# Urban County Council Meeting - December 5, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 5, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3181 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3181?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-12-05 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 31,457 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Council met on December 5, 2013, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 E. Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Linda Gorton presiding. The council addressed 85 agenda items during the meeting, taking 9 motions and votes while hearing 2 public comments. The session resulted in the approval of numerous ordinances and resolutions covering a wide range of municipal business, including zoning amendments, budget allocations, service district expansions, and various contractual and grant-related matters. One ordinance—Ordinance 1206-13 regarding the repeal of the Lexington Distillery District Tax Increment Financing (TIF)—was tabled, while five ordinances received first readings and were not yet approved. The council's actions encompassed economic development initiatives, public safety equipment and personnel matters, infrastructure improvements, and community partnerships. ## Attendance **Present:** Clark, Ellinger, Farmer, Ford, Gorton, Henson, Kay, Lane, Lawless, Massadi, Myers, Scutchfield, Akers, and Beard. **Absent:** Mossotti and Stinnett. **Late:** None. ## Votes and Decisions **Motion to remove Ordinance 1231-13 from the docket** [timestamp: 01:19:36] Moved by Mossotti and seconded by Scutchfield. This motion to remove the Lexington Distillery District TIF repeal from the docket passed by roll call vote with 14 ayes and 0 nays. All members voted in favor: Clark, Ellinger, Farmer, Ford, Gorton, Henson, Kay, Lane, Lawless, Myers, Scutchfield, Akers, and Beard. **Motion to rescind withdrawal of Lexington Distillery District TIF** [timestamp: 01:43:05] Moved by Akers and seconded by Ellinger. This motion to rescind the withdrawal and request a letter of support to the Kentucky Cabinet for Economic Development passed by roll call vote with 14 ayes and 0 nays. All members voted in favor. The body requested that law draft a resolution for Tuesday, December 10, 2013. **Motion to approve Resolution 1231-13** [timestamp: 01:43:05] Moved by Ford and seconded by Akers. This motion to approve Resolution 1231-13 expressing continuing support of the Distillery District TIF and recommending reactivation passed by roll call vote with 14 ayes and 0 nays. All members voted in favor. The body requested that the administration and developer engage in discussions to establish substantive reasons for reactivation by December 10, 2013. **Motion to amend Ordinance 66-2013** [timestamp: 02:55:04] Moved by Akers and seconded by Beard. This motion to extend the Mobile Food Unit Pilot Program to March 1, 2014 and review in the Economic Development Committee of the Whole passed by roll call vote with 12 ayes and 2 nays. Voting in favor: Clark, Ellinger, Farmer, Ford, Gorton, Henson, Kay, Lawless, Myers, Scutchfield, Akers, and Beard. Voting against: Lane and Massadi. Review was scheduled for the Economic Development Committee of the Whole in January 2014. **Motions to suspend rules and give second reading** [timestamp: 03:25:38 - 03:26:45] Four motions to suspend rules and give second reading all passed by roll call vote with 13 ayes and 0 nays: - Resolution 33 (conditional offers to civil service appointments), moved by Henson, seconded by Farmer, at request of administration - Resolution 65 (support for Distillery District TIF reactivation), moved by Ford, seconded by Myers - Resolution 60 (urging reconsideration of child care cuts), moved by Myers, seconded by Ellinger - Resolution 66 (amendment to Lockbox Processing Agreement), moved by Beard, seconded by Farmer, at request of administration **Motion to adjourn** [timestamp: 03:40:16] Moved by Lane. The motion to adjourn passed by voice vote. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting approved multiple appropriations and contracts totaling millions of dollars across various city departments and services. **Appropriations and Grants** The council approved $2,300 (1240-13) for flashing crosswalk beacons at Fiddler Creek and Clearwater Way. Committee of the Whole appropriations (1243-13) and Economic Contingency appropriations (1245-13) were approved as adopted at the Work Session on November 5, 2013. A stormwater quality projects incentive grant of $22,299 (1241-13) was awarded to the University of Kentucky Research Foundation, with an additional $33,751 (1277-13) granted to the Living Arts and Science Center for the same purpose. **Major Infrastructure Loans** Three significant loans from the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority were approved: $10,194,421 (1274-13) for trunk sewer projects (Bundle 1), $4,657,640 (1275-13) for stormwater improvements projects (Bundle 3), and $6,000,000 (1277-13) for the Expansion Area 2A Pump Station and Force Main Project. **Construction and Services Contracts** The Lexington Streetscape Phase I Improvements contract with E.C. Matthews Co., Inc. was approved for $865,000 (1313-13). HVAC inspection and maintenance services with Triton Services, Inc. were authorized up to $68,000 (1310-13). Additional contracts included interior painting for Waste Management with Simpson and Co., Inc. ($13,806, 1291-13), business continuity and recovery services with International Business Machines Corp. ($84,360, 1209-13), and collection of ad valorem urban service district taxes with Kathy H. Witt, Sheriff of Fayette County ($350,000, 1238-13). **Public Safety and Emergency Services** Grants from the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security totaled $164,000 for public safety dive team equipment ($30,000, 1279-13), rescue watercraft for Fire and Emergency Services ($48,000, 1284-13), and hazardous devices unit equipment ($86,000, 1285-13). **Community Support** National Foreclosure Settlement Fund subrecipient agreements (1290-13) distributed $400,000 total: $100,000 to Fayette County Local Development Corp., $125,000 each to Hope Center and Lexington Habitat for Humanity, and $50,000 to the Salvation Army. Additional grants included $7,080 (1254-13) to Greenhouse17 for domestic violence victim services and $8,400 (1266-13) to Lexington Center Corp. for the Martin Luther King Day Celebration. ## Public Comment Two speakers addressed the council during the public comment period. **Distillery District TIF Support** Tony Davis, owner of Studio 300 at 1200 Manchester Street, spoke in support of the Distillery District Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district [timestamp: 01:17:00]. Davis emphasized his personal investment in the project and stressed its importance both to the community and to his own livelihood. **Mobile Food Unit Pilot Program Evaluation** Sean Tibbetts, owner of Cluck and Burger and representative of the Bluegrass Food Truck Association, testified regarding the Mobile Food Unit Pilot Program [timestamp: 02:49:17]. Tibbetts reported that the pilot program had been successful, citing zero complaints and no health violations. He noted significant business growth resulting from the program and urged the council to extend it without further delay. ## Appointments The following individuals were appointed to positions within various city departments and divisions: - Michael Cravens was appointed to the Department of Law - Eileen O'Donnell was appointed to the Department of Law - Eric Gentry was appointed to the Division of Waste Management - Patricia Slaughter was appointed to the Division of Waste Management - Allen Culver was appointed to the Division of Police - Melinda Weathers was appointed to the Division of Police - Billy Prater was appointed to the Division of Water Quality - Mark Caton was appointed to the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management - William Crowders Jr. was appointed to the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management - Irvin Stewart was appointed to the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management - Tamarah Gross was appointed to the Division of Revenue - Angela Leeber was appointed to the Division of Human Resources ## Contested Items The December 5, 2013 meeting included two items that generated significant debate among council members. **Lexington Distillery District TIF Withdrawal** Council members disputed the administration's authority to withdraw the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district without council approval. The disagreement centered on procedural and legal grounds, with members raising concerns about whether the administration had the power to take this action unilaterally. Council members also questioned the policy implications of the withdrawal and discussed what substantive basis would be required to reactivate the TIF in the future. The debate reflected broader concerns about the proper balance of authority between the administration and the council in managing tax increment financing districts. **Mobile Food Unit Pilot Program Extension** Council members were divided on how to proceed with the Mobile Food Unit Pilot Program. The primary dispute concerned the length of any extension: some members advocated for a one-year extension, while others preferred a shorter three-month extension coupled with a public review process. Underlying this disagreement were concerns about whether adequate due diligence had been conducted and whether sufficient community input had been gathered before making a longer-term commitment. The split vote reflected differing views on the appropriate pace and process for evaluating the pilot program's performance and community impact. ## Ordinance 1232-13: Amending Zoning Ordinance to create 'flex space project' [timestamp: 02:21:45] The council considered Ordinance 1232-13, which amends the zoning ordinance to create a "flex space project" in the Wholesale and Warehouse Business (B-4) and Light Industrial (I-1) zones. King presented the ordinance to the council. The proposal was designed to establish provisions for flexible space development within the specified commercial and industrial zones. The ordinance was approved by a vote of 15 ayes and 0 nays, with no recorded opposition or abstentions. ## Ordinance 1205-13: Amending 21C Development Area Ordinance [timestamp: 02:21:45] The council considered Ordinance 1205-13, which amends the 21C Development Area ordinance by replacing the Lexington Downtown Development Authority with the Department of Finance as the designated agency for the 21C Development Area. Atkins presented the ordinance to the council. The measure was approved by a vote of 15 ayes and 0 nays, with no recorded opposition or abstentions. ## Ordinance 1206-13: Repealing Lexington Distillery District TIF [timestamp: 01:19:36] The council considered an ordinance to repeal the Lexington Distillery District Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district. Key speakers on this item included Graham, Simpson, Paulsen, and Atkins. A motion by Mossotti to remove the ordinance from the docket passed unanimously 14-0, effectively tabling the repeal measure. Following the removal of the ordinance, the council passed a resolution expressing continued support for the TIF district and requesting its reactivation. This action indicated the council's intent to preserve and restore the Lexington Distillery District TIF rather than proceed with its repeal. ## Ordinance 1240-13: Budget amendment for flashing crosswalk beacons [timestamp: 02:18:16] The council considered Ordinance 1240-13, a budget amendment to appropriate $2,300 from Neighborhood Development Funds for the installation of flashing crosswalk beacons at two locations: Fiddler Creek and Clearwater Way. Maynard presented the ordinance to the council. The proposal sought to allocate funds specifically for safety improvements at these intersections through the installation of flashing beacon devices to enhance visibility and alert drivers to pedestrian crossing areas. The ordinance was approved by the council with a vote of 15 ayes and 0 nays, indicating unanimous support for the budget amendment and the crosswalk beacon project. ## Ordinance 1243-13: Budget amendment for Committee of the Whole Ordinance 1243-13 was presented as a budget amendment to reflect Committee of the Whole appropriations that had been approved at the November 5, 2013 work session. [timestamp: 02:18:16] Maynard was the key speaker on this agenda item. The ordinance was approved by the body. The motion passed with 15 ayes and 0 nays. ## Ordinance 1245-13: Budget amendment for Economic Contingency Ordinance 1245-13 was presented as a budget amendment to reflect Economic Contingency appropriations that had been previously approved at the November 5, 2013 work session. [timestamp: 02:18:16] Maynard presented this agenda item to the body. The ordinance was brought forward for a vote without recorded discussion of concerns or debate in the available materials. **Outcome:** The ordinance was approved by a vote of 15 ayes and 0 nays. ## Ordinance 1261-13: Expanding Full Urban Services District #1 [timestamp: 02:18:50] The council considered Ordinance 1261-13 to expand Full Urban Services District #1 to include additional streets for street lighting, cleaning, and garbage collection. Martin presented the ordinance to the council. The motion to approve the ordinance passed with 15 ayes and 0 nays. The ordinance was approved. ## Ordinance 1262-13: Expanding Partial Urban Services District #3 [timestamp: 02:18:50] The council considered Ordinance 1262-13, which proposed expanding Partial Urban Services District #3 to include additional streets for garbage and refuse collection services. Martin presented the ordinance to the council. No concerns or objections were raised during the discussion. The motion to approve the ordinance passed unanimously with 15 ayes and 0 nays. ## Ordinance 1263-13: Expanding Partial Urban Services District #7 [timestamp: 02:18:50] The council considered an ordinance to expand Partial Urban Services District #7 to include Sorrell Way for garbage and refuse collection and street cleaning services. Martin presented the ordinance to the council. The expansion would add Sorrell Way to the existing service district, extending garbage and refuse collection and street cleaning services to that area. The ordinance was approved by the council with a vote of 15 ayes and 0 nays. ## Ordinance 1235-13: Amending Industrial Revenue/Housing Bond Commission [timestamp: 02:21:45] The council considered Ordinance 1235-13, which proposed amendments to the Industrial Revenue/Housing Bond Commission. The ordinance made several structural changes to the commission: **Key Changes:** - Renamed the Commission to the Economic Development Investment Board - Increased membership - Added new industry representatives **Discussion and Outcome:** Emmons presented the ordinance to the council. The measure was approved by a vote of 14 ayes and 1 nay. ## Ordinance 1237-13: Establishing Lexington Jobs Fund [timestamp: 02:21:45] The council considered Ordinance 1237-13 to establish the Lexington Jobs Fund. Atkins presented the ordinance, which included provisions for the fund's purpose, administration, and protections. The ordinance was approved by a vote of 14 ayes and 1 nay. ## Ordinance 1244-13: Budget amendment for municipal expenditures Ordinance 1244-13 was presented as a budget amendment for municipal expenditures designed to reflect current requirements. [timestamp: 02:21:45] Lueker was the key speaker on this agenda item. The ordinance was approved by the council. The motion passed with 15 ayes and 0 nays, indicating unanimous support for the measure. ## Ordinance 1273-13: Adopting 2014 Council meeting schedule [timestamp: 02:21:45] The Council considered Ordinance 1273-13 to adopt the schedule of meetings for the Council for Calendar Year 2014. Maynard presented this item to the Council. The ordinance was approved by the Council with a vote of 15 ayes and 0 nays. ## Ordinance 1289-13: Amending Zoning Ordinance for Neighborhood Business (B-1) zon [timestamp: 02:25:35] Ordinance 1289-13 proposes amendments to the zoning ordinance for the Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone. The ordinance was presented for first reading during this meeting. **Action Taken** The ordinance was placed on file for public inspection until December 10, 2013. No vote was taken at this time, as the measure is in its first reading phase. **Key Participants** Maynard was the key speaker on this agenda item. ## Ordinance 1292-13: Position change in Division of Police Ordinance 1292-13 concerning a position change in the Division of Police was presented for first reading [timestamp: 02:25:35]. Maxwell addressed the body regarding this matter. The ordinance was placed on file for public inspection until December 10, 2013. No vote was taken at this meeting, as the item was in its first reading stage of the legislative process. ## Ordinance 1293-13: Position change in Division of Emergency Management/911 Ordinance 1293-13 concerning a position change in the Division of Emergency Management/911 was presented for first reading [timestamp: 02:25:35]. Maxwell addressed the ordinance during the meeting. The ordinance was placed on file for public inspection until December 10, 2013, in accordance with standard procedures for first readings. No vote was taken on this ordinance at this meeting, as it was in the first reading stage of the legislative process. ## Ordinance 1294-13: Position changes in Department of Law Ordinance 1294-13, concerning position changes in the Department of Law, was presented for first reading during this meeting [timestamp: 02:25:35]. Maxwell addressed this agenda item. The ordinance was placed on file for public inspection, with the inspection period extending until December 10, 2013. No vote was taken on this ordinance during the meeting. As a first reading, the item will proceed through the standard legislative process for further consideration. ## Ordinance 1308-13: Position change in Division of Facilities and Fleet Management Ordinance 1308-13, concerning a position change in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management, was presented for first reading during this meeting [timestamp: 02:25:35]. Maxwell addressed the ordinance during the proceedings. The ordinance was placed on file for public inspection, with the inspection period extending until December 10, 2013. No vote was taken on the ordinance at this meeting, as it was in the first reading stage of the legislative process. ## Ordinance 1337-13: Budget amendment for municipal expenditures Ordinance 1337-13, concerning a budget amendment for municipal expenditures, was presented for first reading during the December 5, 2013 meeting [timestamp: 02:25:35]. **Presentation and Action** Lueker presented the ordinance to the body. The ordinance was placed on file for public inspection, with the inspection period extending until December 10, 2013. No vote was taken at this meeting, as the item was designated for first reading only. **Outcome** The ordinance advanced to first reading status and remains available for public review through December 10, 2013, pending further action at a subsequent meeting. ## Resolution 1239-13: Accepting bid for Triple Combination Pumper Fire Trucks The council considered a resolution to accept a bid for Triple Combination Pumper Fire Trucks [timestamp: 03:00:00]. Jackson presented the item to the council. The resolution proposed accepting the bid submitted by E-One, Inc. for a price contract related to the fire truck purchase. The motion to approve the resolution passed unanimously with 14 ayes and 0 nays. The resolution was approved. ## Resolution 1253-13: Accepting bid for Custodial Services [timestamp: 03:00:00] The body considered Resolution 1253-13 to accept a bid for custodial services. Baradaran presented the item to the assembly. The resolution proposed accepting the bid submitted by Saffire Cleaning Service, LLC for custodial services. The motion to approve the resolution passed with 14 ayes and 0 nays. The resolution was approved. ## Resolution 1260-13: Accepting bid for crowd control equipment The council considered a resolution to accept a bid for crowd control equipment [timestamp: 03:00:00]. Bastin presented the item to the council. The resolution was approved to accept the bid submitted by Galls, LLC for the crowd control equipment. **Outcome:** The motion passed with 14 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1278-13: Ratifying civil service appointments Resolution 1278-13 addressed the ratification of probationary and permanent civil service appointments. [timestamp: 03:00:00] Maxwell presented this agenda item to the body. **Outcome** The resolution was approved by a vote of 14 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1179-13: Accepting grant for Versailles Rd. Campus Storm Shelter [timestamp: 03:00:00] The body considered Resolution 1179-13 to accept a grant from the Kentucky Emergency Management Agency for the Versailles Road Campus Storm Shelter. Gooding and Mason presented the resolution to the body. The resolution was approved by a vote of 14 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1183-13: Submitting grant application for Weather Radio Project [timestamp: 03:00:00] The body considered Resolution 1183-13, which authorized the submission of a grant application to the Kentucky Emergency Management Agency for a Weather Radio Project. **Presenters and Discussion** Gooding and Mason presented the resolution to the body. **Outcome** The resolution was approved by a vote of 14 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1184-13: Executing IRS Sponsor Agreement for Volunteer Tax Assistance [timestamp: 03:00:00] The body considered Resolution 1184-13 to execute an IRS Sponsor Agreement for the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program. Mills presented the resolution to the body. The resolution was approved by a vote of 14 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1187-13: Executing lease for Water Quality Maintenance Operations Resolution 1187-13 addressed the execution of a lease agreement for Water Quality Maintenance Operations. [timestamp: 03:04:03] **Key Speaker** Martin presented this agenda item to the body. **Outcome** The resolution was approved by a vote of 14 ayes and 0 nays. The lease agreement with James R. Kemper was authorized to proceed. ## Resolution 1195-13: Executing agreements for utility relocation costs [timestamp: 03:04:34] The council considered Resolution 1195-13 to execute agreements with multiple utility providers for the Todds/Liberty Road Improvement Project. The resolution addressed utility relocation costs associated with the project. Gooding/Paulsen presented the item to the council. No concerns or objections were raised during the discussion. The motion to approve the resolution passed with 14 ayes and 0 nays. The resolution was approved. ## Resolution 1196-13: Executing release of utility easement Resolution 1196-13 addressed the execution of a release of easement on property located at 1000 Export St. [timestamp: 03:04:34] Graham presented this agenda item to the body. The resolution was approved by the governing body with a vote of 14 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1201-13: Submitting grant application for National PAL Mentoring Program [timestamp: 03:04:34] The council considered a resolution to submit a grant application to the National Police Athletic/Activities League, Inc. for the National PAL Mentoring Program. **Speakers and Presentation** Gooding/Mason presented this agenda item to the council. **Outcome** The resolution was approved by the council. The motion passed with 14 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1209-13: Executing IT recovery services contract Resolution 1209-13 addressed the execution of a contract with IBM for business continuity and recovery services. [timestamp: 03:04:34] Nugent presented this agenda item to the body. The resolution was approved by the governing body, passing with 14 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1214-13: Executing facility rental agreement for Police Awards Banquet [timestamp: 03:04:34] The council considered a resolution to execute a facility rental and catering contract with Lexington Convention Center and Hyatt Regency for the Police Awards Banquet. Bastin presented the item to the council. The resolution was approved by a vote of 14 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1215-13: Executing MOU with Transylvania University Resolution 1215-13 addressed the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Transylvania University. [timestamp: 03:04:34] Bastin presented this agenda item to the body. The resolution was brought to a vote and passed unanimously with 14 ayes and 0 nays. No concerns or objections were raised during the discussion. ## Resolution 1221-13: Funding for EcoART projects Resolution 1221-13 sought to authorize funding for EcoART projects. [timestamp: 03:04:34] **Outcome** The resolution was approved by a vote of 14 ayes and 0 nays. **Funding Authorization** The resolution authorized up to $100,000 in funding for EcoART projects. **Key Participants** Martin was the key speaker on this agenda item. ## Resolution 1228-13: Granting inducement to Alliance Coal, LLC Resolution 1228-13 was presented to grant an inducement to Alliance Coal, LLC under the Kentucky Business Investment Act. [timestamp: 03:04:34] Atkins presented the resolution to the body. The resolution was approved by a vote of 14 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1229-13: Granting inducement to NOHMs Technologies, Inc. The body considered Resolution 1229-13 to grant an inducement to NOHMs Technologies, Inc. under the Kentucky Business Investment Act [timestamp: 03:04:34]. Atkins presented the resolution to the body. The resolution was approved by a vote of 14 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1230-13: Approving issuance of County Health Facilities Revenue Bonds [timestamp: 03:08:08] The board considered Resolution 1230-13 to approve the issuance of County Health Facilities Revenue Bonds for Sayre Christian Village Nursing Home. Atkins presented the resolution to the board. The discussion resulted in approval of the bond issuance for the nursing home facility. The motion passed with 14 ayes and 0 nays, with no opposing votes recorded. ## Resolution 1231-13: Executing MOU with United States Special Operations Command Resolution 1231-13 proposed the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with United States Special Operations Command. [timestamp: 03:08:48] Bastin presented this agenda item to the body. The resolution was brought to a vote and passed unanimously with 14 ayes and 0 nays. No concerns or opposing votes were recorded during the consideration of this matter. ## Resolution 1234-13: Designating fund for Central Ky. 911 Network Resolution 1234-13 was presented to designate a fund for the operation and maintenance of the Central Kentucky 911 Network. [timestamp: 03:08:48] Mason presented this agenda item to the body. The resolution was approved by a vote of 14 ayes and 0 nays, with no opposition recorded. ## Resolution 1300-13: Conducting employee dependants audit Resolution 1300-13 sought to authorize an employee dependants audit for health insurance plans. [timestamp: 03:09:19] Maynard presented this agenda item to the body. The resolution was approved by the governing body. The motion passed with 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1268-13: Accepting bids for refuse collection truck body parts Resolution 1268-13 was presented for consideration to accept bids for refuse collection truck body parts [timestamp: 03:10:56]. **Presentation and Discussion** Baradaran presented this agenda item to the body. **Outcome** The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. The motion to accept bids from multiple vendors passed unanimously. ## Resolution 1282-13: Accepting bid for traffic signal installation and repair The council considered a resolution to accept a bid for traffic signal installation and repair work. Woods presented the item to the council [timestamp: 03:10:56]. The bid was submitted by Davis H. Elliott Construction Co., Inc. for the traffic signal installation and repair project. The resolution was approved by the council with a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1291-13: Accepting bid for interior painting - Waste Management [timestamp: 03:10:56] The council considered a resolution to accept a bid for interior painting work at the Waste Management facility. Feese presented this agenda item to the council. The resolution proposed accepting the bid submitted by Simpson and Co., Inc. for the interior painting project. The motion to approve the resolution passed unanimously, with 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1295-13: Accepting bids for underground electrical service installation Resolution 1295-13 addressed the acceptance of bids for underground electrical service installation. [timestamp: 03:10:56] **Presentation and Discussion** Bologna presented this agenda item to the body. **Outcome** The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. The motion passed to accept bids from two vendors for the underground electrical service installation project. ## Resolution 1302-13: Accepting bid for refurbished mobile data computers [timestamp: 03:10:56] The body considered Resolution 1302-13 to accept a bid for refurbished mobile data computers. Bastin presented the item to the assembly. The resolution proposed accepting the bid submitted by Mobile PCC, LLC for the refurbished mobile data computers. The motion to approve the resolution passed unanimously with 13 ayes and 0 nays. The resolution was approved. ## Resolution 1303-13: Accepting bid for portable radio earpieces The council considered a resolution to accept a bid for portable radio earpieces [timestamp: 03:10:56]. Bastin presented the item to the council. The resolution proposed accepting the bid submitted by Reconik for the portable radio earpieces. The council voted on the motion, which passed with 13 ayes and 0 nays. The resolution was approved. ## Resolution 1310-13: Accepting bid for HVAC inspection and maintenance [timestamp: 03:10:56] The body considered Resolution 1310-13 to accept a bid for HVAC inspection and maintenance services. Baradaran presented the item to the assembly. The resolution proposed accepting the bid submitted by Triton Services, Inc. for the provision of HVAC inspection and maintenance work. The motion to approve the resolution passed unanimously with 13 ayes and 0 nays. The resolution was approved. ## Resolution 1313-13: Accepting bid for Lexington Streetscape Phase I Improvements [timestamp: 03:10:56] The council considered a resolution to accept a bid for the Lexington Streetscape Phase I Improvements project. Martin presented the item to the council. The resolution proposed accepting the bid submitted by E.C. Matthews Co., Inc. for the streetscape improvements project. The motion to approve the resolution passed with 13 ayes and 0 nays. The resolution was approved. ## Resolution 1315-13: Accepting bid for telecommunications franchise The body considered a resolution to accept a bid for a telecommunications franchise [timestamp: 03:10:56]. **Outcome** The resolution was approved. The motion passed with 13 ayes and 0 nays. **Bid Details** The resolution accepted the bid of Level 3 Communications, LLC for the telecommunications franchise. **Discussion** Hamilton was the key speaker on this agenda item. ## Resolution 1318-13: Accepting bid for police bicycles The council considered a resolution to accept a bid for police bicycles [timestamp: 03:10:56]. **Presentation and Discussion** Bastin presented the resolution to the council. **Outcome** The resolution was approved to accept the bid of Pedal Power Bike Shop, Inc. The motion passed with 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1269-13: Ratifying civil service appointments Resolution 1269-13 was presented to ratify multiple civil service appointments [timestamp: 03:13:11]. **Presentation and Discussion** Maxwell presented the resolution to the body. **Outcome** The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1270-13: Authorizing conditional offers to civil service appointments Resolution 1270-13 was presented to authorize conditional offers to multiple civil service appointments. [timestamp: 03:14:13] Maxwell presented this agenda item to the body. The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays, with no opposition recorded. ## Resolution 1325-13: Authorizing agreements with community organizations Resolution 1325-13 authorized the government to enter into agreements with three community organizations. [timestamp: 03:14:46] **Organizations Approved** The resolution authorized agreements with the following organizations: - West End Community Empowerment Project - Lexington Humane Society - Living Arts and Science Center **Outcome** The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1238-13: Authorizing agreement with Sheriff for tax collection Resolution 1238-13 authorized an agreement with the Sheriff for ad valorem tax collection. [timestamp: 03:14:46] O'Mara presented this agenda item to the body. The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1241-13: Awarding stormwater quality projects grant Resolution 1241-13 was presented to award a Class B Education Stormwater Quality Projects Incentive Grant to the University of Kentucky Research Foundation. [timestamp: 03:15:17] Martin presented this agenda item to the body. The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1242-13: Procuring replacement boiler Mason presented Resolution 1242-13 regarding the procurement of a replacement boiler from TMI Sales [timestamp: 03:15:17]. The resolution was approved by the body. The motion passed with 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1246-13: Executing lease agreement for office space [timestamp: 03:15:48] The body considered Resolution 1246-13 to execute a lease agreement for office space with the Council of Three Rivers American Indian Center, Inc. Reed presented the resolution to the body. The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1254-13: Amending agreement with Greenhouse17 Resolution 1254-13 sought to amend the existing agreement with Greenhouse17 to provide additional funds. [timestamp: 03:15:48] **Speakers and Presentation** Gooding/Mason presented the resolution to the body. **Outcome** The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1265-13: Accepting deeds for Leestown West Pump Station [timestamp: 03:16:18] The council considered Resolution 1265-13 to accept deeds for the Leestown West Pump Station decommissioning project. Martin presented the resolution to the council. The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays, with no opposing votes or abstentions recorded. ## Resolution 1266-13: Executing license agreement for MLK Day Celebration Resolution 1266-13 addressed the execution of a license agreement with Lexington Center Corp. related to the MLK Day Celebration [timestamp: 03:16:48]. **Key Speaker** Emmons presented this agenda item to the body. **Outcome** The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1272-13: Executing agreement for uninterruptible power system [timestamp: 03:16:48] The resolution to execute an agreement for an uninterruptible power system with Emerson Network Power was presented to the body. Bastin addressed the item during discussion. The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1274-13: Approving assistance agreement for trunk sewer projects [timestamp: 03:16:48] The council considered Resolution 1274-13 to approve an assistance agreement with the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority for trunk sewer projects. Martin presented the resolution to the council. The resolution sought approval for an assistance agreement that would provide support for trunk sewer infrastructure projects. The resolution was approved by the council with a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1275-13: Approving assistance agreement for stormwater improvements Resolution 1275-13 sought approval of an assistance agreement with the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority for stormwater improvements. [timestamp: 03:16:48] Martin presented this agenda item to the body. The resolution was approved by the council with a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1277-13: Approving assistance agreement for pump station and force main [timestamp: 03:16:48] The body considered Resolution 1277-13, which sought approval of an assistance agreement with the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority for a pump station and force main project. Martin presented the resolution to the body. The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1279-13: Accepting grant for public safety dive team equipment [timestamp: 03:17:53] The council considered Resolution 1279-13 to accept a grant from the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security for public safety dive team equipment. **Outcome** The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. **Presenters** Gooding and Mason presented the item to the council. ## Resolution 1280-13: Executing agreement for nurse with Heroin Task Force Resolution 1280-13 addressed the execution of an agreement for a nurse position with the Heroin Task Force. [timestamp: 03:17:53] Mason presented this agenda item to the body. The resolution proposed executing an agreement with Eastern Kentucky University related to the nurse position supporting the Heroin Task Force's operations. The motion to approve the resolution passed unanimously with 13 ayes and 0 nays. The resolution was approved. ## Resolution 1281-13: Executing interlocal cooperation contract Resolution 1281-13 addressed the execution of an interlocal cooperation contract with the State of Texas. [timestamp: 03:18:26] Slatin presented this agenda item to the body. The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1284-13: Accepting grant for rescue watercraft The body considered Resolution 1284-13 to accept a grant for rescue watercraft from the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security [timestamp: 03:18:26]. **Outcome** The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1285-13: Accepting proposal for collection services The council considered a resolution to accept a proposal for collection services from Professional Recovery Consultants, Inc. [timestamp: 03:18:57] O'Mara presented the item to the council. The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1286-13: Executing general term orders for county officers Resolution 1286-13 addressed the execution of general term orders for county officers, specifically the Fayette County Clerk and Sheriff [timestamp: 03:19:28]. O'Mara presented this agenda item to the body. **Outcome** The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1287-13: Procuring telecommunications services for 911 network [timestamp: 03:20:20] The body considered Resolution 1287-13 to procure co-location services from Windstream Communications for the 911 network. Mason presented the resolution to the body. The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1290-13: Executing subrecipient agreements for foreclosure settlement Resolution 1290-13 sought approval to execute subrecipient agreements with multiple organizations to distribute foreclosure settlement funds. [timestamp: 03:20:20] The resolution was presented by Gooding/Hamilton. The motion to approve the resolution passed unanimously with 13 ayes and 0 nays. The resolution was approved as presented. ## Resolution 1301-13: Authorizing sole source contract for ballistic helmets [timestamp: 03:20:50] The body considered Resolution 1301-13 to authorize a sole source contract for ballistic helmets with Ops-Core, Inc. The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1302-13: Accepting grant for hazardous devices unit equipment [timestamp: 03:20:50] The council considered Resolution 1302-13 to accept a grant from the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security for hazardous devices unit equipment. **Outcome** The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. **Speakers** Gooding and Mason presented this agenda item. ## Resolution 1303-13: Procuring equipment and services for 911 network [timestamp: 03:21:31] The body considered Resolution 1303-13 to procure equipment and services for the 911 network from AK Associates, Inc. Mason presented the resolution to the body. The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1304-13: Awarding stormwater quality projects grant Resolution 1304-13 was presented to award a Class B Education Stormwater Quality Projects Incentive Grant to the Living Arts and Science Center. [timestamp: 03:21:31] Martin presented the resolution to the body. The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1305-13: Accepting donation of horse trailers The council considered a resolution to accept a donation of two Gooseneck four-star horse trailers [timestamp: 03:22:29]. **Outcome** The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1306-13: Extending Neighborhood Action Match Project Resolution 1306-13 sought to extend the completion date of the Neighborhood Action Match Project. [timestamp: 03:22:29] The resolution was approved by the body, with a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1307-13: Establishing residential parking permit program Resolution 1307-13 was presented to establish a residential parking permit program for the 500 block of Stratford Drive. [timestamp: 03:23:04] The resolution was approved by the governing body with a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays, indicating unanimous support for the measure. ## Resolution 1308-13: Installing traffic calming devices Resolution 1308-13 addressed the installation of traffic calming devices on Huston Alley. [timestamp: 03:23:04] The resolution was approved by the governing body with a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1309-13: Installing multi-way stop controls Resolution 1309-13 addressed the installation of multi-way stop controls at the intersection of Clyde Street and Texaco Road. [timestamp: 03:23:04] The resolution was approved by the governing body with a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays, indicating unanimous support for the measure. ## Resolution 1310-13: Adopting policy on contract change orders Resolution 1310-13 was presented for adoption of a policy on contract change orders [timestamp: 03:23:37]. The resolution was approved by the body. The motion passed with 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1311-13: Expressing support for Distillery District TIF Resolution 1311-13 expressed continuing support for the Distillery District Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district and recommended its reactivation. [timestamp: 03:29:55] Ford was the key speaker on this agenda item. The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1312-13: Amending Lockbox Processing Services Agreement Resolution 1312-13 proposed an amendment to the Lockbox Processing Services Agreement. [timestamp: 03:29:55] **Presentation and Discussion** Beard presented the resolution to the body. **Outcome** The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. ## Resolution 1313-13: Urging reconsideration of child care cuts Resolution 1313-13 was presented to urge the Commonwealth of Kentucky to reconsider cuts to child care assistance [timestamp: 03:29:21]. **Key Speaker** Henson presented this resolution to the body. **Outcome** The resolution was approved by a vote of 13 ayes and 0 nays. --- ## Decisions - **1231-13** — passed (14-0): Motion to remove Ordinance 1231-13 (Lexington Distillery District TIF repeal) from the docket - **1231-13** — passed (14-0): Motion to rescind withdrawal of Lexington Distillery District TIF and request letter of support to Kentucky Cabinet for Economic Development - **1231-13** — passed (14-0): Motion to approve Resolution 1231-13 expressing continuing support of Distillery District TIF and recommending reactivation - **1231-13** — passed (12-2): Motion to amend Ordinance 66-2013 to extend Mobile Food Unit Pilot Program to March 1, 2014 and review in Economic Development Committee of the Whole - **1231-13** — passed (13-0): Motion to suspend rules and give second reading to Resolution 33 (conditional offers to civil service appointments) - **1231-13** — passed (13-0): Motion to suspend rules and give second reading to Resolution 65 (support for Distillery District TIF reactivation) - **1231-13** — passed (13-0): Motion to suspend rules and give second reading to Resolution 60 (urging reconsideration of child care cuts) - **1231-13** — passed (13-0): Motion to suspend rules and give second reading to Resolution 66 (amendment to Lockbox Processing Agreement) - **1231-13** — passed: Motion to adjourn meeting --- ## Full transcript Music guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo One, this is the Urban County Council meeting for December 5th, and it is 6 o'clock, so we'll go ahead and get started. And I'd like to ask the clerk to call the roll, please. Mr. Clark? Here. Mr. Ellinger? Here. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? Here. Ms. Gordon? Here. Ms. Henson? Here. Mr. Kay? Here. Mr. Lane? Here. Ms. Lawless? Here. Ms. Massadi? Here. Mr. Myers? Here. Ms. Scutchfield? Here. Mr. Stinnett? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Akers? And Mr. Beard? Present. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have our invocation, and it's my pleasure to welcome Kelly Hale, who is from Emanuel Baptist Church, and she will offer our invocation tonight. Thank you. Let's pray. Father in heaven, I just want to thank you tonight for the men and women who are gathered here tonight to work for the peace and prosperity of Lexington. I thank you for their families who allow them to give so generously of their time. And I pray tonight that the presence of your Holy Spirit would impart to each person here your peace and unity, and that you would guide all decisions made here tonight with your wisdom. I ask that the work done here in these chambers would always be done in truth and beauty for justice and the common good. And I ask that there would be no rancor or anger, but that kindness, gentleness, and patience would be present this evening. Bless all who are here tonight and carry them safely home. Amen. Amen. Thank you so much. And at this time, I would ask, first of all, Mark York to join me at the podium, and we'll have our first presentation. Thank you, Vice Mayor. This evening, we'll be recognizing some students who've been involved with the Recycle Bowl Competition We had students from 19 schools in Fayette County that competed. The contest challenged both public and private schools in Fayette County to collect and recycle as many aluminum beverage cans as possible between October 21st and November 15th. Our efforts were coordinated by members of the Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle team, which includes Bluegrass Green Source, Wise Recycling, Phoenix LLC, Central Kentucky Fiber, Goodwill Industries, Keep Lexington Beautiful Commission, Habitat for Humanity, the Fayette County Public Schools, and LFUCG. More than 146,000 aluminum cans were collected for recycling by students during this year's contest. In terms of weight, they collected more than 4,100 pounds of aluminum. Wise Recycling, Central Kentucky Fiber, Keep Lexington Beautiful, and the Lexington Fade Urban County Government's Division of Waste Management contributed monetary prizes to reward the schools that collected and recycled the highest number of cans per student in their respective size category, as well as the six schools that collected the most cans regardless of the size of their student population. The schools that collected and recycled the highest number of cans per student in their respective size category will each receive $750. The six schools that collected the most cans, regardless of their size, will each receive $450. Schools are eligible to receive only one monetary prize. Additionally, all participating schools were paid by the buyback centers for each pound of cans that they recycled. So it's our pleasure to present certificates to all the participating schools to show our appreciation and also to present monetary awards to the schools that recycle the most cans. Patty Stivender with Bluegrass Green Source will read the names of the participating schools. And Vice Mayor, if you'll join me in the horseshoe, please. All righty. And then we're going to do a picture. Yes, sir. Schools earning certificates for participating are Bryan Station Middle, Lexington Day Treatment Center, Madeline McDowell Breckenridge Elementary, Mary Todd Elementary, Meadowthorpe Elementary, Montessori High, Morton Middle, Paul Lawrence Dunbar High, Rosa Parks Elementary, and the School for Creative and Performing Arts, or SCAPA of the Bluegrass. Schools earning certificates and prize money for recycling the most per student for the category of less than 300 students, Lexington Family Care Center. Are they here? Thank you. We're going to do pictures of each group. Are they doing pictures right now? Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Now in the category of 300 to 599 students, we have Russell Cave Elementary. Thank you. And in the category of 600 or more students, we have Wellington Elementary. Thank you. Thank you. And now we have the six schools that collected the most cans overall. Lexington Universal Academy. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Cardinal Valley Elementary. Christ the King School. Christ the King was unable to attend tonight. Sayer School. Thank you. And Ashland Elementary. Thank you. Thank you. Can I? Are you done with the recycling? I've got one more. I'm going to say one more thing. One final thing about the Recycle Bowl competition, just a reminder, recycling conserves natural resources and energy, and we applaud all the schools, the students, and the parents for their hard work. And we also want to thank the local businesses who were involved in participating with the Recycle Bowl this year. I also want to recognize Jada Griggs from our Division of Environmental Policy who coordinates the Recycle Bowl for us every year. J.D. did an outstanding job, and thank you. Great feeling. Now are you going to do this then? All right. Our next presentation is a Keep Lexington Beautiful and has to do with the Richmond Road cleanup, and I invite Councilmember Peggy Henson and Councilmember Bill Farmer to join us at the podium. Yes. For comments. Yes. Go ahead. Do you want to be first? Do you want to be first? It would seem so. Thank you, Vice Mayor. The presentation tonight is with Keep Lexington Beautiful Commission. The commission was created by ordinance almost four years ago, and it is made up of citizens, businesses, educators, and representatives from the Division of Police, Code Enforcement, and Environmental Policy. I have the honor of representing the council on the commission. Since its creation four years ago, the commission has been responsible for coordinating the Great American Cleanup events. This year, 40 volunteer cleanup events took place. The commission has also received cigarette litter prevention grants from Keep America Beautiful. This year, the grant was used for a project at the Gay Brewer Jr. Picadone Golf Course. The commission is also engaged in anti-littering efforts. It initiated a change in the state law to allow cities the option to issue civil littering citations instead of criminal citations. At the request of the commission, I sponsored the ordinance, and soon our division of police will be issuing civil citations. The commission has also sponsored a planting bed on the Legacy Trail, has been a partner with Arbor Day Celebration and American Recycles Day. Tonight's presentation initiated with a $20,000 grant the Commission received last year for a stream improvement project on Richmond Road. Bush honeysuckle was removed, 1.5 tons of trash, 100 native plants were installed in the area. Our presentation tonight recognizes a group that volunteered last year and this year on the Richmond Road project, And at this time, I will turn the mic over to Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Council Member. Initially, this was a Lowe's Sustainability Grant of $20,000 that Mark York really made the successful application for and involved several entities into it. Tonight, we're celebrating the U.K. Minorities in Agricultural, Natural Resources, and Related Scientist group who were there both years. the first year when we collected a ton and a half of trash, and this year when we collected a half ton of trash. Both of those Saturdays were cold, wet Saturdays, and they worked very hard in conditions that we would have gone home in. But if you drive down Richmond Road now, the green curtain that used to be on your right-hand side going out has been replaced by the beauty of the apartment buildings behind it and the people coming and going there. We understand more about the agriculture there. about the way that the land lays and how the water drains to the reservoir. Those are the lessons that these grants teach. It's my pleasure to help to present that certificate just now. Come say something. Yeah. That's the chair. Well, here, step in and say something. That's the best time. Well, we'd just like to thank this group. They did a marvelous job, and it's especially impressive that they came back the second year after the weather they had the first year. They've done a great job of their public service, And we appreciate it, and the people on Richmond Road certainly appreciate it. All right. Come on down. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next on our agenda is I need a motion to approve the minutes. Second. And that's of October 8th and November 21st. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. And now I would like to ask the clerk to give second reading to the ordinances. Ordinance number one, an 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 two, an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 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 in 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. Okay, thank you. And Council Member Massadi, you're on to speak. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'd like to speak on number three, please. From what I understand, the executive branch of the government has already made a decision to pull the tip from the distillery district, and that this is merely a procedural matter. So I would like to have this item pulled from tonight's docket. You move to remove this from the docket? From what I understand, it's just a procedural matter. Okay. The administration has already made this decision. Okay. And I heard a second from Council Member Skutchfield. All right. The motion on the floor is to remove item number three from the docket. And I see Council Member Kaye up to speak. Thank you, Vice Mayor. um the last time this was on our agenda i believe we had a fairly straightforward recommendation from law about the status of this and i'd like to if i can ask law to comment again my understanding is that this at the moment that this issue is moot for this council that the decision has been made according to the agreements and et cetera between the city and the state. Can you kind of clarify that for us? That's correct. The action that the council would take tonight really would not have an effect on what has been sent to the state. So it would be a procedural as Council Member Masati described it well. Thank you very much. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner. So then why did we put it on the docket to begin with? I believe that I might have to ask Commissioner Paulson that question. I'm not sure I wasn't in on that decision. I mean, if the letter was already sent to the state before it was even put on our docket, I'm not sure why it even came to us. Okay. Council Member Stenet, the reasoning for putting it on the docket was it would still be an ordinance on the books. with a withdrawn TIF, and at the time, Mr. Barbary in law felt it would be best, since the TIF had been withdrawn, to also remove the ordinance. It would just clean the books up around here. So why wouldn't we have done that before we sent a letter to the state? Because it's not officially withdrawn until we send the letter to the state. It's the same procedure we used when we withdrew the show prop TIF. I understand that, but to me, the council enacted the TIF. We shouldn't be sending letters to the state to withdraw it until this council votes to withdraw it. And we haven't voted on that yet, but now we don't get a chance to because it's a mute point. What authority, and maybe the law department can answer this, does the mayor have or administration or whatever you want to call it, have an enactment ordinance that the council passed? Can they automatically withdraw it based on our own action? Council Member Stenet, here's what I would say to that point. So this is a contract between the LFUCG and the Cabinet for Economic Development Authority. And like any other contract, once you all authorize the mayor to sign that, then the administration of that contract comes to the executive branch to make sure that the provisions are being fulfilled. So it's my understanding we were having discussions with the state about this, about the fact that the state was asking, you know, what's the progress, what's the progress? And Kevin can talk about those discussions. I think we were talking to the state about who's the other party to this contract, what is the appropriate thing to do in this situation, and I think part of that was a joint recommendation that this be withdrawn. So like any other contract, once you all authorize the mayor to sign, then it becomes an administration within the executive branch. I'd also point out the original ordinance back in 2008, I believe, authorizes administration officials to carry that out. Okay. I still would like to have had the opportunity to weigh in before we sent a letter to the state. So I think in the future, having this discussion prior to that with the full council, this was in my committee for months. This was never brought up at my committee meeting. But I know you can't speak to that, but I think that's clear that we need to have more input going forward. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Scutchfield. Mr. Graham, thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Graham, I guess I, like Council Member Senate, am a little frustrated with this. And I disagree with your legal analysis. Because if the council voted to enact the TIF, then it would follow form that the council would be the only one to withdraw the TIF. The administration maybe of the TIF would be with you, with the administration. But I think legislatively, we are the only ones that would be able to withdraw or to vote to accept. And I'm disappointed that the administration has done this without our vote and now is asking us to rubber stamp a decision that we haven't been a part of. The distillery district was made promises years ago. I don't agree with some of the things that we were necessarily going to spend money on. But if we can't do what we started, the basic infrastructure, the basic sidewalks, the street, I'm very disappointed in the administration right now. Thank you. Thank you. Are there other council members who wish to speak? I believe we have some folks in the audience who have signed up to speak to this issue. Mr. Simpson. And if I can just state the rules, if you are signed up and wish to speak, each person will have three minutes, and you need to state for the record your name and address, and our timekeeper will keep the clock. So hang on one minute here. Okay. I'm not sure who on this is wanting to speak to the TIF, this issue, but Mr. Simpson, I see you're at the podium. I am indeed, Madam Vice Mayor, and I'm Bruce Simpson. I have been recently engaged to represent Barry McNeese and his distillery group partners in connection with this TIF. As you pointed out, there are a number of folks who have signed up to speak tonight who are going to assign their minutes to me. and I would simply ask that those people who have signed up tonight to speak on this matter, if they would simply stand at this time and acknowledge that I have the right to speak for them. Okay, now, Council Member Ellinger has reminded me, and I appreciate that you all came, that we have a 15-minute limit total. So if some of you, that would be not quite all those folks. I'll take the 15, and they can use the balance of the time. 15 minutes is good. So I'll take five of the 30 people that stood up. Very good. Thank you so much. Madam Vice Mayor, members of the council, as I said, I got recently engaged to represent Barry McNeese in connection with this case because his prior counsel developed a conflict of interest, and last night I met him for the first time on this matter at 830. I have been in the Planning Commission most of the day on another matter that I was already obligated to address, but I have been working on this question. And my recommendation to this body is I think it would be in the best interest of this district to postpone a second reading of this matter, at least until Tuesday. I say that, which I understand is your final meeting, I say that because of several reasons. Number one, this is a very important area in our city. No one disputes that it has been blighted and neglected, abandoned, not paid attention to, cared for, or care about, by generations of people who have occupied leadership positions in our community. I don't say that blaming anybody. It's simply facts of history. With the TIF, for the first time, there is an incentive in place to change it. And in fact, since this TIF was approved by this body in December of 2008, there has been significant change in this district. At the time you passed the TIF ordinance for this property, the total number of jobs in this area of the TIF was 14. Today, there are 101. At the time the TIF was approved in 2008, the real property assessment was worth $4 million. Today, it is double that, $8 million. Now, everybody knew when this TIF was approved for Manchester Street, the most blighted area in our community, or one of certainly the most blighted areas. It was unlike any other TIF this body has considered. because in all the other tiffs, for Turflin Mall, for Centerpoint, for 21C, the recently oppressed Pass Fritz property, all of those properties had sewer, sidewalks, and streetlights. Not so in the distillery district. Not so in the distillery district. Tremendously challenged, but an important neighborhood right next to Rupp Arena and the wonderful ideas and plans for Rupp Arena. It's going to marry right up to that. But it has a distinction all of its own. It can be the foundation, as was articulated five years ago when the TIF was approved, to be part of the very important bourbon trail because so much bourbon was produced in that area. The buildings are still there. And, yes, it's taken a long time to get started. But no one believed it was going to be easy even before the Great Recession. I mean, realistically, it was not a very attractive place to entice new people to come and work. And yet, the people that stood up, they're here because they have businesses on Manchester Street because of the efforts of Barry and his partners and getting the TIF in hopes that things would change. They have a stake in this TIF as well. So it's very important that we look at every opportunity, in my judgment, to be equitable, to be sensitive to a long-neglected and abandoned part of our town, to fix up what should have been fixed with basic services, streets, sidewalks, and sewers. Whether the TIF was ever even considered, that should have been done. Sidewalks, streetlights, and sewers should have been done ages ago, regardless of any TIF. But it's even more important now. But I have had the opportunity to review some of the information that's been shared with you about this TIF. And it's obvious to me there's a great deal of confusion. I've been through, assisted three clients through three different TIFs all the way to the state level, participated every step of the way. On November 21st, there was information shared with this body that the TIF had to be activated by October 29th or there was going to be an issue of noncompliance sent from the state. I've talked with the state officials at KEDVA. That is simply not the case. There was nothing that needed to be done on October 29th by this government or Barry. It simply meant that the time frame for Barry to start work on his project, the 20-year time frame that's allotted under the TIF to put his money into the project, that was his time frame. The risk is all on Barry. It's not on this government. There is no financial risk to this government whether this TIF succeeds or whether it fails. There's no skin in the game except for what the government has already put in. And that's important because the only way it's going to get it back from this project is to allow the TIF to go forward. So let me be clear about this. And if you want the ultimate opinion, what I would suggest is invite the KEDVA people down, Cabinet for Economic Development, and let them share with you what they know, how they view this. Because there will be no issue of noncompliance. It's simply the time frame has started. and Barry's time frame to recapture his investment in infrastructure that's been approved, that's when it starts. The government's put in, I think, $500,000 on some kind of study that's benefited more than the distillery district. It's benefited Rupp Arena and other areas in the town, but it did not just go to the distillery district. And I don't know if there's any more money that's been spent or not, but quite frankly, all $2 million should have gone directly putting sidewalks, streetlights, and sewers in that area, whether Barry was there or not. That being, regardless of all that, there's no noncompliance. The TIF was activated automatically as a matter of law on October the 29th, the 20-year time frame. It's up to Barry to be successful. He has to put in $20 million by 2016 in order to start recouping revenue from the sales tax and the property tax increase that would come about. If he doesn't do that, there's no financial downside to the government. You all don't lose a penny. The taxpayers don't lose a penny. The risk is all on the private entrepreneur. It's simply an incentive. The way TIF operates, it's an incentive for the private developer to say in challenged areas, and this is without question the most challenged area in Lexington that's come before this body for a TIF, but it was appropriate. And, yeah, it's tough. We've had the greatest recession since the Great Depression, 75 years, in the most blighted area. It's a double economic tsunami that's been against this thing. But it doesn't mean it needs to be abandoned. Now, the administration sent a letter on October the 30th withdrawing the TIF. I've just gotten retained late. I tried place calls into Kevin and Derek earlier and sent them emails, but I know they're busy, and I was busy. And as I said, I'm late in the game and being involved in this case. But regardless of all that, as Council Member Stinnett has pointed out, this council was required to approve the TIF. There were hearings conducted. You had to approve it. You did approve it after much debate. And in my judgment, only you can tell the Economic Development Cabinet that you're withdrawing the TIF. there is the opportunity to rescind that letter and give this project the opportunity to go forward. Now, maybe there's issues they're saying about, well, you know, we want to see a better development plan or whatever. You know, if the government doesn't put a penny more into this project, Barry's all on his own. And if he fails, he fails. It's all on him. He doesn't get recoup any of his investment. But whatever he's done, even up to now, he's got 100 and some job, 119 jobs there when there were 14 on Manchester Street five years ago on his own money. The government hasn't helped him do anything. They paid half a million dollars for a hydrology study that's gone beyond the bounds of the TIF district to other places. So I think we need to keep this TIF alive. And I'm not here to be against the administration. Obviously, we want to work with the administration, but I got called in late. You all are up for a second ordinance to turn this project down by repealing the ordinance. And considering that neighborhood, the history of neglect, and the opportunity that TIF has at no risk to this government, I think you ought to do everything you can to keep it alive. Now, it's also been said that somehow the KEDVA people, Cabinet for Economic Development, will look at Lexington and this TIF with a jaundiced eye. I can tell you that's simply not the case. I've talked to them today. They look at every project differently. They knew full well this was going to be a challenged project from the very beginning. Not easy. So it's not any failure on Lexington's part. We're not going to be prejudiced the next TIF that goes to Frankfurt. because Barry McNeese, on a worst-case scenario, is not successful and doesn't recoup the money he spends for the infrastructure improvement. It's his money he's spending. This government's not spending anything now. He will tell you he needs the government's help. And I think it was suggested last time there needs to be a developer's agreement. There wasn't even a request to him to have a developer's agreement. It didn't even come up until the last several weeks. And so if we're going to partner with the government, and I suggest to you that it is in the government's best interest to spend money on putting in the streets, putting in the sewers and the streetlights and the sidewalks, regardless of any tiff. But weeded into this project, we can have a developer's agreement and spell out the obligations of each party with respect to that. But let's have the opportunity to do that. And that's not throw away five years of work and significant improvement on one of the most challenged areas in the history of our downtown. Why throw it away? What's the downside for the government? There is none. There is no downside. There's no risk of losing money, no negative views, none of that. But you take away this tax incentive plan, it tells the business community and future people that want to come and invest in this area that this is not a priority area and other people aren't going to come down here. We're not going to have the synergy that we need to have for all of us to be successful. It's just going to be left to kind of flounder. There's no hope. The people that are here tonight to come down here, they came down here because they thought there might be hope with the distillery district to get into something on the ground level that would be economically successful for them and their families and this neighborhood. Why take that away? There is no downside of keeping this tip active, financially or otherwise. I would simply ultimately ask this body to rescind that letter that was sent on October the 30th and give us the opportunity to work with the administration on a developer's agreement that's meaningful with respect to what I hope to be a good working partnership with the government to really put enough in place in that part of Lexington that's long overdue so that it can be successful and the people who've invested their own personal money in the businesses down on Manchester Street have the hope that they had at the beginning, and it's not taken away from them because this body didn't give the full opportunity for the TIF to take place. I ask you to, if you want to have another hearing on this matter, that's fine. I would simply ask that you deny the second reading of this ordinance. I think it's hasty, and if the administration doesn't believe it's necessary, you know, I disagree with that. I think they need to let you all make the decision about rescission, and I think we need to work together on this matter. I think even with the administration, perhaps there's been some miscommunication or uncertainty about the application of TIF on this matter, but I've been through enough of these to know what I'm talking about, and I'm telling you what I'm talking about tonight are the facts. And don't deep six the distillery district. Let's keep this project alive. Let's get on the same team on this thing and move forward from here on. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Now, Council Members, I have several other people in the audience who wish to speak. Shall we finish that and then come back to Councilmembers? Would that work for you? No. Or we can take Councilmember questions and then go back to the audience. Okay, I see some heads shaking. Councilmember Massadi. Commissioner Paulson, would you mind coming to the podium, please? Can you give me the specific reasoning why this was pulled? What was the administration's thought in doing so? So we have an idea what preceded the reasoning. We have a couple things. So we started talking about this a couple weeks before internally. And when we first decided in terms of where we were going to go for it, we approached Barry to have a meeting about this. Our thinking about this was long-term, this was not going to be activated. And what we were really trying to do is to preserve this project moving forward, the vision, the overall goal of this project. in terms of there are two years for this project to get its minimum investment. We did not feel that that was going to occur. And if that didn't occur, then the TIF would fail. And I think what we felt was to preserve this idea, to keep it moving, the plan was not there, the project was not there, that to get it back to preserve as much as we could to move forward as best we can was to withdraw and start a new project, get it better organized in terms of the infrastructure, in terms of the financing, in terms of the developer's agreement, what was to be done from both sides. And, again, if that was not done, you know, again, we were faced with, and Mr. Simpson mentions, what we were told by the state was if we missed the deadline, the mayor will receive a notice of noncompliance. 30 days after the notice of noncompliance, the mayor will receive a failure to activate letter. Is the project developer specific? I'm sorry? Is the project developer specific? You know. The TIF, I'm sorry. I think when we think about the distillery district and the vision of the distillery district, I don't think it necessarily is. I think it can be, and I think we can still work with the developer on this. But I think where the project is now from where it first started is very different. And again, when we first had this meeting with Barry, when we talked to him about withdrawing the TIF, there was not a no, don't do it. On that day of the meeting, we asked for a letter of support for it. A lot of the discussion that day went to the tap-on fee, waiver of the tap-on fees. And on that following Wednesday, when I asked for a letter of support again, he asked for, he said, okay, send me a template. And I did. Or Susan Straub sent him a template for a letter of support on the 30th. in terms of us moving forward on the 30th we felt that there was some support in terms of withdrawing that tip and again under the guise that we would keep this project moving that we knew there's a lot of hurdles there are a lot of things to go on we do have a lot of infrastructure we are very supportive of those that are there and it's unfortunate that those that are there are the ones that are kind of in the middle on this right now. It's real unfortunate. It is. Well, I hope that maybe we can get someone down from the Kentucky Economic Development Cabinet and explain this to us because, personally, I'm not real comfortable with this at this point. We've been given two different opinions, one from our law department, one from Mr. Simpson. And, you know, at this point, as I said, that's why I want to have it polled, Vice Mayor, because I certainly don't think that we have all the information that we need to make this decision. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner, thank you. I was going to ask a question of Mr. Simpson. The motion that Council Member Mathotti has made would remove this from our docket tonight so it would not receive a second reading. And I think that's kind of us not not doing something where I feel like the administration has acted. And I don't believe there's anything we as a body can do to undo that action. Would that be correct? No, I absolutely disagree with that. Please enlighten me. Well. What would we do? You would. In my judgment, I don't believe the mayor has authority to issue the letter that he did. Okay. I believe this council was required, based upon the enabling legislation, to determine whether they wanted to deactivate this TIF by withdrawing it. And that didn't happen, has not happened. And if that's something you all want to have a hearing about and do, then that's within your prerogative due. But I believe that's what needs to be done. To have a hearing? To make a decision. You know, usually we'll have a hearing to make a decision to undo something that you spent a lot of time doing it, and there's already been a lot of conversation about it. But I think it takes a vote of this body, and it should take a vote as a matter of policy. All right. Even regardless of the law, as a matter of policy, this body ought to vote to rescind that letter. That would be the follow-up action potentially on our behalf then, because the motion on the floor merely pulls this from our docket tonight, does not give it a second reading, does not sanction what the administration has already done. I think that's the first step. I was asking you for the second one, and I think you have just given it to me. That's correct. And just to follow up, you know, I got to talk with the chief of staff, the Cabinet of Economic Development, and their general counsel, Holly Spade. She sent us an email today with respect to this activation date. I'll pass this out to you. The activation date for this TIF project was October 30, 2013. Activation triggers the running of the 20-year time for collection of the tax increment, as stated in Section 6 of the agreement. There is no action that had to occur on that date for the project to move forward. There was nothing to be done. It simply started the time for collecting it. And so the notion that somehow we're going to issue a letter of noncompliance when there was nothing required by the council or the mayor to affirmatively do to start this time to activation for the time to commence doesn't make sense. It's just not accurate. I'll pass this email out. That's fine. I think we have to do first things first. and that would be to take action on the motion that's on the floor, determine what that outcome is, and then see as a body what we want to do next. And I would defer that opportunity for another speaker. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Ford. Excuse me. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I remember having this discussion in great detail two weeks ago at this meeting, and I'll just speak on behalf of myself. is I make some comments at that meeting. And just in general, I tend to try to base my debate and my arguments, whether pro or con, on the facts presented to me, my interpretation of those facts. And I have some, I don't have the confidence in the facts presented at that time as I have tonight. We've heard some very different information from what we heard the other night, and it will behoove all of us to get the right information. The motion that's on the floor, thank you, Council Member Farmer, for setting up that we need to take care of what's on the floor, and then, as a council, perhaps figure out what we do next. What's on the floor is just to remove this item from the docket. And on basis, I support that motion on the premise that it has no legislative impact. And that is based upon, from what we understand to date, is that the withdrawal of the TIF on October 29, 2013, was an executive and an administrative action that was taken by the administration. And what we're doing basically is just rubber stamping it. So if that is the case, if that is the case, it is really of no import for us to pass or have any discussion on this ordinance that's on the floor. But what Attorney Simpson has presented is that that is not the case. And, Attorney, could you come up again, please, sir? My understanding in lay terms is that October 29 was a drop-dead date, for lack of a better term, is that there was something that had to be done and that the administration made the tough decision to make that decision to withdraw. And it was in their purview. And the administration makes those decisions from time to time that I may not agree with or this council may not agree with. But we understand the rules. If it's executive and they can do it, they have that right and that authority to do it. But from what I'm hearing is that October 29th was not a date of noncompliance. It was not a drop-dead date. It was a date of activation. That's correct. I'm hearing about 2016. I'm running out of time. I won't talk about the threshold investment that has to be made by 2016. I won't talk about you spoke, attorney, of the risk that the developer takes. But what's coming to my mind now is what responsibility, and I spoke about this two weeks ago, that we as a government has to, in good faith, push this project forward. We can't make a developer do anything, but we can provide the support to push this project forward. However, the question I have is, if the administration did not have the authority to withdraw, and you perhaps cannot speak for the Economic Development Cabinet, do you, in your opinion, do you think they recognize the letter that has been sent? They do, and they consider that the TIF has been withdrawn. Based on the email that I passed out, they also pointed out that that matter can be reconsidered and that that request for withdrawal of the TIF can be set aside. But that's something that they're not going to make any opinion. They're not going to get involved in the decision-making price of the government versus the mayor or that. That's simply they got communication from the mayor's office indicating it's been withdrawn, and they considered that to be valid. As a matter of policy, it's perhaps your opinion if it took an ordinance to enact and start the TIF, it should have taken an ordinance to withdraw the TIF prior to. Well, absolutely. These people that invested their private funds to come and relocate down on Manchester Street that never would have gone on Manchester Street but for Barry's efforts and the TIF, they were stakeholders. This council are certainly stakeholders in decision-making because it required your all's action to pass the TIF. Right. So why wouldn't it make equitable policy to say bring it back before the body, let the public be heard, you all be informed, and then make a fully informed decision before it was withdrawn? Again, and my time is running out, I say it again and I'll end that my debate is based upon the information that's brought before us, and we have to be trusting in that. Irregardless, this ordinance did not come to the docket until November. a month after the communication went to Frankfurt. We've had this discussion as a council prior to in many instances. We need more timely information. We have committees and we have other venues. We need more information from the administration and I. Perhaps there may be an opportunity that we can provide hope for the folks who have invested. Thank you, Vice Mayor, for the few moments. You're welcome. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner Polson, maybe you or Kevin can answer this question. On the TIF application, is there a developer listed on the application, and can that developer name be changed if there was a new developer on that TIF, or is that TIF application submitted based on that developer name on the application? I know that there is a developer name on it. I'm not sure if it can be changed at a later date, but I know there is a developer's name on it. I think we'd have to check with others to hear the key changes. I mean, I think that's an important point because, as Mr. Simpson alluded, there is no harm to keep the TIF going. But I think if it's developer-specific and only that developer can activate that TIF, I think that's the harm, that if somebody else comes along and says they do have the money, we couldn't do another TIF as long as this one's active. So I think that's an important question is, say someone else does come along that has the money and you're comfortable with, can we use the same TIF, or would he have to form a new TIF? Right, and that's a good question that I'm not sure, but we can find out. And one thing I will say, and it addresses Council Member Ford's question, we are also hearing different information. The information that Mr. Simpson is providing from that e-mail is different than the information we were given in e-mails as well that said, again, there will be a notice of compliance, notice of failure of noncompliance. Those are things that we heard earlier. Again, an important thing I think that we'd like to talk about. Actually, I'll let Kevin speak in case there's something. Well, I think he has the answer to the question. Actually, I have a more specific answer to the council member's question. What you would have to do is if the program or the development changes in any significant way, which is what we saw with CenterPoint, the state requires an amended application. In essence, it turned out to be, for the most part, a brand-new application. So you have to go through the entire process again. You have to go through the application. You have to go through the financial feasibility study. You have to go through every step. So what we have done is we stopped short in this ordinance. We left the development area, the map, in place. So from that standpoint, it would not have to go back to step one. It's ready for a new development. You'd just simply be amended then at that point, new fees possibly. Right. Okay, good. I know I have my other colleagues signed up to speak, but let me go back and give some history, too. We talked about facts of the case. Back in 2008, the council had a discussion and a hearing to bond $2.2 million worth of bonds. We finally bonded that amount. The government has kept its word in terms of putting the money forward on the bond. Not only did we do that, but we paid the only one we've ever paid for, TIF application fees. That was, what, in excess of a couple hundred thousand dollars? So we paid those, too. Not only did we do that, but we went above and beyond. Of that $2.2 million, we used a million dollars of it so far. We paid $500,000 for a feasibility study that normally developers pay on their own before we even do a TIF. Then we turned around a couple weeks ago and did another $500,000 for a hydrology study. Again, it's normally provided for by the developer when they come in. I think we've kept up our end of the bargain to this point. I think where it changed was October 30th. And I think that's the question before the council is, do we need more time to weigh in what impact that TIF withdrawal really has? But the bigger issue here is, to me, I think it's been glanced over by, when Commissioner Paulson says it, we need a plan. Not one council member up here has said we don't support the distillery district, we don't believe in it, but we don't have a plan. If you've read the feasibility study like I have from point to point, there is multimillion dollars worth of improvements needed, but we have no plan as to do we do electric first or sewers the most important. We have no plan on the table, so we can't fund anything if we don't know what the plan is. I think that's what needs to be done regardless of what happens on the TIF, We need a plan. I've heard Commissioner Poulsen say I'm committed to getting that plan to council and to my committee, first of the year. That's what we need. We have a lot of businesses here tonight. Thank you for your investment. I know government doesn't move as fast as you do, but I guarantee you that this council is dedicated to fixing the distillery district. We know it's an issue. It's been an issue for years, as Mr. Simpson pointed out, but we're trying to get a plan. And Mr. McNeese came forward in 2009 with a dream and goal to repair that whole area, to improve it, and to make it a stay-of-the-art area for people to live, work, and visit. I don't think anyone disagrees with that dream today. But what we haven't seen is a developer agreement. It's been talked about more than a couple weeks. It's been talked about for quite some time. We want to see skin in the game from every developer that comes to this council for TIF. And right now we haven't seen that skin in the game, and I'd like to see it, Mr. Simpson. if your client can provide us a written statement saying how much investment he's willing to make in this area, then I think the council can be prepared to come back and say, here's how much we'll help in that area as well. And if it means another meeting, as Council Member Farmer suggested, public hearing, whatever it may be. But let's do it. Let's move forward because we've wasted another month on this matter. We could be planning it and getting it moved off the plate. So I'm ready to do that if your client is and show us how much investment he's ready to make because he is the name listed currently on the TIF application. And if there's another developer, then so be it. But let's get this area moving. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Bruce, I just want to make sure I understand the point of all of your remarks. The motion on the floor is to take this item off the docket. What I heard was you are in agreement with that. Is that correct? I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. Take this item off the docket. That's the motion. Remove it from the docket. And you are in agreement with that, that that needs to happen. Is that correct? Coupled with a resolution by this body sent to the Economic Development Cabinet to rescind the withdrawal of the TIF that was sent by the mayor's office. Well, I'm going to ask you a question that you may not want to answer. but if we decouple those two things, the motion on the floor is simply to take it off the agenda tonight. Do you, representing your clients, believe that that's the right thing to do? Only my concern about just doing that, Council Member Kaye, without doing more, is that the TIF is dead. and the purpose of the ordinance being defeated sends the message that the TIF is not dead, the next step would be to communicate, you know, I'm not down here to create a battle with the administration. It doesn't serve my client's best interest. We want to work with the administration. I think there's been, obviously, different information communicated to the administration and to me about the significance of October the 30th, whatever issues need to be resolved, I'm here to help them be resolved. But what I don't want to see happen with the motion just to table is that's the end of it. No further action is taken because then the TIF is over. And what the email says is that there needs to be some kind of rescission of that letter within a close approximate time to when it was rescinded. And so I don't want it to – the follow-up action, which I want to have a rescission of that letter to take place, to be postponed indefinitely, because I think we need to act within the next several weeks. I know you all are leaving on Tuesday until the end of coming back in January. Well, I'm not sure I got an answer to my question. Well, let me try again. Because we have a motion on the floor. I understand. Unless someone chooses to amend that motion, that's what the vote will be as soon as people have spoken and have had further comment. But I'm trying to get a sense of what really you think is in the best interest of your clients, or people may speak to this themselves. But it seems to me right now our question is, do we or do we not take it off the docket? And so I think I understand your position. What I would suggest is between now and Tuesday, amend the motion to allow us in administration to get together, communicate with the Cabinet for Economic Development, clarify any sense of miscommunication, look at the issues that need to be resolved with respect to any developer agreement and improvements, and come back Tuesday and I should take another look at it. I would suggest the motion be amended to reflect that action. Thank you. I have a question for Commissioner Graham. The information that Mr. Simpson passed out, a memorandum, an email from Holland Spade? Holly Spade. Holly Spade. Responding to a couple of questions. One of the statements is, first of all, only LFUCG has the authority to retract its withdrawal, and any retraction would need to have a substantive basis and be close in time to the initial withdrawal. Can you help us understand what that language, which I presume is somewhat legal, substantive basis and close to the time? What does that mean? I think that's subject to interpretation, but here is a possibility which I will suggest and my good friend Bruce Simpson I think would support. I think he would support the motion if there's additional talking that's done in a short time frame between the administration, the cabinet, Mr. McNeese regarding the project. Would you support that, Bruce, without adding all of the stuff in about another resolution, directing things, et cetera? And to come back? And to come back in short time frame, you know, with some administration recommendations. I think that's fine as long as we both agree that our discussions wouldn't prejudice the petitioning of the cabinet. My time has expired. I may come back. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. First of all, I want to clear up some misinformation provided tonight and other days, but tonight specifically. The actual deadline for the developer to invest the full $20 million requirement under the TIF application is actually December 31st of 2016, which is three years from now and not two years. The amount of monies that the city has paid for the TIF application fee was $50,000, not a few hundred thousand dollars. We also paid $500,000 for the feasibility study out of the bonded funds, but that was just completed this year after we initiated the TIF in 2008, and so the feasibility study was finished in 2013. The hydrology study that we also funded from those bonds was just approved in September, spending another $500,000 of the distillery district bond monies. But that, again, that hydrology study benefits Rupp Arena and the Red Mile and the University of Kentucky, as well as the distillery district. So it was known in 2008 that that was a floodplain area and that we needed to do a floodplain study. and again that wasn't approved until 2013, a month before the TIF was actually withdrawn by the administration. So that doesn't really make a lot of sense that we would fund a study to then not actually support the TIF project. And as far as the support of the developer in the withdrawal of the TIF, I was in the meeting on October 29th with Jeff Fugate from the DDA and Derek Paulson, Commissioner of Planning, with Mr. McNeese and another one of the property owners, Chris Kelly, in the district. And that was the first either Barry or I or Mr. Kelly had heard that there was a plan to withdraw the TIF of the cabinet. And it was mentioned in passing. It wasn't even like, hey, we want to let you know that this is going to happen. It was just, oh, and you know, today's the deadline and we're going to withdraw the TIF. And, I mean, I can't say it any more clearly that the developer was not in agreement with withdrawal of this TIF. So any comments made that says that he agreed? I mean, obviously he doesn't agree or he wouldn't have brought all these people here. He wouldn't have been here two weeks ago arguing on behalf of the area to keep the TIF. So if he supported it, none of us would be here tonight, and Mr. Simpson wouldn't have been hired last night. So I am fine with pulling this if that's what I guess the rest of the council thinks is best. However, I think that that only delays this discussion until Tuesday. We have debated it at length now in two different meetings. And the email that Mr. Simpson provided from the Cabinet for Economic Development does say that this withdrawal needs to happen close in time to the initial withdrawal. We are already more than a month after the initial withdrawal, so I would actually like to just make a motion that the administration rescind, or the council rescinds, the withdrawal from the Cabinet for Economic Development on behalf of the distillery district. So moved. Would you want to hold that motion until the current one's dealt with? Oh, that's right. Yes. Sure. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So any other council members before we get back to the public? No? All right. Now, several of you signed up, and several of you have ceded your time to Mr. Simpson. So I have the list, and if you did not yield your time to Mr. Simpson and you signed up to speak on this issue, will you please just line up at the podium, and I'll find you on the list when you give me your name. If you yielded your time, I would ask that you just simply respect that and not come to speak. So does anyone wish to speak? All of you didn't yield your time. Okay. All right. No one wants to do this. I think, in fairness, Madam Vice Mayor, they came down to show their support for the TIF with the understanding that I would address the body with respect to the issues. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. I didn't want to leave anybody out who wanted to speak. Okay. Now, Jamie Emmons is hanging around the podium, so I would not want to leave you out if you'd like to speak. Well, thank you for recognizing me. I'm sorry the mayor is not here tonight. He was out of town and couldn't be with you. But I just wanted to – I was sitting back there reflecting on how we could be more productive in this conversation and thinking about next steps. And I listened to Mr. Simpson and Ms. Graham about a commitment to working together with the developer to go to Frankfurt and work with the cabinet, perhaps to make something happen rather than continuing a debate about a piece of a project that's important but not the entire project, that being the TIF. And so I just wanted to come up and let you know that I think removing this item from the docket is the right approach. And if that's as far as you want to go, you do have our commitment that we will go work with the developer, with the cabinet, and see what we can do to make this thing happen. It might end up being that we can work with the old TIF, but it might also end up that we have to file a new application. But the cabinet did tell us that they would not reconsider the withdrawal of the TIF unless substantial action or a new basis was given. And we asked what that meant to get a little bit of clarification. And they said something new had to be brought to the table. And that meant something significant being brought to the table, probably along the lines of a development plan and some capital commitments. so we can go back and do that work, but I just wanted to pass along that commitment that we're all in favor of the project, everybody around this horseshoe as well as the mayor, so we want to be helpful. We don't want to get in the way. Thank you. I appreciate that. I know my colleagues do also. All right. I see no one else then to speak, so the motion on the floor is to – Excuse me. Oh, I'm so sorry. If you'll give your name and address, you may have three minutes. My name is Tony Davis with Studio 300, 1200 Manchester Street. Okay. Go ahead. You have three minutes. Yes, I'd just like to let you all know who I am and what I represent. I work in the James Pepper Distillery and have been for several years. Most of my product is available inside 11 different liquor barn stores across Kentucky. I work a full-time job with the federal government. I work with a law enforcement agency. So not only do I work for the feds, but I also have this little wood shop. I've sold over 10,000 pieces in 11 different stores in two years. The Bourbon Barrel Cutting Board, Bourbon Barrel Krillin Jar. You all may not know me, but the product, I think, is very well known here in our community. And I just wanted to let you all know that I care about where I work at. Not only do I work there, but I'm from Lexington, born and raised. I read off of 7th Street areas where I grew up at, Maple Avenue, Shropshire area. Went on to the Marine Corps to serve our country for several years and came back, and this is where I've ended up at. So I think it's very important that not only myself but the people behind me that are here to support the distillery district to include Barry McNeese. I just think you guys need to think about this because everybody here that's behind me does have a dream. to include myself. So I figured I have probably 30 or 40 years left in me, at least I hope I do. And it's not the legacy that you leave behind, but it's the type of legacy that's very important. And I think that's why everyone's here, of course, to include the people that are behind me. But not only myself. My name is Tony Davis with Studio 300 at 1200 Manchester Street. and I handcraft bourbon barrels, the products in Bowling Green, Danville, Louisville, and Lexington. But not only that Barrel House Distillery, which makes oak rum, pure blue vodka, and the Devil John Moonshine. You guys are to come down. I really challenge you guys to come down and introduce yourself because unless you don't have a face with a name, you don't know who you're talking about or talking to, and I really would invite you guys to come down. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. We appreciate your comments. Now, one last shot at it. Was anyone else signed up who wishes to speak? It didn't yield their time. Okay. The motion on the floor is to remove item number three from the docket. All those in favor, please say aye and log in your vote. Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Same. Okay. That motion passes 14-0. so number three is removed from the docket. And now, Council Member Akers wanted to speak. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think that Mr. Simpson made the best argument and said all that I would have said tonight as well, that there is no liability on the government's part if we approve the TIF and rescind the withdrawal. Mr. McNeese has three years in order to come up with nine or eight, or the numbers are fuzzy, but a little less than $10 million over the next three years. If he doesn't do that, the government's not liable, other than for the $2 million that we bonded so far, and 1.2 of which has not been spent. So actually, just $1 million has been spent. But so I don't, I haven't, I'm not convinced that there's any real reason to withdraw the TIF. And so I would like to make a motion to rescind the withdrawal and for council to send a letter of support of the distillery district to the cabinet. So moved. Okay. So there is a motion by Councilmember Akers to rescind the withdrawal of the distillery district TIF. And your second part was to send a letter. And I guess that doesn't have to be part of the motion. Well, actually, if the motion passes, I think it would be in the form of a resolution. Is that correct? Law? Law. And the resolution would go? I don't know how much you want me to say about this, but based on what I've heard, including the email that Bruce Simpson brought and the language read from that, a resolution simply requesting the withdrawal doesn't sound like it's going to be sufficient. You have to have substantive reasons to do it. My suggestion would be that if you're going to do this, you wait until Tuesday so that the proper resolution could be formulated that would have an impact on actually withdrawing it. But recognize what I'm telling you is based on what I've heard reported tonight because I know very little about TIFs. I'm certainly learning as I go. So if Councilmember Akers wanted to make the motion to move forward with rescinding the withdrawal of the TIF, that would allow then on Tuesday the information to come forward. Is that correct? I'm not sure. Are you saying add a resolution to the docket for the meeting on Tuesday? I'm asking this because I'm hearing, you know, when you're in the seat, you hear what council members are buzzing about. And there's a lot of buzz right now about not wanting to wait until Tuesday for some sort of action that would then lock in the future path, which could be finished on Tuesday. Does that make sense? I think there are some council members who do not want to wait until Tuesday to take some kind of action. You can certainly pass a resolution or add a resolution to the docket requesting that this be withdrawn. Part of the issue I see with it is it's simply going to say that the council wants this to be withdrawn with no issues listed to support the withdrawal. But you can certainly pass the resolution. Can I respond? All right. So, in my opinion, the substantive basis that is required in the e-mail to me would be that the mayor did not have the authority. And actually, the letter came from Kevin Atkins, not from the mayor. So to me, the substantive basis is that Mr. Atkins did not have the authority to withdraw the TIF, and therefore the Council is now requesting this resolution to withdraw it. So I guess I would amend my motion and ask that law draft a resolution to be presented on Tuesday for Council to consider. All right. I still second that. Okay. Thank you. So, Council Member Akers moved to amend, and Council Member Ellinger seconded, to amend the motion to request law to draft a resolution which would rescind the withdrawal of the TIF. Does that reflect your motion? Yes, ma'am. Okay. All right. Now, to the amendment. Do folks on the list want to speak to the amendment? Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I believe that this is one potential path. I do not believe it is necessarily the most potentially fruitful one. I think there's a subsequent email between the government and the chief of staff for the Cabinet for Economic Development that lays out that we need to do something factual, that we need to show a substantive difference. And I think the way this is couched is kind of, in my opinion, couched in the negative, saying that something that we don't want or something that we want undone differently. I think it's more important to empower the administration to spend time, TIF applicant, to come up with something that would propose an opportunity to revive this. At this point, it is dead. And I don't believe there's precedent at the state level to revive it on a negatively based amendment. I think we need something that is more positive and something that would be reportable to us on Tuesday to take action on. And I believe the wording needs to be changed or this motion potentially withdrawn in order to bring forward something of opportunity. All right. And if you want to, Commissioner Paulson showed me part of that email if you'd like to reference it at this point in time. I've got three minutes and 49 seconds for you to read or tell. But I think if we're going to do something with this, we need to couch this in a different manner than the way this motion has been presented at this time, or this amendment has been presented at this time. I think it's a little bit about what Jamie had already mentioned and along the lines of what Council Member Stinnett has said as well. They need a good reason to justify the change of heart, new information, new investment, new idea. against something substantive that goes along those lines. That's what we received back a little bit more as well about what a substantive issue is or a substantive basis. That opportunity would come in a forum between the administration and the applicant rather than us in a decree. We would be more than happy to talk to Barry about what that would mean. And, again, I think that falls along the line of what Council Member Stinnett outlined in terms of the developer's agreement, in terms of those sorts of things that would be a substantive basis. To encourage the administration to work with the TIF applicant to bring us something on Tuesday that could be couched in the positive and provide a reinitiation of this rather than a recoil. I'm not making a motion to that end. Others may, or we may vote this down and move in that direction. All right. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. Briefly, I think that any time we have an opportunity for a TIF in our community, it's important that we take that opportunity. And if they don't work out, they don't work out, and the city's not out any money. and so whatever we need to do to make this and our other TIFs successful I think is really important. It's getting state tax dollars that we can't get otherwise that other communities are getting and have made great use of. So I would hope that we could make the most fruitful and best motion and pass it today so that we can act quickly. And the city owns the TIF, not the developer. It's the city's TIF. So do we make a motion? Does it come from us and the administration? Is there an agreement that the administration will work with the developers to have something substantial on Tuesday for us to pass? But it needs to be done before we go on break, it sounds like. So that's just my two cents. Thank you. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I appreciate the spirit of the motion, but I'm like, Council Member Farmer, trying to figure out what the rush is because I think according to the email, what we're reading in front of us and what Commissioner Holston just said, we need something real to take to the Cabinet because it's not our decision to reenact the TIF. It'll be their decision. even if we ask to reinstate it they want some evidence and i think working with council our commissioner and the developer i think you can come up with that evidence before tuesday mr simpson you want to respond to that do you disagree you don't think it's you think it's a well two things number one i think council member acres is exactly right i think the basis for sustaining a motion for this body to rescind the TIF and communicate that to the cabinet on the basis that the mayor didn't have the authority or the mayor's office didn't have the authority to rescind it is factual basis enough. You can't do something if you don't have the legal capacity to do it. But having said that, we're not here to battle with the administration. I mean, I'm involved in this at the last minute. I'm trying to do my best to help the distillery district preserve a TIF. Right now, it's dead. So it needs to be brought back to life, and I am certainly willing and pledge my efforts between now and Tuesday to meet with the mayor's staff and come up with something that's positive. But at the end of the day, if we don't have an agreement, I still don't believe the mayor's office had the authority to rescind the TIF. I believe this body has the authority to rescind the TIF based on its capacity in enacting and enabling legislation. And I don't disagree with you, but the motion that was made does not say what you just said. It has nothing to do with the mayor's authority. It has to do with just simply reinstating the TIF. And I'm going by your email you shared with us. In your opinion, you've worked on all the TIFs I've worked on because I've been here for every one. What would the authority, what do they mean when they sent that email to you? What are they looking for? Because this is unprecedented territory. Well, and I think this is language that the general counsel came up with to respond to a situation they have never addressed. And to come up with, I don't know their statutory basis for this. I think this is like, well, you asked us to withdraw it. Now, why do you want it to rescind that? Give me a substantial basis. Well, one substantial basis, the counsel says, I don't think the mayor had the authority to do this. We do, and we're rescinding it. Then what's the Economic Development Cabinet going to do? They're putting a quandary. We want to avoid that quandary. We want to work with the administration, and let's keep this TIF alive. Let's do what we need to do, respond to your concerns, and let's get on with it, but not abandon it. Right now it's dead. It needs to be raised like Lazarus back to life so that we can move forward. And I'll just end by saying the TIF is an incentive for a developer to put money into a project. It is an incentive, absolutely. But even if it fails and the government does it, there's no downside to the government. All the risk of loss, if it's never realized, if he never gets the $20 million, he doesn't get reimbursed for anything, it's still going to be a lot better project and a lot better street. You cut me off and I was trying to help you, but I'll finish by saying once again, a TIF is an incentive for a developer to put money into a project. This doesn't prevent the government. Who wants to wait three years before we decide whether we put money into it? The TIF has no bearing on whether this government can improve this area. We can do that without with or without the TIF. And that's what we should be talking about tonight, a plan that we put money in as well. We shouldn't be waiting three years to figure out if there's enough tax increment financing. Yes, does it help? Absolutely. But there are things we can do starting tonight and going forward to come up with a plan and spend money. It's not hinged upon a TIF. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. First again, a question for Commissioner Graham. And I'm asking this question because I believe this is not a fruitful way we ought to proceed, but I want to be clear. Does the law department believe that the administration has the authority to rescind that TIF? Yes. The answer is yes. So if we pass this motion, we are now in a legal battle, and we've got a legal issue to be resolved as opposed to the substantive question of how do we help the distillery district. So thank you for that answer. I have a question. I don't know if it's for Commissioner Paulson. It may also be for Jeff Fugate with the Downtown Development Authority. Mr. Simpson has said repeatedly that there is no liability for LFUCG in going forward. First question is, well, I'll take that as a given. But my question really is, is there a liability for the distillery district? Because the TIF is one mechanism. It's one answer to the question, how do we support development in the distillery district? Is there a downside or is there a liability to going forward and reinstituting this TIF as it has been designed? So there is a, so I don't know if a downside is the way to look at it, right, which is that there's a question of fiduciary responsibility here, which is that if you think about it, going back to what is a TIF, right, Locally, you create a development area. That is your action. That's what requires the public hearings. And then there is an application to the state that the city puts in on behalf of the project that asks the state to participate by providing tax breaks. The state trusts the city to take the fiduciary role of overseeing that project. And that trust is predicated on a development program. And so if you go back and look at the development program that this TIF that we're talking about this evening was based on, it looks something like this. It is $80 million of infrastructure improvements, public infrastructure improvements. At the time, the application says that it was anticipated that this would be bonded. The bond actually adds up to about $100 million. once you add in some of the reserve accounts, that there would be a $100 million bond to pay for the infrastructure improvements in the district. Then there would be, and that would come first, and then there would be $110 million of investment afterwards, which would come in the form of a hotel, retail, residential, and a distillery, and the visitor center for the bourbon trail. So that was the program that the state has made its, basically made its promise based on. And its promise is to reimburse. It's not a guarantee of funding. It's, and hopefully it has not been represented as a funding source, that it is a reimbursement. And so somebody has to pay for it on the front end. And I see Jennifer Masati nodding her head. Yes, somebody has to pay for it on the front end. And that is what there has never been any clarity on. And so, you know, I see this from, I'm the third party here. I sort of, I see this from the outside to some extent. And if I were sitting in your shoes, I think what I would want to see, given sort of where you're at, what I would want to see is a development agreement that looks a lot like the development agreements that have been done for every other TIF. and they usually get at basically what is the development program, so has it changed in the meantime? What is the financing plan for it? What is the commitment to show commitments for financing? When will you do that? By what benchmark will you show commitments for finance? How will you pay for the infrastructure? Is there a public ask? And, you know, so is that $80 million something that could be raised privately or are you implicitly saying that you're supporting that $80 million? And then also a commitment on the developer side to provide all pertinent data for compliance issues. So there's an important part of asking for all of that information, and I can't speak for the administration, but I am sure that the cabinet would be willing to work with figuring that out. But until we have sort of that level of agreement between the development and the city, I don't see how you move forward other than continuing to sort of have these kind of conversations about what ought to happen. And I see that I've used all your time. I apologize, Council Member. If I can just make a comment. It seems to me, from what you've said, and this may overpaint it, so I want to be careful, but that the potential liability is that this particular set of agreements, if it fails, stands in the way of other kinds of development, other kinds of commitment, other ways to look at the question of how we, in fact, move forward with the distillery district as an area. Is that fair? I think that is fair, yes. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to speak to the motion that was brought forth by Council Member Akers, and I do believe that she brought it in good spirits, but having caucused around the horseshoe recently, Recently, I agree with Council Member Farmer is that we should be very careful of the message that we send united in trying to revive this project. As the attorney and everybody says, the project is dead as we sit right now. And we've had great discussion. But the challenge is, do we want to bring it back? So it's really before the council. The question is, what say us? Do we support it? And if we do, I think then we just simply ought to say that. I think it would be a great error for us to present to Frankfurt, to the state, a battle between the administration and the council. For them to have on their desk a letter from the mayor's office saying withdraw, and also to have a resolution from the council saying reactivate. So I do believe it's debatable whether or not the mayor had the authority to do it. There's no question that we got this, what was the proposed ordinance, after the fact, and that's regrettable. But in football terms, if you're going to make a mistake, I was told make it full speed, and that's what appears, what has happened. I would like to offer an amendment, a friendly amendment to the motion. and simply I would like for the council to send this message. So this is my motion, my amended motion, Vice Mayor, is that the Irving County Council supports the distillery district, TIF, as originally proposed in Ordinance 266-2008, And we further support the reactivation of this TIF, if so possible, with the administration and the developer. So moved. Is there a second? And I'm not sure, Council Member Ford, we can amend an amendment. It seems like I'm looking at our law department. We had this happen a couple months ago, and we weren't permitted to amend an amendment to a motion. Can you advise us, Mr. Horn? I'm sorry, I was taking notes. And you have a motion to amend a motion. To amend. To amend an amendment to a motion. I think the better thing to do would be to act on the first amendment and then the second amendment. Vice Mayor, I stand corrected and maybe slightly confused. I only recognize one motion on the floor, and that was the motion that was brought forth originally by, did she amend it? Yes. I apologize. That's okay. It gets a little confusing. So I can just withdraw my original motion and amendment altogether. I mean, it's not, we are not very, you know, far apart, these two motions. Does the seconder withdraw? No. No, I can't. Okay, so the motioner and the seconder withdraw the amendment as well as the original motion. Yes. Correct. Now, Council Member Ford. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And that allowed me to retract and go at it in greater brevity. I bring forth the motion that the Urban County Council continues in its support of the distillery district TIF, and we recommend the reactivation of such TIF application via the Mayor's Office and the developer. So moved. Okay. Now, we have a motion by Council Member Ford, second by Council Member Akers, that the Council continues its support of the Distillery District TIF and recommends the reactivation of the TIF. Who did that? That's correct, Vice Mayor. Okay. Okay. There are a few people who want to speak to it, and would this be a resolution that goes forward to the Cabinet, or what would you desire to do with your motion? Great question, Vice Mayor. This would be a resolution that we pass, and it's a tool that we present and a message that we present to both the mayor's office, to this council, and the developer. All we're doing is we are clearly indicating what our support level and what our intent is. I think in order to bring it back, the TIF back to life, it is going to take the action of the mayor's office and the developer. And this goes back to the sentiment that Councilmember Farmer made. earlier, how do we turn a negative and couch it more in a positive effort? This is not about a battle. This is about trying to restart a project. And this motion simply is saying that the council continues to believe in this project. And I feel confident that the mayor's office and the developer with their council may take this message. And the decision ultimately is the cabinets. Thanks, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think this new motion is good as far as it goes. I think there should still be a part of it that asks the administration and the TIF applicants to spend some time, or the people involved, okay, the developer. They need to spend time together over this weekend to come up with something substantive that can be part of this to show Frankfurt our continued interest. This sets the stage for the conversation. It doesn't compel it, but I think that needs to be part of what would have to happen between now and Tuesday is they need to meet and talk in a capacity of what do we do substantive to reinitialize this. And I don't have verbiage to add to the motion, but I think it should be added to give emphasis to the opportunity. Right now, we're just setting the stage, but we need to ask the folks to come together and work this out, work for something to show the cabinet the difference between what has already been rescinded, in essence, and what we're trying to get restarted. Thank you. You're welcome. Council Member Lawless. I guess I'd like to have Council Member Ford restate the motion because what I heard, I thought in his motion was that we support the reactivation of the TIF and working in conjunction with the administration and the developers. that part has not been put in the motion yet the working together part I think vice mayor I think originally I did say so if it's okay I'll restate it just for clarity yes record our urban County Council continues in its support of the distillery district TIF and we recommend the reactivation of said TIF that can be brought forth through the works of the mayor's office and the developer. They have to do it. You seconded it. Does Council Member Akers, I think you seconded it. No, no, I think. Oh, did you second it, Council Member Kay? Well, does the seconder, would a seconder want to accept that language? Well, my original motion and intent of my motion was not merely a suggestion or, yeah, it was not just a suggestion, but was that we would move to rescind. So I am not going to be able to support this motion. I'm fine to, I guess, second it for the sake of discussion. but I would like something that actually, as he mentioned, is a directive. Okay. Now, we have four people who have been waiting to speak. I still have some time if I could. I think it is imperative that we don't send a message to Frankfurt that there's a big war going on and that we are all in this together moving forward. And that's why I would support that language, and I don't know. I think that's very important, and I think everybody would agree, Mr. Simpson, et cetera. We don't want to put the cabinet in the middle of... As someone who has brought this matter for lengthy discussion, we would be perfectly pleased to, between now and Tuesday... Excuse me. I am so very sorry to do this, but at this point, the council is having a discussion of a motion. I know. She asked me a question. Yeah. Well, I said I believe that that's what I heard. Do you want an answer from Mr. Simpson? Can you in about ten words without using the word handsome answer that? Ten words? There's no way I can say something in less than ten words. And can you repeat? I can say that let's work with the administration and come back on Tuesday. We'll either have an agreement to go forward together or you all will make a decision of whether. So this new motion would satisfy that for you? I think the language directing the developer and the mayor to meet together and come back Tuesday and report on where we stand is an appropriate motion, and we would support that. Okay, thank you. Okay, Council Member Myers. And can I just repeat for purposes of what I think is on the floor? The motion is that the council by Council Member Ford, and I believe Councilman Brinker seconded for purposes of discussion. The council continues to support the distillery district TIF and requests reactivation of the TIF be brought back through the work of the administration with the developer. Did that? Vice Mayor, essentially that is exactly what I said. Fortunately, Attorney Horn has wordsmithed that and Meredith is typing it for us right now, but that's essentially what I said, but he puts it in much, much clearer language. It's basically we support it and we implore the administration and the developer to work together. Okay. Now, Council Member Myers, were you on to speak or did you want to wait? I was on to speak, but since they were putting this up, I'd like to read it. Okay. Can you put it up on the screen for everybody else to read? Is that possible physically? Vice Mayor? I'll be. Can you read it? I can. Council, thank you guys. It's up on the screen if everyone looks at the right-hand side of your monitor. Council, continue in support of the TIF has created an ordinance 266-2008, recommends reactivation of the distillery district TIF through work of the mayor's office and the developer, a resolution expressing the Urban County Council's continuing support of the distillery district TIF, recommending the reactivation of the TIF, and requesting that the administration and the developer engage in discussion to establish substantive reasons to support the reactivation. By Tuesday. By Tuesday. I believe that was your intent. Is that Council Member Ford? Does that cover it? That suffices, Vice Mayor. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Now that we've had an opportunity to see this, Council Member Akers, did you want to go ahead, Council Member Myers? Or do you want to wait? Okay. Go ahead. Council Member Myers was next. Thank you, Vice Mayor. A couple of things I want to say. First is that when this conversation first started, Council Member Stenet started the conversation by saying that we weren't sure that the administration had the authority to rescind the TIF. And so I go back to I agree with if that's the case, then that would be what would be substantive. And so the part where we add in there at the end where we establish substantive reasons, well, if that's going to be the substantive reason, I'm all for that. If what you're saying is they've got to come back with all this business plan and all these other things, I guess my question would be, you know, even when the mayor was the vice mayor and this TIF was first put forward, he's never asked this group for any of those things. And throughout this time he's been mayor, he's never asked this group for any of these things. And so now for them to have to come up with these things between now and Tuesday doesn't seem very realistic to me. so that's if someone wants to clear up what they mean by that last statement and what their expectation is that would be fine also my question would be where it says that we are going to continue recommend reactivation of this distillery district tiff are you saying then that we are going to send something to the cabinet stating that we want it reactivated Councilmember Ford? No, sir, Councilmember Myers. I'll answer the latter question first. I think it would be not the best. We shouldn't send anything. The mayor is still the mayor, and he's the executive authorized official. And it is the burden, I think, and the responsibility is upon he and his officials and his administration to represent this government before the cabinet. And I think this resolution allows him to do this. I think also, basically all this says is we're clearly indicating our support. I mean, and I'll say this, and hopefully this may be my last comment in support of this motion, is that I have confidence that Mayor Gray or any mayor that will serve in this chamber will not just ignore a resolution that's brought forth by the will of the council. So this is just giving a clear indication of what we desire, but no, we shouldn't send this. This, however, though, is a very good basis that the mayor and the developer understand where the council is and its support. Okay, can I ask one follow-up question of you, sir? Yes, sir. And that is, what is your expectation when you use that last statement about that they come back with substantive reasons to support the interact? If we say in the very beginning of this that we do support reinstating the TIF, but then you say at the bottom that they need to come back with substantive things, what's your expectation there? Well, I think that was added in by the attorney. I accept it. That was also in the language of the email that Attorney Simpson brought forward. This is just Chris Ford speaking. The burden of proof is on the mayor's office and the developer to get the cabinet to accept the withdrawal, the rescission, and to reactivate the project. Whether that is by whatever means it takes to satisfy that language per the cabinet, we're just saying that they ought to be prepared more than just to say we really didn't mean to send it. They need to demonstrate to the cabinet by whatever that means to the cabinet. It's not necessarily they can satisfy us all day. The ultimate decision lies in Frankfurt, and I hope that they'll be willing to accept a rescission. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Council Member Akers. To follow up on Council Member Myers, he sort of got the ball rolling for me. I wanted to ask someone from the administration who has worked on developers' agreements in recent TIFs if they could, I mean, if it's possible to even create a developers' agreement between now and Tuesday. I feel like, as he stated, we haven't done it in four years. I don't know that we could get it done in two or three days. I guess the answer to that question is I think you could resolve that you will have a developer's agreement if you wanted to go that way because I do think with the passage of time, probably we've seen that it would have been good to have a developer's agreement at the beginning of this one. So the other developer's agreements we've entered into probably have taken a little bit of time to negotiate, but that doesn't mean that a developer's agreement could not be part of the substance of reactivating the TIF or a condition that a developer's agreement be put in place, if that makes sense. I mean, that's what I'm sort of thinking is either mending it or changing or making an all-new motion or something that would require a developer's agreement, but I don't think that we can do it in the timeline that's required by the Cabinet. So I'm just thinking. I think just one comment on that. I think the cabinet would probably welcome the commitment to a developer's agreement and would see that as a positive step. So I guess we could rescind the withdrawal pending approval or acceptance of a developer's agreement by some date with the Economic Development Cabinet. and if that isn't realized by, let's say, the end of March or something, I don't know, then we could again withdraw the TIF. And we can withdraw it at any time in the next three years, correct? I think some of those things I would probably want to talk to the cabinet about. And I was not in on the discussions with the cabinet, so I feel a little bit like I shouldn't be talking for them. Okay, I'm just sort of thinking aloud. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Clark. Thank you. A new voice. Thank you. I have a question for Commissioner Paulson, I think. I think he's probably the one that can answer this. And I've been listening to all this and basically keeping my mouth shut. But here's my question. Through all this argument, who's done this and who's done that, what is the best action to ensure the success of the distillery district? Is it to withdraw and then reinstate with a development plan? Or is it best to do what we're talking about, to reactivating and ask the cabinet to forgive us? We've changed our mind. And I'm really serious about this because I don't think anybody up here is any more in favor of the distillery district than I am. But I want to make sure that what we do is combined with a development plan that the cabinet is going to say, this is good and this is how we want to move forward. And I'm willing to go either direction. I want to do what is best for the distillery district and its ultimate development. So my question is, which is best and why? Well, in my estimation, the best thing would be to go forward with a real development agreement and a real development plan. And, again, I think an important point to remember is that even when we withdrew the tip, we were not ever not going to keep working on it. I think one of the things that we want to keep saying is the things that we were trying to do in terms of those infrastructure issues. trying to work on what is needed in terms of infrastructure, size of the pipes, electricity, all those sorts of things, we are still committed to those issues and getting that plan moving forward. So in my estimation, I think what the KEDFA would like to see is a plan. I think that would be a substantive basis that would show them that there is more of a commitment, that this is not just a whoops, we didn't mean to do it, but that there is something real there. And, again, I think if we can get a developer's agreement that would lay out those things, that Jeff and the Councilmember Stinnett and others have mentioned, I think would be very important to the success. And again, I think the success of the district is important long term. I think that's the thing that no matter what people will say about what was going on, that was what we were trying to work on was in withdrawing it, we were trying to preserve that ability to go back and get that TIF started again with a new application that was more realistic about what was going on in the district at the time, the issues, the costs, the timing, all those things, that was our rationale for this. So we are committed to moving forward in that way. So from our perspective, it would be those sorts of developers' agreements that would be an affirmative, as Council Member Farmer has said. And to do that, you think it would be best to withdraw it and start over again on a new TIF with the plan that is best for us? And again, I think it would be – Or can we do it the way that we're talking about now? Can we do it effectively that way? Well, I think we'd have to see what we could work on as quickly as we can. You know, what can we put together? I think that's one of those things that's very important is, you know, where is the developer on all those issues? I think that's something that all of council would like to see. And so I think depending on where we are on those, we could probably move quicker in some ways, but we'd be happy to give it a shot. Okay. I'm still not sure that what we're talking about now is the best way to go, because when the administration decided to withdraw the TIF, the idea was to withdraw it, but leave the door open to redo it in a different way with greater detail, with a plan that would sell. So I'm trying to get to the point where what is best for these people that have invested their time and money in this? And Jeff. If I may, 30 seconds or less, I suppose. Because here's how I would try to answer that question and the rationale is that the plan in front of you, so the first thing to remember is that the TIF is just a small part of a much larger plan. We're talking about $200 million of investment, of which maybe the $45 million, maybe, would be coming back as reimbursement. And so the question is, is that do we believe that $80 million can still be raised privately to pay for the infrastructure? And if we don't, then we should reformulate the program and the TIF application to match the program we can finance. And that is what we've been asking for and haven't gotten, is where's the program that can be financed? And we will sing your praises all day long if we can see that. Thank you both. Appreciate it. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I was going to call for the question, but I won't just because I have a real concern about not having a developer's agreement when we proceed. I think, you know, if any private developer went to a bank without a business plan or without a development plan, they wouldn't get past the front door. So I think we have to have some kind of consensus of what we're going forward with and have a plan. And I'm not sure that I want to rush this so quickly that if we don't come up and make a resolution and say you need to do this by Tuesday, I think we're all on the same page as far as we want to get this done, but we want to get it done right. So I'm not sure exactly what motion would be put forth, but I think we have to think about what the consequences are, what the timelines are, what the Kentucky Economic Development Cabinet thinks we need to do and provide to them so we can move on in a positive direction. Thank you. Councilmember Kaye. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have a question for Mr. Atkins. While you're walking up, I'll frame it for you. My question is really procedural. If the administration and the developer can reach some agreement to come back to this council for a way to reactivate the TIF, And the state agrees to do that. What options do we then have as a city, as a developer? What happens next? Does that basically start the clock on the four-year need to raise funds, the 20-year plan, and so on? Just to start the clock, that's all it does? Or are there other implications? If I'm understanding your question correctly, I mean, the next step, But if some agreement were reached, we would then need to contact the cabinet to see their willingness, obviously, to reinstate the TIF. But I think the basis of your question is, yes, the clock will have begun. I mean, we'd be back on the same clock we were when the application was made. All right. Okay, and again, I hesitate because I don't want to put you on the spot, but you are on the spot, so I'm going to ask the question. Just from a development perspective, basically what do you need that you have not had in order to feel confident that by starting the clock, The distillery district had a good chance of actually developing out as it has been proposed. I think based on what we have asked of other developers, it would be a development plan and how you plan to implement that, i.e. the business plan. We have asked others for secured, when I say secured, show us the proof that you have financing for this project. We asked just for, those are the two, I've drawn a blank on the others, but we've asked, basically we put together the agreement in a way that, okay, if we're going to do this. Is this a late-breaking bulletin that you just delivered? These are the others. You may not know this, but tag teams are not allowed. On the financing side, we would ask for what the prospects are privately for AESTA money, the $80 million that's needed, as Jeff has already said. The updated development program schedule, evidence of financing, provide all the pertinent compliance data that has to be reported to the state, to the cabinet, not limited to the baseline tax data about the businesses and the capital developments. Basically, what are you spending? And, as has been thrown around here, the codified master development agreement. Okay. And the other thing, we try to be good stewards that any and all further expenses we require the developers to pay. And I would say in the other development of master development agreements, the developer has paid the city's representative, Jim Parsons, to put together those development agreements. Okay. And that sounds like an awful lot to get done between now and Tuesday. We can't do that. Yeah, no, that's not. So my further question, and this may be a question that can't, again, neither you nor law, or anybody else can answer, but I guess what I'm now fishing for is a way to, if there's a possibility of negotiating with the state and saying, essentially, we need more time, we know that you want, it says in your close time to the initial withdrawal, that if it's possible to negotiate with the state and say we would like a month or maybe longer, I don't know, to hold this in abeyance and not close that window so that the opportunity to come back before them and say we have a substantive change now, we do want to reactivate. Is that a possibility? so that we're not trying to do something over the weekend that hasn't been able to be done in quite a while. Council Member Kaye, the way I would answer the question is, and I think where you're asking, I think Commissioner Paulson, probably Jeff Fugate, and I would be willing to contact the Cabinet's general counsel in the morning, Ms. Spade, and ask if we were working toward some type of substantive resolution, if one could be achieved, what would be the time frame that she would give us to do that? Okay. Well, I don't want to make a motion, but I think that would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to go back to something Commissioner Graham said earlier about the mayor's ability to send the letter and deactivate. Because I guess it's not as much this one, but set precedent in the future when we deal with these, is if we as a council decide to go forward with a TIF and then the mayor's administration, because you made that point that they have that right to, and do we then have the right to reactivate it then? And then if that's the case, do we go back and forth, they deactivate, we reactivate? Who has the final say on that? I've not researched any of that. I suspect that this is one of those things in life where the practical probably trumps the legal, and it makes more sense for consultation back and forth to occur rather than trying to get into a huge legal debate about who does what. But I will say that there was a provision in the 2008 ordinance, which in my mind designated the mayor's office and his officials to administer the TIF. So in future ordinances, you could always put in, you know. So with that being said, does the council then have the ability to, what we're trying to do is to reactivate it, or has the administration had the final say then? I believe that the administration, as with any other contract that it has between it and another entity, once you all authorize that contract to be executed, then I believe at that point how that contract is being upheld by the other side or between the parties then becomes an executive branch function. I guess then if you would answer my question, do we have that ability to reactivate it then? Well, I think the reactivation in this case is going to involve the Cabinet for Economic Development because in their mind, I think, and on their website, it is now withdrawn. I still haven't got you to answer if we have that ability or not. Well, I think, and I'm not trying to be flipped, but I do think in this case, You have a third party that really controls a lot of this entity. So I'm not sure that I can give you an answer about do you have that because it's going to rest with them on that decision in many ways, like Kevin said. When he calls them tomorrow and says, you know, we have an interest in trying to see that this go forward, we're going to have to hear what they're doing. I know they're going to be confused because they've gotten a letter from the administration saying we want it deactivated, and now they have the council, which I think there's some separation of power issues here. But one thing that really bothers me is I guess when we heard about this is we were told that the development was in agreement, and obviously I don't think the development was in agreement with what the administration wanted to do here. And then we find out after the fact, I think it was the October 29th deadline, that when it was done, and now we're dealing with this December 5th. So in the future, I think we need to be dealing with these things prior to a certain deadline because it appears that the horse is out of the barn and we don't have the final say, which I think we should have the final say since we're the ones who actually have to go through by the statute to activate it. And that's where I think there's a separation of power issues here that bothers me. And if we weren't in this situation, I don't think we'd have to go looking at trying to find a loophole here now to reactivate on a substantial needs basis, because that's now what we're trying to do here on a reason, which we wouldn't have had to do that anyway if we hadn't deactivated it. So, and I guess the other big issue, and I think what the developer would be worried about now, is we have to start all over with a new process, so we're going to have new filing and new costs. Is that going to, and Mr. Simpson, you probably can answer that. So I think the commissioner of law, her initial response to your question, and you're accurate, it's the separation of powers issue at its threshold, is that at least between now and Tuesday, the practical ought to trump the legal and let's see what we can do. We come back Tuesday. If there can't be a resolution, then you are going to be asked to take certain actions by us or the administration that may be different. I'm trying to put out a fire at this point in time, but I certainly want to work with the administration. I haven't had the opportunity or the time to do that between now and Tuesday, so I don't know what kind of progress we can make. We could certainly have conversations and have better understand our respective positions by next Tuesday. And failing that, this council will have to make a call on whether or not the mayor has the authority to do this or he doesn't. That's your all's determination ultimately to make. Thank you. My time's up. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just in closing, I would ask for support of this motion. And I think it's, I want to make two very important points, is that I don't think anybody in this room, anybody in this room or this community is comfortable to the level of progress the project has made over five years. There are a lot of factors involved, economies and otherwise, but I make the point that that's not the issue. The issue that we're discussing tonight is not whether or not it's a good project, not whether or not enough work has been done by who or by so. So the issue is that the TIF application has been withdrawn, and there's a question of whether it was drawn prematurely, i.e., was there still sufficient time on the clock to still get it done, and then also the issue that it was withdrawn without the council or the consent of this council. So I think we're being very kind, to put it lightly, to offer this resolution of support to show where we stand to the administration and to the developer to go forward. Hopefully we'll have some. However it works out, hopefully they'll bring us a good update on Tuesday. Thanks, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. All right. You have the motion on the floor in front of you on your screen. I see no one else to speak. All those in favor, please say aye. and log in. All those opposed? The motion passes 14 with Mr. Lane has recused. Okay. All right. Okay. We are finished with page one. I'll ask our clerk to go ahead and start with number four. Well, do you need a first reading? Well, this is a resolution, so we'll wait until resolutions and you'll give it a first reading. Okay, so page number four, second reading of ordinances. Ordinance number four. An ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington Fayette Urban County government to 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. Ordinance No. 5, 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 6, 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 at Schedule Number 31. Number seven, an ordinance expanding and extending the full Urban Services District Number one 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 eight, an ordinance expanding and extending partial urban services district number three 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, Castle Bridge Lane, Donington Court, and Fountain Court. Number nine, an ordinance expanding and extending partial urban services district number seven 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, Sorrell Way. Number 10, 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. Number 11, an ordinance amending Ordinance Number 20380 as amended by Ordinance Numbers 5981, 103, 86, 237, 93, 5294, 1896, and 180, 2009, relating to the Industrial Revenue Housing Bond Commission to rename the commission the Economic Development Investment Board to increase the membership from 9 to 11 members to replace one at-large member with the chief development officer or his or her designee who shall serve as the chairperson and who shall only 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 12, 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 productions, priorities, limitations, criteria, an application process, administration by the Chief Development Officer, and a program fund, all effective upon date of passage. Number 13, 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. 28. Number 14, 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. Do I have a motion? Motion approved. Second. All right. All those in? Who were the mover and seconder, please? Mover was Council Member Myers. Seconder was? Oh, mover was Council Member Ellinger. Seconder was Council Member Myers. Thank you. All right. Do you want to call the roll? Oh, Council Member Scotchfield. Oh, did you? I have a question. Oh, sure. Vice Mayor, I apologize, and I promise, Council, I will make it as quick as possible. Because of past experience with this, I do want to have this question answered. On 7, 8, and 9, are street lights already installed? Is Charlie Martin here? He was. Ah, Madam CAO. I apologize. I do not know the answer to that, and Charlie Martin had to leave. So I will get you that answer, and I will see if I can get him right now. But at this point, there's multiple. I mean, this is spanning not just 5th District. This is some of 7th District. This is a lot of different areas. And I know that we talked about at our last council meeting or committee meeting that we did not want to put these people into these tax districts if they do not have them installed. And I really don't feel comfortable passing this without knowing that answer. Councilmember, were you finished? Councilmember Farmer may have an answer. Thank you. Just on number seven, I will speak to that. Tabor Lake does have lighting currently. This is to set the taxing district to go along with the lighting that they have. So that one's good. I don't know about eight or nine, though. Okay. Eight and nine does not include. Okay. 8 and 9 do not include those streetlights. Thank you. I'm sorry I didn't have a better answer for you. And thank you, Council Member Farmer. I just, again, that's an issue that... A hot button. Thank you, Vice Mayor. All right. Now, Council Member Farmer, you're still on. Did you have anything else? Okay. All right. I think we're ready for the vote. Mr. Clark? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? Yes. Ms. Gordon? Aye. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Kay? Yes. Mr. Lane? Recuse on number 3 and no on 10 and 12 and yes on the rest. Thank you. Three was removed. Three was gone. Can you repeat that, please, Mr. Lane? Recuse. Can you repeat, please? Three is removed from the docket. Never mind. No on 10 and 12? No on 10 and 12. Thank you. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Ms. Massadi? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Scutchfield? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Stenet? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Akers? Yes. And Mr. Beard? Aye. Thank you. Okay, those pass 15-0. And so now, if you could please give first reading to ordinances. Ordinance number 15. An ordinance amending Articles 1, 8, and 12 of the zoning ordinance to modify uses in the Neighborhood Business B-1 Zone. Number 16, an ordinance amending Section 2152 of the Code of Ordinances abolishing one position of Safety Officer, Grade 108N, and creating one position of School Crossing Guard Coordinator, Grade 111N, both in the Division of Police appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 32, effective upon passage of counsel. Number 17, an ordinance amending Section 2152 of the Code of Ordinances abolishing one position of Director Enhanced 911, Grade 119E and creating one position of Director Enhanced 911, Grade 122E, both in the Division of Emergency Management 911, appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 33, effective upon passage of counsel. Number 18, an ordinance amending Sections 2152 of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing one position of Staff Assistant Senior, Grade 108N, and creating one position of Attorney Senior, Grade 121E, and amending Section 2252 of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing one position of attorney, Grade 117e, all in the Department of Law, appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 34, effective upon passage of counsel. Number 19, an ordinance amending Section 2152 of the Code of Ordinances abolishing one position of Fleet Operations Supervisor, Grade 115e, and creating one position of Administrative Officer, Grade 118e, both in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management, appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 35, effective upon passage of counsel. Number 20, 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 number 36. All right. Are there any walk-ons? There are 10 of us left. Okay. Okay. Okay. Are there any motions to... If Council Member Akers wants to walk something on, she can do that when she comes back. I mean, I don't feel I can walk on something of someone else's. Yes. Well, let's go on and ask if there are any suspensions for second reading. Does anyone have a suspension of one of these? Okay. Is Council Member Akers back there? Does anyone know? Since a few people think she has a walk-on. No? Okay. Oh, we lost our quorum. Okay, now we have a quorum back. Okay, seeing no walk-ons, would you go ahead and give second reading to the resolutions? Oh, did you have a walk-on? It's a run-on now. For ordinances or resolutions? Ordinances. I'm so sorry. Okay, let me find it. Here we go. I move to place on tonight's docket an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 66-2013, creating the mobile food unit vendor pilot program to extend the date of the program to December 31, 2014. So moved. We have a motion by Council Member Akers, second by Council Member Clark, to extend the pilot program to December 31, 2014. is there any discussion Councilmember Scutchfield Councilmember thank you Vice Mayor Gordon Councilmember Akers I'm not opposed to this per se but I'm wondering what the rush is to have a walk on for this resolution today because has it been back in committee for them to review no it expires the end of this month so that's why I did the evaluation and all of that for the six months, and then was just bringing it back to before the end of the year. I mean, really, because it's technically sunsets in the ordinance. So if we don't extend it, and we could extend it six months, you know, and we can change it at any time as well in the next 12 months. I guess my concern is there was supposed to be a review, and I don't think we've had that review with other parties involved. so that we haven't opened up to the community for them to respond. And I think that was part of the review process that I thought we were supposed to follow. I just, I think it might, and I understand that it might be sunsetting at the end of this month, but I'm not sure that extending it another year is the answer right now without having that input. Sure. It originated from the Economic Development Committee, which is this entire body. So we can debate it here, or we can call a special meeting of the Economic Development Committee and debate it there. If you'd like to amend it to extend it for less time, I'm open to that. It's not our input that I'm looking for. It's the community's input. Because that, at the end of the day, we need to hear from not just the food truck industry. We need to hear from the brick and mortar just to be sure that we have done our due diligence. And without that, I think we are being a little bit jumping the gun. Well, that's why it's on for first reading tonight, and then they have until second reading. Second reading is Tuesday. And it was on work session. I mean, I mentioned it at work session the other day. So, anyway, that's just. Vice Mayor, I just, I can't, without having a time to set up a hearing or set up some type of a forum, I think we've got four days between now and Tuesday. That's not enough time for us to set something up for the community to respond. Thank you. You're welcome. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Could the legal department look at the ordinance section number two? And it refers to a revocable program license. Does that mean that it could be earlier terminated under this ordinance? That's for the future. That's for the future. Revocable license that they would get. I know. revocable. Council Member Lane, I'm sorry, which provision in the ordinance? That's Section 2, that there will be a non-refundable application fee of $25. Shall accompany each application for a, in the term, revocable program license for calendar year 2014. The reason I bring that up is that if some problems came up and we needed to revoke the licenses, the council could vote to revoke them and earlier terminate them? I've not looked at this before. I think that's correct, but we could certainly find the answer out to that by Tuesday. Would that be sufficient and make sure I'm telling you correctly? I think they've used that as kind of a term because it's a pilot program would be my guess. Unless cancer breakers know something. The only reason I was bringing that up is this was a test program, and, of course, it has run out. And to just totally terminate it, I think it's not probably a good thing for the vendors that are running a business. And we're going into the winter months when business is probably not as good as during the spring or summer. So if there would be some way we could modify this where, you know, if some issues did come up and the council elected it could earlier terminate the term on this so that we would have some ability to respond to a problem if it came up. There's just an idea. I had read this earlier, and I saw that term, revocable program license, so I felt that it was worth a question on that. Okay. If I could clarify, my understanding was when this was drafted, that language was included so that if a food truck vendor violated any of the ordinance requirements, that then their permit would be revoked. But certainly, I mean, I think it gives us the authority to revoke them at any time for any reason as well. I think that's correct. And just for information that I passed out on Tuesday, there are only five trucks that have received permits to operate within the pilot project. I'll be certainly glad to check on the language for you, though. And if it's okay, I can send you an email between probably tomorrow. Is that okay? Well, I just want to try to help the vendors stay in business. So whatever the legal department could do to resolve that, that would be acceptable to the balance of the council, I would definitely be in support of. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Lawless. I truly have hoped I'd never have to talk about food trucks again. No disrespect to anybody. But I think maybe the issue is what we ran into last year in January when, because nothing had been passed, people were trying to get permits and couldn't. If I recall an emergency call to me. So I also agree that part of that was the assessment of all stakeholders involved in the possibility. So I'm wondering if we could amend this so that they can get their licenses in January, a friendly amendment to extend it three months, and that will give us time to do whatever you all feel necessary for evaluation. Would you accept that as a friendly amendment? And can you clarify what you mean by evaluation? because we have evaluated for the past six months. Well, we have how many registered and et cetera, but we haven't heard from the broader community how it worked, what kind of revenue was generated, were there problems after the 8 to 5, et cetera. So none of that has been gathered, and I think that's important information. So, you know, that kind of public input and however that's done. So that's why I'm suggesting so we don't get in a bind with you all being able to get your licenses, that we extend it three months so that can happen. I'm trying to help here. And would that evaluation be done in the committee from which it came? Which do you meet in January? We do meet in January, and we can do that at that point. So we don't need three months. Two months is all we need. Well, I mean, that would give us time also to maybe send out a survey to the community, to merchants, to food truck vendors, et cetera. Yeah. And could I ask who is planning to do this evaluation? Who's drafting this survey? When we passed the pilot project, we created an evaluation tool. Everybody had input that was approved already, and that was what we used in reporting out last week. So if someone wants to do a survey and send a letter to all the brick and mortars, then they should take responsibility for doing that because my office cannot do that. Thank you. And I'm not talking just about brick and mortars. I'm talking about the community, what kind of revenue, whatever. I don't know. I'm just trying to say let's let them go on and not get in the position January 1 where they can't get their license and whoever wants to do whatever you think is. Well, if we're going to do it right, probably the three months is correct. I feel like three months is reasonable. We would attempt to make a stab at it in January, but there are other things that could be added to that process that might be more meaningful to them and to us, for that matter. Yeah. So that's why I'm offering a friendly amendment so everybody can be comfortable with moving on, and the food trucks won't be hampered in their ability to operate, and there would be an opportunity for a broader feedback. I haven't had any negative feedback. I haven't had any, you know. Well, so far I don't think the friendly amendment has been accepted unless I missed something. Would you accept that as a friendly amendment? I was waiting for a second. It doesn't require... If it's a friendly amendment, the motioner can agree to accept it, I believe, without a second. The seconder could... Who was the seconder? Clark. Council Member Clark, excuse me. So if it's not accepted as a friendly amendment, a motion would be in order. You're thinking. I don't mind the three-month extension, but I have a problem with the evaluation part that we already approved and actually participated in. We had Lex calls measured. We have citations from the police department, citations from the health department, citations from parking authority measured, revenue from the parking authority. The food trucks didn't even use it during the day, the pilot project. So all of that, I mean, we have done the evaluation part of it. So I'm fine with the three-month extension. I'm just concerned about more evaluation that wasn't included in the previous, when we approved this initially, and who is going to do that part of the evaluation. Vice Mayor. Okay. Okay. So you would accept the three-month as opposed to the year? I believe that's what you were asking. Right. And part of what that might be is giving an opportunity for the public to come to the Economic Development Committee and speak and know that it's on the agenda and say, hey, it's the best thing since sliced bread or, oh, my God, I'm dying. And my sense is that the work that Councilmember Akers did with this sheet of follow-up could be the document that goes in committee and is discussed, and everybody's notified and can come and have input. That's the piece I wanted to mention, Councilmember, that you spun out a whole litany of issues that should be already passed on to us. And all I saw was a one-pager, I guess, last week. So, you know, I would appreciate seeing more information specifically because we all had our shoulder to the wheel back when we approved this thing, and I'd hate to see that be endangered in any way, shape, or form. Well, the litany that I just mentioned is in that table that you received, that all of that information is in the table of the evaluation data that I distributed Tuesday. Well, I haven't seen that yet, then. Sorry. Okay, I'll get you another copy. Does the seconder accept the friendly amendment? No. Okay. Okay. So there is no friendly amendment. Council Member Hanson, you're up next. I was actually going to make the same motion to make it fair for the food trucks to continue operating, but yet also be able to hear from the rest of the public on how they feel like it's going. I don't think we've been bombarded with food trucks, but there's an interest there. It continues to be an interest there. So I would make a motion to amend it to be reviewed in the Economic Development Committee and extended for 90 days or until March 1st, maybe. March 1st. Do I hear a second? Council Member Beard seconded. The motion is to amend the motion and approve the extension until March 1, 2014, and to review the documents and the follow-up in the Committee for Economic Development. Any discussion on the amendment? Yes. Council Member Clark, then Council Member Myers. Are you all on for the amendment? I was on for the first amendment. Okay, so we'll go with Council Member Myers, and then can you log in, Council Member Clark? Yes. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would say that when we started this process, like Council Member Beard said, we had our shoulders to the grindstone trying to get this thing done, and there was a lot of opposition in the beginning, and I was one of the people that wasn't sure about this thing in the beginning and came around. I see a real value in putting this back into committee because the way that we ended up doing it in the beginning, it was a pilot project and it was condensed because it was going to be a pilot, right? I think there's real value because there hasn't been a big outcry against you guys to bring this back to see how well this worked, what we can do to enhance the program, and maybe expand it into other places so that we look at, okay, now this has been accepted by our community. Let's put together a real food truck program. I don't see this review as we're still trying to determine whether or not we want food trucks in Lexington. Okay? That's my perspective. But I think it's a real opportunity to say it's been a success so far. Let's see how great we can make this thing. And I'll tell you, I saw, you know, Louisville Live. I watch that show all the time. I shouldn't say that being a council on Lexington. But what I don't understand is why we don't have a Lexington Live on KT. But they had a segment on the food trucks there and a really in-depth segment on there. And I saw something else on Frontline. I think it was on the food trucks in New York or Chicago or somewhere. And, you know, there's a vibrant community out there and a vibrant economic impact that people are making. So I think there's a real value in this review, and I wouldn't be afraid of it. I would come to the table with more ideas on how to expand this thing and make it even better. So I support the motion. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Oop, Council Member Clark. You're the only one left on there. I was going to ask the members of the council if they've had any conversations with people that have been particularly happy or unhappy. Have you gotten reports from anybody about the pilot program beyond the survey that was done? Just ask that question if anybody has had any reactions, negative or positive. I mean, my sense is that would be discussed in committee if those would maybe be submitted. But it's pertinent to the motion. It's pertinent to the motion because there's some question about whether or not the community has had an opportunity to react. And if they haven't react, then what's the problem? Thank you. You're welcome. I do not see anyone else who wishes to speak. So the motion on the floor is to amend the motion and extend the pilot program until March 1, 2014, and review the program in the Committee of the Whole for Economic Development in January. All right. Council Member Akers. I believe that Mr. Tibbetts signed up to speak to this issue tonight, so I wondered if we could let him speak before we make a vote. Absolutely. And I have been reminded by Council Member Ellinger that Economic Development Committee of the Whole doesn't meet until February 4th in the new calendar, but that's within the time frame. Okay. And now, and we could always, I mean, it could be on the agenda without limiting the extension of the pilot project as well. We can always adapt it and change it any time we ever want to. So we could still extend it through the end of December and revise it in March anyway. There's nothing that would preclude us from doing both. Okay. Great. I do not know on the sign-up sheet who is signed up to speak to this issue. So if you signed up to speak to this issue, and we'll give your name and address, please, and you'll have three minutes. Yes, ma'am. Sean Tibbetts, 4009 Hillside Drive. So I'm with the Bluegrass Food Truck Association. I'm the owner of Cluck and Burger. I also own a hot dog cart, another food truck, and I'm getting ready to open a brick-and-mortar restaurant in Lexington. The pilot program has been very good to me. The question that I would present to this board and this group of folks is, how many months do we have to continue proving ourselves? The pilot program was supposed to be the evaluation criteria and figure out if this model worked in this town or not. And we spent six months. We received zero complaints. The evaluation criteria in particular was one of the real hot buttons during the workgroup meetings, both for itinerant workgroup and food truck workgroup. So we came up with real qualitative, quantitative ways of measuring it through complaints and phone calls and violations that were committed during the program, and all of those came back with none. So if we went six months and we proved the model worked, we received no complaints from the public, everyone knows the 311 number and can call any time. I know that there are other complaints that come in about random things that happen all around the city. That phone rings off the hook. They did not complain about us, not once. There was not a single business owner, not a single consumer that called 311 and complained about us. There was not a single health department violation in that entire six months. During that six months, two of your downtown restaurants were closed by the health department. None of our food trucks were. And then you take addition to that, five food trucks over the last six months have opened restaurants in Lexington. La Petrie Papery, O'Goddess Hawaiian Grill, TNT Barbecue, Athenian Grill, which is without a doubt one of the most popular hot spots in Chevy Chase right now. Mark Jensen's getting ready to open Jensen Catering, and then we're also looking at our own brick and mortar. Also inside that same six months, the Food Truck Association went from 13 members to 24 members. We currently have seven folks in Lexington, Kentucky, who are building trucks and haven't even hit the street yet. So to take this opportunity away from them before they ever hit the street seems unfair. And as far as the continuing evaluation and continuing to extend the pilot further and further, I guess my real question is, how long do I have to keep chasing the carrot until I'm allowed to just go to work? So that's all my comments. Thank you. Is there anyone else who signed up to speak who'd like to speak to this issue? Okay. Now, I have Councilmembers. Councilmember Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I want to just provide some additional comment because I think by placing this in the Economic Development Committee, we would have an opportunity to have the health department here, have you guys here, have the business owners here, and really see how successful the program is. We're not, I don't think by only extending it for three months it's going to really jeopardize. Your business is still going to continue to operate. And again, I have said this all along, big food truck supporter, but yet when you are looking, you're not looking at private property. This is public property. Not all businesses are allowed to operate on public property. So we are allowing you this privilege to operate on public property that taxpayers of this city pay for. So I think an evaluation is appropriate. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Just really quickly, I just wanted to thank the CAO's office. I forgot to thank her on Tuesday, and I have not mentioned it tonight. But they were key to this evaluation. They tracked their phone calls. They got the data from LexCall. They helped with the data collection from the police department and LexPark and everybody else involved. And Tracy Thurman and the CAO worked closely with my aide in gathering all of that data that you all received. And so I just wanted to thank her. Thank you. Council Member Scutchfield. Thank you. I thought George was ahead of me, so I kind of, yeah, anyway. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I am not in any way saying I voted for the food trucks before. But what I'm saying is we right now have only gotten a paper evaluation and have not had a discussion about it. And I understand that time is of the essence because we are getting ready to go into January and the calendar. That's why I'm in favor of this three-month because we need to do it right. And not putting it back into committee to have us discuss the pluses and the minuses. And like George, Councilmember Myers, it's getting late. It's been a long night. Just like Councilmember Myers. That's really funny. Thank you. Everybody have them, turn them to face me because it's getting late. But as he said, you know, we need to evaluate this. It's not about hurting you. It's about possibly helping you. Because if we determine, hey, guys, there really isn't any issues going two more streets over. So this is really done as, I mean, it's the lawyer in me, due diligence, it's due process. It's making sure that we cross our T's and dot our I's. And to me, this is a smart way for the city to do business. So thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Now, is there anyone else who wishes to speak to the amendment motion on the floor? I see no one. All those in favor of the amendment, please say aye. Aye. And log in your vote. Council Member Farmer is moving to the vote. That motion passes 11 to 3. All right. So now the main motion on the floor is to extend the pilot program until March 1, 2014 and review the issue in the Economic Development Committee of the Whole. Now, Council Member Akers to the motion. I'm sorry. I wish I could not weigh it. I just want to point out that knowing the process of the council and that the committee meeting meets on February 4th, that the chances that in that committee when we bring all of these people and we have all of these discussions and we look at possibly extra streets or more parking spaces or different hours or different locations, that it's very unlikely we would get second reading and approval of any changes to the pilot project by March 1st from February 4th. So I just want to, I mean, I think we'll be in this place again in February. I'll be making a motion to extend it two more months until we make a decision. We can extend it for six or 12. Three months. It should be March 31st. Okay. It says it was March 1st. Motioner said the first. It should be March 31st. So I just want to point that out, that we can extend it for 12 months and still revise it. I mean, it can go to committee and it can be changed or canceled or revised or adapted or what have you, extending it until December 31st. We can still have these discussions, or we're going to be extending it again in three months or two months. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Scutchfield. I think we can renew once we've had the reviewing committee for the rest of the year and then work on future enhancements beyond that. So, I mean, there can be the renew for the year after we've had our official review where we invite public and we actually have a committee review and then work on enhancements from there. So we're not impeding you. We work, you know, we continue the status quo, but then work on the improvements from there. Thank you. Council Member Lane. I just want to reiterate my point that these are business people that make a living in this business. They've invested their money. Some people are building new vehicles. And to just say we're going to go three months and then we'll let you know, I wouldn't have a lot of confidence on a short-term deal like that. So I think you need to think about it from the perspective of the operators. and all I've had is my offices are downtown people are always talking about how good the food is by the Chase Tower over there so I don't know if any of you guys are in that unit or not but the response has been very positive Thank you Alright, no one else has signed on so all those in favor of the motion please say aye Aye Aye. And if you will log in your vote. And that motion passes 12 to 2. Now, I believe we're ready for the first reading of that motion. Correct? That resolution. Ordinance. It's an ordinance. Ordinance number 21, an ordinance amending ordinance number 66-2013 pertaining to the Mobile Food Unit Pilot Program to extend the date of the program through March 1, 2014, in directing that the program be reviewed in the Economic Development Committee of the whole. Thank you. All right. Now, there were no motions to suspend, so we're ready for the second reading of resolutions. Welcoming Martha Allen again. Resolution number one, 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 two, 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 three, a resolution accepting the bid of Galls LLC establishing a price contract for crowd control equipment for the Division of Police. Number four, a resolution ratifying the probationary civil service appointments of Michael Craven's attorney, grade 117E, 1957.28, 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 five. a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irving 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 the 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. I would ask our law department, do we need a quorum sitting in their seats? As long as they're in the room. As long as they're in the room, because now we're getting ready to open the public hearing on number seven. So number seven is the – oh, I'm sorry, we don't have a public hearing right now, do we? Council Member Myers has a motion. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Number seven is the C-Keep program, which allows us to provide free tax service for folks who qualify for it, and it's an effort to bring in as much as the earned income tax credit back to our community as possible. And the administration has worked out a fantastic operation with United Way to open up another facility so that we can offer this service to more citizens in Fayette County. And so I move to amend item number seven under second reading of resolutions to include the Central Kentucky Job Center as a location for the volunteer tax income assistance program for which the mayor may execute the listed documents. This is a material change that will require a new first reading. Thank you. Council Member Kaye seconded. All right. Is there any discussion on the motion? All those. Let's see. In favor of the motion to change it, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That motion passed, so will you give it a first reading as amended? 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 volunteer income tax assistance programs at the Gainesway Center and the Central Kentucky Job Center at no cost to the urban county government. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Now, we're in second readings. Did you want to make a motion to suspend the rules so that it could get a second reading, or do you want to wait until? We can wait. There's no hurry. they're not going to start until after the first of the year, so we're good waiting. Okay. Thank you. Very good. If you'll continue on then. Number eight, 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 and Maintenance Operations for an initial term of 48 months with annual rent not to exceed $86,592.96. Number nine, 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 10. 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 11. 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 the 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 12. 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 Corps for business continuity and recovery services at an estimated cost not to exceed $84,360. Number 13, 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 14, 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 15, 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 16, 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-Irban County government agrees to forego the collection of 1% of the occupational license fees for a term 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 17, a resolution approving the granting of an inducement to Gnome's Technology Incorporated pursuant to the Kentucky Business Investment Act, Harris 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 an agreement Gnome's Technologies Incorporated has with the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority and or the Urban County Government related to the project and taking other related action. Okay, now we're ready for our public hearing. On number 18, which is about the issuance and the refinancing of certain bonds, so I declare the public hearing open and would ask there's no one to speak to it. All right, I declare the public hearing closed. Will you read number 18, please? Thank you. 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 cost of the construction and equipping of a facility for the care of the aged and firm located at 3840 Camelot Drive. Pardon me, Lexington, Kentucky, and to pay costs of issuance. Number 19, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a memorandum of understanding with United States Special Operations Command for emergency response to threat or attack on special operations facility. Number 20, a resolution authorizing and directing the Department of Finance to designate a fund for the operation and maintenance of the Central Kentucky 911 network. And number 21, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor to conduct an employee dependence audit for all health insurance plans during calendar year 2014. Do I hear a motion? Motion approved. All right. I have a motion to approve in a second. Will you pardon me? Can you repeat the mover and seconder, please? The mover was Council Member Ellinger, and the seconder was Council Member Myers. Thank you. I think there's a way they can log in their motion. Okay. Will you call the roll, please? Mr. Clark? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes. Mr. Ford? Yes. Ms. Gordon? Aye. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Kay? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Ms. Massadi is absent? Mr. Myers? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Gutchfield? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Ms. Akers? Yes. Mr. Beard? Aye. Okay. And Ms. Massadi's back. Yes. Yes. Did you log your phone? There we go. Thank you. Okay. Oh. No? I don't think it can be 14. Okay, yeah. That passed 14 up with one absent. All right, we're ready for first reading of resolutions. Resolution number 22. A resolution accepting the bids of a Central Indiana Truck Equipment Corporation, Municipal Equipment Incorporated, J. Edinger & Son Incorporated, and Refuse Parts Depot, LLC, establishing price contracts for refuse collection truck body parts for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number 23, a resolution accepting the bid of Davis H. Elliott Construction Company Incorporated, establishing a price contract for traffic signal installation and repair for the Division of Traffic Engineering. Number 24, a resolution accepting the bid of Simpson and Company Incorporated in the amount of $13,806 for interior painting waste management for the Division of Waste Management. Number 25, a resolution accepting the bids of Arrow Electric Company and Davis H. Elliott Construction Company, Inc., establishing price contracts for underground electrical service installation for the Division of Parks and Recreation. Number 26, a resolution accepting the bid of Mobile PCC LLC, doing business as OC rugged laptops, establishing a price contract for refurbished mobile data computers for the Division of Police. Number 27, a resolution accepting the bid of Reconic, establishing a price contract for portable radio earpieces for the Division of Police. Number 28, a resolution accepting the bid of Triton Services, Incorporated, establishing a price contract for HVAC inspection and maintenance for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number 29, a resolution accepting the bid of E.C. Matthews Company, Incorporated, in the amount of $865,000 for the Lexington Streetscape Phase I Improvement Site Amenity South Limestone and Vine Streets for the Department of Environmental Quality and Public Works, and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with E.C. Matthews Company, Inc. related to the bid. Number 30, a resolution accepting the bid of Level 3 Communications, LLC, in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 50-2013, creating and offering for sale a short-term franchise for the operation of a non-exclusive telecommunications system in Fayette County, and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a franchise agreement with Level 3 Communications, LLC, incorporating the terms and conditions of Ordinance No. 50-2013. Number 31, a resolution accepting the bid of Pedal Power Bike Shop, Inc., establishing a price contract for police bicycles for the Division of Police. Number 32, a resolution ratifying the probationary civil service appointments of Melinda Weathers, Victims Advocate, Grade 112N, 20.341 hourly in the Division of Police, Billy Prater, CAP Operations Manager, Grade 118E, 200312.32 biweekly in the Division of Water Quality, both effective December 2, 2013, and ratifying the permanent civil service appointments of Mark Caton, Deputy Director, Grade 120E, 3033.68 biweekly in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management, effective November 13, 2013. Eileen O'Donnell, Administrative Specialist Senior, Grade 112N, 17.141 hourly in the Department of Law, effective December 3, 2013. Tamara Gross, Administrative Specialist, Grade 110N, 16.615 hourly in the Division of Revenue, effective December 24, 2013. Number 33, a resolution authorizing the Division of Human Resources to make a conditional offer to the following probationary civil service appointments. William Crowder, Jr., public service worker, grade 106N, 11.775, hourly, in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Patricia Slaughter, Administrative Specialist, grade 110N, 20.912, hourly, in the Division of Waste Management, both effective upon passative counsel. Angela Lieber, Human Resources Analyst, Grade 115E, 20402.80 biweekly in the Division of Human Resources, effective December 30, 2013. And authorizing the Division of Human Resources to make a conditional offer to the following unclassified civil service appointment. Urban Stewart, Security Officer, part-time, Grade 106N, 11.518, hourly in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management, effective upon passage of council. Number 34, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute agreements with West End Community Empowerment Project Incorporated, $160, Lexington Humane Society, $875, and Living Arts and Science Center, $1,075, for the office of the Urban County Council at a cost not to exceed the sums stated. Number 35, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Kathy H. Witt, Sheriff of Fayette County, for the collection of the ad valorem urban service district taxes for the 2013 property tax year, at a cost not to exceed $350,000 with payment net from collections. Number 36, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement awarding a Class B Education Stormwater Quality Projects Incentive Grant to the University of Kentucky Research Foundation at a cost not to exceed $22,299. Number 37, a resolution authorizing the Division of Community Corrections to procure a replacement Brian Breuler from TMI Sales, a sole source provider, and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute any necessary agreement with TMI sales related to the procurement at a cost not to exceed $31,947. Number 38, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a lease agreement with Council of Three Rivers American Indian Center Incorporated for lease of office space at 1055 Industry Road. Number 39, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an amendment to agreement with Greenhouse 17, formerly known as Bluegrass Domestic Violence Program, for additional funds in the amount of $7,080 to provide additional services to victims of domestic violence. Number 40, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute certificates of consideration and other necessary documents and to accept deeds for property interest needed for the Leestown West Pump Station decommissioning project at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 41, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a license agreement with Lexington Center Corporation for the 2014 Martin Luther King Day celebration at a cost not to exceed $8,400. Number 42, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Emerson Network Power for the Uninterruptible Power System for the Police Headquarters at a cost not to exceed $10,230. Number 43, a resolution approving and authorizing an assistance agreement between the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government and the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority to provide $10,194,421 of loan funds for trunk sewer projects, Bundle 1. Number 44, a resolution approving and authorizing an assistance agreement between the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government and the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority to provide $4,657,640 of loan funds for stormwater improvements projects, Bundle 3. Number 45, a resolution approving and authorizing an assistance agreement between the Lexington Bay Urban County Government and the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority to provide $6 million of loan funds for expansion area 2A pump station and force main project. Number 46, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security, which grant funds during the amount of $30,000 federal funds are for the purchase of public safety dive team equipment, 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 47, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an agreement with Eastern Kentucky University College of Health Sciences for a nurse to work with the Lexington Fayette Urban County Heroin Task Force at no cost to the urban county government. Number 48, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an interlocal cooperation contract with the state of Texas acting through its Department of Information Resources to purchase information technologies through contracts which were competitively bid and awarded. Number 49, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security, which grant funds are in the amount of $48,000 federal funds, are for the purchase of a rescue watercraft for the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, 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 50, a resolution accepting the proposal of professional recovery consultants incorporated to RFP No. 17-2013 Collection Services and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an agreement with professional recovery consultants incorporated and any other necessary documents for performance of such services at a cost based upon a 17.85% contingency fee on amounts collected. Number 51, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute the 2014 general term orders for the Fayette County Clerk and the Fayette County Sheriff, establishing the number of deputies and assistants allowed to each and the compensation allowed to each deputy and assistant, subject to the limits for each category as specified in the general term orders and subject to the fees collected by the officers respectively in their 75% accounts, pursuant to KRS 64-351. Number 52, a resolution authorizing the Division of Emergency Management 911 to procure co-location of telecommunications services and support for the Central Kentucky 911 network from Windstream Communications and or its affiliates at a cost not to exceed $68,000 fiscal year 2014 and authorizing the mayor to execute any necessary agreements with Windstream Communications and or its affiliates related to these services. Number 53, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute subrecipient agreements for funding from the Office of the Attorney General of Kentucky from the National Foreclosure Settlement Fund's Memorandum of Agreement with Fayette County Local Development Corporation at a cost not to exceed $100,000, Hope Center at a cost not to exceed $125,000, Lexington Habitat for Humanity at a cost not to exceed $125,000, and the Salvation Army at a cost not to exceed $50,000. Number 54, a resolution authorizing the establishment of Ops Corps Incorporated as a sole source provider contract for the purchase of fast ballistic helmets and up armor side covers for a period of one year. Number 55, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security, which grant funds are in the amount of $86,000 federal funds, are for the purchase of equipment for the hazardous devices unit, to 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 56, a resolution authorizing the Division of Emergency Management 9-1-1 to obtain equipment and services for the Central Kentucky 9-1-1 network from AK Associates Incorporated, a sole source provider, on a multi-year basis at a cost not to exceed an estimated $150,000 in fiscal year 2014, and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute any necessary documents. Number 57, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an agreement awarding a Class B Education Stormwater Quality Projects Incentive Grant to the Living Arts and Science Center Incorporated at a cost not to exceed $33,751. Number 58, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to accept a donation from Friends of the Lexington Mounted Police of two Gooseneck four-star horse trailers for use at the Division of Police Mounted Unit at no cost to the urban county government. Number 59, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a contract amendment with Hill and Dale Neighborhood Association for extension of the completion date of the Neighborhood Action Match Project to December 31, 2014. Number 60. Number 61, a resolution establishing a residential parking permit program for the 500 block of Stratford Drive from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and waiving the provisions relating to the mechanics of designating residential parking permit areas adopted by Resolution No. 16890 and amended by Resolution No. 450, 91, and 433, 2006. Number 62, a resolution authorizing the Division of Traffic Engineering pursuant to Code of Ordinances Section 1851 to install traffic calming devices on Huston Alley. Number 63, a resolution authorizing the Division of Traffic Engineering pursuant to Code of Ordinances Section 1886 to install multi-way stop controls at the intersection of Clyde Street and Texaco Road. Number 64, a resolution adopting the policy regarding contract change orders related to the Sanitary Sewers Remedial Measures Plan as provided in CAO Policy No. 15R and authorizing the personnel designated in the policy on behalf of the urban county government to execute any necessary change orders and related documents consistent with the policy. Then number 65 would be the resolution added earlier. That would be a resolution expressing the urban county council's continuing support of the distillery district, TIF, recommending the reactivation of the TIF and requesting that the administration and the developer engage in discussions to establish substantive reasons to support the reactivation by Tuesday, December 10, 2013. Move approval. Thank you very much. Do we have walk-ons? Yes. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I move to place on tonight's docket a resolution authorizing the mayor or his designee to execute an amendment to the Lockbox Processing Services Agreement with Central Bank and Trust Company to provide for services up to an additional year at a cost not to exceed an estimated monthly amount of $1,793.66. Do I hear a second? Council Member Farmer seconded. All right. Is there any discussion? All those in favor of walking this on for first reading, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Will you give that first reading, please? Resolution number 66, a resolution authorizing the mayor or his designee on behalf of the urban county government to execute an amendment to the Lockbox Processing Services Agreement with Central Bank and Trust Company to provide for services up to an additional year at a cost not to exceed an estimated monthly amount of $1,793.66. All right. Thank you. Are there any other walk-ons? Okay. Suspension of the rules. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I move to suspend the rules and give second reading to number 33. 33? Did you say 33? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And we're supposed to tell why. Pardon? We usually are supposed to tell why we want the rules suspended. Oh, it's at the request of the administration. Thank you. Remember? Council Member Beard. Thank you, Vice Mayor. At request of the administration, I would like to suspend the rules and get second reading to number 66. Number 66, right? and council member Ford thanks vice mayor just to conclude our discussion from earlier tonight I request that we suspend the rules and give second read to resolution number 65 alright do I hear a second for all of those alright thank you council member Myers Thank you, Mayor. Vice Mayor, I'm sorry. Could I give the rules and give second reading to number 60, and that is so that we can go ahead and get this resolution to the state as quick as possible. Okay, number 60, and Council Member Ellinger seconded that. Okay, are there other suspensions? All right. There's a motion and a second to give second reading to... Did the administration have any others before I review them? Okay, thank you. The motion and second to give second reading to number 33, number 60, number 65, and number 66. All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? No. Okay. Well, hang on. Yeah. You've got to attend the suspension. Six, eight, ten, twelve. Oh, we've got plenty. Thank you, Mr. Farmer. He's a no vote on the suspensions. All right. Would you please give those second reading when you're ready? Thanks for your patience. All right. Resolution number 33 for a second reading. A resolution authorizing the Division of Human Resources to make a conditional offer to the following probationary civil service appointments. William Crowder, Jr., Public Service Worker, Grade 106N, 11.775, hourly in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Patricia Slaughter, Administrative Specialist, Grade 110N, 20.912, hourly in the Division of Waste Management, both effective upon passage of counsel. Angela Lieber, Human Resources Analyst, Grade 115E, 2004O2.80 biweekly in the Division of Human Resources, effective December 30, 2013. And authorizing the Division of Human Resources to make a conditional offer to the following unclassified civil service appointment, Irvin Stewart, Security Officer, Part-Time, Grade 106N, 11.518, hourly in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management, effective upon passage of council. Number 60. A resolution urging the Commonwealth of Kentucky to clarify and reconsider its decision to cut child care assistance funding, requesting that the Kentucky General Assembly authorize and direct the Legislative Research Commission to complete an economic impact study of the effect of these cuts, requesting that the General Assembly take appropriate measures to eliminate or reduce the impact of these cuts on impacted families, requesting that the General Assembly approve a waiver on the cuts to assistance for new applicants that have been a victim of domestic violence or abuse, and hereby notifying the appropriate officials. Number 65, a resolution expressing the Urban County Council's continuing support of the Distillery District TIF recommending the reactivation of the TIF and requesting that the administration and the developer engage in discussions to establish substantive reasons to support the reactivation by Tuesday, December 10, 2013. And number 66, a resolution authorizing the mayor or his designee on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an amendment to the Lockbox Processing Services Agreement with Central Bank and Trust Company to provide for services up to an additional year at a cost not to exceed an estimated monthly amount of $1,793.66. Thank you. Motion approved. Second. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger moved. Council Member Myers seconded. Will you take the vote, please? Mr. Clark? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? Yes. Ms. Gorton? Aye. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Kay? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Ms. Massadi? Absent. Mr. Myers? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Scotchfield? Yes, and thank you for your patience tonight. Mr. Stenet is absent. Ms. Akers? Yes. And Mr. Beard? Aye. Thank you. Okay, those motions pass 13-0. Now, are there any announcements, Councilmembers? Councilmember Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Three things. On Tuesday, I will be bringing a walk-on to extend natural gas service so that we can be in a position to have our own fueling station for our new trucks. On Tuesday, I will do the last two mayoral moments that will finish the portraiture that we have hung here in the chambers. And last, Madam CAO, you and I have talked about this, and I just feel like we need to, as an entity, to understand the number of people we have in acting positions or to have a better feeling about how we're going to try to fill those positions? Because I feel like more people are leaving than are coming on board, and we're asking folks to kind of cover things in a way that some of us aren't comfortable with. And I know you're ready to take this in hand, but I think it needs some conversation in public to cover that, if you would. Yes, I think that our acting, you know, we filled our acting position in revenue. Bill was doing both jobs. There really wasn't anybody acting. We fill that position. We have just completed all the interviews for Susan Bush's thing in environmental policy, and we are ready to recommend that particular job to human resources. Where my worry is is the rest of public works. We just got the retirement notice for Steve Feast in waste management. We have, as you remember, we have an acting traffic engineering, an acting streets and roads. And as Charlie said to me today, we had this whole conversation just six hours ago that he says, you know, I'm the only one that's not acting, and I really am acting. So, you know, you sort of feel like typhoid Mary. You know, so I think it's a major concern. Thank you. And we have discussed this. And so, you know, my theory is here you've got to move. Sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong, but you're not going to get anywhere if you don't do so. Yes, ma'am. And so I'm going to go ahead. And I think that with the difference in the fives, you know, we now don't have to go to the top fives. We've got good people all over government, where we are in. I'm not saying that the people who are acting won't be that. Understood. But we need to start this, and I can assure you we will. I appreciate that. I'm not going to start Charlie's, though. I'm not ready to give up Charlie on that commissioner basis yet. Oh, my. I understand. Because I told him today, I said, the problem is, unless we start to get these actings filled, I'm committing Harry Carey advertising for a commissioner who's going to come here and say, what's the deal here? What are all these actings here for? And I need to get stabilized before I go out on this commissioner hunt. I don't think you'd find anyone up here who would disagree with moving forward. I think all of us want the best delivery of services possible for all of our constituents. And I think it's just we've reached kind of a critical mass, then we need to turn around and go the other way, not desperately, but directly. I appreciate your question, and I think it is totally valid and one we have just discussed. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Lawless. First of all, I want to thank Council Member Farmer for not giving us a portrait history lesson tonight. You're welcome. And I want to thank everybody that came and spoke and listened. And it is pouring rain outside, and it may freeze. So all those out there watching, be careful in your travels and listen to your sign up for weather notice or whatever. And you all might want to leave before I do or after I do. Bye-bye. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Given the fairly long conversation we had about the TIF project and the issues that it raised, I'm moving to place into the Budget and Finance Committee a discussion of the oversight of TIF, the role of council and the role of the administration. So move. All right. That motion by Councilmember Kay, second by Councilmember Scutchfield, to place that issue into budget and finance. Any discussion of the issue? I mean the motion. All those. Not the issue. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay. That passes. Anything else? No. Thank you. Okay. Okay, Councilmember Akers. I, first of all, would like to just mention that I was in a meeting earlier this week, Monday, Tuesday, and it was, again, in passing that someone mentioned that our director of parks had retired, and I had no idea that he had retired or was planning to retire or anything, And so I just would like in the future to ask commissioners or the CAO, but I think at commissioner level would be appropriate, to please notify council so that I don't hear about it in a meeting with citizens and other city leaders who know that. And I've been working with Jerry lately on parks projects and had no idea. So I would just appreciate that, please. And then also I wanted to share lots of upcoming meetings and holiday parties in the district. this Saturday, December 7th, the Highlands Neighborhood Association is hosting their holiday dinner from 5 to 7 p.m. That will be at the Community Center in Highlands Park. The Woodward Heights Neighborhood Association is hosting their holiday party on Sunday, December 8th, and that will be at 6 o'clock at 722 West High Street. A lot of people are interested in the Time Warner Cable public hearing that will be held Monday night here in council chambers at 6 o'clock, December 9th. And then Melrose Oak Park and Meadowthorpe neighborhoods will both be meeting on Tuesday when we have a council meeting, so I wanted to share those tonight as well. Melrose Oak Park begins Tuesday at 6.30 at the Thompson Road Baptist Church, and Meadowthorpe's will be at the community center at 7. And that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there Councilmember Lane? Vice Mayor, you may know the answer to this. But my question is, it seems it's been the policy of the urban county government to have paintings made for previous mayors, and one being Teresa Isaac, one being Jim Newberry. And I have not heard any discussion of that whatsoever. And this is my ninth year here. So I was wondering, since you have a lot of experience, you might know the answer to that. It's usually funded outside of government. Oh, it is? So someone has to bring forth funding and find a painter. Well, I guess they're going to have a hard time then. If you want to do that, I'm sure that would be appreciated. All right. Well, do they select the artist and all that and raise the money? How is that done exactly? I think that it's my understanding that mayors actually have someone who offers to fund a painting. I see. And then they get an artist and have it made. Okay. And I know just to your point, the recent dean of the College of Nursing who retired last year had her, you know, they hang paintings there, but it wasn't a painting. It was a beautiful, gorgeous digital photograph, which now is just as lovely as a painting. I don't know if that's less expensive or more. Well, thank you. I didn't mean to talk so long. It's time to go home, I think. I'd like to make a motion to adjourn. Would that be appropriate? Oh, hang on. I'll take that in just one moment. Okay. I'd like to know if there's anyone who signed up to speak who's left in the audience. No. Okay. Council Member Lane, your motion. I'll make motion to adjourn. All right. All those in favor of adjourning, say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you very much. I'm sorry. Oh, I've been used to having someone to lean on And I'm lost, baby, I'm lost Oh, I'm lost Thank you.