# Special Committee of the Whole (COW) - October 22, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 22, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3151 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3151?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-10-22 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 9,444 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 Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council met on October 22, 2013, at 11:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers, with Vice Mayor Gorton presiding. The council considered seven agenda items, taking nine votes and hearing nine public comments during the session. Four of the seven items were approved, including the Economic Development Fund, Highlands Park Basketball Court Repair, Idle Hour Ballfields, and Dunbar Community Center Window Replacement. Three items were withdrawn from consideration: an unspecified project, Bulletproof Vest Replacements, and Additional Police Vehicles. ## Attendance **Present:** Akers, Beard, Clark, Ellinger, Farmer, Ford, Henson, Kay, Lawless, Lane, Massadi, Myers, Soddy, and Stennett **Absent:** Meyer **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions **Motion to Move Economic Development Fund Up for Discussion and Reallocate $1 Million** [timestamp: 00:02:34] Moved by Clark and seconded by Stennett. The motion to move item number 39 (Economic Development Fund) up the discussion list and reallocate $1 million from the Economic Contingency Fund to the Economic Development Fund passed by roll call vote, 11-3. Voting in favor: Akers, Beard, Clark, Ellinger, Farmer, Ford, Henson, Kay, Lawless, Lane, and Massadi. Voting against: Myers, Soddy, and Stennett. The ordinance must be delivered by November 5th for review and feedback before presentation. **Amendment to Reduce Allocation to $500,000** [timestamp: 00:38:46] Moved by Ellinger and seconded by Kaye. This amendment to reduce the allocation from $1 million to $500,000 failed by roll call vote, 12-13. Voting in favor: Akers, Beard, Clark, Ellinger, Farmer, Ford, Henson, Kay, Lawless, Lane, Massadi, and Myers. Voting against: Soddy and Stennett. **Motion to Approve $20,000 for Highlands Park Basketball Court Repair** [timestamp: 00:52:41] Moved by Akers and seconded by Kay. This motion passed by roll call vote, 13-1. Voting in favor: Akers, Beard, Clark, Ellinger, Farmer, Ford, Henson, Kay, Lawless, Lane, Massadi, Myers, and Soddy. Voting against: Stennett. **Motion to Remove Councilmember Farmer's Proposals for Lines 32 and 34** [timestamp: 00:54:53] Moved by Farmer and seconded by Akers. This motion passed by roll call vote, 14-1. Voting in favor: Akers, Beard, Clark, Ellinger, Farmer, Ford, Henson, Kay, Lawless, Lane, Massadi, Myers, Soddy, and Stennett. Voting against: Meyer. **Motion to Remove Bulletproof Vest Replacements (Line 35)** [timestamp: 00:55:23] Moved by Myers and seconded by Stennett. This motion passed by roll call vote, 14-1. Voting in favor: Akers, Beard, Clark, Ellinger, Farmer, Ford, Henson, Kay, Lawless, Lane, Massadi, Myers, Soddy, and Stennett. Voting against: Meyer. **Motion to Approve $150,000 for Idle Hour Ballfields** [timestamp: 00:57:41] Moved by Myers and seconded by Lawless. This motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 14-0. **Motion to Withdraw Proposal for $150,000 for Additional Police Vehicles (Line 37)** [timestamp: 01:01:57] Moved by Clark. This proposal was withdrawn by voice vote. **Motion to Approve $150,000 for Window Replacement at Dunbar Community Center** [timestamp: 01:08:41] Moved by Ford and seconded by Ellinger. This motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 14-0. **Motion to Adjourn** [timestamp: 01:11:24] Moved by Stennett and seconded by Ford. This motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 14-0. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting included the following financial actions: **Fund Reallocation** * $1,000,000 was reallocated from the Economic Contingency Fund to the Economic Development Fund **Capital Appropriations** * $20,000 was allocated for repair of Highlands Park Basketball Court * $150,000 was allocated for Idle Hour Ballfields * $150,000 was allocated for window replacement at Dunbar Community Center ## Public Comment Several speakers addressed the council on two primary topics: the Economic Development Fund allocation and capital project funding. **Economic Development Fund** Multiple speakers debated the appropriate funding level for the Economic Development Fund. [timestamp: 00:25:16] Clark defended a $1 million amount as insufficient and urged the council to support a larger allocation for meaningful impact. [timestamp: 00:26:17] Akers highlighted Lexington's recent national rankings in livability and homebuying to support the need for proactive economic development investment. [timestamp: 00:27:25] Ellinger argued for a $500,000 starting amount as a compromise, citing uncertainty about demand and the need to preserve the Economic Contingency Fund. [timestamp: 00:30:53] Lawless stressed that a $1 million fund sends a stronger signal to the business community than $500,000, even if not fully spent. [timestamp: 00:33:15] Lane suggested that any economic development fund disbursements should be discussed in a closed council session and recommended marketing the city to attract businesses. [timestamp: 00:35:27] Beard argued that reducing the fund from $2 million to $1 million undermines the city's intent to be aggressive in job creation and signals weakness. [timestamp: 00:46:09] Myers supported the $1 million allocation to bring high-paying jobs to the city and emphasized the importance of using savings wisely. **Capital Projects and Preservation** [timestamp: 01:08:41] Ford emphasized the historical significance of the Dunbar Community Center and the need to preserve it through window replacement, noting prior improvements to heating and cooling. **Budget Follow-Through** [timestamp: 01:11:24] Stennett urged the CAO and commissioners to consider unfunded projects from the list for inclusion in next year's budget to ensure continuity and follow-through. ## Contested Items The October 22, 2013 meeting included two significant areas of disagreement among council members. **Size of Economic Development Fund** The council was divided on the appropriate funding level for the Economic Development Fund. Members debated whether to allocate $1 million or reduce the amount to $500,000. Both positions included substantive arguments: supporters of the larger allocation emphasized fiscal responsibility and the fund's visibility and impact potential, while those favoring the reduced amount raised concerns about fiscal constraints. The disagreement reflected broader questions about the council's priorities and resource allocation strategy. **Use of Confiscated Assets Funds** Councilmember Lawless raised procedural concerns regarding the use of confiscated assets funds for police vehicle replacements. This dispute centered on legal restrictions and the proper rules governing how confiscated assets funds could be deployed. Lawless's intervention prompted discussion among council members about whether the proposed use of these funds complied with applicable regulations and fund usage guidelines. ## Economic Development Fund Council discussed a proposal to reallocate $1 million from the Economic Contingency Fund to the Economic Development Fund. [timestamp: 00:02:34] The key speakers in this debate were Clark, Ellinger, Stennett, Lawless, and Akers. During the discussion, Council considered an amendment to reduce the proposed allocation from $1 million to $500,000. This amendment failed with a vote of 12-13. The main motion to allocate $1 million from the Economic Contingency Fund to the Economic Development Fund was approved by a vote of 11-3. ## Highlands Park Basketball Court Repair Councilmember Akers presented a proposal to allocate $20,000 for resurfacing the basketball court at Highlands Park [timestamp: 00:52:41]. The motion was brought before the council for consideration, with Akers and Lawless identified as key speakers on the matter. The proposal received unanimous approval from the council, with no opposition raised during the discussion. **Outcome:** The $20,000 allocation for Highlands Park basketball court resurfacing was approved. ## Unspecified project During this agenda item, Councilmember Farmer withdrew support for the project under consideration [timestamp: 00:54:53]. Key speakers in this discussion included Farmer and Akers. As a result of Farmer's withdrawal of support, the project was removed from consideration. This item was part of a broader action in which Farmer withdrew support for two projects listed at lines 32 and 34 on the agenda. The outcome of this discussion was that the project was withdrawn from further consideration. ## Bulletproof Vest Replacements Councilmember Myers moved to remove this item from the agenda, noting that it had been previously addressed. Stennett was also involved in the discussion. The motion to remove the item passed unanimously [timestamp: 00:55:23]. The item was withdrawn and did not proceed to further discussion or action. ## Idle Hour Ballfields Councilmember Myers presented a proposal for $150,000 in funding for baseball fields at Idle Hour Park [timestamp: 00:57:41]. During discussion, clarification was sought regarding the intended use of the funds. Akers confirmed that the allocation was specifically designated for baseball facilities, not football fields. The motion passed unanimously. ## Additional Police Vehicles Councilmember Clark presented a proposal for $150,000 in funding for additional police vehicles [timestamp: 01:01:57]. However, Clark subsequently withdrew the motion due to insufficient available funds. The proposal did not advance to a vote. ## Dunbar Community Center Window Replacement Councilmember Ford presented a proposal to allocate $150,000 for window replacement at the historic Dunbar Community Center [timestamp: 01:08:41]. The proposal emphasized the importance of preserving the building's legacy while addressing necessary maintenance needs. The discussion included input from Councilmember Clark, who joined Ford in supporting the initiative. The council voted on the motion and approved it unanimously, reflecting broad agreement on the project's merit and the value of maintaining this historic community facility. The window replacement project was approved without recorded objections or significant concerns raised during the discussion. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (11-3): Motion to move number 39 (Economic Development Fund) up the list for discussion and reallocate $1 million from the Economic Contingency Fund to the Economic Development Fund - **Motion** — failed (12-13): Amendment to reduce the allocation from $1 million to $500,000 - **Motion** — passed (13-1): Motion to approve $20,000 for repair of Highlands Park Basketball Court - **Motion** — passed (14-1): Motion to remove Councilmember Farmer’s proposals for Line 32 and Line 34 from consideration - **Motion** — passed (14-1): Motion to remove bulletproof vest replacements (Line 35) from the list - **Motion** — passed (14-0): Motion to approve $150,000 for Idle Hour Ballfields - **Motion** — withdrawn: Motion to withdraw proposal for $150,000 for additional police vehicles (Line 37) - **Motion** — passed (14-0): Motion to approve $150,000 for window replacement at Dunbar Community Center - **Motion** — passed (14-0): Motion to adjourn --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. the whole to discuss the fund balance. So we're reconvened and it's still October 22nd. And Jonathan, do you have our total? Does this include the pothole patcher added back in? So 328,740. Okay. So, Council Members, that's the number we're working with, is 328,740. Now, we had previously gotten through number 30, and the issue had come up with a request from CAO Hamilton to take a million dollars out of the Economic Contingency Fund and move it to the Economic Development Fund. So I would first ask you if you want to go ahead and vote to move that number 39 up the list for discussion. Vice Mayor, I would make that motion. Second. Okay. So there's a motion and a second to take number 39 and move it up the list to discuss next, along with the CAO's request. Is there any discussion of the motion? Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. and thank you, Councilman Clark, for giving us the opportunity to discuss it. I think any time we have an opportunity to save money, we should do so, and this council has done a good job with the FY12 and the FY13 fund balance of making the first priority to save for this rainy day. But in conjunction with savings for this government, 84% of our revenue comes from jobs. It comes from people out there working and paying the payroll tax, the net profits tax, and that's what funds our government, 84%. So just as important as savings, so are job creation opportunities. And if we don't create jobs and increase our revenue, we'll start having to dip into that savings account. And I'm, for one, first and foremost, I know we tried this a couple administrations ago. It failed at the council level back under Mayor Isaac. I believe Council Member Beard was the director then at that point under one initiative. But I think it's time we create this fund. And I think it's time we make it part of the budget coming in April as well. But a million dollars is a small percentage of what was in that fund balance to get it started. And I'll support it. Thank you. So the motion on the floor, just so everybody's clear, is to move number 35 and take it out of order. We're not discussing the amount of money or anything. 39. 39, excuse me. Any other comments about the motion on the floor? Councilmember Beard. Thank you. I just want to get clear in my mind exactly how this shuffle of money is going to take place. Are we doing away with $2 million and adding to that this $1 million? Council Member Beger, excuse me for interrupting. I'd just like to clear out the process motion of moving this up for discussion, which is the motion on the floor. And then we can, if we have a motion about the actual request, His motion, I believe, was to move number 39 up and take it before those other items on the list. My motion was to consider the movement of that fund from 2.5 to include a million dollars of the economic development. I apologize. A million of that into the Economic Development Fund. So my question to Council is do you want to do that to move an item up the list? We've not done that yet. The items that you all ranked for the process. Vice Mayor, may I suggest that we're not exactly moving it because the amount of money is still the same. We're just adjusting that first figure that we've considered. But you want to move it up for discussion? Yes. Yes. Okay. Is the Council in agreement to move this up for discussion? I mean, the motion on the floor, then, as I understand it, is to move a million dollars from the economic contingency allocation down to number 39. To the Economic Development Fund. That's correct. So this just has to do with taking a million out of that. Correct. and allocating it to the economic development fund. Gotcha. Thank you. Okay. Councilmember Beard, did you get to finish? I'm sorry I interrupted you. No, I didn't. It's not clear to me whether we're taking the existing $2 million and doing away with that and adding $1 million back. How is this going to happen? Jamie, you look like you're ready to jump, So go ahead and jump. Wow. Thank you. Just to summarize what CAO Hamilton said, she would like to move the economic contingency balance, the extra component of $2.5 million down to $1.5 million, shift that $1 million difference into the economic development fund or the jobs fund. For a $3 million total? No, no. $1 million total. $1 million. Down from two. Correct. So the 39, item number 39 for $2 million goes away? It goes down to $1 million. There's not enough money. I mean, I understand what it does. It just doesn't seem to work that way very well. Well, if I understand right now the amount of money that Council has left to discuss is $328,740. So I think what Council Member Clark is doing is his motion would take $1 million from number one, correct, and move it down to $39. Is that correct, Council Member Clark? That's correct, but we'd have to consider $39 as part of the motion rather than waiting until we get to $39. Is that clear? So you don't want to just vote on taking a million out. You want to vote on the full package? That's correct. Okay. Council Member Lane. I would like to speak not now to this, but when the motion is made, so I'll withdraw right now. Well, the motion is made. Right, but, I mean, the motion is made to move it up. The motion, and that's, I apologize if I confuse things. I've been trying to stick to the council's process. So Council Member Clark moved to remove a million dollars from number one. The council already approved $2.5 million. And to put it into number 39, the Economic Development Fund, and to discuss all of that at the same time. So you're okay to talk. That's okay. I'll speak to that point. Generally, I'm in favor of having money available for economic development for incentive. The concern that I have is that the only other time that we've had this come up is that the money was promised to the entity that was going to get some money before it was run through the council for approval. So it put the council in the position that if we didn't approve it, it created a problem for the mayor's office. So I feel this is the only concern I have is the mechanism of how we're going to do it, not so much making the money available. So I just wanted to get that out on the table. Thank you. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I thank Council Member Clark for making this motion. I believe it makes a good deal of sense. As I understand it, as it's been explained by the administration, there really is a window of opportunity here. There's a certain category of development that right now no city in the country is providing additional incentives for. That window will probably close in a year or two. People may get wind of the fact that we've been discussing this. They may think it's a good idea. So I think we need to move on it quickly, and I would agree that having these funds to be used flexibly once they've been proposed and approved by Council would be a good thing for the city, a good thing for jobs. So I urge Council to support this. Thank you. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I support the motion, and I support the recommendation that's been brought forth by CAO Hamilton. I think it's a great compromise on behalf of the administration to bring this forward. It allows us as a council to remain dutiful to our position to save, but it gives us the flexibility to be aggressive and proactive in job creation. As I understand, what I'll be voting for is a reduction of $1 million in the economic contingency from 2.5 down to 1.5. And basically, on line 39, we're going to reduce that from $2 million down to $1 million. Net zero. $2.5 is the investment. I'll support the motion, Vice Mayor. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I believe initially, correct me if I'm wrong, it was the administration who came up with the $2.5 million for the Economic Contingency Fund. Is that right? Yes. Okay, so from what I understand now, that's what everyone else has said. That's going to be divided, $1.5 million and $1 million. Chris, do you have a slide that I kind of put together on the wrong slide? You know, in today's paper, they said that Durham and Cleveland, Ohio, were cities that were cited using taxpayer dollars to keep and attract businesses. And Cleveland is, in fact, I think they're spending around $100 million a year for its economic development fund. What was absent from today's article was the comparison of unemployment rates. That information would help to demonstrate the rate of return for those cities, the return on investment. And you'll see that those two cities that receive that amount of money have higher unemployment rates than we do currently. I'm not sure that I'm real comfortable either with the clawback provision. I know when businesses come to town and you give them seed money and if they go bankrupt, how are we going to attempt to get our money back? And we can give them a penalty, but if they go bankrupt, how to retrieve that penalty? And I guess I would want those questions answered before I was to vote on this. Mr. Emmons. Sure. Sure. Bankruptcy is an issue that is going to be tough to recoup a lot of the money. But if you have a capital investment in equipment or facility that you can actually, you perhaps may have a second option on that piece of property, you can recoup some of those investments. In terms of the specifics of the policy, we have time to work on it, hash this out. What we're talking about today is just reserving this million dollars so that we can come back to the council with a solid proposal and get into the details. When will you be able to do that for us? If the money is reserved, we're going to work quickly. So this is what you consider the clawback provision that you were talking about? It would be a legally sound way to protect the city's investment. Right. But clawbacks could be either through a repayment of incentives or a restriction of us actually giving the incentives once the jobs are created. Do we have any kind of guideline on these restrictions at all? Have you had anything started in that direction yet? We do, and I'd be happy to share that with you. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. Thank you. And as I look at those numbers, certainly there could be many factors other than this jobs and economic development incentives, other than that they're slightly higher than Lexington, Kentucky, their unemployment rates. but their unemployment rates are still lower than the U.S. unemployment rates that just came out. So I support this. I think it's a good thing. I think it's something that we need to look at, and it is an investment, and we have had some real successes, and we're very fortunate here in Lexington. So thank you. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just want to, Jamie, the information we received, I think, a couple weeks ago, is that the rough draft of an ordinance that we would obviously between now and approve? And this money is not approved today. Obviously, it would be approved through a budget amendment sometime in November after we get to CAFR. But with that rough draft, are you ready to – is that the rough draft you're going to present to us to start debating? Is that – That's a working document, and actually it's been adjusted since then. That's what I'm going to ask. Yeah, and we don't have it in an ordinance format yet, but we're going to get there quickly if we have the reserve. Okay, so you can get it to us in the next week or so to start debating? Yeah, definitely. Okay, thank you. Councilmember Akers. I had a question about this slide on the screen. Oh, Chris, just as soon as I mention it. Council Member Rosati, do you know what these unemployment rates were, say, a year ago, two years ago, three years ago, for the cities that are utilizing the tax credits? No, I don't. I mean, I just would caution that perhaps they were 10 percent and now they're down to 7 or I don't know. I think we should just be careful in the data analysis that we use. I don't know. Before, yes. because I know ours was higher, and so I think everybody is improving. But anyway, thank you. You're welcome. Are there other questions? I'd like to go ahead and ask one. It sounds like from what Council Member Stenet asked about getting the guidelines and everything to us for discussion and getting this moved forward, would it be January before it could be actually used? What's your timeline on that? I would say as soon as possible. Our original timeline did indicate January would be an estimated starting date. Okay. And, Mayor, I know you're here. Are you intending to build into next year's budget an economic development contingency, the fiscal year 15? Well, we don't have much time to decide that, do we? Well, what I'm getting at is if I'm just wondering, it's going to take the council a little bit of time to work through this, approve things, then each of these would have to come to us for approval. So it seems like time-wise it would be January at the earliest before we could do all this. And I'm wondering if you intend maybe to think about building it into next year's budget, if the amount of money might be more logically fixed at $500,000 rather than a million so that we can spend it in six months. I mean, I know we don't know for sure all of this, but I'm just trying to look ahead and see. We've done this through our whole fund balance list to see what actually can we spend and work through in a timely manner. Do you see what I'm saying? Right. Well, we originally proposed $2 million because we didn't know exactly what the demand would be for these dollars. We just knew that we needed a pool of money to be able to be nimble and close deals quickly. And so with the caps on the grants and loans that we included in the draft, you're looking at perhaps between five and ten deal closings, and that would exhaust a million dollars. So could you do that in six months? Not sure. But it would be nice to be able to do that if we had those opportunities. So I would be comfortable leaving the million there, seeing how it goes in the first part of the year, and then deciding on how much to include in the next year's budget. Mayor. May I make a quick amendment? I think, actually, Council Member Kay mentioned this, and, Vice Mayor, it relates to your question. It's a good question. I've had the same question myself. What is the capacity for throughput? Think of it in terms of how much you all are familiar with that when you engage projects, you authorize projects, and then you wonder, when are we going to get it done? But another dimension of this is what Council Member Kaye suggested, which is that we're actually putting up a flag that says we are in this business. We are going to be addressing this opportunity. And so that number, even though we're going to be very careful in the vetting process, the million-dollar number is one that will gain attention, remembering now that you're not spending it. You're just, in a sense, declaring that we are willing to make investments. when we see bona fide opportunities and we have the resources available at this level, which is unique. And that number, whether it's in the rainy day fund or whether it's in this fund, is still not being spent, no checks written. But I think in terms of what I'm trying to say here is that it has relevance with that very low seven figures because it says to the economic development community, that world, that Lexington is very deliberate and intentional about this, making this investment decision. over time, you know, and it's really hard. I would caution about predicting, having been in the transaction world like this, I would caution about predicting the timing of when we do. And you're right, Vice Mayor, about that comment about vetting it, you know, getting the protocols established and so forth. But I do think that that million-dollar number is a really effective one from that point of view. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess I'm kind of torn. When I ranked these, I ranked the Economic Contingency Fund as the number one that I felt we should reach our goals. and have those dollars set aside to protect our city. And then number two was the Economic Development Fund, because I do think that, as Council Member Stenet said, jobs bring city wealth, and it increases the quality of life. There are so many things that jobs do for a community. So, but I felt when I look at the list, I'm like, not everyone, maybe they've changed their mind since then, but not everyone felt that way. So I've been very diligent about going along with the list and that the Economic Development Fund was number 39th. So most of the council members didn't see it as being as important. But without having something in place, without having specifics of how this money would be allocated in some sort of ordinance governing it, I know I missed the workshop too, which I heard was very good. I'm reluctant to put the money there, but yet I do see the importance. So I would be okay with, I think, the vice mayor recommendation of $500,000 to start. We also have a contribution to Commerce Lexington, where we contribute a little more than that amount, which would put us over a million dollars in economic development. And I definitely think that we need to get this in our budget for next year. So those are my thoughts, and I appreciate it. Thank you. Council Member Clark. I want to follow up with that. I'm Councilman Hinton. You all may remember that I sent you an email that I thought about $3 million was the better figure. I also think $1 million is too little. So this is probably one of the most important decisions we can make as a council in this session, in this period of time. And I just think it's so important that we provide this amount, at least a million dollars, to do these kinds of things, because it's an opportunity that we may never have again because we really do need to get this started. I don't think a half a million dollars is enough, even close to enough. And so I would really ask you to support this. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. As Council Member Stennett pointed out earlier, the majority of our budget does come from jobs. And so if we want to increase our city's budget and be able to fund other projects that the city is in need of, and capital projects, for instance, that we've been going through and considering for, it seems like forever now, then we need to increase revenues. And so I do, of course, support this as well and agree with Councilmember Clark that it should be more and that we should consider that in future budgets, Mayor. And then also I just wanted to mention recently, Lexington has gained a lot of notoriety of late. We were ranked number 27th city in America in livability on our size, of course, in comparison. We were also ranked number five best cities for homebuyers. And just yesterday we were ranked in the top five cities among the top five best places to retire. So I think that we are, as a city, we are moving forward and gaining a lot of ground, and a lot of recognition is being given to our city in what we're doing and our efforts, and so I think that we need to continue that, and this Economic Development Fund will be a step in the right direction. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to go ahead and give the chair to Mr. Ellinger. Vice Mayor. Okay, thank you very much. I think this is all really good discussion, and I wanted to speak to two things and then make a motion to amend this. I also rated the Economic Contingency Fund number one, as did seven council members. And the Economic Contingency Fund, I think, is really important to our government, to our city, in the event of a real emergency. And so, you know, I started when we thought we would put $4 million in it, and we're down to $2.5 million. And so I also understand the potential value of the Economic Development Fund, that contingency. For us, it's unproven. And I also think that we will be hard-pressed to get all the legislation in order and the companies in front of us and approved by January. So given that we have a six-month window, and I would hope, Mayor, that you would put some more money in next year's budget, once we see how this is operating, I would move to amend the motion on the floor to move $500,000 to give us a basic start. I realize it may not be enough, but we don't have a clue how much we'll need, how much we'll use, or what it will do for us. And so as a compromise, I'd like to move to amend to change that to $500,000. We have a motion and a second. Council Member Soddy, now a discussion. Anyone want to speak on the amendment? Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Council Member Ellinger. I'm not sure which end to approach this from, but it seems to me that there are two maybe important points to be made. One, the mayor put before us when he spoke, which was that for the impression, the attractiveness, the visibility, a million dollars sounds like a lot more than half a million dollars, even though it's only twice as much. But being able to say to the economic development community, we've got a significant amount of money, is really important. And then the second part is that the worst thing, as far as I'm concerned, that could happen is that we allocate a million bucks and we don't spend it. And then it's available for economic contingency or whatever. I don't see a problem with that. So I would be opposed to reducing this amount. Two million to a million is already a big reduction. A million to a half, I think, is even kind of more harmful to the overall intent of this initiative. So I would hope that people would not be in favor of the amendment and we would return to the original motion. Thank you. Anybody else on the House Member Lawless? Vice Mayor, did you? I have a question, but I think they were also on to speak to the amendment. Council Member Lawless, then Lane. Anybody else? I think reducing it from $2 million to $1 million is unfortunate, and I think reducing it to $500,000, it's like saying, okay, I've got plans for a $1 million house, but I don't have enough money, so I'm going to use plywood to build it instead of brick. And that's not going to be very helpful or impressive. If we're going to do it, let's at least do it in a way that it matters, that it will make a difference. and I don't see $500,000 making a difference. We can assess whether or not it makes a difference at the end of the day, and there will be, I'm sure, in the proposal brought forward, some ways to measure its success, and we'll know moving forward. But I hear in my district, which is by far the district that generates the most net profit and payroll taxes for the city, many people who are coming out of the U.K. or young entrepreneurs, we've got some really fantastic young entrepreneurs in our community. and maybe they need just a little bit to get that extra money from a small business loan or whatever, and we're saying, hey, come to Lexington, stay in Lexington. These are high-paying jobs. They're good jobs. And so if we're going to do it, let's do it. A million is a big compromise from two million. But I think we need to be careful that we do it right. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Then Beard, then the Vice Mayor. Okay. You know, as I said, I like the idea of having an incentive, but I think we need to have a mechanism to do it in the appropriate way. I just made a couple of notes here, like what types of businesses would be able to get cash. You know, would it be a retail business, commercial, wholesale, professional, white-collar operation? And, you know, would that be an outright gift to that company, or would it be a loan with repayment obligations? And there are a lot of questions here that would have to be addressed. Also, as I said, I feel that if we did this, that before the mayor made an offer to give money to somebody, that it should be brought before a closed session of council for discussion. So not necessarily that we would be voting on it, but at least he could get a consensus of opinion from the council members before that's done. And the other, just to add on to that, is I feel that another thing that would be very helpful to creating new jobs here, we have a wonderful reputation for a great economy, great environment, great educational system, quality of life, low crime rate, and we're ranked nationally by a lot of organizations. I think that it might be appropriate also to spend a portion of that money to actually advertise our city to the business community around the United States and maybe even to foreign countries. And that wouldn't affect the Lane Report because we just cover the state. But I do think that marketing it to the outside of the state would be a real big plus. So I'm just throwing a few ideas out with regard to the amount. I think $500,000 would be fine because by the end of May we'll be budgeting for next year. And it would be unlikely that somebody would rush in and we'd use $500,000 in one fell swoop. So this should be adequate money. and then we could add more money to it, make it a continuing program to build up that fund. Thank you. Councilman Beards. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. There needs to be a structure. There's been a structure that has been put into place. whether everybody at the horseshoe has had an opportunity to look at that structure. All the concerns that Council Member Lane just made are addressed in that structure. If we're successful and we get any kind of positive from the economic world out there, We need the $2 million. We can't just jump out there and say we've got $1 million and then we're through. We're going to have to go ahead and go forward on a reasonable basis, obviously, and for the right reasons behind it. The million dollars, the word is out on the street. The word's out in the newspaper this morning. for that matter, and people that look at that see that we're backing down a little bit. Now, that doesn't mean we have to spend $2 million just because we got $2 million, but I would rather go ahead and have that $2 million hanging out there as a sign of our intent to really start going after things as opposed to piecemealing it and kind of force-feeding to the world out there what we're doing. We're really in business to get something done. And so, you know, my take is $500,000 is too little. A million dollars is too little. You all thought $2 million was a number, and you convinced me. So that's where I stand right now. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I would argue that $500,000, half a million dollars, is a great start for a six-month program that we've never had in place. My specific difficulty with not amending this motion is taking a million dollars more out of our allocation to the Economic Contingency Fund. I think first we have an obligation to be sure our emergency fund is fully funded. And that's my real problem with this, is that I don't want to see us take out a million dollars from our economic contingency fund, from our rainy day emergency fund, basically. And I think that we can make a difference with half a million dollars. I mean, we really don't know. We might be able to spend $3 million. We might be able to spend $250,000 the first six months. But $500,000 would give us a good solid start so that we know how this is going to work, and it wouldn't strip the whole million out of our economic contingency fund. So I would urge you to approve the amendment. Thank you. I see no more discussion. This is a little out of order, but I'll let the... Well, it'll be quick. If you be brief there, Mary, we'll give you a... Yes, of course we'll try to be. Two things. One thing, you know, the dialogue and the conversation about this illustrates the significance that each of you place in job creation and in engaging the vitality of our community. A couple of things. All right. So, one, if we look back at the application of the Economic Contingency Fund, the Rainy Day Fund, and Bill has some numbers to illustrate where that has gone in the last three years, the movement up, okay? But I think it's worthwhile to reflect on the period that we went through, the economy, the recession that we just went through. The worst in 75 years, and we did not put the key into that lockbox. We did not use it in the worst economy in 75 years. Okay. So then think about that. Then think about, probably like some of you all, I grew up with a grandmother who would read Bible stories to me routinely. Matthew 25, verse 14. The man with the talents. I didn't realize when my grandmother was reading me that story about the talents, I thought that the talent was skills. and the man hid the talents under the rock. Remember, two others applied their talents. I just found out in the last year or so that a talent in biblical times was income and it was the equivalent of a year's income. So if we were to translate into that today, the talent would be worth about $300,000 to $400,000. So that talent was hidden under the rock, and nothing happened with that talent then, if you all remember that story, that parable. So this conversation about how we apply the savings is important. It's really important. And thank you for being careful about it. I think it's just really worthwhile to also recognize and remember that we're trying to use this savings here. a reasonably modest amount with a million dollars in a way that will be still fully vetted with the council to apply it, not spend it casually or in a cavalier way, but to apply it in a thoughtful way, in a way that does encourage the utilization of the talent. of building opportunities for people in our city and not hiding it under the rock, which is metaphorically, you know, the more we do that with the Rainy Day Fund, the more we could be exposed to that weakness. Thank you. Mayor, I have the understandable talent to tell you that your time is up. Council Member Lane. Yeah, just in response to the mayor's comment, I just want to point out that our general fund budget has been structurally imbalanced for the last five years, where we're spending more money than we're receiving in tax revenues. And I think the rainy day fund is really critical that we have that adequate amount in our fund to cover that. Also, our general obligation bonding over the last decade has gone up from about $100 million to $300 million. So we are running in the red, and we have a lot more debt. And I think it's critical. I'm hoping the economy is going to get great. Jobs will be everywhere. People will be moving here. It will be a great expansion. But you never really know for sure until the fat lady sings, and she hasn't showed up yet. But it does look encouraging. But I think we still need to be careful and fiscally responsible as far as having some money in the rainy day fund. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Akers. I'm going to have to call the question, please. Well, you were last, so I don't think you really need that. If you don't have anything, I think what I see nobody else, so do you still want to make that motion? I will go ahead and take a vote. All those in favor of the amendment to reduce it from $1 million to $500,000, say aye and vote, and all those opposed say nay. Is that... Is that... Okay, that makes... We need one more person, but it looks like it will fail. We have one absent. That's 12, 13. We need two more people. Lane and Meyer. Lane and Meyer is dead. So this is the motion. This is the motion to amend to $500,000. That fails. And now we are back to the original motion, and I'll pass the gavel back to the vice mayor. Vice mayor. Thank you, Mr. Ellinger. So the motion on the floor is to remove a million dollars from the economic contingency fund allocation and place it in the Economic Development Fund. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Oh, can you put us back to the... Thank you. Oh, I see none. Can you... Okay, if you wish to speak, will you log in, please? Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I appreciate the mayor's comments. I just want to bring up one point as a student of the Bible also. The gentleman was upset with the guy for putting the money, the talent, under the rock. But the rest of the story was he said if you knew I was a shrewd man, you would have at least put the money in the bank so we could draw interest, which is what we would be doing if we put it in the Economic Contingency Fund. But that being said, I think I'm going to support putting a million dollars in there because we need to do everything we can to bring as many jobs and high-paying jobs to this community as we can. And so I look forward to working with the mayor as we hash this thing out and figure out how we're going to do that and make it happen. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Okay, I guess I would ask Jamie if you could give us a date certain when you can have, if this passes, when you could have the ordinance to us to set the rules. Yeah, fall break next week, is that correct? Pardon me? Fall break next week, is that correct? There's no meeting on Tuesday. They have a meeting the 7th. A meeting with a work session. Oh, I don't know. We have no meeting on Tuesday. How about we have it delivered to you by the next work session, which is the 5th? November 5th, work session. So if this passed, you could have that ordinance prepared that would have all the rules and regulations and what we would follow. Now he has to get that Thursday the 31st. That's if we present on the 5th. We'll deliver the draft to you. We won't present on the 5th. We'll just deliver the draft to you so that we can get some feedback and then have a presentation perhaps the following week. Is that okay? Okay. Well, I'm going to go ahead, and I've spoken many times about the Economic Contingency Fund, And I'm hopeful that as we have fund balances, we will put more into it. This isn't just for an economic downturn. It's for a tornado. It's for a real emergency where we would be down. But I think that I will go ahead and support this and hope that you all will work really hard to get it spent by July the 1st, Mayor, so that we know about how it will work. And if it doesn't get spent, will it be in a dedicated fund or not? Can we take it back into the fund balance? That would be up to Council. If you want it to be an assignment in fund balance, it's not used. It would go back into fund balance. And how do we? If you wanted to make it a project, then it would be a project like a capital or something like that. Then it would stay there. So I think it's up to council as to how they allocate and put the requirements on it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. One more speaker, Council Member Stenet. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I just want to clarify what you said. You were speaking in accounting language. Sorry. But I think what we've done with the health care reserve, with the legal reserve, these are reserve funds that we expect to roll over to each budget year if we don't spend them. I would imagine that's the same interpretation with this type of fund. It would roll over and we'd reallocate after each year with the intention that it would go back into some type of reserve. It's not intended to be spent every dime right now, but it's intended that it would roll over if we have excess. Like the health care, same way as it did last year. I don't disagree with your intent. So if that's Council's intent, then Council can reallocate it each year. It has the power to do that or not. Okay. But when we bring the ordinance from Mr. Emmons, I assume you all intend it to be like the health care reserve, the legal reserve. That's exactly our preference. Yes. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak? Councilmember Lane. I gave you a promotion there. I was just going to suggest that this might be good when the ordinance is ready, that it goes into one of our committees so we could go into it in more detail. Because I see this being pretty detailed information. How much do you give? What is the basis for giving? Is it repayable or not repayable? I mean, there's a whole lot of parameters that are getting in there. And I think maybe the ordinance will be detailed enough that we don't need to address that that much. But I do feel that there will be a lot of nuances on that we'd have to address. And also, we're already giving some incentives with a 1% reduction in our payroll tax. And will we give this in addition to that or in lieu of that? Or, you know, do we have guidelines on that, too? Does any other council member wish to speak? Did you? I'd just respond in saying we'll do whatever we have to to make this happen in a quick way. We'll do another workshop. We'll have another council presentation, whatever it takes. All right. I see no other speakers logged in, so we'll go ahead and take the vote on the motion to allocate $1 million from the previously allocated Economic Contingency Fund to go to No. 39, the Economic Development Fund. So that would make number 39 a $1 million expenditure. All those in favor say aye. Aye. And please log in your votes. All those opposed, same. That motion passes 11 to 3. So now, Jonathan and Connie, our numbers basically stayed the same, except that our economic contingency fund is now at $1.5 million, and the economic development fund is at $1 million. And so we are looking at number 31, and that is Councilmember Akers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. My proposal is to repair the basketball court at Highlands Park. They have been asking for this for several years, to my understanding, and it just needs to be resurfaced. So I will make a motion to approve those funds. I have a motion and a second by Councilmember Akers, second by Councilmember Kay. to allocate $20,000 to the Highlands Park Basketball Court. Any questions? Council Member Lawless. Well, I'll just say what I've said before. I mean, the late items, there were several council members and council districts that got nothing for several districts that got very large amounts, including this district, which was almost 400,000 in late items, and we just allocated another 250,000 more. So I think that this needs to be somewhat equitable as far as taking care of all the districts, and it's not that I don't think that's needed. There are so many needed things. Does anyone else wish to speak to the motion? If not, all those in favor say aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passed 14-1. 13-1. We're missing Council Member Ellinger. Number 32. Now, I think that... No, it's going to be. Councilmember Farmer asked Jessica to speak to this. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I spoke with Councilmember Farmer after the discussion earlier today where there was some confusion as to what would be removed, and he no longer wants to advocate for the allocation of these funds on Line 32 or on Line 34. So we can skip past those. So Councilmember Farmer wants to remove 32 and 34. Yes, ma'am. All right. Thank you for bringing that message. So next is item 35, Councilmember Myers, bulletproof vest replacements. I thought we already disposed to that. Or I'll just remove. I won't make a motion on it. That, I think what we... That's moved. Okay. What's your motion? To remove it. Okay. Motion to remove by Council Member Myers and Council Member Stenet seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? So that motion passes 14-1. Number 36 is Idle Hour Ballfields. Council Member Myers. Let me ask a question about this. Someone had said earlier that we'd already passed a motion for $250,000 for these ballfields. I don't remember that. So we, number 29 was the allocation for where we're doing the senior center, senior citizen center, correct? Number 29. So let me, so may I ask the question, have we at some point as a council allocated money specifically for those law fields? A couple of people thought we had earlier. If we have, I'm okay, but if we haven't, I want to make that motion. And the $300,000, which is number 29, was for Idle Hour Park and those ball fields. And we passed that? And we took that off the list because we're going to do a budget amendment out of the bond for that money. I think if I just, when Council Member Farmer talked about removing, I want to make sure I'm not misleading with what he would say, when he talked earlier in his last meeting saying that he was going to be gone, he mentioned those projects that he would like taken off the list, but he emphasized this particular one. He emphasized leaving this one on the list, not taking it off. Yes, sir. Okay, so I'm going to go ahead and make the motion to approve this expenditure for the ball fields. Okay, motion by Council Member Myers, second by Council Member Lawless, to allocate $150,000 to idle our ball fields as their discussion. Council Member Akers. CIO Hamilton. So the funds that you all are going to allocate is $300,000 from the bonds for the senior center? And is that for removing the existing ball fields that are being displaced because of the senior center, correct? Yes. And so these funds, from what I believe I remember, are actually for baseball fields that they were separate. There was baseball fields and football fields involved. That's right. And he would be much more eloquent at expressing this than I, but I want to be fair to him here. what I think he expressed the other day was that there is a large expenditure that we're going to have to do in this park. And I think that part of that expenditure we have taken out of the bond, which was suggested by Council and I think a really good suggestion. We are going to have to do more. and I think this $150 was to go to the contribution of more, sort of to come between the situation of making sure that neighborhood knows we're going in there shortly and tearing it up, that they know that we're coming, and also that the senior citizens don't think we're taking all the bond money to do the park. It's a fine walk. I understand. Thank you very much. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I hope that the council will support this because I was actually going to make an amendment when we voted to use Idle Outer Park for the Senior Citizen Center that we make sure that we put money in to do these ball fields. And I just think it sends the right message for this community who needs some investment besides the Senior Citizen Center and what that brings that we absolutely use this 150 for the football fields. We're talking baseball and football. But there's football fields that we're going to go because of the Senior Citizen Center. Okay, let me just say this. I put this on the list, $150,000 for those football fields, and I hope the council will support that because I want to make sure that this community gets all that it needs. We all know that the community right around there, we can't put too much money into that community, and so I hope we'll support this. Thank you. Can I, with you, clarify? This money is for baseball fields, correct? And the number 29, which will be taken out of the senior citizen bond, is for football fields. Is that correct? We're confused. Softball, baseball fields. Yes. That's the $150,000. The $300,000 is for the relocation of the football field and to get all the other work done to get it to where it's playable within a year. So there's two differences. Okay. Okay. I still support both of them. Thank you for the clarification, though. The $300,000. Thank you for your clarification. Any other questions about number 36? May I ask a question, please? No. Okay. Fine. Softball, baseball fields, number 36. Okay, all those in favor of this 150,000, please say aye, and if you'll log in, your vote. Okay, that passed 14-0. Now, unfortunately, Council Member Clark, number 37 is more money than we have. I want to speak to that, though. Let's ask your Jonathan what the balance here is. No matter what the balance is. Okay, it's 158-7. I want to speak to this because I put it in there because we have a loyalty to fire and police, and we provide vehicles for those folks. But we forget about all the other vehicles that are aging, and we need to keep that in mind. And I'll withdraw that proposal. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Clark. So that number 37 is withdrawn. Number 38, and our running balance is 158,740, what's left. All right. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Vice Mayor. When we were talking about the bulletproof vest and the recruit outfits, and let me say I am a very strong supporter of our police and our fire, But the confiscated assets funds cannot be used for anything that is budgeted, budgeted, which, and so I go back to number 10, the police vehicles for $1.25 million. And I'm looking here at, and thank you, Paul, for getting this for me, and our confiscated funds for the police, the fund balance as of June 30, 2013, unaudited, was $902,784. So there has been a running fund balance for the last two years, or last several years. In 2010, it was actually $1.6 million, over almost $3 million. And so I'm wondering if we're hiding those talents under the rock and spending general funds. Huh? I didn't. Paul brought it to me. And Paul's come to the podium. Paul's up here. So I'm wondering if part of that money could be used, and maybe Commissioner Clay could talk about that again, for the additional police vehicles and add some to the fleet that Council Member Clark. Thank you. Did you want to say something, Paul Schoeniger? If I could clarify, and I don't know if it's going to help or confuse, but there are three confiscated police funds. The first is Fund 1131. That's the federal police confiscated fund. As of June 30th, it has an unaudited fund balance of $571,000. The second police confiscated fund is Fund 1132, the state police confiscated fund, and that had a fund balance of June 30th, $754,000 and change. And the third confiscated fund is the Treasury Police Confiscated Fund, and that had a fund balance of $304,000. Those three funds together have a fund balance as of June 30th, unaudited, of $1,629,000. In addition to those three funds, there's also the Public Safety Fund that had a fund balance of June 30th of $902,000. However, the question about vehicles, I don't believe, and somebody's going to have to correct me, the funds cannot be used to replace something you have already, I believe. But you can use the funds for new vests, but not to replace vehicles. Yes. So you can't replace a vest, but you can't replace a vehicle? You can't replace the vehicle. I don't know. For new vests, you could use the funds for. Well, I would assume we would be getting new vehicles. They're replacement vehicles. There are a lot of nuances with the rules and regulations on asset forfeiture spending. You cannot supplant. If something is budgeted for. That's right. That's different. You cannot remove that and spend asset forfeiture money for those items. That's right. I understand that. On a regular ongoing basis, things that are needed, there are fine lines. And I'm not an expert in that arena. Yeah, I figured that. We would need to get some examples and take a look at that and get some guidance. And unfortunately, at this particular point, a couple of the chiefs are at the International Association of Chiefs Conference in Philadelphia. So possibly we could take another look at that, because if supplanting is using it funds for something that you've budgeted for. In other words, writing a grant or getting funds and replacing a general budget item with those, paying for it with those monies. Right. So I think getting the nuances, since we have had a large fund balance in that for several years, it looks like, and very little was spent, that possibly some of that could be used for other fleet vehicles, and we could have some clarification by next week or by Thursday. Yes, we will attempt to do that. Thank you. Okay. Now, Council Member Ford. And we're actually trying to get to number 38. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to speak to number 38. Number 38 is the $150,000 for the replacement of windows at the Dunbar Community Center. For your references, it starts on page 17 of the packet that I provided for you guys. And simply, first and foremost, as from a policy standpoint of this government, this project is listed on the Capital Improvement Plan by Parks and Recreation. And it's listed under the category of Preservation and Investment. Again, most folks throughout the community recognize this community center as the old Dunbar High School, the original Dunbar that was constructed in 1922. I believe it closed its doors to classes in 1966 through 1968, somewhere in there. The government acquired this building in 1975. along with some other historic facilities in our, hopefully you guys have seen the photos of this that I provided. I will not put those on the overhead. My grandmother probably would not appreciate me putting those above in the condition that they're in. But the windows on the first floor have been replaced. The windows on the second and third floor are very much in need of replacement. We have employees in our Parks and Recreation Division that go to that facility every day on North Upper Street, and their offices are stationed in the second and third floor. Good news is that here recently, and this is my closing comments, is that we were fortunate with stimulus-type funds to invest about $135,000, give or take, in the boiler replacement of that facility. So we've made great improvements to heating and ventilation and cooling. And I would implore us and make a motion to allocate $150,000 for a replacement. So moved. Second. All right. And we had several seconds, one of whom was Council Member Ellinger, I heard, to allocate $150,000 to the Dunbar Community Center window replacement. Council Member Clark. Thank you. I looked at the folio that Councilman Ford presented to us, And I thought this was probably, in my mind, the most important one. So I would really support this. I think it's a very important expenditure that we make in some way. Thank you. Okay. Does anyone else wish to speak to the motion? I see no one. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes 14-0. Now, Connie and Jonathan, do we have $8,740 left? All right. Council Member Stennett. Motion to adjourn. Okay. If I might just say one thing before we adjourn. I hope that, and the mayor has left the room, but I hope that our CAO and the commissioners who are remaining will, as we move into the new budget season for next year, we'll look at the items on this list that were not funded and talk to the council members who put them forward and consider those for items to be put into the next budget so that we have some follow-through and continuity. And that would be great if you could do that. Okay. Thank you all for your patience, council members and others. I have a motion to adjourn. Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you very much.