# Council Economic Development COW - October 15, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 15, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3144 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3144?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-10-15 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 10,840 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 Economic Development Committee of the Whole met on October 15, 2013, at 1:00 P.M., with Beard presiding. The committee addressed five agenda items during the session, taking two votes and hearing two public comments. The committee approved the Committee Summary from July 9, 2013. Three informational presentations were delivered: the Commerce Lexington Quarterly Activity Report, a presentation on Collaborative Economic Development Activities, and Economic Development Expense & Performance Reporting. The Downtown Lexington Corporation Management District Proposal was deferred for future consideration. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on October 15, 2013: * Beard * Gorton * Ellinger * Kay * Ford * Akers * Lawless * Farmer * Stinnett * Scutchfield * Myers * Mossotti * Clarke * Henson * Lane No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of the 7.8.13 Itinerant Merchant Ordinance as Amended** [timestamp: 00:02:05] A motion was made by Akers and seconded by Henson to approve the 7.8.13 Itinerant Merchant Ordinance as amended. The motion passed by roll call vote with 10 ayes and 2 nays. Voting in favor: Akers, Lawless, Farmer, Lane, Clarke, Kay, Myers, Mossotti, Henson, and Stinnett Voting against: Gorton and Scutchfield **Amendment to Door-to-Door Sales Hours in the Itinerant Merchant Ordinance** [timestamp: 00:02:05] A motion was made by Lawless and seconded by Farmer to amend the door-to-door sales hours in the Itinerant Merchant Ordinance to 9 AM to 8 PM. The motion passed by roll call vote with 10 ayes and 2 nays. Voting in favor: Akers, Lawless, Farmer, Lane, Clarke, Kay, Myers, Mossotti, Henson, and Stinnett Voting against: Gorton and Scutchfield ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting included two significant financial appropriations: **Downtown Lexington Management District Operations** The body appropriated $325,000 in funding for the Downtown Lexington Corporation Management District to support its operations. **Jobs Fund Establishment** A $2,000,000 appropriation was made to establish a Jobs Fund through the Economic Development Fund. This fund is designated to support local job creation and provide assistance to SBIR/STTR (Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer) companies. ## Public Comment Two speakers addressed the body during public comment, both expressing support for the Jobs Fund. **Nathan Dickerson** [timestamp: 00:54:00] spoke in favor of the Jobs Fund, emphasizing the importance of retaining young professionals in Lexington. He referenced Denver's revolving loan fund as a successful model, noting that it achieved a 5:1 return on investment. **Nathan Ball** [timestamp: 01:09:13] shared his firsthand experience with NOMES Technology's growth. He stressed the critical need for upfront capital to accelerate business expansion and indicated that the proposed Jobs Fund could have been beneficial to his company during its earlier stages of development. ## Appointments Billie Peavier was appointed to the Business & Education Network (BEN). ## Contested Items **Downtown Lexington Management District Proposal** Council members expressed divided opinions regarding the proposed Downtown Lexington Management District, resulting in a split vote. The primary point of contention centered on the fairness of the tax structure within the proposal. Specifically, council members raised concerns about taxing private property owners while government-owned properties would remain exempt from the tax. This disparity prompted debate about equity in the distribution of the financial burden. Council members also expressed concerns about the potential tax burden that the proposal would place on businesses within the district. The disagreement reflected broader questions about the appropriate allocation of costs for downtown management and development initiatives, with some council members questioning whether the proposed tax structure fairly distributed responsibility among all affected property owners. ## Committee Summary 7.9.13 [timestamp: 00:00:00] The summary of the July 9, 2013 meeting was presented for approval. Lane moved to approve the summary, and Farmer seconded the motion. The summary was approved unanimously. ## Commerce Lexington Quarterly Activity Report Gina Greathouse presented the Q3 2013 quarterly activity report for Commerce Lexington [timestamp: 00:01:00]. The presentation highlighted several significant achievements and initiatives during the third quarter. **Key Highlights:** - Marketing trips were conducted to promote business development - Business expansions were documented across the region - Launch of the Minority Business Accelerator program - Record 42 new project leads generated - $5.5 million in capital investment attracted - 162 new jobs created The report demonstrated strong economic activity and growth metrics for the quarter. The introduction of the Minority Business Accelerator represents a new initiative to support underrepresented business owners in the Lexington area. **Outcome:** This agenda item was presented as informational, with no formal action or debate recorded. ## Downtown Lexington Corporation Management District Proposal [timestamp: 00:09:10] Renee Jackson presented a proposal to establish a Downtown Lexington Management District. The proposal outlined several intended benefits, including enhanced public services, beautification initiatives, and wayfinding improvements for the downtown area. **Funding Structure** The district would be funded through a property tax assessment of $1 per $1,000 of assessed value. Based on this rate, the proposal projected first-year revenue of $325,000. **Council Concerns** Several council members raised questions and concerns about the proposal: - **Council Member Lane** participated in the discussion regarding the proposal's details and implications - **Council Member Stinnett** raised concerns about the proposal - **Council Member Akers** contributed to the discussion - **Council Member Myers** also participated in deliberations Key issues discussed included: - Fairness of the assessment structure - Whether government-owned property would be included in the assessment - Notification processes for affected property owners **Outcome** The council deferred action on the Downtown Lexington Corporation Management District Proposal, indicating that further consideration and discussion would be needed before a final decision. ## Collaborative Economic Development Activities Kevin Atkins reported on quarterly meetings conducted with economic development partner agencies [timestamp: 00:56:07]. The discussion focused on improving collaboration among these organizations to strengthen regional economic development efforts. Atkins emphasized the importance of coordinated efforts in attracting and retaining businesses within the region. He highlighted that aligned strategies among partner agencies would enhance the effectiveness of economic development initiatives. The agenda item was presented as informational in nature, with no formal debate or competing perspectives documented. The outcome was informational, meaning the discussion served to update the body on ongoing collaborative activities rather than to reach a decision or resolution. ## Economic Development Expense & Performance Reporting Jonathan Hollinger presented the 2013-2014 performance reporting mechanism for economic development [timestamp: 00:02:37]. The discussion focused on how the city tracks and reports on economic development activities and their outcomes. **Key Discussion Points** Council members Myers and Beard offered suggestions for enhancing future performance reports. They recommended that subsequent reports include economic impact analysis to better demonstrate the tangible effects of economic development initiatives. Additionally, they suggested incorporating initial job data into the reporting framework to provide measurable employment outcomes from economic development efforts. **Outcome** The item was presented for informational purposes. No formal action was taken, but the feedback from Council members established direction for improving how economic development performance is tracked and communicated to the public in future reporting cycles. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (10-2): Approval of the 7.8.13 Itinerant Merchant Ordinance as amended - **Motion** — passed (10-2): Amendment to door-to-door sales hours in the Itinerant Merchant Ordinance to 9 AM to 8 PM --- ## Full transcript ! Thank you. Thank you. for the July 9th 2013 and I will accept a motion second all in favor any opposed thank you very much next item is Commerce Lexington's quarterly activity report jenna greathouse will i assume do some or all of it and i know you guys have some other things on the agenda so i'll be short and sweet is it up on the screen okay july 1st through september 30th next slide please oh sorry is this it yeah okay okay jolly you do it jenna raise the microphone a little bit. Okay. All right. Thank you. So we had a big quarter filled with events and economic development activity, and these are the four things we're going to focus on. Our economic development simulation with council and board members. We appreciate you all being there. International Asset Management Conference in Salt Lake City, our Geeks Night Out, and our healthcare presentation to our network groups. So we had 40 plus people that participated. I'll do it. Let's see. Sorry. We had 40-plus. Several of you were there. We appreciate you being there, as our board members did, too, and your staffs. So it was good to have them participate with us. So that was just a snapshot of the simulation. Geeks Night Out, we've been doing this every two months now for about four years. We had our largest turnout ever. So we had 100 folks that attended the event. It started off as a little bit of geeks and a mixture. We ran into one of our favorite geeks a few weeks ago. He's a pseudo-geek. And he told us he wasn't coming anymore because it's too geeky for him now. So people aren't socializing. The geeks are getting themselves all together. And it's become just a little bit different. So it's truly a technology crowd. It's not that mix quite as much. So we had 100 people that attended. We did a health care presentation to all of our networks, so to talk about Obamacare and the changes that might be coming. We did this for our call center, customer care consortium, manufacturers network group, and our biotech network group. We received two awards from the International Economic Development Council, bronze awards for a special event category. and several of you came to the Art of the Deal, why Bingham McCutcheon chose Lexington for the Global Services Center. We submitted a paper on that and came in third. And then our SBIR, STTR, Rent Subsidy Incentive Program came in third as well. From the metrics, we had eight visits this quarter. We had four in 48 hours, and that is a record for us. And just this week we've had three companies come in in this quarter, so activity is really picking up for us. 42 new prospects and 43 existing business visits. From the metrics, we had almost $5.5 million in capital investment, 162 new jobs with an average wage of $60,000 a year, and this is directly related to the NOMS announcement that was out at the Argonne facility. I do have to pull my glasses out on this one. So the breakdown on the leads. And so, again, those 42 leads, the biggest bulk was in manufacturing and high-tech jobs. We had a few distribution centers. You can see the base of the leads is very broad and diverse for us. And ready? We had our new hire, finally. We hired our business education network director, Billy Peebler, born and raised in Kentucky. She retired after 24 years at Toyota, and she's younger than me. I'm almost 47, I think. How old is Billy? 42, and she's retired from Toyota already, so she has strong manufacturing background, great work in strategic planning, workforce, and project management, and we're just delighted to have her. And I'm going to ask Tyrone if he wants to come up real quick and give a little overview of the minority business development for the quarter, and we've got one quick presentation from one of our clients. he just said based on the time that you have that he doesn't have to speak but I will introduce him to you Michael Stewart is the owner of Fayette Window Cleaning and he's one of the inaugural members of our Minority Business Accelerator Mr. Stewart if you would just at least stand up and wave applause applause You know, during the quarter, the accelerator, our first quarter in operation did over $3.5 million between the four businesses. We have two of the businesses that are doing very well, one that had some modest success and one that we're working with. So, you know, it's a true business activity cycle where this is something that we're working with. We're trying to help them with their backroom so that they can move forward. And we hope to have, in future reports, time to report that all of the entities are doing very, very well. We had a great first quarter in loans, totaled about $537,000. That's a wonderful quarter for us. And we just think that the economy is picking up. and we hope that we can come back in future reports and report some similar numbers. Thank you for your time. And then last but not least again was the announcement of NOMS Technologies, the lithium-ion battery technology that located out at Argonne. So those are our big successes for the quarter. We've got a lot coming up this quarter. hopefully we'll have three or four announcements before the end of the year um if anybody has any questions i'm here to answer sorry we sped through it but i know you guys have got big things on the plate today any questions from the council i suppose not thank you so much oh wait oh wait just a moment uh council member lawless i just want to say thank you and an awesome job on lots of things well appreciate thank you it's all part of the team remember it's having the city dollars and the city staff and uk there makes us able to do what we're doing, so we appreciate it. Thank you. Siobhan Akers. Thank you, Chair. I just want to congratulate Michael and Fayette Window Cleaning. I know lots of people that have used his business and have said great things about it, so I want to congratulate you on winning this award. Thank you. I believe that's all we have. Moving on, Renee, are you Renee Jackson with the DLC? Yes, Renee Jackson with the Downtown Lexington Corporation. We're going to show you a brief video. It's about three and a half minutes long, and then I'll come back up and do the presentation. Thanks. A downtown management district is a catalyst for prosperity at the city core. Similar to a homeowners association, it would allow downtown Lexington to be more competitive. It promotes the economic, residential, and cultural vitality of Lexington. A downtown management district enhances city services, spurs economic development, increases property values, makes downtown clean, safe, and attractive. It validates our commitment to economic growth. A downtown management district is really critical to create the amenities that people are looking for in a downtown. If we want to have a world-class city, we really need a world-class downtown. It's important to invest in downtown with it being the heart of your city, particularly in the area of arts and culture. The Downtown Management District covers both the residential and central business districts of Lexington. I think we have a responsibility to take care of our downtown, to make sure it's beautiful, it's well-kept, well-cared for, and to help grow the businesses and the organizations that operate down here for the benefit of everyone. You look around and see how nice this city is today. Just vision what it could be 10 years down the road. City government can't do it all. That's why we need a downtown management district. A vibrant downtown equals value and is a more pleasant place to live and work. Enhancing landscaping, installing wayfinding signage, and introducing city ambassadors are just a few of the ways that the downtown management district will improve the city. Community is working with the government and the education sectors and the non-profits to figure out how can we improve downtown. Young professionals from other cities, when they come to Lexington, they've got to see that wow factor. This management district can create the funding to create that wow factor for Lexington. The creative class includes people whose economic function is to create new ideas, new technology, and new creative content. For about the last 10 years, the creative class and young professionals have been driving population growth in downtowns across the country. That trend came to Lexington around 2008, and in Lexington and nationally, about 75% of all downtown residents are young professionals. We're looking at things beyond the normal workday. Quality of life is the key to any city that's high in ranking. for being attractive to young people, to people wanting to relocate, continue their careers, and to also be attractive to those retiring and wanting to stay. In five more years, I see a really vibrant downtown with a lot of public art, a lot of activities for families. Lexington's on the cusp of greatness. We have a very unique opportunity. It's true M.L. Breiner to invest in something that's so unique and nice at downtown Lexington. A downtown management district is crucial for Lexington. Support the petition to create the downtown Lexington Management District. And I think many of you are familiar with management districts. That's what they're called in Kentucky, but they're also known as business improvement districts. Mostly, if you've traveled on any of Commerce Lexington's leadership trips in the last 10 years, nine out of those ten cities all had either a management district or a business improvement district in play. And often you met with representatives from those organizations if you were on those trips. Just to let you know, Louisville is the only other city in Kentucky that currently utilizes this economic development tool. They've had their management district since the early 90s, and I know that northern Kentucky is also working on establishing a district there. Some of the statistics that you saw there, it does help improve property value over time, and it enhances what government is doing. It can't replace something that you all are doing currently. It has to be above and beyond what you're already doing. By law, we are required to get 51% of the property value within the established boundary and 33% of the property owners. I wanted to let you know that as of today, we have 45% of the value and 24% of the owners. We've had a very positive response. I'm sure you've read things in the paper. We've actually hit all components. We had the editorial board. We've had a columnist. And we've had the news side of the media all be very positive about this. And I really just wanted to answer any questions. I did bring some booklets in case you haven't seen them, and I'll leave those with you that kind of answer questions. We've got a great website that answers a lot of questions. But also so that you know, we have to bring those percentages that I just mentioned to you, and then you all have to create an ordinance in order to actually make it into existence. Just because we bring you the numbers doesn't mean that it's established. It has to come through the council, and that's all set in KRS. Let me start. Renee, you mentioned the 36 percent owners. How is that? Is that weighted at all? Well, it is a two-prong test. You have to get 51% of the value and then 33% of the owners. And, again, that's established in the KRS. So that is kind of your weight. You can't just have all the large property owners say they want it. You still have to get a certain percentage of the actual individual owners. Well, I'm thinking, for instance, of Fifth Third Bank, which is based in Cincinnati, and PNC Bank, which is based in Pittsburgh, as examples, their influence, I would guess, would not be taken. Well, and the difference, though, is the banks don't actually own the properties. In Cincinnati, I do believe that Fifth Third Bank may own their building, But here you have a different entity that owns the financial center other than the bank, although we have many tenants that are also in favor of creating the district. Okay. Any other questions from this? Council Member Lane? When you do your canvas of businesses to determine whether they want to be involved in the downtown district, will tenants and buildings get a chance to vote also, or will it just strictly be the property owner? It is by law only property owners. Right. but tenants will have a spot on the board, which is also outlined in KRS and the ordinance. Well, the reason I ask is that most of the buildings have a provision where any assessments or taxes are passed through as common area operating expenses to the tenants. So if we put this in, effectively all the businesses downtown will each pay a pro rata share of the cost, even though the billing owner only has to get one vote, but there may be 50 or 20 companies that are located in there, and they may be some of the larger businesses. The reason I'm bringing this up, I've had a few people already mention to me that were not enthusiastic about this program, and I thought I'd just mention that to you. You may have already heard some of this already anyway, but that is the concern. And then what will be, do you have a rate for a square foot or a rate for assessed value? How do you determine what the cost is going to be? Well, first of all, we have spoken with many tenants. Of course, it depends on how leases are set up with property owners, whether or not that would be passed on down. And, of course, not everyone is in favor, but overwhelmingly there is a positive response, not only from owners but from tenants. And the way that it is established, as it's already said in the KRS, every state is different. So if you're familiar with other states' policies, I mean, sometimes they do allow for square footage, but it is basically set up that it can be a certain percentage not to exceed. And this is $0.10 per $100, or an easier way to think of that is for every $1,000, the dollar. So if you have a $3 million property, you're talking about a $3,000 annual assessment. For a $300,000 property, it would be $300. And it is something that is collected on the property tax. This would apply only to the downtown business area and not any other areas of town, is that correct? Any area, even a neighborhood. Anybody can establish this as long as you meet those parameters that I mentioned. But this was set up to be really the core business district. Over the years, that boundary has fluctuated. But looking at what other cities have done and taking their advice, we made really the smallest district that we felt you could have and make an impact. But certainly you don't want to have such a small area that you don't collect enough revenue to really show any evidence of improvement. Do you have a preliminary estimate what the total revenue for this would be from the downtown area? In other words, if this passes based on the current assessed values or whatever, what that would be? Right. And so if a property's value goes up or down, the budget can fluctuate each year. But currently within the boundary, there's a little over $280 million worth of assessed value. But you do have tax-exempt entities that can choose to opt in, and that often happens in other cities. So we put a modest amount in the budget. We're estimating to have about $325,000 worth of revenue to operate on at least the first year. So did I miss the number there? do you have an estimate for the total revenue that would be generated by the tax? That's what I'm trying to say. Well, by tax, it would be $280,000. $280,000. And then if you had opt-ins, we looked at what the average around the country is and took some percentage points off to try to be as conservative as possible to say that we'd have about $325,000. Will the urban county government for the property we own downtown, will we pay into that also? You're tax-exempt. You could opt in. I know that Louisville's government does, that that would be something that you would have to determine. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. My time has expired. Okay. Aren't you glad? Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. Renee, could you go through the process about how you contact the owners of the property? You said you're at 45% of the money and 24% of the landlords that agree to it. And also, of that, how many are not for it? Do you have that percentage? I do have that percentage as well. So we initially sent out a postcard and said, you know, be aware that the actual petition is coming. And I should back up. I guess we've tried this a few other times. And so I think people were, people, most of these owners have not changed hands, so they're aware of it. But we started back earlier this year mailing a postcard to let people know that we were in the process. And then we set up four public meetings, so we sent out notice of those public meetings as well and held those in early September. and then after the completion of those public meetings, we mailed all of the property owners and registered agents, if we had those, a packet which had this brochure that I'm going to leave with you, the petition, and return envelope so that they could return their petition if they chose to do that. But there are a lot of one-on-one contacts as well that are still ongoing. What was the numbers that we're against at this point? Currently, right now, we have against only 16 people that own property. You have 223 unique owners within the boundary. 223? 223. because the way it works, if, let's say, an LLC owns or any individual owns 10 properties, they only get one vote. You might get all their value on those 10 properties, assuming they're all taxable, but they only get one vote. But if you have an individual who has five LLCs, they can have five votes, if that makes sense. So we've been trying to reach out to as many property owners as we can, and we have 16 firm no's, which accounts for about a little less than 30% of the total available value. Okay, so you had 223 owners of the 280 million assessed. Would that be what you're saying? And right now you've received 24% of them have said that they're four. and of that, that's the 45% of the money. And then what would you say was the, and how many total is that then? Petitions returned? Yeah, the 223. That's about 54. 54. And that was 54 yeses and you had 16 no's? Or 16 people that, you know, we just know we are not going to get to sign it. And what percentage of that is the money part of that? That's a little less than 30% of the value. 30%? So you still have... You still have 25% that you need 6% more for. Correct. And what did you say about the tax you could opt in? You said that you had 280 assessed and you thought it might go up to $325 million, so that would be an extra $45 million that you talk about could be? Well, not a million. It's a thousand. Yeah, I know, but it's all 1% of that, isn't it? So wouldn't that be? Well, what we did, what you have is by law, if this passes, you would be guaranteed the 280 assessed value. But then what you see in other cities is somebody who's tax exempt, say a church or the government, they may choose to opt in at a level. Will it be what their fair cash value is? You don't typically ever see that happen, but they may opt in at some meaningful level into the district because they're going to benefit from it. So do you send something to them that also, even though they're not part of the... By law, they get a vote. They still can vote? Even if they're tax exempt, they are a real property owner and they do get a vote, but none of their value, well, they don't have a value. So they can vote, but they're not going to be one that's going to be taxed. That's correct. How many of the 45% of the money and 24% of the land loaders is that group? Well, none of the money because they don't get that. I'm sorry? The 45% of value only comes from people that are taxable. Okay. How about the 24% then? I would have to go back and look, but not many. maybe three votes out of the 54 so far. And then if this does go through, who makes the decision how the money is spent? The board of directors. Because you created, by the ordinance, you are establishing a management district, and then that by the KRS is outlined to have its own board of directors, and the makeup of that board of directors is the majority property owners within the boundary. Thank you. My time's up. Thank you. I don't care if you ask me extra questions. Council Member Lawless. Thank you. I know that you and your staff and board have worked extremely hard on this for a long time. And I think it has the potential to be a real benefit to our downtown. What about condos? Well, and that was one thing I was going to mention. Of the ownership, the makeup is 18% of the total makeup is tax-exempt. 18% is residential, and the rest is commercial. And in the state of Kentucky, there is no differentiation between residential and commercial. We had quite a few residential owners already turn their petitions in. So a condo is treated as an individual property owner. So if there's 50 units in a building, that building comes out with 50 boats, presumably, assuming they're all uniquely owned. Okay. And do you know what percentage of the residential condo owners have voted? I can get that number to you. I'm just curious. We've probably had at least a dozen residential out of that 54 votes. Yes. And also, I had gotten calls when this first came out in the paper, I guess, where some residential neighborhoods were concerned they were included. and I pointed out to them that they weren't included. And so I want people to know that the residential neighborhoods around, like Rupp Arena, et cetera, aren't included. Right. When I pass this out, it has the boundary, but if anybody wanted to see that, dlmdonline.com has all this information. Yeah, it was hard to see, and I guess, you know, and so I explained to them that they were not part of the boundary. So I wanted to clarify that for other people, too. So good job and nice presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Stenner. Thank you, Chair. Renee, thank you for coming today and presenting it to Council. this proposal. Got a couple questions for you in follow-up. You mentioned to Council Member Ellinger's question, non-profits and people who do not pay property tax in the district still get a vote on whether or not it goes through and implemented, correct? That's correct. And again, that's not something that we chose. We're just following what's outlined in KRS. So I'm just curious, how do the owners of this building, the courthouses, the federal building vote? Well, they They could vote. We haven't voted yet? You haven't voted yet. We're hoping that the private sector will lead it so that there won't be that question out there that it was driven by tax-exempt. Did you send a petition here? Yes. And to the federal building, I assume, their property owner? Yeah, I mean, we did. We mailed them all out. So, yes. So we have the government entity downtown has not voted, state-level, state, federal, or local? We're working with the state. We believe that we will get there, but even don't have it yet. But we've been working with, I mean, this is not just a 2013 initiative. I mean, we've been working on this for several years. Well, I ask that because some of the largest properties downtown are owned by government. Yes, that's true. This building, the courthouses, the federal building. That is true. And like I said, a total makeup of the district is 18% come from some type of non-taxable entity, whether that's government, a nonprofit, a church, a public utility. I mean, there's any number of ways that you could be tax-exempt. Right. So you're saying 18% of the total value is from? 18% of the total owners. What about the value, though? The value, well, the value side, we're only looking at the, to get to that 51%, you only look at the taxable value. Okay, and what would you say, I know a lot of people on council have been asked this question already, but is it good to put another tax on business, especially when you're trying to attract people downtown? How does that, wouldn't that hurt our efforts in economic development downtown if we're adding another tax to business owners? How do you combat that if someone lays that to you? Well, when you look at the history of management districts throughout the world, they are proven to work. And this also has a clause in it to go away in 2019 on June the 30th if it is not working. It also has provision if it's not working so badly, property owners at any time can vote to take it out of play through a vote. It's a very similar vote. It's still 33% of owners, but they only have to reach 50.1% of the value for some reason. And so we have had many property owners say they look at it as an investment. This is stuff that has to go above and beyond what the government can do. And as you heard Luther in the video say, government cannot do it all. And when you have these type of amenities, that is what I think I'm a cutchin is looking for when they come and do a site visit. that they are not looking to have bird droppings, dead birds, trash, and beer bottles left on their sidewalks at 8 o'clock in the morning, which unfortunately is what you often see here. So many of our property owners have said they just look at it as an investment. And just because one property owner may take care of their property, which we have several of the large property owners that do, their next-door neighbor may not do anything. And so all of the people that they are hoping that are going to come and work in that building have to walk past God only knows what on their way to lunch. So, I mean, when you look at it, that's the way many property owners look at it. It's just an additional, very small investment on their bottom line to make it better. And this would only make improvements on public property, right? And the right-of-way. Right. Not on the private property. So if a private property was still in disrepair and not acceptable to some. you wouldn't have any control over that even if we passed this. Well, no, but, I mean, we could certainly you could wash windows and things like that on the outside of a business, which doesn't happen, and you could pressure wash all of the sidewalks, which, you know, arguably are the responsibility of the private property owner now, and that doesn't happen. Okay, so quickly in my last 30 seconds, give us the benefits that this will do for our downtown above and beyond what government already does? Well, the things that are being proposed were to be additional maintenance and beautification efforts, a wayfinding program as part of that, which is promotional too, promotional efforts that aren't happening, and an ambassador program, which we saw if you were in Madison, Wisconsin, they have one of the most successful ones in the country. Very good. Thank you, Renee. Thanks. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mr. Chair. After you mentioned the buildings in downtown would be excluded, this is not supposed to be an all-inclusive listing, but I just made a quick list here. The Rupp Arena and the Lexington Convention Center, that has about 40 acres in there, Triangle Park, the Opera House, Arts Place, the cheap side pavilion, the courthouse the library, we own three or four garages downtown, the city does, the city hall, the police department, the Fayette courthouse federal courthouses, there are four or five churches downtown Thoroughbred Park, Lyric Theater Kentucky Theater Fire Station, Salvation Army I just quickly wrote down a list, that's probably maybe half of downtown. I mean, the city owns a lot of property down here, so do the government agencies. I'm just concerned about the fairness and equity of charging the private owners to provide the services for all of downtown. I think if we're going to put this in, I think we ought to make it mandatory that the city pay for the similar amount into that fund to the services we're going to get out of that. I beg your pardon? We'd love for you to do that. Well, I know you'd love for it, too, but the taxpayers may not like it that much. I mean, that's the issue is that, you know, we already have a lot of taxes, and this is just one more tax. I know it doesn't seem like much, but it's not like, you know, $1,000 here and $1,000 there. But it starts to add up after a while, and I think we have to be sensitive to that, particularly trying to attract businesses to come downtown. So, you know, I have some angst about this. But I will review your plan once you get the ordinance in more detail before I make a final decision. So I have an open mind, but I do have some concerns. Thank you. Thank you very much. I would stress again that it is undoubtedly a tax, but the way that many cities look at it that we are trying to compete with is that it's an economic development tool. That's why it's been made available in all 50 states as legislation to help you. And many of our property owners are saying it is an investment. To quote Ronald Reagan, I think he said one of the scariest things is when it says, we're with the government, we're here to help you. And I sort of feel like we're helping too much right now with the tax burden that all of our citizens have. So, you know, I'm being sort of fiscally conservative at this time, particularly with our economy the way it is. And I do just want to say again that it does have that safeguard of having the sunset clause, which isn't actually required by the KRS, but we felt like in order to show that it was something that, you know, would go away if it wasn't working, that we put that in there. If this were to be created this year, it would take effect in the fall of 2014 and then would go away in June of 2019 unless we go back with the petition phase again and get the buy-in. I would like to compliment you. You made a very good presentation today. I'm just sorry I'm not that enthusiastic about it, but thank you so much for your comments and everything. I appreciate your feedback. Can I pass these around or just start them there with maybe Councilmember Clark? Oh, we've got handouts. Councilmember Akers. Thank you, Chair. Hi, Renee. First, I want to mention that all of us, I think, have been to Louisville, and I've also been to Denver and recently with Commerce Lexington, and we went to Omaha, all of those cities have the downtown management districts, and you see it when you're in there downtown. You see the special garbage cans that say downtown Louisville and Louisville, or you see certain planters in downtown Denver, or you see, just like you mentioned, beautification efforts and landscaping. So I don't doubt that it would improve aesthetically our downtown. Would you remind us, again, the actual tax on the property value? Go ahead. Think of it as a dollar for every thousand. So if it's a $300,000 property, it's a $300 investment every year. I don't understand that. And then for the nonprofits or businesses that would not be taxed, would they receive, I mean, obviously they're going to benefit from Wayfunder signs or they're going to benefit from ambassadors, But would they get planters with flowers at their front door as well? Well, the way KRS is written, it has to be equitable throughout the entire district. So you can't pay special attention to one street and not the next street or one block and not the next block. Sure. And what is the percentage of nonprofits that have opted in in other cities? Do you have an estimate? Well, there's generally of the entire budget, which is the way that we looked at it. Okay. It's around 35 or 40 percent of the budget comes from opt-in, so we took a much more conservative percentage because we don't know. And you all estimated how much? Well, $45,000, so from $280,000 up to $325,000. Right. Okay. Okay, I think that's it. Thank you. If I could say, can I say one last thing? What you see in those cities, Louisville, for example, has expanded their district because once people see that they're on the outside of the boundary, they want in. So they come and request to be in, and you see that happen very often. That is not unheard of. And it could be of any size. In Manhattan, they have 67 alone, and they actually have a button on their home page of how to create your own improvement district for your neighborhood because they look at it as such an important economic development tool. Actually, so what would prevent the businesses themselves of just those who are for it, for instance, coming together, pooling their monies, and doing this as a private endeavor instead of a board and an ordinance and government involvement? Well, there's nothing that would prevent it. But I think what you see, which is the situation we have with DLC, is that you never know what you're going to have from one year to the next. So you can't really budget to do anything major and ongoing. And that's why so many cities opt for this method, so they know what their budgets are. They can plan multiyear campaigns, and they can know that they're going to be able to sustain themselves year after year. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Massotti. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Renee, for the presentation. It's very well done. I just want to ask you a couple of questions. What is your timeline on getting the rest of the remaining signatures? Well, we're just continuing to make phone calls and follow up with people. Our hope would be to have the requirements to you in the next few weeks. So you've given yourself another couple weeks, basically, to get this done. I think it's a great idea, and I wish you a lot of success with it. And I know there are a lot of cities throughout the country that have enjoyed a lot of success with this, but I was just curious, have you had a deadline? Well, we don't have a deadline. We put a soft deadline on the initial mailing of last week just to give people a deadline because when we follow up with people, a lot of them say, oh, well, I got that package. I haven't opened it yet, which, I mean, I have to admit I'm that person. If you mail me something, I don't necessarily open it. So once we, you know, talk to people, they usually open it up and we'll make a decision or at least say they'll get back to us within a week or something like that. Well, that's my next concern is I know when we've had issues with neighborhood development overlays and things, there's been questions about notification processes. And sometimes people get a postcard. Sometimes they say they didn't get the mail. So you're not doing any of this, like, through certified mail or anything? We didn't. We weren't required to by law, and we talked about doing it that way. We may, you know, just trying to reach out to as many people as we can. And we may do another mailing to try to get in touch. I think I would encourage that because I know you've worked so hard to have this work out for you and then maybe to have it fall aside because someone says, well, I wasn't notified or I didn't get this information. And then I would certainly hope that maybe you could stop that from happening. And we did get a few questions about is this the equivalent of an H-1 overlay and there really is no authority like that placed on the owners, it's really meant as an enhancement. It doesn't tell you that you have to do something like an H-1 does. I'm just based on experience. When we had these meetings, there's a lot of people who say they weren't notified or didn't know about it. So I'm just trying to give you some support there. Thank you. I just wanted to remind everybody that we do have an additional CAL meeting involving the fund balance at 1 o'clock. Pardon me? At 2 o'clock, right. So if you can make your comments brief, I would appreciate it. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for coming in with your presentation today. I have a couple questions about the board makeup. So is that set by KRS? It is set. You have to have majority property owners, and it talks about coming from residential, hospitality, office building, and then it would go into the ordinance as well. So what would the board be made up of? You're saying 51% of the number of properties, that's the number of people who have to be on the board? Is that what you're saying? No. The actual number, I would have to go back into KRS, but what is proposed in the petition that the people received is that at least 10 of the 15-member board would be made up of property owners within the boundary or their designees, and that those would come from retail business, residential property, office buildings, parking facility operator, a restaurant, hospitality service person, and a tenant in a building. And then, of course, the mayor and the third district council person would have seats on the board as well because it is basically all in the third district. Okay, and then are those members voted on, or how are they selected? The mayor would appoint the board, and then you all would have to approve those nominations, just like you do with a lot of different nonprofits. Okay, and then it sounds like that only the board members have to represent a property that's paying the tax. Is that correct? Right. So the ones that aren't being assessed don't have a vote? Well, there are a few seats that aren't specifically accounted for. So I guess you could, if you're asking like if a church could have a seat on the board, I think the answer to that question is absolutely. Okay. I was thinking more the other direction. If you're being taxed, that you ought to have the seat on the board so that you can vote what's happening with your tax dollars. Right. And the majority is taxable properties. Okay. And then can we get a copy of your petition? Yes. I'd be happy to send a petition, too. I think the petition was in the packet. I think it was what was in the packet. That's why I brought that piece. But I can send it electronically, too. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Renee, for bringing this forward. I have a couple questions that have to do with the boundary. The line that shows on the map, it's fair to say that the properties that are kind of south of the southern, I've got to get this right, north of the southern boundary are in, and if you're on the other side. So the line goes down the middle of a street. Properties on the inside of the boundary are in. Properties, even though they face on that street, would be out. That's the way, so on High Street, for example. Right. So that's correct. People on the south side of High, not in. People on the north side of High, in. Correct. Okay. So I noticed it takes some interesting zigs and zags. Can you explain how the line was determined? Well, and it does, especially on the northern boundary, a lot of those properties that are along Church Street extend back. They face Church Street, but they extend all the way back. So that's why, especially between Mill and Market, it's kind of odd. And we tried to keep it contained within the commercial business district. And so we could really draw, anybody can establish a boundary. And so this boundary has taken a number of twists and turns over the years. And as I mentioned, we just took the advice of other cities and tried to establish something small yet meaningful. Okay. So I guess what I'm really asking is were there a set of criteria used for determining where the line would go in terms of what's in, the kind of building? I don't want to get into the specifics, but there are some interesting places where the line seems to either deviate to include properties or deviate to exclude properties. Were there some criteria? Can you tell us more? How are those judgments made? We've tried to keep it mostly commercial in the commercial business, just district as possible. and I can't say that we went out and walked every street and said you're in, you're out. We just ebbed and flowed. It used to be a much, much larger boundary that included a lot more residential, but this was the boundary that we settled on. and, you know, I've had more people call me who are outside the line who went in than in that went out. So if I could change it, I'm not so sure I wouldn't, but we can't now that we've published it. You have to start over. So I don't know if that answers your question. I think it does. So just to kind of repeat, given that this is the boundary that's been published, this boundary, this decision will be made on this boundary only, up or down, and there's no way to modify the boundary on this particular proposal. On this particular proposal. You could come out in a year. You could also have a whole area that in a year decided they wanted to do their own, and they could. And often when you see that happen, they might create themselves under a new name, but they would be under the same administrative structure so that they don't have that overhead. You see that happen quite often. And I would just use, like, the East End, for example. I know that there have been discussions about the East End or maybe the distillery district. If something were to happen in those areas, they might be a good opportunity for expansion with a different district. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Akers? Really quick, Chair. I'll try to be quick. Renee, is Commerce Lexington's building in or out of this line of this boat? They are inside the line. They're inside. So that's what I was going to ask, if I could, based on, like, not just your own building, but what you think as far as economic development and how you all work with other businesses. Bob, do you all think that this is an asset to the community and to the business community? Bob Quick, Commerce Lexington. Yes. Before I even arrived, the Commerce of Lexington had supported the initiative. And being in those communities where they have management districts, there's just a big difference. It's that extra that a local government cannot provide, and it's a good partnership. We're all always sensitive about taxes. But quite frankly, as we've talked about this, we see this as a very strong, good investment. And I think people will see that return. If they don't, they can end it in 2019. but I have a funny feeling once it's voted in, if it is voted in, that it will be a hard investment to take away from. So we put a lot of time and thought into it and like the potential that it has. And the other thing is I think we're kind of at a tipping point at times because who we compete against are the larger metros, and it's their quality of life that we have to match for the companies that are looking here. And so when we bring a company in and they see a vibrant, glowing, energetic downtown, which is what I think when I say tipping point that this could help get us over that next plateau. I think this is a pretty good option for doing that. Thank you so much. That's all too. Thank you. Thank you. We have one person who wished to speak. Mr. Nathan Dickerson. I'm sorry. Yeah. If you come to the mic and give your name and address, and you have three minutes. Okay. I'll keep this brief. I know you all have another meeting coming up. This will be a good segue into that conversation as well. But my name is Nathan Dickerson, and I live right next door at Park Plaza at 120 East Main Street, number 1508. And since this conversation was about economic development, I wanted to express the support of the Board of the Progress Lex Action Fund for the jobs fund as a priority in the fund balance. I also wanted to express that we agree with the editorial and today's Herald leader and on a personal level I wanted to express my support for the Jobs Fund for two reasons one is after I graduated from UK a bunch of my friends had this tough decision of whether or not to stay in Lexington they loved the city, it was beautiful, great quality of life as we've mentioned today but many felt they had to leave to find a good professional job and they had to go to a different city so I had to see a lot of my good friends leave just to feel like they could go somewhere else to grow professionally So that's why I would encourage a jobs fund. Also, for young people, I believe jobs are a smart investment for the city's future. In Denver, for example, the revolving loan fund has a return on investment of 5 to 1. If we can support more job growth in the area, I think this will be good for our budget, and we can have more fund balances in the future. Also, I had one last thing I want to say. Happy birthday to Councilwoman Siobhan Akers. Thanks for being here, and good to see you. So anyway, I'll let you all carry on. Thank you. Thank you very much. Kevin Atkins? You get to tee up your segment here that was only going to last. Yeah, well, I just wanted to give a quick update on one thing real quick, the collaborative efforts. We did have our first meeting of all the economic development partners of LFUCG back the first week of September. Council Member Clark was there. we had Professor Trosky come in and give an economic update, as well as Scott Shapiro from our office giving an update on BEAM. Some of the other activities we've been involved with since are obviously the RUP project, site visits by companies coming to town, and one exciting, in my mind, thing for the future of our community, which we have a special guest speaker here today to speak on, and that's the Economic Development Fund. The special guest is actually Jim Parsons. Welcome, Mayor. Pardon? Welcome. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Three minutes. In the interest of time, I know you all want to get started quickly. I'd be willing, as Chair, if we need to take a few questions on this, our work session could maybe relax a little bit to start, if this relaxed a little bit to start. I see some heads nodding that that would be all right. All right. Okay. Context, real quickly. I'm speaking about the jobs fund. Last night, the vice mayor and I had to be at the Richmond Road Neighborhood Association meeting and working the tables a little bit like all of you are so good at. Several people talked favorably about our council and the way that we are getting things done. Lowell Yandel said it best, just don't let that fever in Washington, the gridlock and do nothing, infect Lexington. And Linda and I both said, well, we'll do our best. Washington may be shut down, but Lexington is open for ideas and open for jobs and open for business. The big picture on this is jobs. Before getting into the details, let me say this. The fund is all about jobs. Yes, our unemployment rate has been trending down. 6.4 percent in July, up to 7.1 percent the month before. Yes, it's below the national average today at 7.5 percent, but we have a long way to go. I often say that our unemployment today is still double what it was six years ago. We could half-fill Rupp Arena with those who are unemployed and acknowledging that and still searching for jobs. Jobs is what give people a sense of purpose. Fund overview. So we are proposing a $2 million jobs fund. That does not mean, like other considerations that you all are making right now with this surplus, it does not mean that we are writing a check for that tomorrow at all. This represents gap financing, loans, principally for local companies that are growing and adding jobs, And it represents the opportunity for the nation's first city-based incentive program for high-potential research companies on their way to commercialization. Now, this strategy really fits very nicely into Lexington's position today. A university city, not just a college town. A diverse economy. Fifty years ago, I know a little bit about this because I spent most of my career in recruiting businesses. And 50 years ago, 40 years ago, people went to where the jobs were. Think IBM in Lexington. Today, the jobs go where the people are, where talent has decided to live, which is why quality of life is so relevant. So why a fund? State economic development funds today are shrinking. Kentucky's is down by 58% in five years, just like we've experienced in social services. Cities, we are having to do more to just stay even. And other cities are doing similar things. Cleveland has a $100 million economic development fund. Even Paducah, Kentucky has a $2 million fund. We don't want to compete on scale, but we do want to have a smarter approach, which is what I want to talk about right now before I introduce Jim Parsons. So fund part one, existing companies. The first part of the fund focuses on local companies that are producing jobs where most of our job growth will come. Potentially, these would be grants and loans tied to specific job goals, including clawbacks if promised jobs don't materialize. There's also a grant component. It focuses on needs, like workforce development, where loans are not applicable. We learned about the skills gap through the BEAM project, and any company that wants to hire in Lexington really must find the people with the right skills. Fund part number two is related to the SBIR and STTR companies. Now, those are acronyms that stand for SBIR, Small Business Innovation Research Companies, and Small Business Technology Transfer Companies. These are competitive federal programs that fund high-potential companies on the road to commercialization research and new technologies. Now, think of Colorado, Boulder. More than 600 SBIR and STR firms have been accelerated there. Michigan, Ann Arbor, Wisconsin, Madison, Texas, Austin. Comparable cities to Lexington, university cities. They are leading the way. Now, Lexington has done well, thanks to Commerce Lexington initiatives and the states, but we know we can do a lot better. We have a good number here of companies like Transposagen and Gnomes, the battery company that moved here from New York. And in fact, today, Nathan Ball is here with us from Gnomes. So here's why we're targeting. Some states like Kentucky have funds to attract these promising companies, but no cities do. No cities do. We would be the first. By matching the Kentucky state incentives for SBIR companies with city incentives, we will immediately become the best company, the best city in the nation for these high potential companies. They won't be moving here just for the support. These companies need to be in a university city like Lexington, a place with a low cost of living but with the high level of talent of a major research university. This fund will get their attention. So to wrap it up, will some of the investments arguably not pound out? Perhaps. But very few, because we are investing in existing Lexington job creators and investing in companies that are succeeding, SBIR and STTR companies, that are succeeding at a rate of 65%, higher than new companies in general, which succeed at a rate of 25%. So this isn't a special sauce or a magic formula. It's a tool, a tool in the toolbox we don't have today. It's targetable. We can apply these tools to identifiable targets, companies that are proven and growing and adding jobs here in Lexington, new companies that are pre-screened where the due diligence has been done like gnomes and like transposagen, and it will give us competitive advantage, a window of opportunity that other cities don't have. Not for long, not forever. No market is forever, but for enough time that we can catch up and become even more competitive. So with that, I'd of course like to encourage you to vote in favor of this and to vote in favor of jobs. As Council Member Ford and I were reading a book not long ago written by Jim Clifton, which says pretty succinctly that everyone in the world today wants a good job, and that is what this is all about, seizing the opportunity, the opportunity that Lexington presents where we are at a very special time. Now, I want to introduce Jim Parsons, who is with the Taft firm. Now, many of you have gotten to know Jim over the last several years. He first began working with Lexington on the TIF legislation, I think about in 2009, representing the city. But he has a real wide breadth of exposure beyond the city limits of Lexington, of course. He's from Covington, the TAF firm in Covington, Cincinnati-based. And so he's done a lot of work in other states as well, especially including Ohio. Jim? Tell us about this guy. I appreciate being back before the council to talk about economic development. I was really asked to really look at this particular proposal on behalf of the urban county government as to whether it's a beneficial program or not. I will tell you that one of the, as you know, in working with economic development, the primary sources of incentives and things are the state incentive programs. One of the big holes, I think, in the state incentive programs that we need to deal with is they're basically tax credit-type programs. They're good programs, and they're very competitive across the country, but they are based upon the taxes that are generated and using those taxes, quite frankly, as a way to provide the incentive. There's not a whole lot of upfront dollars available at the front end on some of these developments. And so relative to that, I think you'll find across the nation, even in our close competitors, there's more and more emphasis. They're still using those tax credit programs and things like that, and they do work. KBI and some of the things like that we have. But I think a number of other states and in some localities, they're actually trying to create some ability to have some funds up front so that you not only provide some tax incentives through the taxes the business creates and generates, but you actually have some upfront dollars that can help with loans, startup costs, things like that. And that's one of the things we really fall behind in Kentucky. An example of that, I will tell you that in Ohio, they are donating 100% of their liquor licensing fees to create a fund that they will actually be able to pull from and use that for upfront dollars for economic development. Other areas are trying to create funds for startup business and things like that and working in those areas. So a program like this will not be a cure-all for economic development, but it will be a tool, and it will be one of the tools that will be a real benefit to the city to have the ability to have those upfront dollars. The other thing that you need to be aware of is even the state incentives. A number of them are not businesses in the community may not even be eligible for those because unless you're creating, for instance, 10 new Kentucky resident jobs, you're not eligible, for instance, for the KBI program. So there's certain threshold requirements for some of those state programs that a business that might want to move to Lexington or add two or three jobs would not be qualified for, but under a program like this, it may be enough to help them buy a piece of equipment or something to get them so they'll be able to do that. So I just wanted to give you my thoughts on the program, and it would be a benefit to the community. Thank you very much. I will entertain a motion to adjourn at this point. All in favor? Mr. Chair. Oh, I'm sorry, Mayor. Well, I was just going to say that we have a guest here from Gnomes Technology, the firm that brought 10 jobs here from the Northeast along with the Argonne Battery. and Nathan could speak perhaps when it comes up if he is able to stay, but, you know, it's very unusual. He brought every single employee with his firm, and it came through this program. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to modify the docket and let Mr. Ball from Dome speak for five minutes. Sure, that would be fine. All in favor? All right. Okay. All right. This is Nathan Ball, who is the president of NOMES Technology. Nathan? Why don't you speak? Thanks, ladies and gentlemen. I don't have prepared remarks. I just came in support of Mayor Gray's proposal to the city council to just share a little bit of our experience and our growth and how a program like this could have helped us a couple of years ago, I think, to accelerate our growth and certainly would be an attractive, you know, could be used as a tool to attract businesses like ours at an earlier phase in the growth cycle. I guess one of the gaps for a high-tech business, at least one of the financing gaps for a high-tech business, is always going to be in capital expenditures. A small company without a credit history can't go to the bank and get a $20,000 loan. It doesn't sound like much money, but when a company is only three or four people, You have to decide between getting that piece of equipment that could accelerate your growth or hiring another person that could also accelerate your growth. Often the companies will forgo the equipment and just slow things down a little bit. I think this program is without precedent. Where we came from, the county that I was in had a program that sounded actually a little bit similar. Tompkins County in New York had a program called the Tompkins County, or TCAD. It was for capital expenditures, loans. They actually had a lot of flexibility to invest in small businesses with job growth potential. They used it very successfully. It was actually a fund. I think the structure for this is different, but it was a fund that paid for itself over time. They kept getting the loans or the investments back so they could continue to reinvest in new opportunities. So I don't know a lot of the details behind this, but it sounds like a neat tool and could help fill some of the financing gaps for smaller companies like ours was a couple years ago without a credit history that couldn't go to the banks and find the same kind of cash. So thank you. Thank you. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Chair. Mayor, I was going to ask a question of you, if that's all right. You know, I've learned enough to know when there's anxiety among council members that they want to proceed. I see that among several of you. We don't want to compromise this important project and what amounts to many opportunities in the future because there is anxiety that you all want to proceed. So we can answer the questions, but I don't want to compromise the potential for this project and tarnish it because you all want to move on. Vice Mayor, how do you feel about it? I would ask the Chair since he's leaving me. Okay. Well, I sense that there was some anxiety on your part, but go ahead, Chair. There definitely is. Of course, we didn't realize that we were going to spend 35 minutes on the management district. with many of our party speaking twice and one three times. Well, okay. Do you all want to hear about this, Councilman Farmer? Or we could handle it in the next session. I give up. Okay. All right. Okay. We just want to make sure we don't want to create any alienation when we have something important like this and the future of the city and jobs that we think are really important. And I also want to say, you know, folks, this is not my idea. This is an idea that has emerged from other cities and out of a competitive, the opportunity to be competitive and create jobs. So thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor. Now, are we going to adjourn? Anybody? Second. Second. Thank you. All in favor?