Welcome, and welcome everyone to a meeting of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council. And the way that we begin these meetings, for those of you who are not here routinely, is we have a roll call, which is provided by our council clerk, Meredith Nelson. Meredith, would you please call the roll? Mr. Beard? Present. Mr. Clark? Here. Mr. Ellinger? Here. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? Here. Ms. Gordon? Here. Ms. Henson? Here. Mr. Kay? Yes. Mr. Lane? Here. Ms. Lawless? Here. Ms. Massadi? Here. Mr. Myers? Here. Ms. Gutchfield? Here. Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. And Ms. Akers? Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Tonight, Pastor Mark Randall with Tate's Creek Presbyterian was scheduled to join us for the invocation. He was not able to attend. And in his place, Council Member, the Reverend William Farmer, has offered to provide the invocation. Thank you, Mayor. We got a history lesson last week or earlier in the week. We will have a moment for that later. I ask all to rise. Bow your head. and close your eyes to shout at every distraction. Dear Heavenly Father, we come to you in prayer this evening. We ask that you lay your hand on our hearts during these times of decision to lead us, to guide us, and for us to remember that our decisions make difference in the lives of those around us. This is the season of thanksgiving upon which our great country is founded. We ask that we remember those less fortunate than ourselves, Take pride in our family and our opportunity to serve. And bless all those that are with us this evening. In your name I pray. Amen. Amen. Thank you, Mr. Farmer. All right. Before we give the formal council meeting begins, we have three presentations tonight. and I'll ask Vice Mayor Gorton to join me at the podium for the first two presentations and then Council Member Massadi to join me for the third presentation. All right. All right. In addition to the vice mayor, we would like to ask to join us at the podium, representatives from the Frontier Nursing Center. All right. Dr. Susan Stone, president of the Frontier Nursing Center and the university, as well as the dean of nursing, Dr. Julie Marfield. Weeks have actually passed since the proclamations were originally introduced, but the nursing profession is such an important part of our community that we shouldn't let these go unrecognized. The vice mayor will now offer a few words before we deliver the proclamations. Now, first, let me say, excuse me, Vice Mayor, let me say this, too. First, the most, the more, the more ancient of the two, midwifery, is likely as old. Now, is this what you were going to say? Is this your part? You go ahead with this part. This is yours, Linda. All right. We're sharing this. Yes, ma'am. The mayor and I are sharing this. But as a registered nurse, I really appreciate being invited to help with these proclamations. So thank you, mayor. So anyway, the more ancient of the two, midwifery, is likely as old as civilization. Women didn't always have hospitals, did they? In the book of Exodus, chapter 1, verse 20, it says, Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied. For women and families in our community, their contribution is just as important now as it has been throughout history, and tonight we honor them. Thank you very much. So this is a commemoration honoring National Midwifery Week. So whereas National Midwifery Week is celebrated October 7th through 13th, 2013, and whereas the American College of Nurse Midwives is the official organization for the nearly 12,000 nurse midwives throughout the United States and the official national sponsor of National Midwifery Week, and whereas National Midwifery Week acknowledges the important role midwives play in women's lives during childbirth and through personalized preventive health care, and whereas the Frontier Nursing University, located in Hyden, Kentucky, is a historic nurse midwifery institution that has been educating nurse midwives midwives and contributing to the welfare of mothers and children since 1939, now therefore Jim Gray, Mayor of Lexington, on behalf of all Fayette Countians, proclaims October 7th through the 13th, 2013 as Nurse Midwifery Week. And it's signed by the Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. of practice. So I will now read the, this is the nurse practitioner week. This one is even more appropriate for you, Vice Mayor. Why don't you leave this? All right. Okay. All right. Thank you. It simply says in a little more succinct way with not quite as many whereases, I, Jim Gray, Mayor of Lexington, in celebration of the 3,000 nurse practitioners in Kentucky and the important work they do to improve the health of our citizens to hereby proclaim November 10 through 16, 2013 as Nurse Practitioners Week. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Julie. Thank you, Mary. Thank you all. Would you like to say something real quickly? Sure. All right. That's not your luck. Well, Frontier Nursing University wants to thank the City Council and the City of Lexington for the support of our work as both nurse midwives and nurse practitioners. One of the things I'm not sure you know is that the First Family Nurse Practitioner Program was started here in Kentucky in 1970, and we had the very first nurse midwifery service in the United States started here in 1925. So we are part of our heritage, but we're also proud of the work that we're doing both here in Lexington and across this fine state, and we want to thank you so much for your support. Did you want to say something, Julie? Yeah. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Next, I want to ask Council Member Jennifer Massadi to please join me at the podium. We will be honoring Eliza Waller. All right, Jennifer. So Eliza is a remarkable young woman who has recently been honored with the Outstanding Youth in Philanthropy Award from the Bluegrass Chapter of the Association of Fundraising Professionals. Council Member Massadi will now tell us more about Eliza. Jennifer. Thank you, Mayor. A week ago last Wednesday, on behalf of the mayor's office, I was able to go to the philanthropy luncheon, and I heard a lot of wonderful stories. and then I heard Eliza's story, and I thought, what a wonderful story I would like her to share with you about something that she's done through Lexington Catholic. So, Eliza, if you'd like to do that, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Well, it's an honor and a privilege to be with you this evening, and I thank you for inviting me. I'm humbled to receive the Henry Clay Ambassador Award, and I'm grateful for your recognition. And as you heard, my name is Eliza Waller, and I'm a junior Lexington Catholic. And last year, as a sophomore, I started the Lexington Catholic Service Club. And currently we are the largest club with over 500 students out of a student body of 800, and we're the most active club at our school. In our first year, Club 320 members recorded over 11,000 service hours while assisting over 60 charitable organizations. The service club seeks to reach those in need by connecting service club members to service opportunities in our school, our community, and the wider world. Internally, as a club, we plan, organize, provide, and execute specific community services from within our own resources. The service club has really shifted the culture of service in a positive direction. Now high school students view community service as something they want to do. They want to make a difference in the lives of others. So very briefly, some of the highlights from our first year include, in January we organized a school-wide mini dance marathon, which raised over $34,000, an effort that helped the U.K. Dance Blue Marathon reach their $1 million goal, with the proceeds benefiting the U.K. Pediatric Oncology Clinic. And last spring, service club members collected close to 20,000 pounds of canned foods for the God's Pantry food drive. And during that same month, the service club donated over 500 hand-painted bowls to the Empty Bowls Hunger Awareness event, which raised over $4,000 for God's Pantry and the Catholic Action Center. The club recently initiated a weekly after-school mentoring program, the Knights Cafe, for elementary students in need of tutoring, social, and nutritional support. Also, the service club members have assembled over 1,000 weekend assistant bags and provided over 1,000 meals for the Men's Hope Center. And many of you may know of our Arlington Elementary here in Lexington. And last year, the service club sponsored a project that sent the Arlington third graders on an overnight field trip to the Louisville Zoo. And that experience had such a positive impact on service club members that this year we are working with Arlington students, again, through their after-school mentoring program. And we have also packed 1,000 weekend food assistant bags for children at Cardinal Valley. One of the things I have realized as high school students, we may not be able to change the world, but together we can make a world of difference. Thank you again. Don't go away. All right, Eliza, what this plaque represents is called the Henry Clay Ambassador Recognition and Award. And it says, presented to Eliza Waller, I, Jim Gray, may or bless him, do hereby name Eliza Waller, founder of the Lexington Catholic Social Club and winner of the Outstanding Youth in Philanthropy Award, a 2013 Henry Clay Ambassador in recognition of her generous, caring spirit. Thank you so much. You bet. Thank you. We're going to get another picture. If we can get Dottie and Rob, we're going to come up here and bring all the council members together, and then we want to bring the Frontier Nursing folks. We also have some proud parents, too, Mayor. Oh, yes. Right here, Mr. and Mrs. Waller. You're a proud parent. I put you right here in front and side. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all for being here. All right. Closed session. All right. I'm going to ask the Vice Mayor. The Vice Mayor has a motion to enter closed session to discuss a legal matter. And for those who are here in the chambers, you may remain. Are we going to do it in here? Okay. We're going to need to stay tonight in the chambers for this closed session. so we'll need to ask those who are present to please exit the council chambers until our closed session is over. I move that we go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.810.1C for the purpose of discussing pending litigation. Motion by Vice Mayor Gordon, second by Council Member Massadi to enter closed session. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. Unless there is objection, we will enter closed session. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. concession. All right. And welcome everyone back. Next on our agenda is an approval. I'll ask for approval for minutes of previous meetings. Is there an approval? Motion by Vice Mayor Gordon, seconded by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion on the motion? Discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. We'll move on to ordinances for a second reading, and that'll be done by our council clerk, Meredith Nelson. And, Meredith, I think, Council Member Clark has, I don't know, but that's in, I'm sorry, he's on first reading of ordinances. You've got to. All set? Where is it? I think it's number 16 of the first reading. Okay. All right. Meredith, go ahead. Thanks. Thanks. An ordinance amending Section 2152 of the Code of Ordinances abolishing one position of public service worker, Grade 106N, in the Division of Parks and Recreation, appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 27, effective upon passage of council. Number two, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures and appropriating and reappropriating funds, Schedule No. 25. No. 3, an ordinance amending subsections 18C, 13, 1, and 3 of the Code of Ordinances of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government pertaining to the Emergency Medical Advisory Board to provide for 20 members and to add two members of the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, one paramedic member of the Division of Fire and Emergency Services who has successfully graduated from the Paramedic Training and Education Program, one member of the faculty of the paramedic program, and one student member of the paramedic program, all effective upon date of passage. And number four, an ordinance amending Section 1614C of the Code of Ordinances related to special collections to clarify calls made for requested special pickups. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Is there a motion to approve? Move approval. Motion by Vice Mayor Gordon, second by Council Member Akers. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right, hearing done. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Clark? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Aye. Mr. Ford? Yes. Ms. Gorton? Aye. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Kay? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Ms. Massadi? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Ms. Scutchfield? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Yes. Ms. Mayne. And Ms. Akers? Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The vote reflects passage of the motion. Allows us to move on to ordinances for our first reading. When you're ready, Madam Clerk, please give us a reading. And we do have speakers on number seven, I believe. So at number seven, whoever wishes to speak, those who wish to speak at number seven. And, Barry, if you'll come on up, that'd be great. Be prepared then to speak before Ordinance No. 7. No, I'm sorry, Barry. At the time of the reading of the ordinance, so just give us about, we'll have two readings, and then I'll recognize you. All right. Thanks. Ordinance No. 5 and Ordinance Amending Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance to Create a Flex Space Project in the Wholesale and Warehouse Business B4 and Light Industrial I-1 Zones. Urban County Planning Commission. Number six, an ordinance amending ordinance number 148-2012 pertaining to the 21C development area to replace the Lexington Downtown Development Authority, Inc. as the designated agency for oversight, administration, and implementation of the development area with the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government's Department of Finance and to designate the Commissioner of Finance as the authorized agent in all relevant sections of the ordinance and any related agreements or documents and authorizing the Mayor and or the Commissioner of Finance to execute on behalf of the Urban County Government and the Department of Finance any agreements or documents necessary to reflect these amendments. All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Mr. McNeese, Barry, welcome to the podium now. You wish to speak on item number seven, ordinance number seven. My name is Barry McNeese. I'm with Lexington Distillery District, 1170 Manchester Street. We also hear from the distillery district are Chris Kelly, Lois Wright, Robert Downing, Tony Davis, and Dr. Pete Wright, who have agreed to yield their time to me. I promise you I will do my best to not use very much of that. We are here to speak about the ordinance that relates to the distillery district. As a bit of background, in 2008, we privately commissioned over $70,000 in feasibility, economic development, or economic impact pricing studies related to the revitalization of the blighted Manchester Street corridor. That same year, planning and zoning called out a portion of that project, nine acres, on their underutilized property survey, saying, with this information, strategies addressing the reuse and productivity of these properties can be further developed. These strategies will include improved housing stock and affordable housing, commercial and workforce redevelopment, and expansion of infrastructure. So with broad community support and support of this body, the distillery district was advanced and approved as the state of Kentucky's very first mixed-use redevelopment of a blighted area TIF. I believe it was recognized that infrastructure crumbles in neglected areas, and as that happens, Lexington is forced to eventually foot the bill. and the opportunity of TIF allows taxes that are generated here to return to Frankfurt to help fund or offset those costs. The recent request to withdraw the TIF for the distillery district and the ordinance on the docket tonight for first reading effectively unwind this area's greatest and best chance at infrastructure development with state support and reimbursement. You've been told that the development area will stay in place as if a set of survey calls and a local participation agreement can begin to offset the loss of millions in future state reimbursement. Millions that are the product of new incremental tax revenues that, even now, are being generated in excess of the original TIF baseline. Money that is being generated by entrepreneurs that have brought more than 100 new jobs, as you'll see in the packet, 100 new jobs to Manchester Street, some part-time, but all jobs that are wholly new to a community with a greater than 50 percent poverty rate. There are a couple of recent miscommunications to this body that I think bear correcting. First, neither myself nor the many involved in the distillery district supported the withdrawal of the LDD-TIF. such action does not make economic sense either for the project stakeholders or for a city that stands to lose out on over a million dollars invested to date in area studies. A million dollars that was eligible and could still be eligible for state reimbursement. We ask that an appeal be made, that at least an effort be made to the state to declare October 29, 2013 as the activation date for the distillery district tip. Second, it is not the case, as was reported to you at last week's work session, that investing less than $20 million in this area prevents activation of the LDD TIF. As you'll see in the KEDFA table of statewide TIF projects, combined city and private development in this area need only reach this minimum capital investment by the end of 2016. As Jeff Fugate reported to you, we are over halfway there and feel strongly that this is not the time to jump ship. It has been suggested that the LDG TIF was not activated because we failed to ask the city to do so. It's worth noting that the TIF agreement that stands to return millions from Frankfurt to our city over 20 years is between LFUCG and KEDFA. While the City may consult with those who are developing our TIF areas, LFUCG is solely in the driver's seat. This was true in 2011 when the LDD TIF was granted its one-allowed two-year extension. This was true when LFUCG requested and was denied another extension in May, contrary to state statute. This was true at the end of last month when I was asked not if LDD wanted the TIF to be activated, but whether we preferred to have it withdrawn by the city or dissolved by the state. As you'll see in the packet, there are other immediate pressing concerns that are related to advancing the distillery district development. We feel that there are significant infill and redevelopment needs. To date, there's not really any assistance in a meaningful way in the infill and redevelopment zone to attract developers to what is arguably the hardest place to develop property. It's much easier to build in a greenfield than it is dealing with old and antiquated infrastructure. The essence of why we wanted to speak tonight was, one, to make clear that we feel that the decision to repeal the ordinance that began this TIF at the very least deserves a deeper dive. I think that there are informational things that need to be understood better. it's not clear what downside there is given the fact that there is significant upside and that at the very least if lfucg did not spend another dollar in the distillery district that it stands to lose the potential reimbursement of a million dollars given the fact that our development plan has not changed so significantly that there are not items that are still planned, such as a hotel adjacent to the site where the coming Rupp Arena and Civic Center and Town Branch Common projects will be coming. I think it's easy to visualize that over the course of the next 20 years that more than a million dollars in new tax increment is going to be generated in that area. So I stand before you asking for this body's willingness to at least look further at the implications and the downsides of withdrawing the TIF, and more importantly, to the upsides both to the city and this project in continuing to support it. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Barry. And now the clerk may continue. Ordinance number seven? Wait a minute, wait a minute. Vice mayor's asked about questions? Sure. Yeah. I'm not sure it's for you, Barry. Thank you. I guess it might be for Commissioner Paulson, but it is about something you said, which was what is the downside to, I forget how you said it, What's the downside to not? Activating the TIF? Yes. What is the downside when the deadline isn't? Well, one, there's a couple downsides. One is that overall time period you have to recover the increment. Until you reach that initial money that has to get in, you cannot recover that increment. So simply activating without any, and again, I think what we need to talk about is there's not a real plan moving forward. There's not a developer's agreement. There is not, while there has been talk about things to do, we have not established a developer's agreement. We have not established a plan for the larger infrastructure projects that need to go in. To move forward without those things set, discussed, established is, I think, not a wise decision. Is that up to us? To initiate those things? Well, and that's a good question. You know, those are things that we have developers' agreements with all the current TIFs, and we are in the process of working on developers' agreements with those TIFs that are going to be activated, such as the summit. We have a meeting in the near future to create that developers' agreement. We have one with Red Mile. We have one with CenterPoint. These things lay out what is expected of us and expected of the developer. At this point, without a developers' agreement, it could be something that we could invest in here. We could invest, but there is no obligation for the developer as well. I mean, it's one of those things that it protects both sides. We do not have a developer's agreement. We do not have a plan laid out as to when these infrastructure projects will be done, what types of infrastructure projects need to be done. These are things that we have been talking about. We met on Friday of last week to discuss these things, both short-term and long-term. And, again, I've made a big focus of this discussion to be those longer-term things. It doesn't diminish the fact that we do need to work on some of those short-term aspects that can help them get this moving and keep it going. But those longer-term infrastructure issues are significant. And without a plan for those things, to simply activate without knowing when those would be done at all, could put us 10, 15 years down the line without having met that $20 million investment and then having five years to recapture that increment. I guess it would be helpful for me to understand how do we get to having a developer's agreement. Well, and that's what we, even before, during our break, when you guys, our break, your closed session, we discussed that. I've talked with Barry and Chris Kelly out in the hall about creating those things, about getting that developers agreement. I think that is a very important step that we need to do, and it includes things such as us working with the developers about what types of infrastructure they need. Again, getting to a very simple example, a water line. The feasibility study recommends that there needs to be an upgraded water system. We don't know at what level. And I think that's, and again, it was raised in our meeting on Friday, to discuss what kinds of water do you need and how that would help them to develop that and market those properties. If, you know, to what capacity do you want to build that water system? And then how do we go? Talk with Kentucky American. Figure out a schedule for where it will go in. Where does the pipe need to be? What kind of cost are we talking about? and in figuring out when that goes in as well as the other infrastructure needs. Those kinds of things need to be laid out, and they haven't been. A lot of the discussion that has come over the last year has been about trails, has been about other things, but it has not been about those larger infrastructure issues that are critical to our part of the TIF. If we're going to invest, those are the things we need to lay out. So is it up to us to initiate that conversation? I'm just asking. I don't know. I'm not sure if it's up to us, but I'm willing to help on that. I think that's our part. That's our role that we can do. is on those infrastructure issues is to help talk with the utilities companies to say, what is it that we need? How do we get these things moving? And, again, we have to have that kind of a plan to get things moving going forward. Without that, I think it is a much chance of your prospect. Without knowing when those things are going to be done, you know, it's difficult to develop that area to its fullest. And, again, without even some sort of a plan, And I think that's the risk you run of how much time do you then have to recapture the increment. And, again, what I want to say is we are trying to move forward. Again, we've had meetings. We met on last Friday. The mayor was there discussing these things. How do we get this to move forward in the hall during your all-closed session? Again, what are the things we need to do both short-term and long-term to help? And that's where we're trying to go, and I think that should be the focus of what we're doing next is how do we get this to move forward. My time is up, Mayor. I may come back. All right. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Mayor. So, Derek, did I hear you correctly that we do not have a developer's agreement with the Summit TIF either yet? No, we're getting ready to meet on that. That has been set up for, I think, a week from Tuesday. I believe it's on the 3rd. But we already approved the TIF without the developer's agreement. Which is not unusual to prove it, but to get it moving from the next stage forward. And so why wasn't a developer's agreement created in the past four years with the distillery district? I can only speak for the last time period that I've been here, and I'm not sure. We've talked a lot about issues associated with the distillery district. And not a lot. I mean, I know it's come up before. I know Council Member Stinnett has raised that issue about needing a developer's agreement. We talked about it in some of those meetings. The TIF process is new to Lexington, and with the leadership of Commissioner Paulson, trying to adopt best practices. Most success has occurred where it is clear what the developers, this is what my understanding is, The most success has occurred in jurisdictions where the responsibility of the city, the issuing agents, city, the state, is clear, and the responsibility of the developers is clear. That's why the developer agreement. I mean, that just makes sense. I agree, and I think because this was our first TIF, and I believe that we did not handle it very well. We weren't very clear with the developer. we were the responsible party in negotiating with the state and in keeping the developer informed of where we were going and what was happening throughout the process, when we requested extensions, when we were denied extensions, et cetera, and none of that was ever communicated. And then on the day that the TIF was to be activated or not, we had a meeting with the discussions supposedly about how we moved forward with the distiller district, and then on a side note, oh, we're withdrawing the TIF. and that was never communicated to Barry until October 29th of this year. So I feel like we have, as a council and as a city, we made promises four years ago. We entered into an agreement with this TIF four years ago, and there are promises that we have not kept. And it concerns me greatly as an area that is right next to our downtown, that does have a lot of activity. If you look on the very first page at the top, business revenues are up $3 million, over 100 more jobs than four years ago. Property assessments have increased almost $4 million in the last four years, but we don't think that there's any progress happening or we're not acknowledging that progress. And so I just need to understand, I guess. I mean, I've asked. I've had meetings. I've, you know, Derek, that we've met over and over and over. And I've met with Barry. I mean, I still just don't understand why we can't activate it. If $11 million has been spent already, there are new owners willing to spend money to build their own sewer because the city won't, then what would be the harm in activating now? And it's three years before the $20 million has to be met, and there's $11 million on the table. Plus our million actually would be another $12 million. So why would we leave that $12 million? And these baselines would change if we applied for a new TIF. Why would we want to start over? I think you've got a couple. There's a lot of different things that I'll try to address. I think one thing, again, going back to this, is that there was one extension granted. According to the TIF, the way that this legislation was created, it's very clear that you get four years, and that is with a one-time two-year extension. There was a chance a few years ago in 2011 the state did change the activation time period for kind of the super TIFs. But that was not done at this time. And again. I think you better go over that again because I think that's really operative. Right. So in the legislation as it is written, the governing body may extend, is what it says, activation date means the date established any time within a two-year period after the commencement date. It is the date on which the time period for the Pledge of Incremental Revenue shall commence. the governing body may extend the two-year period to no more than four years upon written application by the agency requesting the extension. That was done a few years ago. We did ask the state again earlier this year to basically clarify, is that firm? They said yes. The discussion here, internal discussions have taken place between senior decision-makers in our cabinet regarding the matter and arrived at the decision that an extension of time to establish activation shall be no longer than four years. basically, again, restating what is in the enabling legislation of TIF. I think that's a very important part. I mean, it's, you know, in the sense that it was going, and this is what we had been told by the state, there is a, at that point, if there is no activation, if there is no activity taken, there will be a notice of violation or noncompliance. As to why there was no developer's agreement, again, in my time period since I've been here, a lot of discussion that has taken place has been about trails. We've worked hard to try to move it forward on larger discussions. I think a very important part is to get that, again, not just for this district, but it benefits it, but that hydrology study. In talking about larger issues, a lot of times the discussion came back to, again, the trail. And I think in getting that developers agreement established and working on these larger issues, there has to be complicity with the developers. It's not a very, I guess I'm not sure how it started in 2009, what went on originally, and how it started. I can just tell you about my time period as we are now. I mean, a lot of us were here. There's been a lot of support for this project. You know, regrettably, things don't always come together the way they were originally planned. Barry, you worked hard. You lost some of the investors in the project. You know, it's been tough. We've gone through the toughest recession in 75 years since the Great Recession. We can't change. I mean, my interpretation is we can't change or alter the state's milestones and deadlines. Correct. Now, we want, I mean, I think my sense is that there's broad support for the project. But there is responsibility on the part of those who are in the private sector developing the project. Now, there are a lot of numbers on here that are suggesting that the government's at fault. Now, it's very convenient to scapegoat. But I know how much I've supported this project. But I cannot, you know, we can't wave a magic wand. We still want to support it. Derek has said that repeatedly, routinely, and wishes to do all we can to work with the state cooperatively with everyone who is involved in the project. Because it is aspirational. Because it does have connections to our history for many reasons. So, you know, my interpretation is that's what we are trying still to do and address this before it becomes a bigger and larger problem when the state says it's over. Correct. Now, ring the bell. What am I missing? No, and I think that was the main impetus behind, you know, a withdrawal. I mean, if you're to that point where there is no plan, we did not have a plan moving forward for activation and how that would work. And withdrawal seemed to be a much better option than have it go to a notice of violation if this is to come back and try to go with another TIF. I think the potential negative at a future TIF application when you have one that's been in notice of noncompliance is going to be much more difficult than actively withdrawing it and trying to come back again when you have more of a plan laid out. What's the downside? Explain to them. While we're having this conversation tonight, is it all right? Yeah. I'm going to be on your time. What's the downside from the point of view of those who have invested in the distiller district? What's the downside to the approach that's being taken? May have to come up with a developer's agreement. You may have to invest some in that. You may have to invest in the cost of restoring a TIF. Is that correct? Yes. You know, it is the, you know, again, starting over with the TIF process. It is. All right. Barry's over there saying there's a lot more, so you might as well. Okay. You explain your point of view, Derek, and then Barry. Well, and again, I think from the negative standpoint, there is – and again, I think the hard part to say is if the TIF were fully functioning, if this TIF were ready to go, if the investment that had been – again, looking at the original plan, and this is one of those things, when the application itself – there was a lot of things that were in that original application that just were not kind of materializing. All of the development, all three phases of the development were to have been completed by 2012. We know that for a numerous amount of reasons it wasn't moving to that point. Some of the numbers in the application were probably much higher than they should have been. There was a proposed, it was seen that there was going to be $2.93 billion of money invested in that area or spent in that area completely over a 20-year period. I think some of those things need to be dialed back. And from a moving forward standpoint, this gives a chance to look at it. And, again, if this were a fully functioning, healthy TIF, ready to go activate and ready to start gathering an increment, those losses would be more significant. But it's not. Right. And we were not at that point. And, again, I think the key is that it wasn't ready to go. There wasn't those plans of those next investments that needed to take place to get it functioning, both short-term and long-term. And, again, the thing that I see here is I can only speak to it since I've been here. And where we are trying to go now is, again, we've got a hydrology study that will help that area, as well as a lot of other areas around. And the reason for the hydrology study, explain that. Hydrology study, without that, the floodplain stays where it is, which is. And the floodplain currently prevents. Prevents any kind of expansion. Right. Of development in that area. Or even the renovations of the existing facilities. Barry's shaking his head no. All right. Do you want to explain what we are incorrect about? Well, my question would be, why didn't we fund that hydrology study last year, two years ago? Why would we fund it last month and then this month repeal the TIF? You know, I often say, Siobhan, we didn't create this world and we won't solve all those problems. This emerged in the course of the due diligence, in the course of trying to help these projects. It's like, you know, this is a, explain it. Yeah, I mean, again, since I've been here, there has been a desire by the engineers for hydrology study. There has not always been a desire for that to be spent from other parties. And, again, the original focus was to be just on the distillery district. That is something that has not been recommended or not been done traditionally. This is a hydrology study for a larger area. This is the entire watershed, which is beyond the distillery district, which covers areas outside what was originally proposed. That makes it different. But, again, some of this has to go to the requests that I've had. A lot of these discussions have, again, fallen on not on those types of developments, not on those types of infrastructure needs, on those types of costs, but on other things, streetscape and trails. And since we've been here, since we've been trying to kind of turn this to a different direction, those are the focuses that we have tried to make is on those larger infrastructure costs. This is one. It benefits a lot more. Again, the hydrology study benefits a lot more than just the distillery district, and I think that's important. Again, I can't speak to why it wasn't funded before I was here. I know it wasn't on that. And, again, I think the main reason that has been brought up several times is this is something that greenfield developers, if it is a project, if it's a floodplain that benefits their development only, it is something that they would traditionally pay for, not the city. The reason that this is different is it is a much larger area. This is for an entire watershed, as was talked about earlier this year. So I'll let Barry see. Yeah, yeah. I think the main thing I'd like to address is that there are a lot of questions that need fine-tuning. There are a lot of answers. For instance, more than any other leader that our city has, I mean, our current mayor has tremendous business and development savvy. But there are intricacies related to things like the floodplain. you can develop within a building that's in the floodplain. The shops at Lansdowne are in the floodplain. There's a number of things. The real tough nut to crack comes when you try to build new buildings in the floodplain, which would be the next phase of the project. To briefly touch on the dates that are mentioned in the TIF application, in the end result, as far as our city and the project is concerned, it's referential. It's not necessarily that things were proposed to happen in 2012. It's once certain things are done within a span of 20 years, what is expected to happen. And so the magic wasn't 2012, and the magic wasn't any other milestones other than the ones that are called out in the TIF agreement between the state and the city, which was you have an opportunity to activate by October 29th. and by the end of 2016 you have to have invested $20 million. And again, I would say that the analysis of this is pretty straightforward. If 10-29-13 was a use it or lose it date, and if there is the possibility of the city of Lexington, if it spends no other monies recouping a million dollars that it's invested in a flood study or to invest in a flood study that benefits the Rupp project, that benefits far more acreage than, I mean, we're not a tenth of what it benefits. But if the city has an opportunity over the course of 20 years to get that million dollars back, I feel like it's worthwhile. I think that, and that's just breaking it down into the most basic, I think, analysis possible. There's a number of additional reasons to support the TIF. I mean, because the fact is it's that area. We've not begun to touch things like sewer. As you'll see in the packet, we're being asked not only to fund the lift stations and the Forest Main. When we put in a request per studies that the city has spent over a million dollars on, And, you know, I think sometimes, you know, we want a clear path, but a million dollars' worth of studies have said if you're in the infield redevelopment zone or you're on Manchester Street, there should be a reduction in development fees. You should consider waiving or reducing sewer tap fees. When we first went a month ago to ask about a waiver, we were told that needs to be studied. The quote we were given was $60,000. When we went back last week and we asked to get something in writing, the cost just to tap, and that's with us doing all the work, was $290,000. So I think that any time, whether it's a homeowner, when your bill jumps fivefold, it's troubling, and you have to wonder to what degree, you know, what other issues are involved. And so I'm not here tonight to try to address everything. I just think that there's an awful lot that the council doesn't know. There's an awful lot that we don't understand about how it makes sense to, with a hotel developer involved and invested in two acres of property right across from the Town Branch Commons and Rupp Arena, with the increment and the investment that you've seen so far, is it really that far of a stretch to think that between now and 2016 or over the next 20 years that it would be worth the city's time to reconsider whether or not this is in the best interest of the city? Derek? You know, I think that, just while you're coming up to the podium, I think certainly that's a fair comment. But, you know, Barry, I just have to say I participated in one meeting where this conversation about the tap-on fee was considered. Where did he go? And you know exactly what we said. We said we'd try to do everything we could to create an interpretation that would be beneficial. because wherever, you know, when there's an opportunity, that's what Charlie Martin, that's what everybody has said. So to suggest it's just, unfortunately, I just think it's misleading to suggest that there has not been an interest in encouragement. And when you found a roadblock, a willingness to try to work with you. Now, that's very simply put. You want to translate? Well, and I'll just say just kind of quickly. And again, I'll kind of reiterate that there was a chance to activate. Pardon? There was a chance to activate, but it was never brought to us. The developer never said. Say that again now. Never wants to deactivate. Never wants. When we have other developers that have TIFFs, they talk to us about when they want to activate. We don't come up with it and just say, we're going to do it now. This is involved with when your development is, where you are in the phases, how this whole process works. to say, and again, I think to say that if we activate it, we'd get that million dollars back. Without a plan to go forward, with $9 million, basically almost half of that investment that still has to take place in a little more than two years, without a plan, where is that investment going to come from? How is that going to happen? Again, we don't have these things down. We didn't have a plan to move forward. There was a chance to activate. Those things could have come forward. I think that's a key thing to remember. Without a plan to move forward, simply activating is not a guarantee you're going to get anything out of it. To withdraw it before there was a notice of noncompliance at least preserves the potential to come back. Say that again because there seems to be a real difference of opinion about that. That, to me, seems very reasonable, that you would withdraw it voluntarily because you know the deadline is imminent. Right. The state has said we are not willing to relax it. Correct. Right. There was clear that there is no extension coming from the state. Right. That has been stated. It is in the initiating legislation and was reiterated to us when we asked if that was a firm date. Yes, it is. So then the theme and the strategy has been that there would be a better chance for resurrection. Correct. When there's not a plan to move forward, the idea was to withdraw to preserve that potential. I mean, I think with the potential of a negative with a notice of violation coming or a notice of noncompliance, your chances of coming back later with a TIF. If, again, if there was no activation, it was going to be a notice of noncompliance. The state was going to dissolve it. So without a plan to move forward, simply activating it without how that investment was going to go forward, where those things were going to come from, was probably more of a risk than to withdraw it and try to regroup and come back later. So I'll be happy to answer any other questions. All right. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Who else? Oh, okay. I didn't see this. Sorry. Council Member Kaye. The good news is there's still, I would say, a lot of vigorous interest and support in the distillery district. Thank you, Mayor. Some questions for the commissioner, if I can. I think some of this may be covered, but I'd like to do it in a kind of a sequence if I could. There are three specific consequences that Mr. McNeese has listed on the sheet that he handed out. I just want to see if we can take them one at a time and talk a little bit about them. Does anybody have a copy of that? I've not seen the sheet. I'll read it for you. Yeah, it's not. You can. Yeah. The first one says it's in the black. The first one says that we'll at a minimum cost LFUCG over a million dollars and forfeited reimbursement from the state for past LDD investment. I guess my question is, is that the case or is that not the case? Potential. Potential, I think, is a very key thing. I think the key to remember here is if this TIF were to, again, this was not a TIF that was ready to activate. This was not a tip where it was a guarantee that the $11 million, the other $9 million was coming and that the earning commitment would be around to recapture. Then that could have been lost that way. I mean, I think in this way, one thing I look at from this is, yes, a feasibility study was done, was conducted, and is providing us a good roadmap to move forward now for the future. The hydrology study is something that's going to benefit throughout the community, throughout the entire watershed. So I think it's a different way to look at it. I mean, do we have a better plan now about what needs to be done in that area? I understand. But in terms of recapturing it, if that TIF were to have been activated and if it were to then reach that point where we could capture that increment, then that million dollars could have been. But I think to characterize that as a guarantee if it was activated is a little. Okay, I think I understand the answer to that question. Second, he says loss of the next three years of incremental revenue already beginning to accrue ahead of 12, 31, 16. Is that also the case or not the case? The only way that they could accrue is you can only recover those increments if you reach that investment within that 20-year period. You have 20 years to recover those increments. So unless, I mean, they can be accruing. That's absolutely correct. Increment does accrue, but it does not get recaptured to pay back any of the debt or anything to it unless you meet those investments. Okay. And then the third point, the loss of the, quote, old revenues baseline that affords the largest incremental revenue to LFUCG. So the baseline was originally low. This is repealed. Then the baseline starts where it is now, which is a lot higher than that. Well, it would start at wherever the new TIF application were to go. That's an element of the TIF application is to create those baseline revenues. That's where the increment comes from. Okay. So the difference, if it were activated now, the baseline would be that old baseline. If it's activated later, it would be much higher. It could be. It depends on how that TIF district is redrawn and what those baselines are at that time. Okay. And I think you've addressed this as well, but the downside of activating the TIF is that, in summary, there's no plan. There's no probability of recouping the funds invested. Without a plan to move forward, the likelihood of reaching that investment is lower. And there is just not a plan to move forward in terms of how that 9 million is going to be spent in terms of those larger infrastructure. And, again, there's not that developer's agreement about who would do what moving forward. Okay. And one more. Both sides. I mean, that's protection on both sides. If we invest, what do they do? If they do something, what do we do? That is not there. Okay. Final question from me. The request has been basically to postpone the ordinance repealing the TIF in order to have a fuller conversation about these issues, which are fairly complex. What's the downside of postponing action on the ordinance tonight? The TIF has been withdrawn. It just has to be done on the ordinance. And if it wasn't withdrawn, it would have been in a state of noncompliance. That was on October, I believe, 29th or 31st. So I couldn't help but. So we are essentially this ordinance is ratifying what would happen anyway. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. All right. Thank you, Council Member Kay. Councilman, Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you. You were spoken on. You want to let Councilman Beard, you're up next because Vice Mayor Gordon yielded to you since she's already spoken. Great. She'll come back. On or about 2008, there was a meeting on the third floor of the Phoenix Building, which I went to to hear initially pretty much what we thought we'd hear about the distillery district and the vision for the distillery district, which was quite a vision at that time. I believe Barry was asked the question, what did he actually need from us? And the first thing that came out of Barry's mouth was $62 million. from the city. Well, do you have investors? Oh, yes. Can you name who they are? No, I can't tell you who they are. Do you have financing? Yes. And who's doing the financing? I can't tell you that. So that was my first exposure to the Stilver District. I'm sitting here now and looking at this that was handed out, and we have D.C. Electronic Construction, Bernardo's Auto Repair, Executive Landscape Services, Kelly Nursery. Some of these I don't. Audio car, angel, I don't know what dog town is at all. But half of them, essentially, don't have anything to do with what the vision of the distillery district was. Now, I drive, especially after to and fro, ball games. And I drive on Manchester Street. And it's amazing at 9.30 or 10 o'clock at night that there's no car behind me. There's no car in front of me. There's no car passing me in the other lane all the way to Forbes Road. And that's this year, again, three times that I've done that, and I shake my head every time. Now, there are a couple of good things going on. I was very, very amazed at the Grand Reserve and what they've done there. Of course, we know busters, but I don't know what else is actually happening. And we also know what has happened on Jefferson Street without any help. from the city. They already had sewer. I've heard people say all the activity, and I just would really like to see what all the activity is on the street out there. I just don't see it. There's no parking, very little parking. And so, you know, the withdrawal on the TIF is valid, I think. Thank you, Mayor. All right. Vice Mayor Gordon. Sorry. Thank you. Commissioner, I have another question. You know this page that has the list of, it looks like these are the state. These are Kentucky TIFFs. Is that what? I'm not. Yeah. Anyway. I think it is. Yes. Okay. It looks like Lexington has five on here, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16. and I guess 10, Phoenix Park. Is that Centerpoint? That was the original name. So I guess my question would be, how is this different from Centerpoint where nothing's going on? And have they had to deactivate their TIF? They actually went back and redid their TIF. They redid it, but they didn't deactivate it. And this summer, the council actually confirmed their new TIF application, their new TIF application. They lowered their total amount, so they went back and redid the new application. What was the original number? It was large enough to qualify as a special TIF. It looks like the final approval date of that was one month before the distillery district. So are they on the same timeline? Not anymore. Or because they redid theirs? Not anymore. They actually went through, did a whole new application, whole new application fee, completely different TIF, with different numbers, different results. So the first one was stopped and dissolved? And this is where I'm going to say, I think someone else could probably speak a little bit better to it because I was not involved with it, but I think it may have been amended. But I know they had to file a new application, And so that basically starts their whole clock all over again. It is a, in the eyes of the state, it is a brand-new TIF application. But unlike this distillery district one, nothing has gone on CenterPoint to generate any revenue, correct? Vice Mayor, the answer to the question is what Commissioner Paulson was saying. And Centerpoint, which is Phoenix Park on that list, amended their application due to the legislation that was changed in the last session of the General Assembly, which lowered the threshold on signature TIFs from $200 million to $150 million. When they amended their application, the state treated it as a new application, although they technically called it an amended application. So we didn't have to withdraw the TIF because it superseded the previous TIF. So they're still within that first two years, as Commissioner Paulson has been discussing. Okay, it's like they started over. And so they kind of are on a new clock, is that what you're saying? Had they not done that, we would be deactivating theirs also, correct? Since they were on a timeline, a similar timeline? They would have, right, it would have expired. Okay, and then let's see, show prop is, that was withdrawn, correct? Red miles ongoing? Correct. I believe they've given us a date for which they plan to activate. Kevin can speak. Yeah, they've given us a date tentative that they are going to activate. Okay. In that case, you know, it's the developer notifying their partner, LFUCG, specifically the Commissioner of Finance, when they intend or is on target to. Okay. And, I mean, the other thing I wanted to say is, Council Member Beard, to your point, Jefferson Street has sewers. So it's much easier to go in there and redevelop the property and start a business up because they already have the infrastructure there, whereas I think the problem in the distillery district is there is a huge lack of infrastructure, and I don't think any of us want to see it sit that way forever. I mean, nobody does. And this is why we've been trying to focus on that longer-range plan of infrastructure. And so what is the plan if it – if I understood your answer to Councilmember Kay, this is a done deal. The state's already withdrawn, correct? Correct. And if it weren't, it would have been on the last day of October, it would have gone, if we had not withdrawn, it would have gone to a notice of noncompliance. So this ordinance is merely a paper vote for the council to uphold or acknowledge what already happened. Is that correct, or does this do something else? No. I might be able to clarify that for you a little bit. I think the two options that were available were either to do what you did with show prop, which was take it off the books altogether and dissolve it, or do this. And this is less than that. I think the idea was that this will preserve the footprint and allow potentially for an easier process in amending it in the future if that's what ends up happening. The alternative was to just basically dissolve it and start over again from square one, which is what the show prop situation would be. My time is up, but I would hope that we will have a plan going forward to tell us what happens next and how do we get it back. Well, and again, to point out again, we did meet on Friday. But we weren't there. Right. I mean, I don't know what happened. And I can give you my next steps. Another secret. That we came away from this meeting. The notes that I took, I can tell you what we came away with, which is to focus on some of these shorter-term issues, some of the near-term issues, as well as to keep working on the utility issues, the infrastructure that needs to go on, to create that list to determine what needs to be done to make it. So as you said, they don't have the infrastructure that maybe Jefferson Street does. That is something I keep trying to reiterate. We need to know what is it they do need. If a developer wants to come in and buy a piece of land, the first question they're probably going to ask is, where's the sewer where's the water do we have enough water power lines what are they if you don't have them now when are they coming we don't have that right now that's what we need to do moving forward and that's what i am trying to help them to move forward with thank you thank you mayor thank you vice mayor councilmember hansen thank you mayor the vice mayor has already gone through the list but i wanted i don't believe that this list is totally accurate it may not be Because is show prop still active? It shows it's withdrawn, I believe, on this list, if I see it correctly. And Turflin Mall is not on here. I'm not sure. I don't want to sit here and kind of... That was developed. I'm going to trust you on where it is on there. I'm not sure if it's on this list or not. Turflin Mall should have been reactivated, right, Kevin? And I think that's probably what could have happened to this one. Actually, Turflin is on our books, but they had never filed, actually filed with the state, never filed their application. So their clock hasn't run because they haven't officially submitted their activation and gotten CADFA approval as a TIF. That's right. But couldn't this TIF have been reactivated than just letting the clock run out? No, that's what Commissioner Paulson's been saying. And it was allowed one extension. Okay. And so we were at the end of the second two years for a maximum of four, and that's what the state told us four is the maximum. Okay. Thank you. You know, I remember being very excited about these projects back in 08 when they were first presented to us. And this historical area that we do not want sitting, you know, there's been significant improvements, I think, with the businesses that are there. But I just think we need to continue to work, you know, maybe do individual developments like you do, you know, like we have done with Centerport. and rather than do an entire block, would it be possible to do portions of it? I'm not sure if I follow your question. Do you mean from an infrastructure standpoint? Yeah. I think that would be unwise. I think if we're going to do infrastructure in that district, it needs to be a holistic look at the infrastructure. Because there's no sewers or. No sewers, the water, again, from the feasibility study, they mentioned substandard water lines, power lines, all those things that need to be addressed. And I think to move it forward, those things need to be looked at, and you need to start determining what needs to go in and when. And working with the utilities, again, we don't own any of those utilities that need to come in, so we'd have to work with them on costs, operations, designs, et cetera. But I just hope we continue to have a focus on it. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Hanson. Council Member Lawless. I withdraw. Council Member Akers. Council Member Akers, you want to yield to someone else who's already spoken or has not spoken yet. It looks like Council Member Kaye has already, so we're back. Council Member Ford has not. Council Member Ford hasn't. He can go. Commissioner Paulson, had we not withdrawn the TIF application and the state, the Commonwealth, issued a violation of the TIF, who would that letter have gone to? Would it have gone to the government at 200 East Main or would it have been issued to the developer? Would it have come to the city. To the who? To the city. Urban County government. Correct. I, I'll be very, very brief. I don't think that we had a choice from a management standpoint. Part of good grantsmanship is to understand compliance, and we're just merely complying. I think it would have been more damaging to the long-term viability of the district. Good things will come in that area. I'll be very supportive of it. It's pretty tough if headlines would have read cities in violation of the TIF. I don't see how you can recruit investors by being noncompliant. So I support what the mayor and the administration have done. I look forward to restarting the project. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Ford. Council Member Akers. I'll let Council Member Kay go first, if I can. Okay. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. In trying to get my head around this fairly complex issue, what I think I get is that this TIF, when it was originally proposed prior to the economy tanking, may have made a great deal of sense, and it may still make a great deal of sense. But conditions have changed, and we don't have a plan in hand that would allow us to effectively activate at this time. What I regret is that as a council, we did not get earlier notice so that the action that we're taking tonight would not be simply pro forma. It would have, in retrospect, and it's easy, hindsight is easy, but in retrospect, it would have been good to have this issue before council a few months ago with the notion, with the understanding that there was a deadline for activation and that we needed to either make a decision or move on. The other thing I would say is that I heard clearly in all of the conversation a commitment to continuing to support development in the distillery district as an important part of the redevelopment of downtown. And I will support this motion tonight, but I hope that that's not interpreted as a lack of support for what I think needs to happen in the distillery district going forward. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilor Kay. Councilor Allinger? Thank you, Mayor. My line of comments are pretty much in line with what Councilor Kay just said. It looks like at this point it's kind of a moot point, and regardless of what we do, I think it's already been deactivated, hasn't it? You've already contacted the state. If it wasn't deactivated, it would have been in noncompliance. Right, there's the term deactivate or noncompliance, and we're deactivating now. We've contacted them and told them that we're not going to go forward with this. And why were we not here six weeks ago, two months ago, talking about this? Because I think it's, like I said, a moot point. I don't see where we have much standing at this point to do anything. Well, I think that's a question that is not just for the city. I think it's a lot for the developer as well. All right, and I'm going to put the onus on both, and I guess that's why I want to know why we're here now, because I don't understand what we can do. I know reading the second one says under here there was no known unmet statutory requirements, and then reading down here, and I guess I'll ask Barry, are you saying there's still something we can do at this point? Because listen to the administration. It appears that there's nothing we can do since it's already been deactivated. The state has told us there was no extension. Yeah, there was a two-year. We went ahead and took the option, and it went up to four years, and nothing happened. In that four years, we're either noncompliance or we deactivate. Yeah, right. And I think that's where we stand now, and the October 29 deadline's come and gone, and we chose to deactivate. So I don't really see what we can do at this point. Now, I might be missing something, and if there is, I mean, I'd like to be made aware, but it doesn't seem like. I think at this point it's what I've been trying to reiterate, which is how do we move forward from here. Well, you've been working with the developers to try to encourage that. You're being too modest, all right? It's very convenient to scapegoat the government, the administration. So many people have supported this project, still support this project. Chris Kelly and his wife and Tony Higdon, who I know, have purchased that pepper distillery. That building is a remarkable piece of industrial history. But it's a climb. It's a steep climb. Chris is shaking his head because he knows, you know, he's an engineer. He's a civil engineer. He knows what a challenge it's going to be. We do need to help. But we've got to help consistent with the law. now what am I missing and would you please say as vigorously as what I just said yeah again what we're trying to do is to move it forward is to take those next steps we were at that point it was you know and I guess I would like to ask from Barry I mean tell us what we could do to help because I know everybody's supportive of it but but it just appears at this point that it's it's kind of already out of our hands and it's the time has passed and I is Is that true? Well, I think it's a great question, and I think what we were hoping was that an effort could be made to verify, one, whether or not the notification of activation was required by October 29th, or is it a matter of simply that the date has to be established as October 29th? In speaking with someone who is a friend of the head of economic development for Kentucky, He said their interest is in having functioning, active projects. Lexington has none. We have a project here that, had it been activated, by the very fact that it was activated, it would have avoided being in noncompliance. There's a false argument that's being presented. I mean, the choice was do you activate or not. If you don't activate, then I agree it's better to withdraw. But the question that really what the statute was about, it wasn't about those two options. It was about do you activate or not. I guess just to get back to my question, was October 29th a deadline that we have, it's come and passed and there's nothing we can do at this point? That's what we want to know. because what was told me by this party, because I was asking to speak with Larry Hayes to see what would he say, and what I was told was that it doesn't flow from the state to the city. The city has to go to the state and ask. So the answer is I don't know. I don't understand. And I'll ask, Commissioner, have we not already contacted the state and said we want, or Kevin, you can either can. In May, we requested to the state to allow us to extend their deadline until August of next year. We got back the strongly, which is the language I included in the note to you all, that October 29th is a firm deadline by state statute, and there would be no extension past the 29th of October. So as has been stated, it's kind of a moot point for us. Yes. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak? Councilman Rakers. So I would like for the administration to make a phone call or send a letter and ask if we could repeal the withdrawal and activate the TIF. I would also like to know, I serve on the Environmental Quality Committee where the distillery district has rested since I have been on council. And every other month or whenever we meet, monthly if that's what it is, we talk about spending the bond money and we've talked about trails. And just recently we talked about a hydrology study. Never did anyone from the administration say, oh, we sent a letter in May asking for an extension, or in August say, we got a letter back and denying the extension and the deadline is October 29th. We should look at creating this developer's agreement or we're going to have to pull it. No one knew about this until October 29th. And I just find that unacceptable. And so I would like at least the attempt to withdraw the withdrawal. and if it's not possible, then I guess what can we do when we just move forward? But instead of talking about trails, like you said, Derek, for months on end, the last 11 months, why didn't you redirect the conversation and say, we don't need to be talking about trails, we should be talking about this or initiate the developer's agreement sooner or infrastructure improvements that would help development, I guess. So that's all I have. Can I quickly respond? We have tried to change that conversation. We have the feasibility study. The feasibility study laid those things out. And as to that date, I think something you should remember. That date, the name on the application for the developer is Barry McNeese. He had to know that date as well. and to think that it is just us that knows that date is to put the blame on us and to say we're the only ones that know that date. I think that's, again, his name is the one on there as a developer. He signed that application that says quite clearly to say, yes, we asked for an extension, but that extension was really, in many ways, a confirmation of what that date, you know, was that four years firm, and that is what was reminded to us, yes, that four years is a firm. What his point is, is the duty is with their developer. He doesn't have green lights, red lights, and yellow lights saying, get up every morning and go out and do the job of the developer. Was Barry copied on the letter in May? Did he receive what's copied on the letter? We sent the letter requesting an extension. Correct. And did he receive a copy of the letter in August from the state saying that the extension was not granted? Again, I want to, and I don't believe he was, but I want to make something, again, kind of point this out, that what we did while asking for that extension was merely confirming that that four years was the same four years as is stated in the enact enabling legislation that says you have four years. So without anything, going by just what's in that enabling legislation, that four years should be known by the date that application. An extension is not described. It states very clearly in the legislation that it is no more than four years upon written application by the agency requesting the extension. No more than four years. We did ask, but it was more out of confirming. Those four years were, again, laid out at the beginning. when that original application was filled, that four years was there. Could I make a motion? Yes, ma'am. I would like to table this issue until we receive word from the state whether or not we can withdraw the withdrawal. So I moved. Now, wait a minute. Let's see. Why don't you restate the motion so it's all clear to everyone, Council Member Akers. Your motion is to? Table. Table. this issue until the administration contacts the state and finds out if we can activate the TIF or designate October 29, 2013 as the activation date for the TIF. All right. That was the last day that it could have been activated. So the motion is to table the ordinance. How soon, I guess, could we ask and get an answer? I mean, I guess the next council meeting is December 5th, so we could table until that date. Second. Do you want to get an answer to that question? I'll just ask one simple question. I'm not sure still what this would accomplish at this point. We have no plan to go forward. We could have activated had the developer come forward and had we had a plan to move forward. I think our concerns are still there. We don't have that plan to move forward for the next few years without that. And, again, it has been withdrawn. We could ask, but what are the next steps after that to ensure that we get to that activation point so that we could recoup that increment? Without that, making this question is, I don't see the purpose. And we don't have those steps laid out without that. I'm not sure what we do. So we're not debating. She asked a question. She asked a question, and he's answering the question. It's not a debate. So now I will say that, yes, a motion to table is non-debatable. we have a motion and we have a second all those in favor of the motion to table please indicate and vote electronically and those who oppose table vote no all right the motion All right. Motion. All right. The motion to table fails. All right. Does anyone else wish to speak? All right. Oh, Jennifer. That's right. Council Member Siding. Thank you, Mayor. I'll be quick. I've just wrote down some numbers. I think the government has been pretty forthright with some of its financing. We spent $500,000 on a feasibility study. I think we spent a half a million on a hydrology study, and we bonded $2.3 million. To me, that looks like an effort on our part to make this work. And I, like the rest of the council members, would like to see this work, but if we don't have the investors, if we don't have the money, unfortunately, you can't go forward. And I know I've worked with a lot of developers in development, and these are expenses that they have always taken care of. and I think that we've been pretty forthright in coming forward with this money so far. So hopefully in the future this will come to us again, but at this point I think that we can't use taxpayers' money to go forward on an initiative that we don't have all the moving parts for and all the answers to. And I'm sorry. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Sidi. I think, and I'd just like to observe in closing this conversation regarding this issue, that this council, previous council, there's been vigorous and enthusiastic support for the aspirational imagination and vision of this project. In my view, as this city grows, as we deal with constraints associated with urban services boundary and the opportunities associated with that, this will continue to be. The businesses that have invested in the distiller district, it's commendable that they have, and we need to do all we can to support that, encouraging laws where we can, encouraging the support of the state when we can, and also be consistent with the restrictions and the limitations that those statutes, our ordinances, require. So continuing to work together with the distillery district should continue to be, in my view, our purpose in every respect as we go forward. All right. I think that allows us to move back to the reading. Madam Clerk. Ordinance number seven, an ordinance repealing those sections and provisions of Ordinance number 266-2008, the Lexington Distillery District Development Area TIF, pertaining or related to the development, the project, and or the creation of an incremental tax special fund and dissolving the fund, maintaining the boundary of the district, pending further action of the Urban County Council, and canceling or terminating the agreements related to Ordinance No. 266-2008. Number 8, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government should reflect current requirements in the Division of Traffic Engineering for funds in the amount of $2,300 from neighborhood development funds for flashing crosswalk beacons at Fiddler Creek and Clearwater Way and appropriating and reappropriating funds, Schedule No. 30. Number 9, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government for Committee of the Whole Appropriations as approved at Work Session, November 5, 2013, and Appropriating and Reappropriating Funds, Schedule No. 29. Number 10, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government for Economic Contingency Appropriations as approved at Work Session, November 5, 2013, and Appropriating and Reappropriating Funds, Schedule No. 31. Number 11, an ordinance expanding and extending the full Urban Services District No. 1 to provide street lighting, street cleaning, and garbage and refuse collection to include the area defined as certain properties on the following streets. Louie Place, Madison Point Drive, Old Town Walk, Silver Springs Drive, Town Center Drive, Town Square Park, Tabor Lake Circle, Tabor Lake Court, Tabor Lake Cove, Tabor Lake Drive, Tabor Lake Place, Tabor Lake Point, Tabor Lake Walk, and Tabor Lake Ridge. Number 12, an ordinance expanding and extending the partial urban services district number 3 for the urban county government for the provision of garbage and refuse collection to include the area defined as certain properties on the following streets. Blazer Parkway, Castlebridge Lane, Donington Court, and Fountain Court. Number 13, an ordinance expanding and extending partial urban services district number 7 for the urban county government for the provision of garbage and refuse collection and street cleaning to include the area defined as certain properties on the following street, Sorrel Way. Number 14, an ordinance creating subsection 653B4 of the Code of Ordinances relating to the City Employees Pension Fund to provide for a one-time supplement to pensioners and beneficiaries based on their current annual pension ranging from $200 to $700 and a one-time supplement based on their years of service or beneficiary status ranging from $200 to $500. Their motion on number 15. Yes. Council Member Clark. Thank you, Mayor. I move to amend ordinance number 15 under first readings pertaining to the Economic Development Investment Board to add one additional at-large member, which will increase the total membership of the board to 11 members. So moved. Second. Motion by Council Member Clark, seconded by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, let's vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Madam Clerk. vote in the event of a tie to add an additional council member and to designate the council members who serve as the respective chairpersons of the Urban County Council's Economic Development Committee and Budget and Finance Committee as members, to replace one housing industry member with a member from the financial investment or banking industry, and to add one member from the private equity venture capital industry. Number 16. An ordinance establishing a local economic development program to be known as the Lexington Jobs Fund and providing for its purpose the Economic Investment Development Board, Program Fund Protections, Priorities, Limitations, Criteria, and Application Process, Administration by the Chief Development Officer, and a Program Fund, all effective upon date of passage. Number 17, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures and appropriating and reappropriating funds at Schedule Number 28. Number 18, an ordinance pursuant to Section 21A of the Code of Ordinances of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government adopting a schedule of meetings for the Council for the calendar year 2014. Number 19, an ordinance authorizing and directing the Mayor to extend health insurance coverage to qualified adults and their dependents, directing the Chief Administrative Officer to adopt a policy outlining the guidelines for extended coverage and providing that after adoption of the policy, no changes shall be made without notice to the Urban County Council. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Are there any motions for walk-ons or suspensions for second reads? All right. If none, then we can move on to second reading. If you'll indulge us, Martha is going to pick up right here. Oh, that's right. Martha, welcome to the second reading of resolutions. Sorry, Mayor. Oh, Council Member Kaye has a wish to speak. I'm sorry. I wish to speak. Yes, I wish to suspend the rules, give second reading to number 19, an ordinance authorizing the extending the health insurance coverage to qualified adults. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Kaye, second by Vice Mayor Vorton, to do a second read on number 19. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Meredith, do you want to give it? Ordinance number 19, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor to extend health insurance coverage to qualified adults and their dependents, directing the chief administrative officer to adopt a policy outlining the guidelines for extending coverage, and providing that after adoption of the policy, no changes shall be made without notice to the Urban County Council. All right. Thank you. Is there a motion? Does that hear a motion? Motion to approve. I actually got one from Council Member Hanson. I'm sorry. Council Member Hanson gave a motion. Got a second from Council Member Lawless. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, all in favor, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Clark? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? I actually voted no to give second reading, but I'll vote yes here. I think we should have given time to let the public make some comment because we just brought it up on Tuesday, and this is Thursday, but I am voting yes. Mr. Farmer? Aye. Mr. Ford? Yes. Ms. Gordon? Aye. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Kay? Yes. Mr. Lane is absent. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Ms. Massadi? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Ms. Scutchfield? Yes. Mr. Stinnett? Ms. Akers? Yes. Thank you. The vote reflects unanimous passage of the motion. Madam Clerk? Madam Clerk? Madam Deputy Clerk? Resolution number one, a resolution accepting the bids of Cunningham Golf Car Company, Inc., and Deaver, Inc., establishing price contracts for golf carts for the Division of Parks and Recreation. Number two, a resolution accepting the bids of Traffic Control Products, Inc., Pathmaster, Inc., Baldwin & Sowers, Inc., Traffic Parts, Inc., Quality Traffic Systems, LLC, and Iron Armor, establishing price contracts for traffic signal and control equipment for the Division of Traffic and Engineering. Number three, a resolution accepting the bid of People Plus Incorporated establishing a price contract for temporary labor for the Division of Emergency Management 911 and authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irving County Government to execute any necessary agreement with People Plus Incorporated related to the bid. Number four, a resolution accepting the bid of Robinson Pipe Cleaning Company establishing a price contract for annual sanitary sewer cleaning program for the Division of Water Quality and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an agreement with Robinson Pipe Cleaning Company related to the bid. Number five, a resolution accepting the bid of Advertiser Printers Incorporated establishing a price contract for Waste Management Newsletter for the Division of Waste Management. All right. Martha, I think some people are here. I think there's some guests here to speak on to number six. Is that correct? Okay, there's been a suggestion that we vote on. Why do we need to do that? No, let's just... I've had a senior moment. Mark Leach, Mr. Leach. Our veteran, remember. Yes. It's been long, I understand. Ms. Pfister with Free Contract, he's going to talk first. This is on the recommendation on the Vivalink project for an award to MAC. Thanks for the opportunity to speak again. I'm the owner of Free Contracting, and I wanted to speak to clarify a couple of points after the last council meeting. We were the first to speak, as we are tonight, and I just wanted to clarify four things. First, I think that the council should have accurate information. Last meeting, we were told that when all bids were rejected, it was because the engineer's estimate was thought to be below MAC's bid, the second low bidder. The engineer's estimate was given as $3 million at the bid opening. I have our notes here from the bid opening where we attended, and $3 million was written in as it was read. I have since made an open records request, and all the statements made by purchasing to MAC construction to explain why all bids were rejected weren't because of a misunderstanding of the engineer's estimate. Instead, purchasing said that the decision to rebid was based on max bid costing so much more, another $240,000, which leads me to my second point. Everyone keeps quoting the section of the bid documents in this particular case that states the unit price prevails in the case of a mistake and ignoring the section 109 of the bid documents which states the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive all informalities and or technicalities where the best interest of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government may be served. That's written in our bid documents, and I don't think that was clear before. Every part of this sentence applies in this situation. It is in the best interest of the city to waive the technicality and award to the low bidder free contracting and save the $240,000. or at the very least, to uphold its public decision to reject all bids and rebid. My third point is addressing Vice Mayor Gorton's concern last time about rewarding a contractor whose bid included a mistake. We were not the only bidder to make a mistake. Four of the five bidders, including MAC, made mistakes in their bids. The only bidder who did not make a mistake was the highest bidder at $3.2 million. And I based this on the engineer's estimate, their tabulation, and noted changes. My fourth point is to address the concern that a rebid might create a time issue. It was stated that there may be a potential problem completing construction on the golf course before the spring, and we could get across the golf course, anyone could, in about a month, so that should not be a problem if that is rebid. So those are four points I just wanted to clarify. Thank you, Ms. Pfister. Mr. Leach? Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Council. To follow up on Ms. Pfister's comments, you know, we're talking about real money here, $240,000. There was just an example given of investment of half a million as being an investment in a show of force. You know, $240,000, that's real money. You all can save that money because of the authority that Ms. Pfister just talked to you about. In the time since we last met, we had an open records request and we got more documents. And what is apparent in this is that every person in this process recognizes what happened with Free's bid as a simple, quote, obvious mistake, close quote. That's what Mr. Slayton says in his correspondence talking internally about this. That's what Mr. Barbieri says it's an obvious mistake. That's what Mr. Martin says it's an obvious mistake. That's what even Max says in their protest, that it's an obvious mistake. And two weeks ago when we were here, Mr. Slayton and the mayor all called it a technicality. And the authority that Ms. Pfister just told you was there's the authority to waive technicality. So you can save $240,000 by following the bid documents and waiving that technicality. You all are the last authority in playing a critical role in this process. Now, the other thing that we learned is, by my understanding, what can't be done here. Because last time we were here, purchasing was saying that their hands were tied by that same clause that said unit price control. Well, Council Member Kay asked a very important question about the timeline. The notice to cancel all bids went out on October 3rd to every bidder. Now, in the same bid documents, and as required under purchasing's own practices, which I asked Mr. Slayton for just today, it says that a notice of an appeal of an RFP recommendation must be filed, must be filed, within three business days of the RFP recommendation. The recommendation to cancel all bids was made on October 3rd. MAC's protest wasn't filed until October 17th, 14 days. So if you're saying we have no discretion on unit price controls because it says unit price controls, well, this says that any appeal of a recommendation must be filed within three days of a recommendation, and their protest is dated October 17th. The only reason why the rebid was changed to be awarded to MAC, again in a letter that was produced, I just saw it today, from our open records request, was saying, in response to your protest, we are awarding the contract to MAC. So the only reason why the rebid was changed was because of a protest that was filed late. And you know, Mayor, and everybody else that's been in bidding, if you're late on a bid, your bid doesn't get considered, and if you're late on filing a protest, it shouldn't have been considered either. So save $240,000 with waiver or uphold the rejection of all bids and rebid. All right. Thanks, Mark. All right. I think someone else would speak. All right. Yes, sir. Yes, Mayor. Thank you. I'm Brian Wickens, and I was here last time, and thank you for the opportunity again, Vice President and General Counsel for Mack Construction. And, you know, with respect to the bid protest, you know, I think there's just a lot of things being thrown on the wall, which I understand from free contracting. I'm here to speak for MAC, not against them. We had a great chance of talking in the hall. We're all regular folks, good contractors. This is about fighting for your job, fighting for a job that's rightfully yours, where we followed the rules. The rules are very clear. It's not a technicality. Your documents make this a material, substantive issue. You know, last time we were here, I hadn't planned to talk then because your entire department, we talked about the bid protest. We didn't know about the reasons for filing a bid protest until later. We talked about filing it. It was accepted. They understood it. And so there's just a lot of things being thrown on the wall right now, and I understand that. But we did everything right. Then you look at your bid documents themselves. And when we were here last time, again, I didn't plan to talk because your entire department went through a review with legal, saw exactly what we were saying, that their hands were tied by the very language of your bid documents, which say shall, unit price shall control. And guess what? We did make a mistake. And you applied that same rule to us. You looked at our unit price and the number across and said, no, Mac, you have to stick to your unit price. And you got a better deal. It made our bid go down, actually. We had to live by the same rule. It applies to everybody. It's no different than when we were talking about the football situation. You know, when we walk on the field, we all know that we play by the same rule. And this rule is clear. There's no question about what the rule is in this situation. Unit price shall control. That makes it substantive. It makes it material. It affects the price. The facts are very clear. It's a mistake. It doesn't matter if it's a small mistake or a big mistake. They made a mistake in a critical part of the bid documents, which is the unit price. This number they keep talking about, this 240, it doesn't exist. I understand the appeal. I understand why they're saying it to you. But your rules, your regulations, specifically say unit price controls, their number is $277 million. We are the low bidder. We are $400,000 below your estimate. You have the ability to save money, and we were told in this process that we needed to get started by December. By my calculation, that's nine days away. And this golf course thing is not so easy. We're supposed to be through there March, April. To get across maybe one thing, there's a bore pit that's also a part of this. We have to get to work. You have asked us to perform. We've provided our bid bonds, all the documentation. We've done everything you've asked us to get ready to perform. This is the last piece. We're ready to do the work. We have followed your rules. We have done everything that we've been asked to do. This would be like taking the touchdown away from somebody that followed the rules because you say, well, they put ten guys on one side of the defense. It was a big mistake. That's not the case here. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Chris, could you put – Council members, this is the front page of the documents when it went out. Yes, sir. I think we can do the expand. Oh, there you go. And this is that paragraph or that statement that was read that said that LCCG reserves the right to reject any and all bids and then to waive all informalities and or technicalities where it is in the best interest of LCCG may be served. And my position is what I said before. I'm not in favor of awarding this to any particular company. What I would like to see happen is that we rebid this. and so that's a closed bid and it's fair for everybody. But we clearly say in these bid documents that LFUCG reserves the right to reject any and all bids when it is in the best interest of LFUCG. And to me, the best interest that we represent, and I love the football analogy again, and that is that, from my view, the football analogy is that we're the replay official. And purchasing did its work, it did its process, then that comes to us. If we don't have anything to say, then there's no reason to blue sheet these things. When they make a decision on who it should go to, then we should just award it to them and not have this part of the process. I believe it's in the best interest of the taxpayer to save that $240,000. Well, actually, we may not. I don't know how that's going to shake out. But the fact that it was an error, like the mayor said, if this was a private sector, they would look at that error, bring them in, and then move forward. I think it's in the best interest of the taxpayers to rebid this. And so I'm going to make the motion, and essentially this motion was written for me by the law department. It says, I hereby move to reject the recommendation of the administration regarding the award of the Bobolink sewer replacement project and remove resolution number six from the docket with direction to the administration that this project be rebid as soon as possible and that additional language be included in the bid clarifying how unit price mistakes are to be treated. this action is in the best interest of the government based on information which has been provided to the Council by the administration and other interested parties. So moved. Second. Motion by Council Member Myers, seconded by Council Member Ellinger. The floor is available for discussion on the motion. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Mayor. Charlie, could you come to the podium, please? Can you just tell me what effect this will have on the timing of the project of the if it's rebid please it'll be challenging i mean i i don't i really can't say at this point in time and if uh it's the will of the council to rebid we will make that work and we will work diligently to get it award as quickly as possible because we do have a deadline that is that is imposed upon us that is the end of uh 2014 but you know i said we'll get it done if we need to I understand that, but can you give me an idea? Are we going three months behind schedule, six months behind schedule? Can you quantify that at all? I always feel like I'm always behind schedule. Well, I'm just wondering what this would be. I think it would put us a month. Obviously, there's no way that we would be able to rebid an award before you all go on break. So, you know, if we really got to it, I mean, we could get, I don't know when you return in January, but that would be the earliest that we would be able to come back before the council with a recommendation for a ward, and you can almost be certain that provided the rules will allow it, I'll be asking for two readings at that point. Okay, so the first time we would see it would be January, and then depending upon weather, construction, we're talking about? Yeah, I'm not so sure the starting time is magical, because starting in December or starting in January, I think there's the same level of risk there. You know, the loss in time, in my mind, is about ordering materials as far as the availability of pipes and manholes and things like that. Okay, thank you. You've answered my question. I think there's a lot of interest, I believe, in what you're just saying and describing, Charlie. Council Member Myers was just asking. So can you do that one more time, you know, with as much conviction? I'm not so sure which was the best part, but I'll try. You know, your responsibility is so – let me put this in context, why that question is important. Your responsibility is for the financial management of the project, which includes the schedule. Correct. So these issues, you know, really it's tough for them to be dealt with in silos. The schedule and the budget, those go hand in glove. So this would represent, if a rebid would represent how much of a delay? Roughly, I'm going to guess probably a month. The earliest that we would be able to go through a bidding process again and open bids and all that, I think it would put us past your last meeting date in December. So then that puts us into a situation of coming back to the council, first meeting in January, asking for first and second reading on whoever the apparent low bidder is at that point in time. You know, doing my math in my head here, I mean, you've got, what, maybe two meetings left? Yeah, I don't see us being able to get that through. Typically, we advertise these things for two to three weeks. Well, so given the fact that the contractors have all reviewed, those interested contractors have all reviewed. We have federal money involved. They're very well-made stipulations. But what I'm saying is, is it a two-week minimum? I'll have to go back and consult those. Time's coming forward. And I think this is important because this is why, if you remember, at the last meeting I said we needed to do it then, because we would have had two weeks to do this, and we could be looking at the new outcome today instead of starting from today and then moving out two weeks. But the clear question, please, Todd, is, Mr. Slayton, if you rebid this, can you get that done and make a recommendation by? You said seven to 14 days last time. Can you do this and get this back to us before our last council meeting, before break? No, this is a KIA-funded project, so it has to be advertised for 21 days. And it takes us two to three days to get an ad in the paper. So you're looking at, if we were to start on this in the morning, it would be probably Tuesday or Wednesday before we get the ad out there. And then you'd have to leave it open for 21 days. Okay. My recollection was that you said 7 to 14 days last time. That's a typical bid. I mean, if it's our bid and it's our money, 7 is the minimum, 21 is usually the maximum, so we can adjust that. But since this one is KIA funded, it has to be advertised for a minimum of 21 days. That's a state rule. Charlie has, you want to add to that, Charlie? Can I say something about that, though, Mayor, respectfully? I thought Charlie was going to supplement it, no? Not really, no. I was just waiting. Here's why that's just concerning to me, because we asked that question in the last meeting, and if you had said in the last meeting that it would take, because this was the federal money, it would take three weeks, we would have had that information at the last meeting, and we may have made a different decision. But because we put this off two more weeks and now you give us this information and say it's going to take three weeks, that changes the playing field. But I still stand by it's an investment system of LFUCG to rebid this. Okay. All right. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. And I guess with my thoughts, I know that this project does need to move forward from what I've been told because of the golf course. And I just think it's very unfair to hold up the project because of an error on the part of a bidder. And, you know, I think we have policies to follow and that they should be followed. And I think we're treading on very dangerous grounds when we do not follow our policies because every time a contractor messes up or makes an error in their bid, then we're going to be here to say, oh, we'll just throw them all out. And it just holds up the process, and I do know that maybe the bid was lower. But in the long run, we all know when those change orders come through, it's probably not going to be that much cheaper. but it just frustrates me that we're having this conversation, and that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Hanson. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. I just have one quick question. If Todd can come back up, I'm going to ask Todd your professional attestment to a comment that was made by, I guess, the prevalent attorney that has the contract. He indicated that their bid contained the same error as being brought forth by the bidder that's contesting, that they made a similar error and they were impacted. They suffered the same impact. Explain that, please. The error that free contracting made was there were 100-plus items on this bid, and one of them was rock removal. We put in a quantity. I think it's 2,600 cubic yards of rock that has to be moved for the project. They put in what the price per cubic yard will be, and then they multiply that quantity times that unit price and come up with their total. Their total and their unit price were the same number. They were both $84,400, I believe. So they had obviously made the mistake of putting the total in the unit price, making that the same. MaxBid had a mistake as well in that when you multiply their quantity times the unit price, what they wrote in their total column was not the correct number. It was not to the extent. I think it was in the neighborhood of a dollar difference. So we adjust. When our consultant analyzes the bids, they go through and they do all the addition again, and they multiply out quantity times unit price, come up with the number, and then that becomes the real total of the bid. So was that an accurate statement that the attorney just made? Yeah, because we applied that same logic to both free contracting's bid and to Mac Construction's bid. And free contracting's bid, when you do the math and you check all the numbers, their total bid comes up to be $227 million and change. Mac's bid, which was roughly $2,607,000, it was very similar to that. It was maybe a couple of dollars less. But that's the final number that we use for the contract and as the resolution amount. Todd, thank you for your thorough answers. I'll be honest at this hour. I wasn't following your calculations. I trust you on your calculations. What I've been following is your thought process and the application. And so, again, you've said that what the attorney has said is accurate. And you've also indicated that our application is consistent. What we do for one that impacts one, we do for the other. That's correct. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Ford. Councilor Kaye. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Slayton. A question has been raised about the filing of the protest and whether that was timely. So I guess I have a question for you and perhaps for Mr. Bobbery. Was that, in fact, filed in a timely fashion? And if not, why was it honored? We do have a, I believe Mr. Leach may have given a condensed version of that. There's a three-day window from either the time the bids are opened to file a protest about the process or three days after the award is made to file a protest about the award. That is the protest language. It has always been our position to allow a bidder to provide us with a protest. We're interested to hear what the issues are, and we have allowed bidders to basically phone in their protest and say, we're going to file a protest pending the production of open records requests. MAC Instruction did contact us asking for bid documents, e-mails, the thought process in rejecting the bids prior to when they submitted their bid protest. But it's always been our position to allow that. So there would be a record of their having called and your decision to honor that request. Is that correct? Mm-hmm. So this follows procedure. I don't think it follows the procedure to the T, but I think it follows the intent of the procedure. Okay, thank you. I guess just a comment. That's good. I wanted to follow up with a thought of my own. Okay. I think there's been some questions raised about whether we have the authority and responsibility to overturn this decision. I don't think there's any question about that. We do. I think the question is, does this instance rise to that level of significance that we should exercise that authority and overturn a recommendation from the administration? I think there's probably two bases for that, and that's why I asked my question. One is the integrity of the process. People have spoken about that. It's extremely important to maintain that. And I can imagine under some very extenuating circumstances where the questions of time, cost, implementation would also come into play. But in this case, I believe that our job is really to uphold the integrity of the process and to approve the recommendation. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman McKay. Councilman Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Let me ask Mr. Horn one question. Barbara, I'm sorry. If we reject the recommendation of the administration and put this back out to bid, have we broken or violated any of our policies? please. The language that you have put on the overhead slide would be your authority to basically make a decision of that type. And we would assume that in making that decision, you were basing it on the best interests of the government and that it was based upon all of the information that you've received, both from the administration and the interested parties that have spoken before you all. Okay, thank you. And I wanted to clear that because it was said from the horseshoe that if we do this, we're breaking our policies, and that is in fact not true. Secondly, has purchasing in law already taken action to amend our bid documents so that if this same scenario were to happen, say, next month or six months from now, we would be able to take what I consider to be in the best interest of the taxpayer that would have been the winning bid otherwise? One of the issues was a perception about how tight our unit price language is, and some research was performed to come up with some other alternatives. And going forward, it's my understanding that Mr. Slayton is working with the Division of Water Quality to come up with the appropriate language that would clearly address this type of error going forward. It would never be in front of you all again like this, and hopefully a lot of other types of errors. and the language would be crafted in a way that obviously would be beneficial to us as the government. So it would be our hope that you would not have a similar type bid protest situation in front of you all in the future. Thank you. And the reason I bring that up is because Councilman McKay asked some great questions, and I think that the fact that we recognized immediately that this is an issue that needs to be corrected speaks to why we don't want to just throw this baby out to bathwater on this one and then correct it moving forward. Our due diligence would say to the taxpayer that we take this opportunity to fix this error and then also clean up the language in our bid documents so in the future we don't end up here. So I hope that my colleagues on the council will support this motion. Thank you, Mayor. All right. Thank you. Council Member Stenning. Thank you, Mayor. I think the important issue with this whole discussion, the last couple of council meetings, is that we get it right. Not only in the sense of process, but in the sense of fiscal responsibility, saving and sending money. And this is the first of 82 projects that are right behind it, spending $600 million. Unfortunately, or fortunately, actually in this case, we have an opportunity to do it right the first time. I came in tonight thinking, you know, let's protect the process. We have a process, but clearly tonight there's been demonstration of doubt in that process, that there may be a better process that we can implement going forward. And with that, I just, as the administration last week spoke of lawsuits and that the recommendation from the administration was to proceed forward. Is that still the recommendation? Anyone? Charlie, anyone? The law department? Yes. That is right, Sally. I think we have labored all week over this particular issue because this is that kind of issue which sort of makes you cringe. You stand in the mirror and say, how bureaucratic am I? You know, I mean, is it so important that I protect the process, or do I go back to what Council Member Myers said in protecting the process, I may be costing the taxpayer $240,000. You know, which baby do you take? And I hate those kind of things because I have 38 years that says protect that process. But Janet and I have talked about this. And you don't pick any bigger stickler for rules than Commissioner Graham and I. And we really, we are fine with protecting that process, but we have no problem with rebidding. And because we see why the decision may be to rebid. So we're not afraid, we don't tremble up here to say rebid it. We think we're on totally firm ground if we rebid this. And I think we're on firm ground if we halt. Well, I think especially when you throw in the fact that we initially put out to all respondents to the bid that we were going to rebid it. I think that alone causes enough doubt at this point, given the other circumstances that Councilman Myers has pointed out tonight, that maybe we can get this right going forward the first time. And I think an opportunity to rebid, I always have a saying, common sense should outweigh process. And in this case, I think the common sense approach would be to rebid at this point. And I think that was the re-bit issue. When we looked to re-bit it first before the protest came in is where she and I kept coming back to. But let's get the process right, too. And I know you all know that in anything we say along that, we are not disparaging our staff. And I know you all are not either. So this is not a bad thing. No, we just want to get it right because we want the process to work. And I think this is an opportunity to get it right. Yeah. Thank you, Council Member Stenet. And let me footnote a little. As I think I've said a couple times, it's either a burden or a blessing to have been in the business that MAC and that the Pfisters are in free. You know, and someone described the contracting construction business, especially in these trades, as probably the closest you get to pure American capitalism still alive today. And so often it is, you know, I say this respectfully to those who are the contractors, you know, it's often like a dogfight. And the users, the owners, the institutions like our government really do get a very competitive response, very, very competitive in these trades. And that compares to other things that sometimes we represent as a government. And I'm talking about it's different with other commodity or some things. So I'm very sympathetic with those who are in the bidders and those in the construction side of this. And I'm also very sympathetic, and this is what Sally was saying, with our staff. You know, Charlie's truck was in here at 8.30 the other night. And I see on his face, and Vernon's not here, but I know what they're feeling. They're feeling like, you know, Charlie said it so well. He said, we will accommodate whatever the council says. But what that does mean to them is that they're really delaying the project for six weeks. So that is, you know, we're having this conversation. I used to be a little impatient, frankly, when I first came on council that we would actually, that the council would debate these sorts of issues. Because it always seemed to me that these were management issues that should be taken care of. But I and others, you know, we've become accustomed to this. And there is value in it over time. There is value in it over time because of what Council Member Stendon said about the process and perhaps improvement. But I want to say that my most significant concern in a rebid would be the schedule. Because actually, you know, it could be worth more than the $250,000 delta. and if that actually did materialize into the next bid result. And we're essentially two months then behind. Now, what I heard you say was, Charlie, that we can deal with that. But I want to make sure you confirm that that's the way you really feel. We will deal with it. We have to. I mean, ultimately, the decision rests with the council. You know, as Sally said, we'll make it work one way or another. There is a risk in rebidding. There always is. I mean, basically you've thrown everything out and you're basically starting out. But we will make it work. We will make it work. Okay. Thanks. All right. Mayor, I have a question for Charlie. I know all along that we talked about moving this project particularly forward because it's going into Piccadome Golf Course. And can we work it around to where it will not affect the off-season? You know, golf's very important in our city. I've noticed that when we have gone across golf courses before. and my friends in Parks and Recreation regularly remind us of that. You know, as I said when I was here earlier, the existing schedule was going to be challenging. You know, Yao stepping back for six weeks is going to make it challenging as well. You know, we're going to be back here the very first meeting that you all come back here with an award, and we're going to be asking for two readings, and whoever that lower bidder is, we're going to be firing them up big time. There's going to be a lot more pressure on them in order to be able to deliver the product in a compressed time frame, which speaks to the mayor's comment about now you maybe have introduced more risk into the issue. We'll see when we get there. Ultimately, whatever the council feels like is the appropriate thing to do, given the circumstances and the information you know. At this point, I'm not going to tell you and say, here, I can't do it. I can't do it because I don't believe that. I think we can. Okay. Thank you. You know, I just think it is so unfortunate that we're having this conversation, as I said earlier. You're right, Peggy. But on the other hand, I think someone made the observation that it's actually, you know, coming this early in terms of the full project, all of the remedial measures projects. You know, it's actually sort of a heads up that, you know, that there are opportunities perhaps for improvement. And they all know that Charlie and Todd will work together to try to identify those. But I will tell you that, you know, this bid process is as close to making sausage as it comes for us often making legislation. Yes. It is really challenging when there is a deadline and everybody is pushing toward that deadline. And then they have to fill out, I've done there, I've been there, I know what that's like. And the likelihood then of an error is higher. Okay. But there's awareness for that now. That golf course could cost us money if we don't get this project completed. They're saying that they have anticipated that already. I'll be out there helping. You did say that you anticipated that in the current schedule. I do appreciate the work of everyone. And Todd, I know he has been very upset over this. Day in the life, right, Todd? Day in the life. But I'll support the motion if the administration says that so. I think what I said or what I intended to say is the risk is the same. But by losing six weeks, I mean, I think that does elevate the risk is that we're going to have to really, really get to it when it comes time to award this if rebid is the option. But I think that it is salvageable. I don't think you're penetrated so far into the winter that you can't resolve it. We started a project across Griffin Gate Golf Course. I know Council Member Gordon and Council Member Farmer was here. we went right across Griffin Gate in the dead of winter and had it opened back up by the time golf came on. We've done this before. We believe with the right contractor and the right equipment, we can do it again. Councilman Clark, it's your district. Yes, thank you, Mayor. Charlie, one quick question. Clarify for me, if you would. But if we went ahead with the bid now, when would the Picadome golf course be free? That's number one. And if we have to delay it by six months, when then would it be free? Let me clarify. We're talking six weeks, not six months. Yeah, that's what I mean. I'm sorry. Okay, we want to make sure we were clear on that. Yeah, six weeks. Is it we're talking about moving into an award in January? January. 16th is the first. I don't know what the contract documents actually say, so I don't want to paraphrase it. Basically, I expect that the contract documents are going to say the same thing, is that you've got to have fairways playable by date certain, and that may be April 15th, it may be April 30th. I don't know what that date is, but I know one of the things they've looked at is trying to set up an alignment that avoids tee boxes and avoids, you know, putting greens, which are so much more challenging. I'm pretty certain that basically we're crossing fairways. And when we did Griffin Gate several years ago, we did the same thing. And better players than me are able to clear those and still be able to play. Mine ought to have so much lust with that. So you're saying that basically the deadline is going to be basically the same no matter what we do. Unless Parks gives us some reason or another to be flexible. But it's more about Mother Nature than anything else, as you can attest, is that if we had a super wet spring or a really late winter or something like that, that gives them some slack as well. I think it goes into Council Member Henson's point, though, is that our whole goal is to get out of Parks and Recreation's way so we don't undermine the revenue situation. Please not. Of course. Right. Thank you, Charlie. Todd, I have a question for you, if you don't mind. This has been bugging me about this whole process, and I know there's got to be a logical explanation here, But I'm interested to know why the email was sent eliminating both bids, and then the decision then was made to go ahead and award the bid after that email said, I presume it was an email that said we're canceling both bids. Then the decision was changed to award it to Mac. Can you explain that to me because that's been bugging me. It's actually we post a notice on our website that then that gets emailed to all of the bidders. But our initial decision was there was a big difference in price between the apparent low bidder, which was free, and Mac, who was the second low bidder. And we looked at the right to reject language in the bid document. We kind of analyzed that and thought, let's just toss out the bids and start over again. Shortly a few days later, or maybe the next day, we got the call from MAC protesting our decision to rebid, and they had some valid arguments. Among them were, you're not following your own bid language that says unit price prevails. And we evaluated their arguments as well as looked at our own process. And we also then, what kind of, I guess, what kind of made me most likely to change my mind was looking at how we handled other bid protests and other bids where somebody had made an error on their bid. and we really determined that it would be consistent with previous practice to go ahead and award the bid to the second low bidder. And that's what we had done in the past. That's what was commonly, I guess, known as the golden rule in the construction industry, and we confirmed that with not only like Charlie's group but also other engineering groups like our regular division of engineering. And so we decided that we would maintain the integrity of the process by sticking with our past practices and how we've handled these matters. All right. Thank you, Todd. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Clark. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Well, now that I've heard all this, there are three reasons I'm not going to support the motion. And they are, number one, I think it puts Charlie Martin and his shop under tremendous pressure to finish on time. And I don't want that. Number two, I think it puts us in a position where we might even get higher bids. There's no guarantee we're going to save money on this rebid. There's none. And number three, it puts us in a position where we may lose revenue from golf because we delay. And I'm going to uphold our process and vote against the motion. All right. Does anyone else wish to speak? All right. Ready for a vote then? We are. All right. All right. All in favor of the motion? please indicate by saying aye and voting electronically. And all opposed, no. No. No. All right. Oh, wow. Charlie, you're going to have to come back one more time. Charlie, I'm going to have to ask you one more time, one question. I said earlier I know too much about this. I know that. I'm still going to ask a question. Charlie, one more question. So when you said the deadline, I know Vernon's not here, so you may not know, what's the scheduled performance when it needs to be available for the golf? Or are you working around the golf? Okay, and I don't know that. I know the project itself, the completion date has to be December 31st of 2014 because of the consent decree. I do not know what figure we have in there for golf, But what I do know is that Vernon had worked very closely with the golf staff. I can't imagine that if we rebid this, there will be an interest in changing the date that already appeared in the previous bid documents. So the performance requirement for the schedule is going to stay the same, but the start date is going to be delayed. So the real question is, is the government's interest, is the city's interest worth taking the time to potentially save $250,000, which is the original bid? There's no guarantee, as the vice mayor said, that it would come in at that level. In fact, by requiring acceleration, it may come in higher. Okay? It may come in higher. All right. All that said, my vote is to support the rebid, and it is because when we look at this full project at anywhere between $400 and $600 million, if we translate this and universalize it across the project, then my sense is that we should do all we can to achieve the best value at the lowest cost, and this helps us go in that direction. It's challenging. It's going to be, as you said. And so that Solomonic decision is made. It appears I get to punch somewhere. I don't even think I have that. I don't even get to punch. Mr. Mayor, we'll record your vote. Thank you. So the vote. So the motion passes. All right, Madam Clerk, Madam Deputy Clerk. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Resolution number seven, a resolution accepting the bid of Todd Johnson contracting incorporated in the amount of $1,131,904.45 for the Century Hills Trunk Sewer Replacement Program for the Division of Water Quality and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Lexington Fayette-Irban County government to execute an agreement with Todd Johnson contracting incorporated related to the bid. Number 8. the permanent civil service appointments of Perry White, equipment operator senior, grade 109N, 13.205 hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective October 21, 2013. Paul Willard, engineering technician senior, grade 113E, 2081.84, biweekly in the Division of Engineering, effective November 6, 2013. Number nine, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to accept a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, which grant funds on the amount of $53,662 federal funds under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program are for the reimbursement of costs related to the incarceration of undocumented criminal aliens, the acceptance of which does not obligate the urban county government for expenditure of funds, and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 10, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a change order number one final to the contract with Walter Martin Excavating Incorporated for the Cardinal Lane Stormwater Improvements Project, increasing the contract price from the sum of $9,094.47 from $219,110 to $228,204.48. Number 11, a resolution authorizing the Urban County Council to approve purchase of additional inventory specialist services to be performed by Omnisource Integrated Supply LLC for the Division of Emergency Management 911 under the Metropolitan Medical Response System 2012 grant in the amount of $6,000 and under the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program grant for fiscal year 2013 in the amount of $6,000. Number 12, a resolution authorizing directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a contract with the Board of Education of Fayette County, Kentucky for operation of preschool classrooms at the Family Care Center at no cost to the urban county government. Number 13, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute cost-sharing agreement revision number one with Transylvania University for sidewalk reconstruction associated with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet 4th Street Improvements Project, increasing the amount authorized from $220,000 to an amount not to exceed $400,000. Number 14. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an agreement with Berea College for student placement program to permit nursing students to be placed in the Division of Youth Services at no cost to the urban county government. Number 15. A resolution authorizing the Division of Water Quality on behalf of the urban county government to purchase flow serve WWR rotating assembly replacement parts for dewatering pump number one at the Town Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant from Delaney & Associates, a sole source provider at a cost not to exceed $27,668. Number 16, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a standard agreement for cost sharing for the Central Kentucky 911 network with the existing members of the network and with any additional jurisdictions approved by Lexington Fayette Urban County Government's E911 board at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 17. A resolution authorizing and directing the Division of Traffic Engineering pursuant to Code of Ordinances, Section 18-46, to designate Hiltonia Park as being prohibited to through trucks and... Hold on just a second. We're getting a little raucous here, it seems like. Let's reconvene here. We're maybe losing our caucus to... Or our caucus quorum. All right. Raucous caucus. Go ahead. Sorry, Martha. Ordinances Section 18-46 to designate Hilltonia Park as being prohibited to through trucks and authorizing and directing the Division of Traffic Engineering to install proper and appropriate signs in accordance with the designation. And number 18, a resolution authorizing and directing the Division of Traffic Engineering pursuant to Code of Ordinances Section 18-86 to install multi-way stop controls at the intersection of Shady Lane and McDonald Avenue. Second. Motion to approve. Councilmember Stennett, seconded by Councilmember Beard. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. When you're ready, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Clark? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes on all, including number six, but it makes no difference. Mr. Ford is absent. Ms. Gordon? Ditto. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Kay? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Sure not. Ms. Massadi? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Ms. Gutchfield? Yes. Mr. Stinnett? Yes, I am. Ms. Akers? Yes. Ms. Akers? All right, the vote reflects passage of the motion. Meredith, you back on. First readings. Thank you. Meredith, whenever you're ready, please go ahead. Thank you, sir. Number 19, a resolution accepting the bid of E1 Incorporated, establishing a price contract for triple combination pumper fire trucks for the Division of Fire and Emergency Services. Number 20, a resolution accepting the bid of Sapphire Cleaning Service, LLC, establishing a price contract for Custodial Services Family Care Center for the Division of Family Services. Number 21, a resolution accepting the bid of Galls, LLC, establishing a price contract for crowd control equipment for the Division of Police. Number 22, a resolution ratifying the probationary civil service appointments of Michael Craven's attorney, Grade 117E, 1,957.28 biweekly in the Department of Law, effective November 18, 2013. Eric Gentry, Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N, 14.990 hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective December 12, 2013. Ratifying the permanent sworn appointment of Alan Culver, Police Sergeant, Grade 315N, 28.588 hourly in the Division of Police, effective August 18, 2013. Number 23, a resolution authorizing the Division of Human Resources to make a conditional offer to the following probationary civil service appointments. Aaron Green, Security Officer, Grade 106N, 11.150 hourly. Jeffrey Marshall, Security Officer, Grade 106N, 15.437 hourly, both in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Christopher Woodyard, Staff Assistant Senior, Grade 108N, 18.344 hourly in the Division of Police. Jeremy Spencer, Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N, 13.025 hourly in the Division of Waste Management. Stephanie Bowling, Recreation Supervisor, Grade 110E, 1,254.48 biweekly in the Division of Parks and Recreation. Brian Radabaugh, Traffic Engineer Manager, Grade 120E, 2,968.64 biweekly in the Division of Traffic Engineering, all effective upon passage of counsel. Authorizing the Division of Human Resources to make a conditional offer to the following probationary community corrections officer appointments. Kenneth Atkinson, Joseph Austin, Patricia Bridges, Patrick Burris, Connie Cord, Derek Cundiff, William Darnell, Billy Dawson, Dina DeLeon, Theodore Fritz, Michael Fuhrer, Bethany Garrett, Sandy Gossett, Gerald Green, Matthew Higgs, Jasmine Jackson, Zachary Johnson, Chase Jordan, Jason Kelly, Randy Long, Richard McCulloch, Michael Pointer, Nancy Quinette, Brittany Ramsey, Johnny Ricks, Keith Riley, Matthew Ritchie, John Robinson, John Stamper, Brittany Thomas, Kayla Webb, Lisa Williams, Christopher Willoughby, and Sam Winslow, all community corrections officers, Grade 110N, 14.340 hourly in the Division of Community Corrections, all effective upon passage of counsel. Authorizing the Division of Human Resources to make a conditional offer to the following unclassified civil service appointment. Vanessa Taylor, custodian part-time, Grade 102N, 10.300 hourly in the Department of Social Services, effective December 2, 2013. Number 24, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Emergency Management Agency, in which grant funds are in the amount of $22,076 federal funds and $3,532 Commonwealth of Kentucky funds are for the Versailles Road Campus Storm Shelter, the acceptance of which obligates the urban county government for the expenditure of $3,827 as a local match and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 25, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute and submit a grant application to the Kentucky Emergency Management Agency and to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application, which grant funds are in the amount of $40,650 federal funds under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and are for a weather radio project. Number 26, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an Internal Revenue Service Sponsor Agreement and Civil Rights Assurance for a Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program at the Gaines Way Center at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 27, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a lease agreement with James R. Kemper for property located at 951 Enterprise Drive for relocation of Division of Water Quality Maintenance Operations for an initial term of 48 months with an annual rent not to exceed $86,592.96. Number 28, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute agreements with Kentucky Utilities, $94,824.18, Windstream Communications, $252,108 Kentucky American Water Company, $794,387.14 Columbia Gas of Kentucky, $145,561 and Time Warner Cable, $141,282 for the urban county government's share of costs for relocation of utilities for Section 2 of the Todd's Liberty Road Improvement Project. Number 29, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a release of easement releasing a utility easement on property located at 1000 Export Street. Number 30, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute agreements with Robert H. Williams Cultural Center Incorporated, $400, One World Films Incorporated, $1,080, Lansdowne Elementary School PTA Incorporated, $310, and Lansdowne Neighborhood Association Incorporated, $1,175 for the office of the Urban County Council at a cost not to exceed the sums stated. Number 31, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the National Police Athletic Activities League, Inc., to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application and to accept this grant if the application is approved, which grant funds are in the amount of $27,500 federal funds and are for participation in the National Pal Mentoring Program, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Urban County Government for the expenditure of funds and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 32, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute multi-vendor information technology recovery services contract documents with International Business Machines Corporation for business continuity and recovery services at an estimated cost not to exceed $84,360. Number 33, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a facility rental agreement and catering contract with Lexington Convention Center and Hyatt Regency for the police awards banquet at no cost to the urban county government. Number 34, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a memorandum of understanding with Transylvania University for assistance for police-related events. Number 35, a resolution authorizing the Department of Environmental Quality and Public Works in collaboration with LexArts to provide up to $100,000 in funding for appropriate eco-art projects. Number 36, a resolution approving the granting of an inducement to Alliance Coal LLC pursuant to the Kentucky Business Investment Act, KRS Chapter 154.32, whereby the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government agrees to forego the collection of 1% of the occupational license fees for a term of not longer than 10 years from the activation date subject to the limitations contained in the Act and any agreement Alliance Coal LLC has with the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority and or the Urban County Government related to the project and taking other related action. Number 37, a resolution approving the granting of an inducement to NOMS Technology Incorporated pursuant to the Kentucky Business Investment Act, KRS Chapter 154.32, whereby the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government agrees to forego the collection of 1% of the occupational license fees for a term of not longer than 10 years from the activation date subject to the limitations contained in the Act and any agreement NOMS Technology Incorporated has with the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority and or the urban county government related to the project and taking other related action. Number 38, a resolution of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government approving the issuance in one or more series by the County of Clark, Kentucky, of its County Health Facilities Revenue Bonds, Sayre Christian Village Nursing Home Incorporated Project, Series 2013, in an amount not to exceed $15,750,000 in the aggregate, collectively the bonds, and the use of the proceeds thereof to assist Sayre Christian Village Nursing Home Incorporated, Sayre to refinance a line of credit and a term loan from Central Bank and Trust Company, the proceeds of which were used to finance and refinance the costs of the construction and equipping of a facility for the care of the aged and infirm located at 3840 Camelot Drive, Lexington, Kentucky, and to pay costs of issuance. Number 39, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a memorandum of understanding with United States Special Operation Command for emergency response to threat or attack on special operations facility. Number 40, a resolution authorizing and directing the Department of Finance to designate a fund for the operation and maintenance of the Central Kentucky 911 network. Number 41. Meredith, let me do the gavel again, and I'm going to have to confess as being complicit to it. I should be gaveling myself down as well, but let's bring our level down so we can hear our clerk. All right? Thank you, Meredith. Resolution number 41, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with the villas at Andover HOA Incorporated $1,000 for the office of the Urban County Council at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. And number 42, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor to conduct an employee dependence audit for all health insurance plans during calendar year 2014. There we go. All right. Are there any motions for walk-ons? Council Member Henson, are you up for a walk-on? No, sir. All right. Council Member Stocutchfield, you? No? For a walk-on or suspension? All right. Do we have any walk-ons? No. All right. Suspensions. No. No suspensions? You mean we can call the roll? Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I'm sorry. It's been a busy... All right. Thank you. Motion to approve... There is a suspension. Okay. That's what I was thinking. There is a motion to suspend emerging. Council Member Scotchfield. Thank you, Mayor. I think the long night is slowly coming to an end. Motion to suspend the rules and give a second reading to number, I'm sorry, number 30 and 41. Thank you, Mayor. Motion on 30 and motion on 31. Second. Second by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion? 30 and 30. What was it again? 30 and 41. 30 and 41. All right. We have a motion to second. Is there any discussion on the motion? 30 and 40. All right. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Yeah, I do. All right. Council Member Henson. I move to suspend the rules and give second reading to number 23 for conditional offers of employment recommended, I'm sorry, by the administration. Number 23, Peggy? Yes, sir. All right. Motion on number 23. Is there second? Is there a second on 23? Second. Second by Council Member Scotchfield. All right. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay. Hearing none, then let's take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. No. All right. Is there enough no's? It's happy time. Yep. You want to vote electronically? Let's vote electronically then. All in favor of the motion, please vote electronically. Opposed? Yay? No? This is on number 23. All right. Motion carries. No. Is it? 10 to suspend. Wait a minute. Takes 10. Are we getting there? Nine. Nine. Three people are absent. Two, four. There's 10. Motion passes. All right. Anybody? Thank you, Adam Clerk. Vice Mayor Gordon, do you have a motion to speak? No, I had a comment for later in the meeting. All right. Okay. All right. All right. So, Meredith, whenever you're ready, please give us a second to read. Resolution number 23. A resolution authorizing the Division of Human Resources to make a conditional offer to the following probationary civil service appointments. Aaron Green, Security Officer, Grade 106N, 11.150 hourly. Jeffrey Marshall, Security Officer, Grade 106N, 15.437 hourly, both in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Christopher Woodyard, Staff Assistant Senior, Grade 108N, 18.344 hourly in the Division of Police. Jeremy Spencer, Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N, 13.025 hourly in the Division of Waste Management. Stephanie Bolink, Recreation Supervisor, Grade 110E, 1,254.48 biweekly in the Division of Parks and Recreation. Brian Radabaugh, Traffic Engineer Manager, Grade 120E, 2,968.64 biweekly in the Division of Traffic Engineering, all effective upon passage of counsel. Authorizing the Division of Human Resources to make a conditional offer to the following probationary community corrections officer appointments. Kenneth Atkinson, Joseph Austin, Patricia Bridges, Patrick Burris, Connie Cord, Derek Cundiff, William Darnell, Billy Dawson, Dina DeLeon, Theodore Pritz, Michael Feuer, Bethany Garrett, Sandy Gossett, Gerald Green, Matthew Higgs, Jasmine Jackson, Zachary Johnson, Chase Jordan, Jason Kelly, Randy Long, Richard McCulloch, Michael Pointer, Nancy Quinette, Brittany Ramsey, Johnny Ricks, Keith Riley, Matthew Ritchie, John Robinson, John Stamper, Brittany Thomas, Kayla Webb, Lisa Williams, Christopher Willoughby, and Sam Winslow, all community corrections officers, grade 110N, 14.340 hourly in the Division of Community Corrections, all effective upon passage of counsel, authorizing the Division of Human Resources to make a conditional offer to the following unclassified civil service appointment. Vanessa Taylor, custodian part-time, grade 102N, 10.300 hourly in the Department of Social Services, effective December 2, 2013. Number 30. A resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute agreements with Robert H. Williams Cultural Center, Inc., $400. One World Films, Inc., $1,080. Lansdowne Elementary School PTA, Inc., $310. And Lansdowne Neighborhood Association, Inc., $1,175 for the office of the urban county council at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. And number 41. A resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an agreement with the villas at Andover HOA, Inc., $1,000 for the office of the urban county council at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. Move approved. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Motion by Council Member Hanson, second by Council Member Ellinger to approve. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then, Madam Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Clark? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford is absent. Ms. Gordon? Aye. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Kay? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Ms. Massadi? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Ms. Gutchfield? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Akers is absent. All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The vote reflects passage of the motion. Are we there? All right. Is there a motion for communications from the mayor? Move approval. Motion by Vice Mayor Gordon. Second by Council Member Farmer. Is there any discussion on the motion? No. She voted no. No. I'm sorry. Is there any discussion on the motion? Sly pappy. Yeah. It's getting late. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The motion carries. Communications from the mayor for information only. And next is announcements. The floor of the council is open for. Floor is open. Council Member Farmer. No. Three. Three. Council Member. Who's first? Council Member Farmer. Our Councilman, Vice Mayor Gordon? Do you want to go? Yes, I just had a quick, I wanted to ask Chris to put up on the screen the picture that was in today's paper about when President Kennedy came through Lexington. I believe that was 1960. And I just wanted to comment, because Tom Eblen did not, in the upper right hand corner is what's now our government building, and you see the new parking plaza, which is where we go into our parking garage. And you will note, by the way, that he's driving that-a-way. We had two-way streets then. So just kind of some points of interest. The old days. Thank you, Mayor. And I wish everyone a wonderful Thanksgiving. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mayor, I was going to do one more of the historical mayoral moments, but I will save it until Tuesday. It will just be more historic then. All right. All right. The floor is now available for public comment. Is anyone in the I did have several who signed up. Oh, yes, sir. Tony. Good evening, Mayor and the council member. I'm here on the behalf of 99% of waste management, public service workers, and drivers. I got a letter here that is signed a petition. I'd like you to take it home and read it, if you don't mind. Please. Tony, if you'll just give that to the clerk, and then she'll hand them out to us. that's all I'm asking just read it please all right sir thank you very much yes sir yeah we need help please thank you man I was just asking for some help make our department better I love my department I love my job but I don't like the direction it's going all right all right thank you very much thank you yes sir Yes, sir. Thanks for being here all night. Long night. All right. Is there any, I believe that's all who signed up for public comment. So I'll accept a motion to adjourn by Council Member Ellinger, second by Council Member Myers. Unless there's objection, we are adjourned.