was information that could be useful to them. Yes, ma'am. Are you intending to have that conversation with them at all? I do have a meeting with them tomorrow about a different issue, and I can broach that subject with them then. I think it would be worth at least bringing up. I appreciate your words about extending this and it becoming more of a public project. If I understand correctly, this would be the first time that our city has paid for a floodplain study of a private development. Is that correct? usually the developer pays for the floodplain study. That is my understanding. Yes. So have you thought about what precedent this sets for future development? And I think that generally the floodplain studies are on a smaller nature as well. I think that's kind of the issue here. When developers generally bring it in, it is for their parcel or their property that they are bringing forward as a development. I think when we look at this being for a watershed, I've never seen a developer that's done a floodplain study for the watershed. I could be incorrect on that. So when a developer comes and asks for us to do their floodplain study, what then would be the answer in the future? Well, again. Would we be willing to do a floodplain study for a private development as we're doing for the distillery district? I think what we need to look at is that this is not necessarily for a private development when we're taking it. I mean, yes, it includes a private development. Yes, it does. As we mentioned, it also includes UK. It includes BCTC. It includes downtown developments, including the Rupp District, Town Branch Commons, IMAG. It includes a much larger area. And I think that's where it's a little bit different than if a developer would come and say, I've got this development here. Could we pay for this floodplain? Okay. Because this is, again, it's a larger, this is a watershed as opposed to what was originally proposed, which is a smaller floodplain study or smaller area of a floodplain study. And I think that's, I mean, I understand that and think that's probably a good thing. I just think we need to be prepared in the future for the answer to what we will do and what we won't do, because it's not inexpensive. And then, so this information would be available for all entities within that floodplain to use. What it would do is it would provide a letter of map revision for that area, for this generally affected area in which they would then have good information about what the floodplain actually is and could be beneficial to, again, a host of people throughout there. Okay. And then you've talked with, I see Van Meter here and others, everyone is on the same page. Is that correct, that this is the first step that needs to be done? I think we've always had issues about what's the first step, but in terms of a step that is necessary, It is a step that is necessary in terms of being able for developers in that area to be able, and again, there are some parts of the distillery district that are affected more than others. There are some parts of this whole area that are affected more than others. I think we've also got to remember that within this are quite a few neighborhoods right now that may be having flood issues as well, and they also will be included in this. The key with the floodplain study is it does allow. Currently, the floodplain, if I'm correct, Brad, nine feet or six feet? I can't remember how high it is. but effectively makes the first floor of a lot of developments, in a sense, not useful. Okay. I'll look forward to what Brad has to say. My time's almost out, but I would hope if we do the floodplain study, if the city pays for it, that we also then do what we can for the town branch trail to use the rest of the money that was set aside for it. So thank you, and he's right behind you. Thank you, Mayor. If I understood the question, it was what's the water depth out there along Manchester Street around the railroad crossing. Is that the question? What's the current floodplain elevation? Well, the elevation, it shows on the maps about seven feet over Manchester where the railroad overpass is approximately. So I think a lot of belief and thought that that is somewhat exaggerated. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. I guess for myself, what it comes down to is what's the best use of this $1.7 million bond, whether it be in the distillery district or throughout our city, because the way the bond's written, it can be used anywhere. So what I'm hearing you say, Commissioner, is what would have the biggest impact on this area today is the hydrology study. Correct. For the price, it would have the biggest impact for the largest area. And then I think there may be some semantics, confusion about Town Branch Trail versus Distillery District Trail. Because at the first meeting, we just heard about Town Branch Trail, and now we're saying it's actually two separate pieces, Distillery and Town Branch. And I assume for the motion, we were talking about the trail within the Distillery District, and you're labeling that trail Distillery District Trail. Because what I read out was Town Branch Trail, and that's a different trail. It's actually the same trail. It's a section of the Town Branch Trail. The Distillery District part is the same. Right, but it won't connect to the existing Town Branch Trail. It will eventually, just not now. I'm saying if we build this piece as the motion, it'll just be building, what, a half-mile piece? There are still several sections that are unfunded to the west. So, again, it would just build a half-mile piece by itself and won't connect to the existing Town Branch Trail. With the current funding we have, correct, yes. Okay, so I would be more in favor of going back and telling the council what amount of funding do you really need after you get the hydrology study done to really do something down there to move it forward, whether it be the whole trail system when we fund that, or streetscape, sewers, whatever? One of the recommendations, in fact, the third recommendation out of the feasibility study, if you go back to Strand's feasibility study, is to put together for the city to kind of help act as a project manager for all the infrastructure needs that are there. Strand did a very good job of outlining all the different costs that are out there and trying to help bring those issues together. How do we phase them? How do we think about them from a larger scale and start to get those things done? The overall cost for everything there is quite large. That is true. That's what came out of the feasibility study. But one of the good recommendations we can do is try to work to figure out how do we start to tackle those infrastructure issues and in what stage. When do we do the first ones? When do we do streetscape? How do we get those burying utility lines? How do we work with utility companies to do those things, and where do we do them? how do we start getting a hold of all those large infrastructure issues? I think we'll start covering that some on Tuesday at our next meeting on the distillery district. But in the meantime, I think this also has to play into how all the other projects in our city, the other trails that have been waiting for money. I know we named a couple during our committee meeting. But how does this play into the overall scheme of other projects, and where do we put on our priority list? Because obviously 1.7 is not going to do any significant work down in the distillery district. We need more than that, as was outlined in the feasibility study. So doing the 500 now will help move that process forward, but I think we need to get a better number and a feel of what the next step is after the 500 to figure out what we can really impact down there and then weigh it against other things going on in our city too. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Stenet. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Paulson, I understand your response about the hydrology study. I think it's imperative that it's done. I don't think it's imperative that we pay for it for a private developer. I think any developer could come up and make a case down the road and suggest that we need to do this for them because, number one, it was done previously. Second, it may have a larger implication. So I could not support this. Unfortunately, like I said, I know it needs to be done, but I don't think it needs to be paid for by the government. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner? As we all know, along Vine Street, below Vine Street, is the storm sewer that serves a much larger area than just its channel. So how are we going to bring water up to street level and at what cost and then turn around and let it get back down where it used to be for some period of time and then bring it back up again? it seems like it's a lot of work and a lot of issues about just exactly how that whole thing is going to work conceptually I guess I just have always had a little problem with that because I just never made a lot of sense to me how we were going to do this I was hoping that maybe you all had some idea at this point I don't think I'm the best to speak about the town branch commons and whether or not it's actually the town branch that comes up or if it's a representation of the town branch. We can get you more information on that, but I don't think I have the information to provide you to give you a full, clear picture of that. Well, that would mean that we'd, I guess, use Kentucky American Water Company water. and pump it somehow back to its source and back around in some circle, which means that we don't have to worry about the dead cats and green garbage bags that are down in the true storm sewer, which is great. That's fine. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. I'm not a member of the Environmental Quality Committee. I'm going to ask Council Member Stenet, if you could just, for my clarity, restate the motion and exactly what's being proposed. The motion was to use the existing funds that are remaining from the distillery bond on the trail. So use $1.7 million on its original intent and that was to fund the trail. Okay. And thanks for that. Let me ask one other question. I hope it's not a dumb question. I agree on principle what Council Member Masotti stated about not paying for a floodplain study for private developers. Out of the concern for the precedent it may set. So where in lay terms does that apply to this? where does an environmental study to be paid by the government or not to be paid by the government apply to the application of this trail? Yes, sir. Well, the motion, if voted down, then another motion would have to be made to spend it on the hydrology study. Okay, so the motion that's on the floor takes into account nothing to do with the floodplain study. That's correct. This is just 1.7 to extend the trail. to build the piece of the trail just in the distillery district. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Farmer. The reason I was, I think you've already spoken on this, Council Member Lawless, so we'll come back to you. Council Member Farmer, yep. I had stepped out to re-congratulate the junior fire chief, so I missed the couching of the motion. So this would use all of the remaining funds for this, use existing funds remaining from distillery bonds remaining. All of this would go onto the trail rather than anything to do with the floodplain study. That was the motion out of committee. I understand. So if there were folks here who were interested in getting the floodplain study, they might vote against this or amend this, and then bring it against both. You could be against one or the other. You could be for this. Or we can put it in the fund balance, yeah. Yeah, you could put it somewhere else. You could put it somewhere else in the city. It's Adelaire Park. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Clark. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner, would it be correct to assume that people who wanted to invest in the distillery district in terms of retail or studio or whatever are going to be very wary of that and making plans until the floodplain study is done? Would you say that's accurate? I would think it would make it much easier for them, yes. I mean, it is going to be a much easier proposition for them to get funding to do things there when you're not, again, going against a federally designated floodplain of seven feet above Manchester. So if we spend $1.7 million on the trail, where would the money come from to execute a floodplain study? That is a great question. I thought it probably was. Carry over into the discussion that was going on previously. Or we could bond it into another source. I mean, it's just one of those things. If it is an important, you know, I think the question is, do we feel this is important enough for the overall area? I think it is. Then how do we find a way to fund it? That concerns me that if the Deceler District is going to be an ongoing project, we have to make it compatible for people who want to invest in it. And I hope that we can do a floodplain study quickly, and I would probably vote against the motion. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Mayor. I would first like to amend the motion and ask or move that we designate $500,000 for the floodplain study, and then the remaining bond funds will be used or designated for the construction of the trail in the distillery district. Second. Motion by Council Member Akers. Second by, who is the second? Council Member Lawless. Is there any discussion on the motion? Motion to amend. On the motion to amend. Mayor, I don't know at what point you would like to do this, but there are lots of retailers, business owners, developers from the distillery district here today who I believe have signed up to speak. So at some point, I think that we may want to hear what they have to say before we actually take a vote. Well, yeah, unless there's an objection. Who all would like to speak today? All right. Okay. What's the pleasure of the Assembly to hear the, while this motion to amend is on the floor? Probably makes sense. I see some shaking heads, so nodding favorably. Then we can ask those who have signed on to speak or to speak now. And I imagine, Commissioner Paulson, you'll be called back, so you might want to take a seat handy. All right, so those who are, we'll just consider this as we're in discussion on the motion right now. Those who wish to speak to or those who wish to speak about this issue, if you'll just come up to the podium and give us your name and where you live. And there's a three-minute rule. If we can. Hello. Mr. Case. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the council. I'm Clark Case on behalf of Busters. And since we're the oldest tenant in the distillery district here today, I figure I'll lead off. And I'm going to be really brief. Is there a timer going? Okay. All right. The main thing that I want to say in favor of, first of all, I am in favor of the watershed study or the floodplain study, but also keeping the $1.2 million. to the trail in the district is just a critical move forward in the infrastructure, a vote of confidence from the city that in this development, in a critical part of the development. And what you might say to me, and a good question to ask me would be, why does Buster's care? You're the first thing in the distillery district from downtown. You already have infrastructure. The infrastructure that we enjoyed from the Newtown Pike Extension project came and stopped at Buster's. We've got great sidewalks, great streetlights, underground utilities, what ultimately we're aiming for for the entire distillery district. What I'll say to that is this. When Busters, when the recreation of Busters as a music venue was being contemplated in 2008, the city, in anticipation of the World Equestrian Games, decided to move forward with that phase of the Newtown Pike extension. And that was greenlit, going to happen, and ready to go. when, in very early 2009, we put everything in place, got financing, committed to the distillery district for a long term, and went forward with the project. It wasn't until much later in 2009, and I believe December 2009, when this money was bonded to the distillery district and was planned to get spent. That's the kind of money that will continue to attract more people. If it wasn't for the Newtown Pike Extension, we wouldn't have taken the risk on busters. And pulling this money now just sends a really bad message to lots of prospective clients, lots of prospective developments, retailers, businesses that are going to really make this distillery grow. I say that just from my perspective as somebody that is in the district, very big supporter of the district, but had the infrastructure and had that infrastructure commitment from the city going into the development. Thank you. Thanks, Clark. Mr. Pettit, you've been doing this for several years. Yes. Van Meter Pettit, 155 Constitution Street, walk down here. And I am very much in favor of the funding staying in the distillery district. I think there are a lot of worthy purposes to put the money to. I remember very, very well when this money was allocated. It was a tenuous time financially, and the government showed a lot of courage to set aside this money. And I think it was understood then that this was just a start of what is actually needed in this corridor. So obviously wearing my Town Branch trail hat, I'd love to see it spent on the trail. I also think that there's an absolutely essential symbiosis between the private and the public, and that the public infrastructure is the catalyst for private investment. And I think we've seen time and time and time again in our visits to other communities and in our research that if you really keep the faith, keep your promises, and get this infrastructure in the ground, that you will see a lot of fruit. You will bear a lot of fruit as a community. If we keep stagger-stepping and holding up, we'll never know what promise we have forestalled by not seeing our efforts through. So I do think, frankly, that the flood study, whoever pays for it, is absolutely essential for people to get in there and invest their own money. And so I'm happy for anybody to step forward. Good luck getting UK to step in there, but it's worth a try. Anyway, I do think it's essential. it's too bad we haven't already got a flood study in our pocket, frankly, because there are probably some opportunity costs we're not even aware of, of investment that hasn't happened. So I think yesterday is the time to start the flood study. With regard to the rest of the money, absolutely the Town Branch Trail can use it. We'll use it well. And we need as a city to commit on a determined and methodical basis to get all these sections connected because you just aren't going to believe how popular the finished trail is for the people that are there. It is wildly popular when we can connect those people with downtown, when we can connect the VA hospital with the military reserve center, with the police workout facilities, with Town Lee and the community college. I mean, the number of users that are going to come online using this corridor is going to be remarkable. So thank you for your time. Who else would like to speak to the issue? Thank you. Hi, I'm Heather Wright, and I'm here on behalf of BBPH Properties and Barrel House Distillery at 1200 Manchester Street. I'm here to say that we support both the watershed feasibility study as well as the commitment of the rest of the money to the town branch. We have committed to purchasing property in that area with the desire that that's going to become another corridor of Lexington. Just as we saw downtown revitalized by the equestrian grains, we feel like this is another area that could be revitalized and could bring a lot of things to the city. You go to San Antonio, the Riverwalk, you go to Houston, You see places like that where the government and the private people all came together to make an area that people want to come visit. We feel like this is another area that that can be done here in Lexington. So we encourage you to support it. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? Hi, good afternoon, Mayor, Council. Thanks for having this. I'm a newcomer to the Distillery District probably over the last eight or nine months. My name is Douglas Clark. I'm one of the owners of Create Now Makerspace. We're a community workshop that wants to provide our community with tools and training and classes to pretty much make anything. We pretty much planted our flag on the ground out at the distillery district. We love the area. We love what's going on with that. When we heard that there were funds allocated to revitalize the area, we really put all our eggs in one basket. So we would love to see the money continue to stay allocated to this area. I think CreateNow Makerspace, along with the other businesses that are looking to invest in that area, will provide a great service to our community and really help grow the area down there. So, again, I encourage that we keep the funds allocated as they originally were. Thank you. All right, anyone else? All right, then we can go back to council members. Okay. Mr. McNeese. Hello, I'm Barry McNeese. I just wanted to, I guess, speak directly on this. As one of the folks who was kind of leading the cause for the distillery district back when these funds were approved, I wanted to point out that in the original funding request and what was approved, There was approximately $1.2 million that was allocated for design and construction of the Town Branch Trail in the Western Distillery District. That 1.2 with a half million dollar hydrology study covers what we feel to be the absolute critical components of both furthering not only private interest in the town branch watershed, but also providing the piece that we've advocated so strongly for so long, which is that we need some signs of the public support for the area. But there's obviously a lot of support in general for trails in Lexington. One of the things that I would ask you to consider is that of all the trails that have been built or that are on the books right now, there is a unique point of differentiation about this segment of the Town Branch Trail through the Distillery District, in that this is more directly than quality of life, more directly than a recreational trail. This is an economic trail. The reason that we've asked for this funding and the reason why it was prioritized in the very beginning and approved by Council was the fact that we feel that this not only helps celebrate these significant historic buildings, but that it also provides the context that businesses such as restaurants who have approached us feel is really necessary for this to take off. So I'm not certain what portion of the Town Branch watershed is actually occupied by the distillery district. It would be interesting to see if a third is UK, what percentage is the distillery district. But nonetheless, there's obvious public and private benefit, and we feel that the two initiatives that are being discussed, the hydrology study and specifically the western section of the Town Branch Trail, that there's funds to do it, and we ask for your continued support. Thank you. Thank you, Barry. Okay, we can go back to council members now. Oh, no, okay. My name is Kelly King-Bakehorn. I'm representing myself and Jill Bakehorn, owner of Bluegrass Catering, the Grand Reserve, Barrel House Events, Barrel House Gardens. We own four properties in the distillery district, and when we had first talked with Mr. McNeese about purchasing these properties, the dangling carrot was the money that had been allotted to the area for town branch and different infrastructures. But the main thing that we have a lot of concern about is streetscape, sidewalks, curbing, roads. We're fortunate enough that we are a destination in what we do. We're an event center, and people come to us. They don't walk by us. So we're a destination to get there. But with that being said, the great things that Mr. McNeese has done in the distillery district and what I believe that we have accomplished as well with our investments down there. We still get the questioning of is it safe, you know, the area? When's it going to get cleaned up? When are you going to have good sidewalks, good roads, good gutters, good everything? So as we are for the cleanup of the area mostly, we'd like to see the tail and branch trail, but our position is streetscape and cleaning up the area. That will make it more, in what we see, more productive of getting people down there wanting to be part of the distillery district area. because, face it, we all see and put our money towards with our eyes first before anything else. So that's what I have to say. Thank you. Thanks, Kelly. Okay. Here, Chris. Real quick. Chris Kelly. I live at 435 West 3rd Street. I'm also a newcomer to the district. I purchased a piece of property from Barry. What I wanted to, the only thing I wanted to address is the uniqueness of, This is a watershed study that covers a huge amount of area that directly impacts not only the distillery district but other areas around it. And we don't have one developer trying to develop an area asking you to bring money. We have dozens, if not tens of dozens, of small individual people, and there's no way you're ever going to have one developer come in and spend a half a million dollars on a watershed study to be able to do it. So if we don't do it publicly, it's not going to happen. Thank you. All right. All right, nobody, that's all from the audience, we should speak. All right, so we can then go back to Council Members. Council Member Akers, do you wish to say anything additional? Okay, so we're on, we're now speaking, the floor is available for discussion on the motion to amend. All right. Council Member Lawless. Thank you. One thing about doing this floodplain study is the areas that aren't in the distillery district who may be forced to pay for flood insurance but they're not really in a floodplain, that will have an impact on individual property owners that are in the area. And I still think that a very important conversation with the University of Kentucky, because they absolutely will, especially with all the building that they're doing, they will absolutely benefit from this. And I think that that's important that they pitch in. And I wonder if I know that there was a floodplain study done in a neighborhood by a U.K. student of engineering, whatever. And I'm wondering if there have been any talks with the University of Kentucky about what resources they have to do such a study. I'm not sure if they could do it. Let me address it. I'm not sure if students could do it. In terms of the wider, trying to figure out how to approach this. Can you put the, see if we can show you. This is the larger affected area. So you see the dashed line. It's a very large area. And within that are a lot of neighborhoods, of which, as you pointed out, those are people who are probably paying for flood insurance that may not need to pay for flood insurance. It goes out past New Circle Road. It covers a very wide area. It does cover some of UK. It covers BCTC. It covers Red Mile. I think if we start to parse out who would pay for what, I don't know if that's possible. I mean, I don't know what percentage they would pay for. And I'm not sure that they haven't already done a letter of map revision for their area, which doesn't put them at the same level. What we know is in Manchester it's seven feet. That doesn't mean that in the U.K. it's seven feet. So it may not really benefit them. But it could lower theirs six inches. Could lower it. None. So you don't know if they've already done one. I don't know if it really impacts them. Well, you said they may have done one already. They may have in the past, but it also, again, this would cover the wider area. And I think the key here to think about is we know where the areas that are going to affect. We know that it does have, as Council Member Beard pointed out, downtown definitely has the water. This is mostly your district. Oh, I know. It's going to affect a lot of these areas. It covers a lot of Council Member Acres District and possibly some of others. It's a wide area. It covers a lot of different projects. It's not just one developer. It's a lot of different developments. It's a lot of developments downtown. It's a lot of developments that have not come yet in areas around Red Mile, possibly. It's the infill and redevelopment areas. And the neighborhoods. Correct. I mean, there are neighborhoods right down. I think one thing we forget about the distillery area and the area around it is there are neighborhoods right down there. Some of which have been, obviously, affected by a Newtown Pike, but there are others right around there that haven't been affected by a Newtown Pike that will be impacted by this study. So I think there's a lot of benefit. It goes beyond just a, this is for distillery, this is for, this becomes more of the realm of the public because it is a much larger watershed study. No developer would probably do a study like this on their own unless required to do it for the entire watershed because it is such a large area. And again, I think the argument they would have is, why would we need to do a watershed study when we're just talking about our development area in this case? Well, this helps me a lot because I'm not on that committee. And so, thank you. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner, thank you again. And I appreciate the map. We weren't sure if it would work with the iPad. And so it looks like the entire distillery district is within the watershed. It is. And as well as another TIF is maybe two-thirds in, the Red Mile TIF. Quite possibly. Again, they are, but again, what we don't know is what their level of. . . Right. It may adjust their water level down from a foot to six inches. Okay. Well, I'm convinced that I would like to support this amendment because I think this is very different from a developer coming and doing a study of a smaller development, and this includes a lot of public infrastructure, more than one TIF. and so I think this is a really good idea. I have a question about, let's see, Council Member Akers, you made the motion to amend and you amended it to spend $500,000 on the Town Branch Watershed Flood Plains Study and the remainder, what was the rest of it? Was it on the western portion or just on the Town Branch Trail? in the distillery district? I didn't specify. I just said on the Town Branch Trail, but based on our last Environmental Quality Committee meeting, Derek's presentation, the West District portion, the western phase of the trail, his estimated costs would be about $1 million, including design, right-of-way costs, and construction. The Eastern District portion would be about $1.45, so we wouldn't necessarily have enough for the eastern side. But again, I'm not necessarily advocating one side or the other in the motion. And then if the council passes this, when would the study proceed and when would it be done? I think that's one of the things we'd have to put it out to bid. And one of the key issues of a floodplain or hydrology study is measurements. So part of it is just tied to this was a good year, the third wettest on record. If we keep up with good rain events, it can go a little quicker. I think it would be a year at a minimum, if not a little bit longer, for that floodplain study to be finished. Okay, very good. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor. Councilman Massadi. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate the business owners coming here and talking about the distillery district and the needs. and I really understand what you have to do in order to develop a property to have it succeed. I remember, as maybe Council Member Farmer and Vice Mayor Gorton does, sitting here at this council several years ago when Alan Stein came down here and wanted to put the baseball park on Cox Street. And we as a government said no. We can't do that with public funding. So it's not that I don't appreciate what you're trying to do. I think that we have to be real cognizant of what we do with public dollars on these projects. Thank you. Council Member K. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner, first of all, thank you for the presentation. I was a little bit surprised when I saw the extent of the area. I know I was told that it was larger than just the distillery district, but I did not understand it encompassed quite as much as it does. So it changes from a floodplain study to a watershed study. Right, the larger hydrology study of the entire watershed. And the increase in cost from doing a watershed study just for the distillery district as opposed to a floodplain study for the distillery district, a watershed study for the area indicated. What I can give you, and again, I can't give you so much the estimate for the town branch What I can give you, I mean, for the distillery, what I can give you is what was quoted to me by Strand is $500,000 for this part right here. I'm not sure. And what I can't tell you is what the cost differences would be for why it would be, you know, if it's $300,000 for distillery and it's $500,000 for the larger watershed, why it is only a $200,000 bump. That I cannot tell you. But what I can tell you is Strand has, when asking them about the larger hydrology study, they felt $500,000 was what would cover this larger area. I think Brad is willing to comment on this. He's a lot taller than me, too. To answer your question, Council Member, what you would be looking to do is you can see this entire area, which is, I think, about over 8.6 square miles. It will be broken up into smaller subcatchment areas, which will be collected through our existing storm sewer network, and then those flows will be routed through different pipe systems, tagging anywhere from larger than a 24-inch or a 36-inch, depending on what we want to do. All that will then be routed in a model to give you a flow rate that will come out where it daylights at the double-box culvert in the parking lot of Rupp Arena. And then from there, they will take that flow and route it through the channel and then do an analysis to where they can come up with a water surface elevation within that channel area, and thus that will give you the floodplain. So that's the specific details of how that can be done. Okay, and this may be a question either for you or the commissioner. So when the study is completed, what will it make possible for people, whoever they are, to do, and who would they be? Do we know? What does this enable? My concern is all along that we focus enough of the resources on the distillery district as we originally committed and that we not begin to disperse the funds so widely that the impact is not felt. You will have a detailed hydrology study of the town branch watershed area going all the way to the headwater area, which is just past Smuckers on Winchester Road, Kenwick, that entire area. All that will be inventoried. Anything that would come into the area would then make use of that model. Division of Water Quality could also use that model as far as help guide where they can spend their funds as far as making stormwater improvements. If they know they have a localized area in Kenwick, if they have a localized area that's around Scott Street or something, This will be a model in which they can go ahead and amend, put in their various improvements, and see where they can get the best bang for the buck. That's just one particular advantage of having an overall model of an area. The other thing that will happen and what will be included in that is a letter of map revision. So the legal document, the legal floodplain that goes along Manchester Street, would then be amended to go ahead and reflect something that's more accurate. You heard the commissioner say that a year minimum. The reason for that is that once they go ahead and they do the model, they go ahead and they meter flows against rainfall events where we have various gauge systems in Town Branch so they can go ahead and calibrate it and show that they do have an accurate model. So that's where you get some advantage there. So as far as it being localized, it would get a better, accurate, more representation along town branch where it comes out from the culvert system going on downstream. And then you would have an overall model of the downtown area as far as if you want to do various improvements, if other developments wanted to come in. If we wanted to, on the capital end, make changes to the system, we know what effects we can do, where we need to upsize the pipe, where we need to maybe do some type of purchase work, et cetera. And just by time's up, I might come back. But in terms of maybe I'm jumping to a conclusion. As I understand the floodplain study, when you define the floodplain, essentially that tells a developer you can build here and you cannot build here. And that would be true throughout that whole area when the watershed study is completed. Is that correct? You would know where you could build it. On the FEMA maps, the floodplain area for town branches from the Doble-Colfer system in the parking lot of Rupp Arena downstream is where the floodplain is indicated, where they have a water surface or a water elevation of how deep that water is right there. In order to know what flow comes out of there, which you have to have, you have to model everything that flows to that point. And that is what this area is here, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Councilor Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Poulsen, if my memory serves me correctly, when we did the water quality management fee, we did hydrology studies on the seven watersheds. Could we not utilize that information? This was in 2010. My understanding is no. That this is not what is not. What I believe it is is it doesn't have the calibration to show what the flow model is that shows that the seven feet is not seven feet and what it really is. I think we may have done some form of a hydrology study, but not of this caliber. What we didn't do as part of that, my point is we didn't do the floodplain study. Correct. We did hydrology studies, and we paid for it for the whole city. We didn't do a floodplain. That's what this really comes down to is floodplain. And if this motion passes, the $1.2 million, is that enough to do the western piece of town branch? I mean, of the distillery district, the town branch piece? I think, you know, what it may cover is the western district. One of the things, and that's what we'd have to figure out when we've got easement purchases and others. I think the key issue is it may be that and nothing else, which gives you a very small section. I think one of the things that we would possibly talk about is what could that 1.2 be used for. Again, when I gave you the detailed cost outlays for the streetscape for the east section, it was to kind of show you there's a lot to go on there. I think what might be good is to maybe not at this point today decide what that 1.2 could be used for, but to come back and talking with the folks behind me and in others and really trying to put together what could that 1.2 be used for in the best way to get the most lift in that area. And maybe it's not just for that west section of the trail, but it might be for other things in there or elseways. But it might be something we can come forward with with a more, you know, rather than doing it right here, kind of like what went on earlier, you guys looked at a lot of the different proposals. You're going to come back and vote later. I'd recommend that we could take that 1.2, put together a little better proposal, and we can come back at a separate time and talk about what could be done in that distillery district area. Well, and that's exactly what my point was and the rationale to the motion. What can the 1.2 really be used for? Because I don't see 1.2 benefiting the Grand Reserve or Barrow House if it's at the other end of the street on a trail that goes nowhere. I don't see the 1.2 doing streetscapes and work that people may really want down there. And I've heard not just today, but in the past, that's what they really want. So I'm trying to figure out why that's the priority as a trail. I don't think it is. I think what we need, and we didn't have this in 2009 when we bonded, and we don't have it today, is a master plan for the area and putting enough dollars. Because 1.2 is not enough. We probably need to put a lot more and figure out what that number really is, and let's commit to it. If this is a priority project in Lexington, let's get a real plan. And I think that's what you're saying we could probably do is go back and get a real plan for the area and spend the appropriate amount of money. Instead of we're trying to pigeonhole ourselves in that we have to spend 1.7 down there. Well, we probably need to spend a lot more down there. Let's be honest with you. and we can't do the streetscape because it's going to be torn out if we do something else. So I think, you know, sewers are important down there. I'm sure the trails are important eventually, but if you're just going to build half a mile of trail, where does that really go? You know, I got a district of Marin. I opened up a trail yesterday that if you can get a bridge built in Hamburg for another million dollars, you connect seven miles of trails. Now tell me where the priority is for that. It's on the C-Mac list, and we'll number top three. Harry, Councilman Clark has one top list. The other piece of town branch in Alexandria is at the top of the C-Mac list. The distillery trail is not even on there at the top three. So we've got to balance that, too. But let's get a real plan for this area. Let's not try to throw money where it can't be spent wisely. Let's get a real plan before we just commit money. And then on the hydrology study, there's a lot of areas that are just going to benefit. I know Rupp Arena is one. So, you know, you can make the public case that it is a public use of funds, not just a distillery use of funds. And I see that case. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Stenning. Thank you, Mayor. A couple things. I think the watershed studies that Councilmember Stennett referred to are in process, and I don't think that they all are finished yet. And Charlie Martin could answer that question for us because all the watersheds were going to be studied, but they haven't all been completed. And I'm wondering if there are a lot of people on the council who never did see the original distillery district plans and so are not aware that there really is some, there was a lot of thinking that went into that. And it might be helpful if anybody wanted to see it to go back and I don't know if you would do that or we would have a workshop or what, but to actually see what the plans were for the distillery district. and just I understand a lot of the sentiment about maybe we need to do something else with the money but this is one reason we never get our trails finished that we've had on the books for years and years and years is we take the money that we might be able to allocate and then we put it to something else and I think the trail is important. We've heard people from the distillery district say that the trail would be an amenity that can go through there and would encourage developers to come in. So I hope that at this point we will not strip the motion of its putting the remainder of the money into the trail. I think that's very important to keep it in that area in the trail. So thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to kind of follow up and echo, I think, what the vice mayor has just said. We've seen estimates of total cost for the two alternative paths of somewhere between $16 and $23 million. That's for bridges, roads, streetscapes, stream restoration, and so on. It's not clear to me what can be done with $1.2 million, but I believe it ought to be dedicated. where we said we were going to dedicate it, absent a compelling reason otherwise. So I agree. It's not just about the stream. It's about economic development. But I think we all need to be aware that a part of my frustration is that no single piece seems to be able to be done until you can get the other pieces in place. You don't want to do the streetscape because then you'd have to take it out because of the roadway. You don't want to do the roadway depending on where the stream is going to go. you, et cetera, et cetera. So it's not obvious to me, and this is now echoing what Councilman Mustinnet said, what the plan is. How can we best use that money to meet the obligation we've made to begin to make visible improvements in the district? So I'm going to support the motion. I understand about the watershed study as necessary initially, But I'm concerned that we not basically proceed blindly with a huge amount of money that we know would take to do the whole thing. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Kaye. So we're still on the discussion regarding the amendment to the motion. Council Member Scotchfield. Thank you, Mayor. How long would it take to have a master plan pulled together? Well, the feasibility study that was done, and if anyone needs another copy of that, We can redistribute it. It's a very large document, so we can try to print it out and have paper copies delivered. It gives a good strategy for how to move forward. One of the things that I have talked to some of those in the distillery district is there really isn't a master developer. A good example of this map is Red Mile. There is a single developer. There is not a single developer here. I think that's one of the benefits of all these folks coming in here right now. And so we don't really have a way to just say, you know, let's go to this one person. Let's make this one project. Make it go forward. I think that's one thing we can do is try to help from the city standpoint is put together what really needs to be done, how do we phase it. A lot of this is big, large infrastructure projects that we need to figure out from a sewer standpoint, from a streetscape standpoint, what needs to be done first and what can we use the money most judiciously for at the beginning to get those larger investments in there. The hydrology study is one of those, but I think what we can do as quickly as possible is try to dedicate some resources. Again, the key is we don't have a lot of resources in engineering right now. We've got a lot of projects going on capital-wise, but we can try to find that time to put together and, again, try to carry out some of those suggestions in the feasibility study, including those things such as bring together a group to talk about utilities relocation and how we phase those in and where we do it first. Working with the state, again, this is a road we don't own. We have to work with the state about how we do that. So I think it's about putting those parts. If we're going to upgrade Manchester, we have to get it in the road plan. How do we work with the state to do those things? We can be the convener of those things, working with those interested parties within the district. I think that's really a role that we can take on. It's just a matter of do we have at this, and again, I'm going to say in a present time, do we have the manpower to do it currently? We're trying to hire that manpower. I give a few months to give a good plan using the feasibility study as a guide. So taking a look at doing this to develop, are we essentially taking on complete control as developer in that area? Because you have, for example, out in Childsburg, Ball came in and wanted to develop a large, they had to do all their studies in order to determine what and how things could be developed out there. I'm just afraid, as you're saying right now, biting off a lot more than we can ship. I think it's more coordinating, which is really what is kind of recommended in the feasibility plan, is to coordinate these things. Again, they are infrastructure things, things that are not necessarily, again, we're not going in a greenfield and building it and then dedicating it to the city. We have existing but substandard infrastructure and utilities in those areas. I mean, we don't have the level of transmission lines that we need, but we do have transmission lines. They have power. We need to upgrade those. So, I mean, it's a matter of coordinating them rather than putting them in initially. And I think we can help on the coordination and get the process moving forward. But, again, would we be the developer? No. Would we be coordinating those things that are on the public side? Yes. And I think that's working with the private developers to try to phase it as they need it and to encourage private development as best we can. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. Mayor, I'd like to call the question on the matter before us. There's a motion to call the question. Is there a second? Second by Council Member Clark. Is there any objection to calling the question? All right, then. All right, all in favor of the motion to amend, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. All right, motion carries. All right, that allows us. So, Council Member Akers, do you wish to speak to the... You're showing up on my... We're back to the original motion now. Right. Now, we've got the motion as amended. Okay, why don't we... Council Member Stanton. That was just a vote on the call to question. Oh, oh, oh. Now we vote on the amendment. Well, I was saying unless there's an objection. So I was thinking there was no objection. So we'll do it again, though. All in favor of the motion to amend, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. All right. You want to give a show of hands or let's just record electronically. Can we do that? Give us a vote. Can we do it? Stacey, electronically. Okay, yeah. So all in favor, please vote electronically. I oppose. Who's recused? Mayor, you're up. Oh, okay. Yeah. How do I do that? You step to vote. I haven't gotten to do this in a long time. Let's see now. Commissioner Paulson, I rely on you on these things quite often. You are in favor of this. Is that correct? Correct. I vote yes. All right. It will passively reflect the mayor's yes vote. All right. Thank you. I wouldn't. We now go to the motion to amend. Let me explain the vote. I think that was a really healthy discussion, And I do think I would say what Vice Mayor Corton had to say about perhaps the current level of awareness of council members for this project. A lot of time has gone over the proverbial dam since this project was first imagined, and that includes a recession. It includes concepts for the reinvention of Rupp Arena and the Isaac Murphy Park and that trailhead. So there are a lot of moving parts in this that you all describe today, which not unexpectedly lead to anxiety and different points of view. So I think, Commissioner Paulson, it would be really worthwhile as you think through this to perhaps reconvene and pull all, I think, Jeff, I think you need to come into this as well. We're talking about, I think, from Isaac Murphy to, and Van Meter, you would know this, to the town branch. We're talking about where the town branch is exposed at Cox Street, two miles. Is that right? Two and a half, right. So when Council Member Stenet talked about a seven-mile trail, this is imagining a two miles, and it is in the center, the most historic area of our city. And Council Member Beard's comments about the possible resurrection of the town branch, it's not unexpected that people would be skeptical. One of the features of Kate Orff's escape, the winning architect in the competition, one of what I consider actually myself to have been remarkable, unexpected features of her plan was that it actually would not resurrect all the culverts. But those are the sort of things that we have to tell the story and tell it again and keep telling it because, you know, until we do that, it's not going to be fully comprehended and understood. Now, the people in San Antonio will tell you that they conceived the San Antonio Riverwalk out of a dry river, the San Antonio River. And it was in 1912. and they didn't even get to start on it until the Great Depression and they got WPA funding for it. And then over that intervening 100 years, it has grown to almost 40 miles and clearly a significant feature of the city that is when the chamber went there, they said it was all about jobs and creating quality of life and quality of place. in their city's most historic area. So I think what this conversation is reminding us of is, okay, what is it different about a project like this from other projects? What is it and what is unique about it? Because we have to continuously advocate if we believe that it has value, and that's what has been illustrated by the conversation today. Okay, all right. So now we are back to the original motion, right? As amended. As amended, right. All right. Council Member Akers? I just wanted to also comment on what you just mentioned, is that there was a master plan developed for the distillery district four, five, six years ago. and then the feasibility study that was paid for out of these bond funds as well that we studied and discussed in Environmental Quality Committee and that that brought us to where we are today. And there is the Barrel House Distillery now on Manchester Street. We also have Altec at the end of Manchester. These are on the Bourbon Trail. These are our tourist destinations. Bourbon Barrel House Distillery, I believe, has received 10,000 visitors just this year touring their facility. So we have properties that are so close to downtown, a block back from Rupp Arena, that are lacking in basic infrastructure, sewer, roads, sidewalks, utilities. And we talk about, you know, we want to hold the line on the urban services boundary. We want to encourage infill redevelopment. And so this is our opportunity to do that, to invest public funds to encourage infill and redevelopment in this area and economic development and encourage business owners to stay there and to locate there. And so I just wanted to offer that commentary. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Akers. Okay, Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. I want to speak to the motion as amended, which I understand to be 1.7 kept in the distillery district, half a million going to a watershed study, 1.2 took the trail. I also want to clarify, Commissioner Paulson and the business owners, understanding that this is a greater watershed that's going to benefit all. To that point, I think I'm going to vote in favor of the motion because it keeps all 1.7 in the district. However, I think it is perhaps not the best use. I think if that watershed benefits all a much greater area, then a much greater area ought to pay for it. This council has spent $2.5 million to go towards the study of the Rupp Arena area. I don't know an accounting of that, but we've allocated money for study. And this watershed, the needed watershed would be a study. I'm a wholehearted supporter of the trail. I wish we could expand the trail as much as possible. I wish the 1.7 could go to all of it. But I'm going to trust the confidence of the committee as we go forward. I just wanted to explain my vote, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Ford. Council Member Farmer. Mayor, I would love to call the question. It's a motion by Council Member Farmer to call the question, seconded by Council Member Stenet. Is there any objection to calling the question? All right. Is there anyone else? All right, then the motion to call the question passes. All right, now I'll ask for a vote on the motion. All in favor of the motion as amended, please indicate by saying aye and voting electronically. Aye. All opposed, nay. All right. All right. The motion carries. All right. Can I continue my report? I don't know how much more of that you got. We've got a lot more to go. And that motion was just to put it on the docket. It wasn't to pass it either way. It was just to put it on the docket, and the council will have first read on October 10th. The next item on our agenda for the August 20th meeting was the Internal Waste Management Audit. There was discussion about the internal audit process in general and how the findings are rated, and we'll follow up on this audit with some follow-up questions on the November Environmental Quality Meeting. Our next presentation for Empower Lexington, we didn't get to because we had the distillery discussion that day as well and we rescheduled it for the September meeting. Our last item was monthly financials and there was no discussion on the monthly financials that were presented in the August meeting. moving on in our meeting adjourned on the august 20th with the ending of the monthly financials our next meeting on september 17th our first item was the committee summary which was approved second item the empower lexington was once again postponed until the october 8th meeting due to illness the third item was our capacity assurance update and this is as a reminder to everyone watching, this is our program that measures adequate capacity in a sanitary sewer system before authorizing any new connections or flow increases to our sewer system. Director Martin reviewed and discussed the credit bank system, the earned capacity credits, and grandfathering developments that had already been grandfathered. The big takeaway from the capacity assurance discussion was also the modeling that you can go online and see exactly where your particular property and how much flow that particular property is. If you go to ctimsctims at lexonky.gov, you can see those models. Next item on our agenda was, once again, the distillery district, and we've already covered that here in this meeting. Generally, the same discussion was had at the environmental quality meeting about how to use the additional $1.7 million. It was discussed by Commissioner Paulson to two different pieces of the distillery district trail that we could use the money on for a total of $2.45 million. There was no motion at all of that discussion. We also heard from Greg Leverage and Clay Angelusi to develop real estate agents, leasing agents for properties in the distillery, as well as Mr. McNeese was also at that meeting and spoke in regards to the project itself. Again, there were no motions coming out of that meeting on the distillery district. There was a motion made by Council Member Akers in terms of doing streetscape, but that was defeated in committee. Our last item of business was Division of Water Quality projects, totaling $51.8 million in capital projects for the Division of Water Quality, including cash. The meeting ended at 103. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member of the Senate. All right. That allows us to move on to council reports. Excuse me, Mayor. Oh, yes, sir. I believe there's a report from my general government committee. Oh, but I missed it. I'm so sorry. Yes, sir, I did miss it. Council Member Kay has a report on the general government committee. Sorry about that. Thank you. This is the report of the general government committee on September 10. The first item on the agenda was approval of summary. That was approved without objection. The second item was the relationship with the Bluegrass Area Development District and Mr. David Dutlinger presented on the current and future partnerships between the Lexington-Fayette-Irvin County government and the Bluegrass Ad. He informed the committee about the structure of the Bluegrass Ad, its governance, operations, programs, how they're financed, that may be of interest to people. He said their annual operating budget is $8 million. There's approximately $22 million in pass-through funds. 56 percent of their revenue comes from state dollars 60 percent is federal and the remaining four percent comes from local contributions he then talked about training programs there were some questions about from council members about the trent boulevard project and they have sold that project they have sold that property there was a question about the mayor being allowed to have a proxy at the meeting, and their answer was that the Bluegrass State is working with our Department of Law to make that possible, if possible. At the end of his presentation, I asked a question about what would be helpful, and he said primarily more participation on their boards from our elected officials and citizens. There was no further action on that item. The third item on the agenda was a procedure for underwriting or sponsoring facilities or parks. Roger Damon, Administrative Officer in General Services, came and presented the revised draft that the committee had discussed with him. After further discussion, he will come back with additional changes in November. There was no action taken on that. And finally, last action item, Parks usage agreements. Director Hancock presented how Parks provides for youth sports with respect to contracts and agreements. There was some discussion about the activities at the various parks and the groups that use them. There was no further action taken by the committee. Last item was a review of items in committee, and then the committee adjourned. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Kay. All right, now we can move on to Council Reports. If any Council members have a report, please sign on, and I will call on you. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to let everyone know of a big change. The Bluegrass Domestic Violence Program will now be called Greenhouse 17. Greenhouse 17 basically is the new name for the program based upon the 17 counties that are served by the Domestic Violence Prevention Program and the farm that is utilized out there. I don't know if any of you have been out there, but it's not a secret. There are 40 acres on Briar Hill Road that house anywhere from 50 to 70 women daily. We have a farm there, and this past year we've done seven weddings with the flowers from the farm, plus we grow vegetables on a rotating basis. And we have plans for enlarging the shelter and building six to eight other units on the farm because, unfortunately, we have a waiting list to get in. So we'll be rolling this out. On the 18th will be the actual name and brand rollout, and there will be a reception Friday at the shelter from 1030 until noon, and I would invite all of you to attend. It's a wonderful program, and it does, I guess the only way you can say it, it hits every strata of life. I mean, economic strata, whoever, someone you know or someone can be victimized by domestic violence, and fortunately we do have the shelter to provide help and hope. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Massadi. Council Member Lawless. Ditto on Council Member Massadi's great speech there about Greenhouse 21 or Greenhouse 17. the Ellsford Neighborhood Association will be meeting at 7pm this evening at the corner of Kentucky and High Street and I always forget the names of which of those churches it is Woodland Christian Church thank you sir that's all Okay, thank you, Councilman Lewis. Councilman Beard. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to remind everybody of the Farm Bureau Legislative Appreciation Dinner this evening. You may not have RSVP'd to go, but if something has changed, I'm sure they would love to see you out there, 6 o'clock at the ES Good Barn. Thank you. You thought I was going to say something else, didn't you? All right. Thank you, Council Member Beard. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I just wanted to thank everyone who attended the public forum last night, at least on middle school. It was a lively debate and discussion and question and answer session. I want to thank the mayor's office staff and CAO Hamilton staff who came and presented their perspective and from the city's perspective. and also we had local police officers who helped with traffic and helped with crowd monitoring. So I just want to thank the residents who came and asked questions and the panel who also came and answered some of the questions. And lastly, there is a, the historic Woodward Heights Neighborhood Association is meeting this evening at 6 o'clock at 321 Marino Street next to Community Action Council, if anyone would like to attend. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Council Member Akers. No further council members or no additional council members have signed up to speak, so we can move on to Mayor's report. There is no Mayor's report this week. Mr. Mundy, has anybody signed up for public comment? Okay. Okay. Yes, I think they have. Right. Okay. All right. Then I'll accept a motion to adjourn. Council Member Myers, motion, seconded by Vice Mayor Gorton. Unless there's objection, we'll stand adjourned.