Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo so Thank you. Welcome, everyone, to the meeting of the council Thursday, August the 14th. And for those of you who are not here routinely, the way that we begin our council meetings is with a roll call, which is the roll call is offered by our clerk. Mr. Kane? Here. Mr. Lane? Here. Ms. Lawless? Here. Ms. Massadi? Here. Mr. Myers? Here. Ms. Scutchfield? Here. Mr. Stinnett? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Akers? Yes. Mr. Beard? Present. Mr. Clark? I'm here. Mr. Ellinger? Here. Mr. Farmer? I am here. Mr. Ford? Here. Ms. Gordon? Here. And Ms. Henson? Here. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. And next on our agenda is invocation. And I'm really pleased tonight to introduce our police chaplain, Donovan Stewart, who is also pastor at the Baptist Church at Andover. And he is accompanied tonight by his son, Marshall. Thank you so much. Thank you. Let's pray together. Our Father God in heaven, we dare not just rush into your presence, God, beginning to ask for things, Father. We know that the true purpose of prayer is to seek your face, not just your hand. So, God, we want to praise you now together as a community, Father. We thank you for being a good God, a God far better to us than we ever deserve, a God who allows us to enjoy your grace and your mercy and your beauty on a daily basis. So father god, we pause just to thank you for that But god, we want to also pray for you to give us wisdom give us direction Your word tells us that when we lack wisdom if we ask you you've promised to give it to us So go we claim that promise at this time Got to pray for these community leaders god. I pray that you'll bless each and every one I pray god that you'll anoint their lives both personally and professionally And god, I pray that you'll use them as representatives god to to do your work father god we realize that you hold all authority in the palm of your hand. So God, we pray for our fair city. We pray that you'll bless it. God, father, we are grateful to be called citizens of this town, of this community. God, help us all to do our part, God, to make it a better place. God, I pray for the decisions that'll be made tonight. God, I pray that your will always be done. Father God, I pray that you'll go before those who make decisions and those who will present tonight. And God, I pray that you'll calm their nerves and help them to speak your word. So again, And, Father, we commit this time to you. We commit our city to you. And, God, we ask for your will to be done. For it in your beautiful, powerful name we pray. Amen. Amen. Amen. All right. Chaplain. Thank you so much, Chaplain. And for all the wonderful, caring work you do each and every day. Thank you, sir. All right. Before we move on to presentations, I want to recognize we have two guests with us tonight who are here from our legislative delegation. First, Senator Reggie Thomas. Senator Thomas represents Senate District 13, including downtown Lexington. Reggie, thank you for joining us, Senator. and also Representative Kelly Flood, who is representative for the 75th House District, which also includes downtown Lexington. Representative Flood is also chairwoman of the House Budget Review Subcommittee on Primary and Secondary Education and vice chair of the House Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. I want to thank both of you for joining us tonight. and with their presence here and with others who may be interested in the in the resolution number 47 which has to do with I'm sorry it's resolution number 50 that has to do with the center point project I'm going to ask that we move that up and the vice mayor has a motion. Now some of the council members I believe have received an email a memorandum from Kevin Atkins and from Darby Turner related to this project this afternoon. Council Member Wayne. Thank you Mayor. I think it would be nice if we read that into the record for the people that are watching on television? The resolution? No, it's not that long. It's about three or four paragraphs. You're talking about the letter? The Kevin Atkins memorandum. Yes, sir. Alright, well, we'll ask. I'll ask Kevin Atkins then. Do you want me to do my motion? Let's get the motion first and then we'll read it. Alright, Vice Mayor. Okay, thank you, Mayor. Yes. Council members, you did receive an email and it's my understanding that all of the parties involved have agreed to this motion. I make a motion to remove from tonight's docket item number 50 under resolutions for first reading, which pertains to requesting that the Kentucky Economic Development Cabinet issue a revenue bond for the Centerpoint Project. So moved. Second. Motion by Vice Mayor Gordon and second by Council Member Ellinger. I'll then open the floor to discussion, but before opening the floor to discussion, I'll ask for Mr. Atkins to share the memo. Okay, I'll read it real quick. We sent this out this afternoon, late before the meeting. We're writing to update you on the CenterPoint project. We have engaged in a conversation with the developer and his team to discuss the previous correspondence from KEDFA that we sent to you yesterday, which suggested that LFUCG and not KEDFA issue any necessary tax increment finance TIF revenue bonds for the Centerpoint project. Given the importance of this project to Lexington and the community, we felt that it was important to consider the financing option. As a result of today's meeting, the parties mutually agree to the following. Number one, that the resolution requesting Catfoot to issue bonds be removed from tonight's docket, which the Vice Mayor has just done. Two, the administration will consider a plan where LFUCG would issue TIF revenue bonds. This consideration requires due diligence in answering questions that have not been necessary to submit to LFUCG to date. The administration may or may not recommend that the council endorse the LFUCG TIF revenue bonds. General obligation bonds will not be a consideration in the process. Number three, the developer will submit a full application and information through the normal LFUCG bond request process. Number four, the developer and LFUCG will continue to work with CADFA on all options available for the project. And number five, we will continue to work on the TIF agreements, which of the Master Development Agreement and the Local Participation Agreement to maximize revenue back to both the developer and LFUCG. Our primary responsibility is to be cautious and minimize any public risk, while at the same time encourage a successful development so that the tenants who have already announced their intentions can move in and once again bring jobs and activity to the block. All right. Thank you. Mr. Atkins, is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Mr. Stenet. Thank you, Mayor. Kevin, since this was a recommendation that the council originally received from the Economic Development Investment Board, will this now go back to the board for a new consideration or further consideration on the previous request? It could potentially. It would depend on what shape and form the bond request would come from. Because the council Tuesday received the go-ahead from the Economic Investment Board, of which two of our council members are members, as well as several other people in the administration and community. They recommended to move forward with the application last week. So I'm just curious why it wouldn't go back to that board so they can further review, because they also are the ones that look at the industrial revenue bond process, which is what I'm thinking you're saying in terms of type of bonds. It's not an industrial revenue bond. It would be somewhat similar to an industrial revenue bond. What the committee actually voted on earlier this month was the bond issue being done by the state. So the vote was in support of you all supporting the state to do that. So it would just depend on what the new request would actually be and what the impact to LFUCG would be. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Lane. And I want to ask if Mason Miller may need to also participate in some of these. If we have Council Member Lane and Council Member Lawless signed up. And the reason I'm asking Mason to be available is Mason is a transaction attorney. he represented the city in the negotiations with the developers, which formed the development agreement. And Darby Turner is also available. All right. Mr. Lane. Thank you, Mayor. The question I had is initially in 2008, the agreement between the state and the city, provided that the city would do the bonding for the incremental financing revenue. And I was wondering, is that agreement not in force and effect? Or I'm trying to figure out why we're not going ahead and doing it since we'd already agreed to we have a contract to do it. I think, Mr. Lane, you are correct. That was the original agreement from 2008 that's been superseded at this point. and the city was not going to be issuing, as the conduit sponsor, any bonds backed by the TIF financing proceeds, which is why it was going to the state for the Kentucky Economic Development Financing Authority to issue those. At this point, we are happy to look at it and are looking forward to receiving a proposal for it, but that has previously been removed from an obligation. Okay. The other question I have is time is of the essence because this project is under construction, and every day it costs the developers thousands of dollars in interest just to sit on the property while it's not really moving forward. And how soon do you think that we could expedite some kind of final decision so that we could go forward but know at least where we are in the process? Sure. In some degree, that's in the hands of the developer to put together a proposal and a structure for these bonds. There's a substantial difference between the state issuing them and the city issuing them. And if the city were to go forward issuing them, they all of a sudden have a stake in both the success or failure of that bond issuance. And while, of course, the project and success is important to the city and the deadlines and the time pressures that you talked about are important to be wary of. Likewise is the due diligence required to evaluate a structure of $25 or $30 million bond issuance that the city is going to be involved in. That's a fairly substantial undertaking and one with a lot of moving parts that requires a fair amount of time to be able to evaluate and consider not only from the legal standpoint but also the economic and financial standpoint. Okay. Can I just ask a question to Mr. Turner on behalf of the web companies? Do you feel that the agreement of 2008 is not applicable to today's situation, or do you have a different opinion on that? It has been amended, but that provision I do not believe has been superseded. I think it has always been contemplated that one of the, actually in the local participation agreement is still the exact language that the urban county government will issue the bonds as a conduit. Okay. Well, as I said, I've been in real estate a long time, and the greatest agony is to have a project sort of sitting, waiting for the final financing to be put in place. And because we did have an agreement in 2008, I don't know whether we have an agreement today or not, but I think we need to address it as soon as possible. Well, I appreciate that. And let me say this just in response to what Mason said a minute ago, too. The work on the bond issue is substantially complete. There are a number of issues that still need to be negotiated with and probably can't be done until we get to the underwriter and the market. those will all be final tune-ups, as you know, going through other bond issues. That's the way, you know, the market dictates what you're going to finally end up doing. The project is ongoing, and it's being done with developer money at this point. Keep in mind the TIF revenue have been pledged. So the revenue, the option if the bonds are not issued is to go conventional financing with taxable instruments, which would be, which the revenue is still pledged to support, which would be much more expensive and inefficient. We think the bond, tax exempt bonds is the most efficient way to utilize the revenue stream from the increment, but thereby giving the best opportunity to the developer and the city to utilize that resource. My time is up. I did have just one more question maybe for Kevin. And could you just explain to our audience out in Fayette County exactly how this money, what it's used for, the TIF money, what it's used for in this development in the infrastructure in downtown? And that's my last question. Thank you. TIF revenues can only be used for public infrastructure within the TIF zone. So in this case, the revenues, the incremental revenues would be used for the garage, for the construction, and the financing. If there are any remaining incremental funds through the, what we were in the process of doing during this period was updating the local participation agreement as well. It will stipulate what those funds, if there are excess funds, what they would be used for. They have to be spent within the TIF zone. Thank you very much. That's all, Mayor. All right. Council Member Lawless. Thank you very much. I just drove in from my mother's funeral in a very stressful week, so if I don't make sense, just give me the high sign. I'm very confused about the e-mails we received from you and the information we received. And I went back and reread the 2008 agreement, And I think the thing that's very important for the citizens to know and the community to know that the TIF and then the addendum, which talks about the bonds, is not between the developer and the state. It's between the city and the state. The city owns the TIF. And so in that 2008 agreement, and I don't have it in front of me because, like I said, I just drove in, it clearly stated in that financing addendum that the city would issue those bonds for the development. Now, my understanding is those bonds weren't available because of the economy for quite a while. So the developer was using their own money. But whatever money is left over from the TIF funds, that's not going to be used on any private buildings. It can only be used for infrastructure. So this is really an opportunity that when these bonds, if the city, which has absolutely no skin in the game, no financial liability, they're used all over the country. It's a way for us to get some of the state revenue back in Fayette County, which generates a large portion of the state revenue. whatever's left over because they had a lower interest rate on these bonds, which does not have anything to do with the bond rating for the city or the state and is fully covered financially by the developer, that money can be used in that TIF footprint for other infrastructure things. And so it's a great opportunity when those bonds are paid off. That money can't be used for anything but the garage and other infrastructure, such as the old courthouse, which we know is falling down, and the park and that Phoenix Park TIF project. So I don't understand. Then I read the 2013 agreement again, and I'm not clear how it got superseded. And I've been following this because it's in my district, and these things interest me. And so I've been following this since before, way before I was on council, actually. And it's such an outstanding opportunity for us without risk. Now, if we don't go forward and issue those bonds at a lower interest rate than what the developer would have to pay, which they will do and have committed to do and are taking all the risk, there will be less money at the end to do other projects in that TIF footprint. So we lose and we have an excellent opportunity. So could you talk to me about how it got superseded and what the downside is? Sure, and let me address those in reverse order with the understanding that we don't have a proposal for a specific structure of these bonds, so the dynamics of how they would go into play and the particular downsides of a particular structure can't be known at this time. But in a general sense, there's a number of differences between a state-issued bond and a city-issued one. One open question is whether these would have an effect on the borrowing or how it would affect the credit rating of the city. Right now, while the TIF funds belong to the city, they are contractually obligated to be used on the project. If they are pledged as collateral for a bond, they now become obligated to a debt obligation, which means that they may transform into a debt obligation on the books of the city as opposed to a simple contract liability. an open question how it would be treated because they now become pledged as collateral for a debt that's taken on. Just because the debt's not recourse doesn't mean it wouldn't show up as a debt or recourse only to the TIF funds. The other things that are out there though, and one of the reasons the city needs to think about issuing these bonds I think is the ultimate success of the project. This would be the first instance in which the city had done a bond issuance for a TIF project and because a TIF project requires the involvement of the state because some of those funds are coming from the state if this project is not the correct one or it does not succeed using the TIF funds that may impact the viability of future state willingness to enter into TIF projects in Lexington and so there are some some things to evaluate down those paths and these are tax dollars and we want to see them succeed so there there may not be a liability in the sense of the city having to repay the bonds but if the tax dollars aren't used on a good project, then I think that is in a sense a liability. With respect to the superseding of the obligation from 2008, in 2013, I don't have the agreement with me, we entered into an additional development agreement and I believe it was Section 5 required that it be financed privately as opposed to using the TIF funds for that financing, or or by a bond issuance, I'm sorry, by a city bond issuance to do so. So I don't think we have a legal obligation to issue, which is why the developer went to the state, I believe, or one of the reasons. I am not an attorney. I just play one on TV. It's okay, I play one in real life. So I, well, my time's up, but I think there are, because I've spent a great deal of time studying this and going over this. And so I think there are about as many holes in this as there are in your logic there as there are in a sea sponge. So with that said, I may come back. All right. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Mayor. Just to follow up a little bit on what Council Member Lawless was asking you, Mr. Mason, when you came to the podium, you said that there was a difference, I guess, of interpretation as far as the initial agreement in 2008 and then this 2013 agreement. Then Mr. Turner came to the podium and said he didn't feel like there was a, quote, I guess, misinterpretation. What are the ramifications of this? I mean, we've got you saying one thing, and we have Mr. Turner saying another thing. Can you elaborate a little bit? Other than a difference of opinion, is it going to have any kind of effect on all of this? I think that we disagree as to what the enforceability of that provision of the 2008 agreement is, apparently. But all that said, after today's meeting, we are looking forward to reviewing what the developer may propose as far as a structure for a bond issuance, so it's not something that— It's not going to be litigated or something that's going to be— I don't think anyone—no, I don't think anyone's even talked about that as an issue. If I can. Let me respond. Yes, I do disagree with what Mason just articulated to Councilmember Lawless. And I do not think that the 13 agreement superseded anything in the 2008 agreement with regard to the bonds. Having said that, I don't think it's productive for us to get into the weeds and the debate of that issue right now. As Mason said, we have come to – we're moving forward in a positive way. We hope to be back to you shortly. with the TIF revenue bonds, a proposal for your consideration and approval. And at this point, I think we're in a good place, and let's stay there. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. All right. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. Could someone... Hasn't the project already generated some revenue for the TIF? It probably has in terms of wages, state income tax and so forth. However, that revenue is not releasable to the project until the threshold of $150 million of investment is actually made into the ground. That's so that's we'll be there, but not yet. So that's all being that will all be tracked and we'll recover whatever increment there has been achieved so far and through that construction. process. Okay, and that would be, as my understanding, that would be used to pay the bonds. That would be, yes, that would be the initial, as you might expect, that revenue increment will ramp up as the project goes online. I have a, I think that there's really a lot of misunderstanding about the project, the TIF. Maybe the TIF is different than other TIFs, and somehow if we could communicate that to the public, I think that would be a real good idea. And hopefully when you come back with ready to issue bonds, and I know that the agreement talks about making sure that the financing is in place to finish the project, correct? That's correct. And frankly, as I just indicated, we've got to be $150 million in before we even have that revenue. So it's the bond underwriters and so forth are going to safe keep that, you know, one of their issues that's not entirely clear yet, but they need assurance within their marketing material and as they sell the bonds that the project will be complete. so frankly at this point they're probably going to require all the construction loans to be closed which are prepared to be closed in october if we can get things going okay thank you very much council member scutchfield thank you mayor i'm going to be real quick i'm kevin thank you for the communications this week and i just beg of the administration mayor as well please keep us updated. This is something that obviously affects every one of us and we want to see we want to be informed. So I appreciate Kevin the communication this week. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you Mayor. I guess I'll follow along Council Member Scutchfield's comments. I guess first question actually let me back up. So So, Mr. Turner, if, in your opinion, the city agreed to issue the bonds for the garage, why did the developer seek the bonds from KEDFA? Well, frankly, we didn't care whether it was KEDFA or the city. If the city would prefer KEDFA, if KEDFA would do it, that is fine. Frankly, it's no different. Did the city, had you already asked the city to issue the bonds, and we declined to do that, and so then you went to KEDFA? Is that sort of, I think we did ask for a timeline. I'm not, I'm just trying to understand. We informally had discussions with the administration relative to the issue, the structure of how this would be done, and felt, you know, that going through the state would be very satisfactory. if we could get that done. State has since taken a different view, and so we're back to the city option. And so what is your timeline now, according to Mr. Atkins and our attorney, that you all have to submit a new application to us and this sort of thing? As I indicated, most of that work has already been done in the sense that we have it. For the state application. For purposes of the state, we'll modify that. We'll get that application in probably within the next week or 10 days. And at that point, it'll, you know, we'll go through the process, which I assume probably means going back through the Economic Development Fund, Bond Fund Committee. But, and then back to you, which I hope we can do on an expedited basis. because, you know, we've got some time. But what we're, I think what we're really concerned with from a timing point of view is market. The market for these types of bonds really dried completely up following the economic downturn and recently has come back because, frankly, many of the municipal bond funds, you know, lack product. It's not out there as much. So these types of bonds have come back to the market, and the market is supporting them fairly well. They've had several issues of these types of bonds throughout the country in the last month or two that have gone well. So we're trying to strike while iron's hot if we've got that opportunity, and that's the point. And I believe in the 2013 agreement, there was a 90-day deadline to begin construction on the garage or above the ground on the garage or something once the hole was dug. And if not, the hole had to be filled back in or something? That was a restoration agreement that was separate, yeah. So where does that stand? Well, actually, the progress, I mean, they're pouring concrete right now. So the project is not stalled waiting on. The project is not stalled. Okay. Yet again, we've got market timing and obviously we're expending funds we'd like to use elsewhere. But we're getting the project is ongoing and on the tenants are the tenants are have been we've been in communication with the tenants. So they're so far. That's good. That's good. We just need to move along. Okay. Okay, and then Kevin, and maybe this is, well, maybe you can answer this. So can you tell me why we were rushed to consider a resolution just before break that was then tabled, and then we were rushed on Monday to get on the docket again, a resolution that was then pulled, pulled. And then now, you know, 515 this afternoon was the last most recent communication to us. This is where I'm going back to Councilmember Sketchfield's communications. So it seems to me that there is a lot of communication happening outside of councilmember involvement or awareness or knowledge. And I don't appreciate, I guess, the rushed feeling of we have to do this. Time is of the essence. This is very important. Get it on the docket. And then an email comes, you know, 30 minutes before and, oh, no, we're pulling it. We don't need to do it. So can you help me understand why we've had those happenings of late? Sure. The issue of timing and needing to walk on the resolution on Tuesday was the fact that CATFA meets on August the 28th. That was the original target date to have the resolution done and to them on time if they had been so willing to issue the bonds. The Economic Development Fund Committee meets the first Wednesday of each month to consider these projects and others. The fact that council's been on break for their summer break meant that in order to fulfilled that time obligation it had to be walked on Tuesday and the process started tonight it was the council scheduling Ketfa schedule that dictated the activity schedule okay and so in in your opinion do you believe that the city the 28 2008 agreement that the city is responsible for issuing the bonds and that that's what ultimately we will have to do I think that's up to mr. Miller this is he's our council the city's council I said my position is that we are not obligated to do so that it was superseded by that agreement and and to your point on the question of timing one of the other things in addition to receiving a new application from the developer from the state. I think it's the third paragraph of that letter that everyone has seen. They have indicated that they may require a new consultant study to determine the level of TIF funding as well. And so that is another time issue, one that we are not necessarily, the city is not responsible for fulfilling or controls, but it's another piece of the very complex transaction that requires a substantial amount of due diligence to do right. And, you know, you can't, to your point, you can't jump into it overnight. I understand. I mean, but it's, this is a, I think, six-year project, so I think we've had time to, it seems like, to get the due diligence, you know, accomplished. I mean, due diligence as to any bond proposal. We haven't received one, and when we do, it's not something that we can receive on one day and sign off on the next one way or the other. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Farmer. Thank you. First, for our council, I guess in a nutshell you're saying that the council superseded itself after we passed the 2000, or the council in 2008 passed that agreement, and the council in 2013 passed an amendment to that agreement. Correct. A new agreement was put into place that superseded the original one. Thank you. Mr. Turner, is this a, is this conversation about the cost of capital? I mean, are there different rates involved specifically? Oh, absolutely. I can't tell you exactly what they are, but I mean, the difference, there is a distinct difference between taxable and tax-exempt bonds. I mean, to get the same internal rate of return on a taxable bond, the interest rate would have to be three to four points higher. And you all need to build this yourselves? You need to build the parking structure yourself? Do we need to? I mean, we've got a parking authority, turns out. Well, I'm not going to go there. But, I mean, the parking structure is the platform which the rest of the project goes on. All right. So it's got to be built to build the rest of the project. All right. Thank you. Mr. Atkins. Broader question. Have we treated this developer the same way we treated the 21C developer? Yes. we have in our master development agreements a standard agreement where the conditions whether it be the administrative fee the non-bonding on projects those type of items are all within the same agreements I know there was a time between when 21C came it seemed like nothing you know both of these projects have had long timelines about them and questions. And I just, this has been a very troubling, this has been very troubling in my estimation because I appreciate that our senator and representatives are here, but I think that to Frankfurt or to the legislature in general, we just, we look like we can't make our mind up or what we're trying to do. And I'm sorry about that because I think Lexington is in a great position to be the great American city that this mayor wants it to be. But we've got to have our house in order better. I want to speak to that. I myself in my business career was involved in 850 projects and quit counting. All right, we ask as a city, a professional, Mason Miller, a transaction attorney in real estate, to represent us, to ensure that the city's interests are protected in this project. This is a major undertaking, major undertaking. And what we are trying to do now is adjust and adapt. The agreement that was created in 2013 was adjusted because of the risks. To deal with the risks, to suggest in any major project that there is no risk is an enormous risk. I know. I have heard that language myself many times. Oh, Jim, don't worry about this. There's no risk in it. and then the bottom falls out. All right? So our job is to work with the developers. It is the developers' responsibility to advocate for and to advance these financial mechanisms. And that is what we are doing right now. We are adjusting to the developers' needs and trying to help. Thank you, sir. Gentlemen, thank you. Councilmember Lawless. Thank you, Mayor. The 2013 development agreement, as I understand, these bonds weren't available. And what part of that was was to ensure and assure that the money was there to do the garage. And if for some reason the garage was not done with the developer's private money, that they would put up the collateral to fill it back in and make it right, whatever those words are. I'm not a construction design person either. I just play one on TV. So those bonds were not available at that time. They put up the collateral, they put up the assurance, and they have been paying for this garage and have the funding to do so as well as to put it back to its original state if it fails. Now that these bonds are here, it's just an opportunity to do it at a lower rate, which would give the city more money to spend on the TIF. And I thank you, Mayor. I think that what Mr. Miller said, Council Member Lawless, was that you can't wave a wand and do that overnight. There are many hurdles in order to accomplish what you were just describing. Am I correct in that? I wasn't. That's not what I was saying. But thank you. I was getting ready to say. Okay, go ahead. I was getting ready to say. Sorry, I misinterpreted. I am. That's okay. I get misinterpreted all the time. I just want to say thank you, Mayor, for doing everything you can do and having your administration do everything that you can do to help this move forward. as quickly as possible and give us, this city, an opportunity to use these bonds that they're using all over the United States now that there's now a market for. Even though they have the money secured to do the project with or without them, they can do it for less money and the city will have money to do other infrastructure things And I really appreciate you and your office for moving forward and really trying to make this opportunity available. And that's very good news. And I think the responsibility of elected officials like our council members is to, and what Mr. Miller has been saying, is to confirm the speculation that you are just offering in terms of marketability, in terms of financing alternatives and mechanisms. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, gentlemen. So I do see my role as partly protecting the citizens' interests, the taxpayers' interests, and it is always important from our perspective up here to understand if we are putting the city at risk and if we are how. So I guess my two questions are, do you have any timeline when you think you might be back to us with something? That's number one. I mean, a week, two months, a year? No, certainly not that. I mean, this is... No, it'll be longer than a week and probably shorter than a month. Okay. And then I would ask Mr. Miller then, thank you, Mr. Turner, when whatever it is comes back to us, I would respectfully ask that you be very clear with some summary of the risk that we would be assuming if there is any. because I think that is, you know, if it's an agreement, that's one thing to read, but it's a whole other thing for us to understand what kind of risk it puts us at, and I would like very much to know that as well. Absolutely. Okay. It's somewhat earlier when I discussed the sort of legal side of the bond deal, which is one that's in the minutia of the language and requires a little time, that was one aspect, but the more important side, the real meat and potatoes of any negotiation or any transaction or project is the allocation of risk. Yes. Just like we had a year ago when the project sought to move forward and receive permits, we had an agreement in 2008 that required them to have their financing in place beforehand. To allow them to have permits without that financing was to assume a risk. And so in exchange for that, we obtain security in the form of the restoration agreement to offset that risk. And the bonds may or may not pose particular risks, and the level of risk and the nature of that risk depends on the structure of them. Okay. But I think it's the city's obligation and my obligation to advise the city on how to best minimize that risk and or obtain something to offset that risk in return. Okay, I appreciate that. I'm very interested in knowing that. I mean, another one of our jobs is to make sure that we have a vibrant city, and none of us think that we're the perfect downtown until that block has something in it, you know. So it is important for us to look at the future and if we can do something to be helpful, look at what it is and what the risks are that we're taking. So I appreciate that very much. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. Just a few comments and then I have a question that I'll pose to our council and to Mr. Turner. You know, the issue at hand is to remove this resolution that we started out on this Tuesday to send forward to the state. So we won't send it to the state. Council Member Farmer is correct to a certain degree in regards to the level of missteps that we've had with some projects and interactions with our state officials. You know, things happen. It is what it is. As I look at the email going forward, after we move to rescind this resolution, we're not forwarded on, it says it's noncommittal. It basically says that the administration is in conversation with the developers. It says we may and we may not issue revenue bonds. My general question is what happens if we don't? What impact will that have on the project? And if we don't, I trust that if we choose not to, it will be, as Vice Mayor just mentioned, in the best interest of this government. Can anybody speak to what would happen to the project if we chose not to issue those revenue bonds? Obviously, the project could change as it has over time. It's our understanding from what we've been told by the developer that the issue is not whether it will move forward. It's simply the cost of capital and their internal rate of return. In other words, the amount of profit the developer is going to make on the project. And by using these bonds, it will have a lower cost of capital, and therefore their rate of return on their investment will be higher. So it's my understanding based on that that they could move forward without the bonds. They'll make less money on the project, but it's just a difference of the percentage point on the interest rate they're paying on their capital investment. Thank you, Councilor. reimburse the developer for the cost of the garage. Okay? Now that can be done in a number of different ways. The developer's going to get reimbursed one way or the other. How much does that cost the city to do that, or not cost the city, but how much does that cost, does that use up of the increment that's available, that income stream of the increment is the issue. If we can use it more efficiently, there's more opportunity for you to have what's left over. If we use it inefficiently, we're, the developer's going to get reimbursed, not profit, going to get reimbursed for the cost from the increment. It's how you do that reimbursement that is the issue. You do it efficiently so that that cost is reimbursed at less cost to the increment, to the TIF, so that you have that TIF to use on other projects within the TIF district, or are we going to use it at expensive market rate taxable financing, which is going to use more of it to reimburse the developer the same amount. So it's not about profit to the developer. It's about how efficiently you all use the increment that you're going to have. That's the point. Okay. Mason, I think. All right. Clearly, there's a different point of view here. The reason that an agreement, I think you should explain, I think it would be worthwhile to illustrate the 2013 agreement. You just described it. And in that agreement, what was contained in terms of sufficiency, demonstration of sufficiency of financing absent the city's influence? Exactly. When we, and what I was mentioning right as I finished, was when we entered into the 2013 restoration agreement, it was because the developer wanted to move forward with the permitting and beginning construction, you probably recall, them blocking the lanes. Excuse me, Mayor, could he speak up, please? Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm sorry to pull that down. Thank you. Darby has about a foot and a half on me. I can't help that, as does the rest of the world, really. In 2013, when we first were asked to permit the permits to go forward, in the absence of the closing of the financing, we were assured that all of the funds were there to complete the project, even without the city's involvement for the funds. We were provided some information to verify that, some of which we did not think was sufficient to establish the financing being in place. and we went back and forth for a while on that. And in lieu of fighting over it in an attempt to make sure this project does go forward because there is an interest in making sure that that block becomes something for this city, we found a solution which was to obtain some security, even in the absence of sufficient proof of financing, but with representations that it was in place, that they could move forward and do this without the input of the city. And I think one thing that is getting lost somewhat in the discussion is that the 2008 application and agreement is different than what we're operating under now. There's a 2013 and a different application altogether that's in play. There are two different processes, two different applications, two different projects at this point. And so that explains a lot of why there are changes and why there are differences. Right. Thank you. Thank you, attorney. And I know my time has expired. I just want to conclude and feel comfortable that, unfortunately, that our expectation that the state would issue these bonds, that's one under the bridge at this point, but that we're not, how do I put this, that we're not obligated to issue the bonds, A. and Part B is that, but we will pursue it in good faith. But if we choose not to issue the bonds, that the project still has an opportunity to go forward. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Just to confirm my understanding of that, my understanding is that the project can happen either way. The city is being asked to consider participation in a new form that we had not agreed to before. And the city has said, yes, we will consider that. We will measure it. We will examine it. We will do the due diligence. That's my understanding. Very good. Councilmember Mossade. Thank you, Mayor. This is a complicated issue, obviously. And I was wondering if maybe someone like maybe Mr. Atkins or Vice Mayor, you could set up possibly a workshop on TIF financing. Because I think it would be a great primer for all of us. Because I certainly have a lot of questions as we all do. So, Kevin, can we count on you for putting together something like that? Thank you. That's a good idea. We had one about six years ago on this project. That's right. We'll do another one. There we go. It's a good idea. Thank you, Council Member Sadi. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to try and clarify a couple of things, and then I have, I think, a suggestion about the flow of information that a lot of people have already talked about. The clarification is this. At this point, is it the case that the administration will come back to the council with a recommendation pro or con, and that regardless of what that recommendation is, the council will make a decision then about whether or not to proceed with the bonding issue. Is that correct? Mr. Atkins? Yes. Subject to, obviously, the developer putting together a proposal for us to evaluate, yes. At this point, it's sort of an amorphous concept. It's not just issue bonds or not. There's some very substantial differences in the way those can be structured that either create a lot of risk for the city or eliminate that risk. And so depending on what type of proposal we receive and what we are able to negotiate, we will have a pro or a con as to a specific solution. But is it? The answer is short. The short answer is yes. Yes. From a process standpoint, yes. We will have, subject to them providing a proposal, we will have a yes or a no on it. Okay. So given the complexity of the issue and even tonight the difficulty that I think that I and probably some other folks have had in understanding exactly all of the nuances up and down. It's over now. Appropriate. I must have offended the technical gods or something. short of a workshop, and that may be useful also, I would like to suggest that the city and the developers together generate a single document that lays out the set of issues, the pros and cons on each of them, and where the city at this point would, at the later point, where the city and the developers agree or disagree, so that we as council members have a comprehensive set of information that we can look at and then we can make our judgment based on that. But what I hope we can avoid is exactly the kind of conversation we've had tonight where there's too many issues, they're too complex, you can't hold them in your head. So that's my request. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Kay, if I may, that's why Mr. Turner and I have sent the email jointly. this afternoon i mean we want to be able to communicate and from both of us let you all be able to know what the issues and what the timing is okay i guess my my additional interest i guess is in quite a bit more detail so that ideally when we have this conversation there are not issues that are not actually addressed to some extent on the written documents that we have before us. And Council Member Kay, I think your questioning highlights and recognizes the most important issue, which I hope isn't getting lost, is this is not a question of should we issue bonds or not issue bonds. That is too amorphous of a question. That's like asking should we make a $50 million loan or not a loan. The real question is what do these bonds look like? How do they operate? What risks are allocated? There are hundreds of different ways these could be written. hundred different ways they could operate, some of which are very risky to the city and some of which are less risky. And those are the details I think the council needs. And when I talked about doing the due diligence and making sure we have our ducks in the road, that is what those risks are, what the city and the council should be looking at when they receive a proposal. And I think you've hit the nail on the head. You need those identified, assessed, and discussed. and not to beat what is probably already a dead horse. However, I think it bears saying at this point that there is a tremendous amount of skepticism in the community about this project for good or bad reasons. And if this council makes a decision that is not easily communicated to the community, it's going to create a firestorm and will not be defensible. Thank you, Mayor. thank you council member myers could i say just one quick thing and i really i'm trying not to get down in the weeds and get us into unnecessary discussion but the risk that mason is talking about I'm not sure what risk he's talking about the only the only obligation that the city has pursued to the agreement with regard to the financing whether it be bonds or whatever is the pledge of the increment their specific language that the city is not long not liable for is not a general obligation of the city not a net general obligation of the state There may be reputational risks that are associated. There are frankly reputational risks that are going on that you're undertaking right now by the headlines in the paper and so forth that are being read by developers and investors in our community, potential investors in our community all over the country. So the financial risks are pretty well in a box is what I'm trying to say. the process and the risks associated with a lot of what's been going on are real. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Miller, I agree with Council Member Kay, and I hope that the document that we get doesn't just say there's risk or not risk, but it outlines all the different things that he talked about. But when I hear you talk, it seems to me that you're missing part of the equation. The part that Councilmember Lawless talked about, and that is the value of bringing those TIF dollars back to the city. And when you said if the money is spent on a bad project, that's not good for taxpayers, that's true. But the other thing that's true is that if there isn't a TIF, then Lexington Fayette County taxpayers' money goes to Frankfort, and they distribute it across the state, and it doesn't come back here at all. So when this document, I hope you take Council Member Kaye's advice, and maybe we need to make that a motion so that that happens. And I would support that, Council Member Kaye, if you do that. But I would ask that in that document, you also discuss the value of a TIF and the value of that tax increment coming back here and what it can be used for and what it can't be used for, because that is a part of this equation. and it doesn't seem to me that that's getting the play tonight that it should. And I think that Council Member Lawless laid out one of the most succinct explanations of a TIF that I've heard in a long time, and I think that's lost in this room and probably on the people that are watching by TV. And I'll reserve the rest of my time if you have something I want to comment on. Thank you. Sure. I want to make one correction to what you said. the TIF revenues are not general tax revenues. They cannot go anywhere else in the state. When you have a TIF, the only tax revenue that is in there... Let me interrupt you for a second because that's not what I said. What I said was if there is not a TIF, our tax money that the taxpayers are paying into Frankfurt gets distributed out the way Frankfurt does that. So I said if there is not a TIF. Okay? Thank you. I guess the question I see is not whether they're tall people. The question is not whether there's a TIF or not. There is a TIF. The question is, do we take the proceeds from the TIF to collateralize bonds that the city issues that are backed only by those TIF funds? The TIF dollars are there. and if the developer reaches certain levels of investment and progress, then those begin to filter out like we discussed earlier. What they have asked us, the city to do, is join in to facilitate a quick, in essence, a quicker release of the funds using a conduit bond, essentially take those TIF revenue, issue bonds, and then promise the bond holders that they'll be repaid from those TIF revenues, hoping that there will be enough to repay the bonds. And so the TIF dollars are there. The question is just how to utilize them within the financing mechanism. Council Member Clark. Thank you, Mayor. To all of you, I appreciate your efforts. And I want to say first that I would very much like to see this project succeed. And I'm willing to support that. But I think the bottom line here for me is how much can we risk? How much can the city risk in this matter? And that's what I need to know. That's what the people who have emailed me and called me today, that's what they want to know. And I think when we come back to this council with whatever proposal we have, we have to have that answered. We need to know that. I need to know that so I will know how to vote. Whatever the proposal is, I started my conversation by saying I'm very supportive of this and I want to see this happen very, very badly. But I think my responsibility to the citizens of Lexington is to be sure this city is not jeopardized. So if you have any comments of that, Mr. Miller or Darby, either one, I would appreciate it. I would agree. I think we both agree. I mean, we want to minimize risk. We want to take advantage of the opportunity that the state legislation gives us as a community. And, you know, everything involves some risk. But in this case, we want to see that the risk to the urban county government is minimized and that the project succeeds. So I totally agree with you. Thank you. Councilmember Clark. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. It looks like that's all who's signed up for discussion. I would just summarize what Council Member Clark said, I think, was well said succinctly. It's what Mr. Turner said well. It's what Mr. Miller said, what Kevin Atkins said. what everyone has said is that this is a really important to all of us to our city and that we want to be helpful and we want to be responsible as well so thank you all for this dialogue and we can now vice mayor all right i was thinking you decided to speak i'm responding to the different requests that have come up and i'm wondering if i don't know if you all will have something by August the 26th that we could look at, but if you did, we perhaps could have a workshop that morning and have 30 minutes on TIFs in general and an hour on your proposal. Is that too soon? Well, it may not be too soon, but I'm out of the country that week. Oh, you should be here. We'll look for a different date. But for council members, would that be a good format at some point to have a workshop with 30 minutes of general TIF understanding and then 60 minutes to understand the specific proposal? Does that kind of suit? Okay, thank you, Mayor. I think it would be very good to have also Mr. Ferris and some of the people from the. We'll work on that. And we need to work around the council schedule. And I think if Kevin is not available, then we will have adequate support for the meeting. All right. So we're ready to take a vote on the motion? All right. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. Motion carries. Mr. Mayor, could you have them record their votes electronically just so we have a record? Thank you. Did you get it? I got it. All right. We're getting there. We're getting there. We need another one. Thank you. Okay. All right. And that allows us to move on to the presentations. We have two presentations. And I'll run around to the part. Well, wait a minute. I'm missing. It's not on my. it's not on my somehow minutes are not on my agenda here all right forgive me mayor may i just make a motion to approve the minutes motion motion to approve the minutes by vice mayor gordon second by councilmember scotchfield is there any uh is there any discussion on the motion all in favor please say aye opposed no motion carries all right if you all hold on just a second i'll Oh, yeah. Siobhan, you want to come down and join me on this? We have two presentations tonight. Our first presentation is to recognize an outstanding corporate citizen in Lexington, and that company is NetGain Technologies. In 1984, NetGain was a small business in a single office. Now, seven locations in six states with over 150 employees. And NetGain is a homegrown business, a family business. When Don Jacobson founded NetGain, one of his first employees was his son and the current CEO, Mark Jacobson. Now, their business has surely changed over the last 30 years. but we all sure hope that they'll be here in 30 more years celebrating their 60th anniversary and continuing to provide great jobs to their employees, great expertise and quality to their customers, and service to our community. Now, before I get started with the proclamation itself and all the whereases in the commemoration, I'd like to ask Councilmember Siobhan Akers to offer a few words about NetGain. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to congratulate NetGain Technologies as well on their 30th anniversary. In addition to receiving recognition as one of the top 100 managed services firms in the world, NetGain has also been recognized by Inc. 5000 as one of the fastest growing companies in the nation. NetGain provides excellent career opportunities to Lexington employees in the tech industry, and we are proud that they chose Lexington as their home base, and I wish you all continued success and growth. Congratulations. Thank you, Councilman. So, okay. I'm going to now read the proclamation honoring NetGain Technologies, whereas NetGain Technologies provides Lexington companies with information technology solutions to complex business problems, and whereas NetGain Technologies offers customized solutions and customer support to meet each company's business objectives, and whereas NetGain and its employees give back to the community by supporting the Lexington Rescue Mission, the Rotary Club of Lexington, the city's Summer Youth Employment Program and the Boys and Girls Club. And whereas congratulations to Net Gain Technologies, an outstanding corporate citizen that is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year. So on behalf of all Fayette Countians, we commemorate the 30th anniversary of Net Gain Technologies and declare the month of August 2014 as Net Gain Technologies Month in Lexington. And And I'm going to present this to Brett Anderson, who is Vice President of Marketing, and ask Brett to say something to all of us. Thank you. Thank you. On behalf of Net Gain Technologies, I'd like to thank the council, the mayor, and specifically Councilwoman Akers for this recognition. Thank you. Thanks, Brett. But okay, now I'd like to ask, oh, it's Councilmember Scotchfield. Somehow we got that wrong. Forgive me. So, Councilmember Scotchfield, please join me up here at the podium. Our second recognition tonight, we are recognizing Lucas Etter for solving the Rubik's Cube. Now, not just solving it. Yeah, and Council Member Scotchfield is going to describe it fully, but if that's not impressive enough, I'm told that he can solve it blindfolded. Is that right? Right. He can solve them in two different hands. And in two hands. Okay. So he has a world record for solving the two-by-two cube. His best time is in less than one second. So where is? Lucas. Lucas, come on up. You're going to show us. I'll tell you all a little bit. Lucas, I have been fortunate enough to know Lucas since kindergarten. He was in kindergarten, not since I was in kindergarten. But Lucas has gone to school with my daughter since kindergarten. He has done projects at school where they challenge. We had an entrepreneur affair where they challenge Lucas. Lucas, basically you paid in order to learn the economic system. Kids could challenge Lucas to try to beat him in solving the Rubik's Cube. And you will see in a second it's not possible. He truly is impressive. He holds records all over the country in competitions on solving Rubik's Cube. And this past week, I guess a couple weeks ago, competed in national championships and on the two-by-two is the national champion. Okay. What do you want to do? Scramble? Okay. I have to scramble. I have to scramble for Lucas, and I am really good at messing it up. I'm not good at solving the Rubik's Cube. Okay. okay and thank you for coming let me let me real real he holds the record in the two by two which a lot of you all probably or not familiar. We all had the bigger ones. Let's mess up the bigger one. This is impressive. I'm not kidding. And again, he has done this. You can do with two in each hand and solve them one-handed. Yeah. Okay. Here we go. Okay. One-handed. Done. That's awesome. Lucas, thank you for coming down. We've got a proclamation, buddy. I mean, this just says, Speed Cuber, Lucas at her day. And it just says, for the fastest average time to solve a Rubik's Cube. And you just demonstrated it, Lucas. Congratulations. This says it. This is your day. Woo! That was awesome. Woo! Wow. All right. Thank you, Mayor. Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to mention this before your presentation, but the Jacobsons were a client of my firm in 1984, and I helped them get their first business location. And it's thrilling to me to see how much they've grown in the 30-year period. And I would also add that our company currently is a client of NetGain. They provide all of our IT support. And for a smaller company, it's really been a great firm for us to work with. So I want to congratulate them on their 30 years. Thank you for letting me eject that, Mayor. You bet. Thank you, sir. All right. That allows us to move on to ordinances for a second reading. Madam Clerk, if you'll please read the one ordinance. Ordinance number one, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government to provide funds for purchase orders rolling over from fiscal year 2014 into fiscal year 2015 and appropriating and reappropriating funds to schedule number three. Second. Motion to approve by Council Member Ellinger, second by Council Member Clark. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right, hearing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Mr. K? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Ms. Massadi? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Scotchfield? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Akers? Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Clark? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? And Ms. Gordon? Aye. And Ms. Henson, sorry. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The vote reflects passage of the motion. Allows us to move on to ordinances for a first reading. When you're ready, Madam Clerk. Ordinance number two and ordinance amending section two of ordinance number 57, 2014, changing the position of heavy equipment technician, grade 113N, in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management from Unclassified Civil Service to Civil Service. Number three, an ordinance amending Section 2152 of the Code of Ordinances abolishing one position of Administrative Specialist Senior, Grade 112N, and amending Section 2252 of the Code of Ordinances creating one position of Administrative Specialist Senior, Grade 112N, in the Office of the Mayor, appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule Number 6, effective upon passage of counsel. Number four, an ordinance amending Section 2152 of the Code of Ordinances abolishing two positions of treatment plant operator apprentice grade 107N and amending section 2252 of the code of ordinances creating one position of treatment plant operator apprentice grade 107N in the division of water quality appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number seven effective upon passage of council. Number five and ordinance amending section 2152 of the code of ordinances abolishing five positions of equipment operator senior grade 109N and creating one position of public service supervisor senior grade 114E one position of administrative specialist principal grade 114E, one position of trades worker senior grade 109N, and one position of maintenance mechanic grade 113N, all in the Division of Waste Management, appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 5, effective upon passage of council. Number 6, an ordinance amending Section 2152 of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing one position of custodial worker grade 102N, and creating one position of administrative officer grade 118E, both in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management, appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 8, effective upon passage of council. Number seven, 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 is Schedule number four. Number eight, an ordinance levying ad valorem taxes for municipal purposes for the fiscal year July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 on the assessed value of all taxable property within the taxing jurisdictions of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. All taxes on each $100 of assessed valuation as of the January 1, 2014 assessment date as follows. General Services District, $0.0800 on real property, including real property of public service companies, $0.0931 on personal property, including personal property of public service companies, noncommercial aircraft and noncommercial watercraft, $0.1500 on insurance capital, $0.0150 on tobacco and storage, and $0.0450 on agricultural products and storage. Full urban or partial urban services districts based on urban services available on real property, including real property of public service companies. $0.1431 for refuse collection. $0.0210 for street lights. $0.0097 for street cleaning. $0.0920 on insurance capital. $0.0150 on tobacco and storage. $0.0450 on agricultural products and storage. and levying an ad valorem tax for municipal purposes at the rate of $0.0880 on each $100 of assessed value on all motor vehicles and watercraft within the taxing jurisdiction of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government as of the January 1, 2015 assessment date. Number nine, an ordinance adopting the request of the Lexington-Fayette County Health Department under KRS 212.755 and levying a special ad valorem public health tax for the fiscal year July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 on the assessed value of all taxable real and personal property within the taxing jurisdiction of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government, including real and personal property of public service companies, non-commercial aircraft, non-commercial watercraft, and inventory in transit, and excluding insurance capital, tobacco in storage, and agricultural products in storage at the rate of $0.028 on each $100 of assessed value as of the January 1, 2014 assessment date, and levying a special ad valorem public health tax at the rate of $0.028 on each $100 of assessed value on all motor vehicles and watercraft within the taxing jurisdiction of the Lexington Fayette-Urban County Government as of the January 1, 2015 assessment date. Number 10, an ordinance levying ad valorem taxes for purposes of support of the Agricultural Extension Office for the fiscal year July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 on the assessed value of all taxable real and personal property within the taxing jurisdiction of the Lexington Fayette-Urban County Government All taxes on each $100 of assessed valuation as of the January 1, 2014 assessment date as follows. $0.0034 on all taxable real property, including real property of public service companies. $0.0038 on taxable personal property, including personal property of public service companies, noncommercial aircraft, and noncommercial watercraft, and excluding inventory and transit, insurance capital, tobacco and storage, and agricultural products in storage. And levying an ad valorem tax for purposes of support of the Agricultural Extension Office at the rate of $0.0032 on each $100 of assessed value on all motor vehicles and watercraft within the taxing jurisdiction of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government as of the January 1, 2015 assessment date. Number 11, an ordinance levying ad valorem taxes for purposes of support of the Soil and Water Conservation District for the fiscal year July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 on the assessed value of all taxable real property within the taxing jurisdiction of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government, including real property of public service companies at a rate of $0.000516 to be billed at $0.0005 on each $100 of assessed valuation as of the January 1, 2014 assessment date. All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Are there any motions for walk-ons or suspensions? All right. If not, then whenever you're ready. We can move on. Resolution number one, a resolution accepting the bid of Classic Clean Pro LLC, establishing a price contract for custodial services OAC for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number two, a resolution accepting the bid of Classic Clean Pro LLC, establishing a price contract for Custodial Services Recycling Center for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number three, a resolution accepting the bids of Wilson Equipment Company LLC, Jack Doheny Companies Incorporated and ABCO Bramert Louisville LLC, establishing price contracts for equipment rental without operator for the Division of Streets and Roads. Number four, a resolution accepting the bid of Lynette Bartholomew doing business's key to cleaning, establishing a price contract for custodial services, general services for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number five, a resolution accepting the bid of Lynette Bartholomew doing business's key to cleaning, establishing a price contract for custodial services day treatment center for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number six, a resolution accepting the bid of Lynette Bartholomew doing business's key to cleaning, establishing a price contract for custodial services waste management for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number seven, a resolution accepting the bid of Delavale Management Incorporated, establishing a price contract for custodial services coroner's office for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number eight, a resolution accepting the bid of Lane Inliner LLC in the amount of $388,690 for the Wolf Run Trunk A Rehabilitation for the Division of Water Quality and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Lane Inliner LLC related to the bid. Number nine, a resolution accepting the bid of Univar USA Incorporated establishing a price contract for liquid chlorine for the Division of Water Quality. Number ten, a resolution accepting the bid of Bluegrass Uniforms Incorporated doing business as Bluegrass Uniforms and Equipment establishing a price contract for SCBA maintenance for the Division of Fire and Emergency Services. Number eleven, a resolution accepting the bid of Labor Works Lexington LLC establishing a price contract for Temporary Labor Services Division of Waste Management Collection Services. Number 12, a resolution accepting the bid of Labor Works Lexington, LLC, establishing a price contract for temporary labor services for waste management materials recovery facility. I am. biweekly in the Division of Environmental Policy, and Melinda Stone, Recreation Supervisor, Grade 110E, 1,417.52 biweekly in the Division of Parks and Recreation, all effective August 25, 2014. Ratifying the permanent civil service appointments of Brian Radabaugh, Traffic Engineer Manager, Grade 120E, 3,028 biweekly in the Division of Traffic Engineering, effective July 6, 2014. Susan Pfluger, Director, Grade 122E, 3,424.96 biweekly in the Division of Environmental Policy, effective July 27, 2014. Michael Cook, property and evidence technician, grade 111N, 22.186 hourly, effective July 28, 2014. Rebecca Gooch, information system specialist senior, grade 114E, 1,728.48 biweekly, effective July 27, 2014. And Christopher Woodyard, staff assistant senior, grade 108N, 18.711 hourly, effective June 2, 2014, all in the division of police. Elizabeth Strong, early child care teacher grade 110 e 1,000 127.28 biweekly in the division of family services effective July 6 2014 William Crowder's public service worker grade 106 n 11.775 hourly in the division of facilities and fleet management effective July 4 2014 and Stephanie Bowling recreation supervisor grade 110 e 1,000 279.60 biweekly in the division of parks and recreation effective June 2 2014 ratifying the probationary sworn appointments of Jesse Harris police lieutenant Grade 317 E, 3025.14 biweekly. And William Powers, Police Sergeant. Grade 315 N, 28.828 hourly. Both effective July 28, 2014. In the Division of Police, Curtis Works, Fire Major. Grade 318 E, 3557.01 biweekly. Justin Hall Saver, Fire Captain. Grade 316 N, 23.160 hourly. And Nathan Vanderhoff, Fire Lieutenant. Grade 315 N, 17.860 hourly. All effective July 1, 2014. Daniel Case, Fire Captain. grade 316 and 23.160 hourly and Shannon Pointer fire lieutenant grade 315 and 17.860 hourly both effective July 28th 2014 all in the division of fire and emergency services number 14 a resolution authorizing the division of human resources to make a conditional offer to the following probationary civil service appointments Scott Tremulous budget analyst grade 115 e 100608.32 biweekly in the Division of Budgeting, effective September 1, 2014. Frank Ross, Safety Specialist, Grade 115E, 200450.80 biweekly, effective August 25, 2014. Don Jenkins, Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N, 13.025 hourly, effective upon passage of counsel, both in the Division of Waste Management. Jeremy Hobbs, Human Resources Analyst, Grade 115E, 100593.04 biweekly in the Division of Human Resources. Kristen Fields, Telecommunicator Senior, Grade 113N, 17.102 hourly, and Ashley Hewitt, telecommunicator senior grade 113 n 16.679 hourly both in the division of emergency management 911 effective august 25th 2014. sarah farley staff assistant senior grade 108 n 12.185 hourly in the division of police trampas porter skilled trades worker senior grade 112 n 24.686 hourly in the division of fired emergency services troy hager building inspector mechanical grade 113 n 18.482 hourly in the division of building inspection all effective august 25th 2014. Authorizing the Division of Human Resources to make a conditional offer to the following unclassified civil service appointments. Nathan Dickerson, Aid to Council, Grade Z02, 2038.46 biweekly in the Council Office, effective July 28, 2014. And Randall Davis, Fleet Parts Specialist, Grade 109N, 17.802 hourly in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management, effective upon passage of Council. Number 15, 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 cool of in and hope center rail trail sections of the legacy trail at a cost not to exceed $30,000. Number 16, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to accept a grant from the Kentucky justice and public safety cabinet, which grant funds are in the amount of $25,000 federal funds are for continuation of the ticketing aggressive cars and trucks program. The acceptance of which obligates the urban county government for the expenditure of $6,250 as a local match and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 17, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a certificate of consideration and to accept a deed conveying permanent sanitary sewer and temporary construction easements from owners of record for the property located at 683 Woodward Lane for the Wilderness Road-Woodward Lane sanitary sewer project at no cost to the urban county government. Number 18, a resolution declaring a surplus and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Lexington Fayette urban county government to execute deeds and any other necessary documents for the sale and transfer of 2057 Buck Lane, 305 Dantzler Court, 309 Dantzler Court, 313 Dantzler Court, 549 Grantchester Street, 4024 Lilydale Court, 905 North Limestone Street, 907 North Limestone Street, 909 North Limestone Street, 1001 North Limestone Street, 431 Marquis Avenue, 134 Northwood Drive, 138 Northwood Drive, 142 Northwood Drive, and 504 Parkside Drive. Number 19, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a multi-year service agreement with Time Warner Cable Enterprises, LLC, for continuation of existing services at a cost not to exceed $32,801.64 for fiscal year 2015. Number 20, a resolution amending resolution number 241-2014, which accepted the bids of Environmental Demolition Group, LLC, and National Environmental Consulting Incorporated and established price contracts for environmental abatement services for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management to cancel the price contract with Environmental Demolition Group, LLC, and to accept the bids and established price contracts with Romack Incorporated and Chase Environmental Group Incorporated. Number 21, a resolution accepting the fixed price bid of Centerpoint Energy Services Incorporated in the estimated amount of $245,470 for the provision of natural gas to the detention center and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an agreement with center point energy services incorporated related to the bid number 22 a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a renewal agreement with omnisource integrated supply llc for web eoc coordinator services at cost not to exceed sixty seven thousand two hundred dollars number 23 a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a purchase of services agreement with roots and heritage Festival Incorporated for the 2014 Britson Heritage Festival at a cost not to exceed $35,415 plus additional in-kind services. Number 24, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute and submit a grant application to the Kentucky State Police Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Division 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 $60,000 federal funds and are for continued operation of the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, the acceptance of which obligates the urban county government for the expenditure of $15,000 as a local match and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 25, a resolution approving the granting of an inducement to Ashland Incorporated pursuant to the Kentucky Business Investment Act, KRS Chapter 154.32, whereby the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government agrees to forego the collection of 1% of the occupational license fees for a term of not longer than 10 years from the activation date, subject to the limitations contained in the Act and any agreement Ashland Incorporated has with the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority and or the Urban County Government related to the project and taking other related action. Number 26, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a renewal contract with Omnisource Integrated Supply, LLC, for additional inventory specialist services at a cost not to exceed $53,000. Number 27, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with National Council on Aging for the placement of participants of the Senior Community Service Employment Program with the Department of Social Services at no cost to the government. Number 28, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an agreement with Terry Farreker, a sole source provider for the provision of technical expertise of interpersonal, domestic, and family violence to the Domestic Violence Prevention Board at a cost not to exceed $22,500. Number 29, a resolution authorizing the Division of Revenue to purchase document imaging provider and related services through June 30, 2015 from VBridge, a sole source provider, at a cost not to exceed $70,000, and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute any necessary agreement with VBridge related to the services. Number 30, a resolution authorizing Kavanaugh-McDonald Consulting, LLC, to conduct the biannual OPEB study for the City Employees' Pension Fund and the Policemen's and Firefighters' Retirement Fund for fiscal year 2014 for an estimated amount not to exceed $17,000, and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an agreement with Kavanaugh-McDonald Consulting LLC related to the study. Number 31, a resolution accepting the bid of integrated engineering PLLC in the amount of $110,500 for the engineering design services for phases 5D, 5E, and 5F of the Meadows-Northland Arlington neighborhood improvement projects for the division of engineering and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an agreement with integrated engineering PLLC to provide services related to the bid. Number 32, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a release of easement releasing a detention easement on property located at 1619 harmony hall lane number 33 a resolution authorizing the division of water quality to purchase chemical kits required for the use of the hack dr 5000 spectrometer from hawk company a sole source provider at a cost not to exceed 27 041 dollars and four cents and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to sign any necessary agreement with hawk company related to the procurement Number 34, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute change order number two to the contract with Bush and Burchett Incorporated for Grimes Mill Road bridge replacement at Boone's Creek Project, increasing the contract price by the sum of $38,576.40 from $643,848.59 to $732,424.99. Number 35, a resolution authorizing delegation of authority to the chief information officer to execute an enrollment contract and subsequent contracts for participation in the Apple iOS developer enrollment program on behalf of the urban county government at a cost not to exceed $99. Number 36, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute contract modification number one to the engineering services agreement with CDP Engineers Incorporated for the Loudoun Avenue sidewalk project, increasing the contract price by the sum of $3,500 from $44,652 to $48,152. Number 37, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute certificates of consideration in any other necessary documents and to accept deeds for property interest needed for phases 1 and 3 of the Cardinal Lane Stormwater Improvements Project at a cost not to exceed $15,000. Number 38, 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 Bolivar Street Stormwater Improvements Project at a cost not to exceed $550. Number 39, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a contract with Proger Limited Partnership 1 Louisville Division to supply the influenza vaccine and administer vaccinations to eligible Lexington Fayette urban county government employees at a cost of $21 per employee during the 2014-2015 flu season. Number 40, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Computer Services Corporation for migration of the current on-site Riskmaster software to Computer Services Corporation hosted Riskmaster Accelerator Express at a cost not to exceed $43,125, $34,875 annual fee plus $8,250 one-time fee for setup and training. Number 41, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which grants funds in the amount of $1,398,704 federal funds, are for continuation of the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program, the acceptance of which does not obligate the urban county government for the expenditure of funds, authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget, and authorizing and directing the mayor to execute an agreement with AIDS Volunteers Incorporated for continuation of the project at a cost not to exceed $1,398,704. dollars. Number 42, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a new case document amendment to plan management agreement and amendment to group stop loss policy extension with Humana Insurance Company for the administration of health care claims for the period of January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. Number 43, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an amendment to agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development extending the performance period for the housing opportunities for persons with AIDS grant until the funds are expended and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Lexington Fayette urban county government to execute an amendment to agreement with AIDS volunteers incorporated for continuation of the project at no cost to the urban county government number 44 a resolution amending resolution number 222 2014 to authorize the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a multi-year service agreement with time warner cable enterprises llc for high-speed internet for the division of Emergency Management 911 at a cost not to exceed $1,260 in fiscal year 2015. Number 45, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute multiple year true lease agreements and related documents state contract with Dell Financial Services LLC for the lease of new and upgraded equipment for desktop computers for the Division of Computer Services at an estimated cost not to exceed $89,186.40 fiscal year 2015. Number 46, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a second amendment to agreement with Amec Environment and Infrastructure Incorporated, formerly known as Amec Earth and Environmental Incorporated, for additional brownfield site assessment services at a cost not to exceed an additional $6,362.83. cents. Number 47, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a professional services agreement with the law firm of Frost Brown Todd LLC acting by and through Donald L. Crane for collective bargaining negotiations with the divisions of police, fire and emergency services and community corrections at a cost not to exceed $70,000. Number 48, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an agreement with the North Limestone Neighborhood Association Incorporated $1,050 for the office of the urban county council at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. Number 49, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a memorandum of understanding with central Kentucky homeless and housing initiative, bluegrass.org, community action council, Chrysalis House, Hope Center, Lexington Housing Authority and Volunteers of America for administrative services related to the application and operation of the federal continuum of care grant at a cost not to exceed $4,000. Number 50 was removed. Number 51, a resolution amending section 3A of resolution 16890 related to designation of residential parking permit areas to delete the existing section and replacing it with A 1 through 2 regarding the parking authority procedure for receiving petitions and conducting a survey for RPPP areas. amending section 3b of resolution 168 90 related to the designation of residential parking permit areas to delete the existing section and replace it with b1 through 5 regarding the parking authority procedure upon completion of the traffic study and listing five additional factors for making its recommendations amending section 3c of resolution 168 90 related to designation of residential parking permit areas to delete the existing section and replace it with procedure for council members to place the proposed rppp on the docket to coincide with public comment amending section 3d of resolution 168 90 related to designation of residential parking permit areas to delete the existing section and replace it with parking authority responsibility to notify identifiable traffic generators and residents creating section 3e resolution 168 90 related to designation of residential parking permit areas to provide for the parking authority to post a notice in the right-of-way regarding public comment of the proposed RPPP. All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Are there any, I'm not aware of any motions for walk-ons, so how about suspensions of the rules for second readings? Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I do have one at the request of the administration for the collective bargaining. I move to suspend the rules and give second reading to number 47. Okay. Second. so motion but motion on number 47 who is the second second by council by vice motion by vice mayor gordon second by councilman ellinger on number 47 no okay all right why don't we just i'll just get the others then and we'll do a vote well let's just do them one at a time okay all in favor is there any discussion on 47 all right council member it's something i said at work session there still needs to be some sort of communication with the council during this process thank you this is on oh yes right all right any further discussion all right hearing none then we can take a vote all in favor please say aye aye opposed no motion carries council member ford thank you mayor i'll make a motion to i move to suspend the rules and give second reading the resolution number 23 number 23 is to purchase a service agreement with the roots and heritage festival so moved that was number 23 yes sir councilman ford motion by council member ford on number 23 to suspend the rules and for a second read and second back vice mayor gordon is there Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I move to suspend the rules and give second reading to number 14, which is the conditional offers of employment. All right. Is there a second? Second. Second by Council Member Stennett. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none. Then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member or Vice Mayor Gordon. One more, Mayor. Number 18 deals with the surplus properties, so I move to suspend the rules and give second reading to number 18. All right. Motion on number 18. Second by Council Member Stennett. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay, hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right, looks like that's all. So, Madam Clerk, when you're ready. Resolution number 14. A resolution authorizing the Division of Human Resources to make a conditional offer to the following probationary civil service appointments. Scott Tremulous, Budget Analyst, Grade 115E-1608.32 biweekly in the Division of Budgeting, effective September 1, 2014. Frank Ross, Safety Specialist, Grade 115E-2450.80 biweekly, effective August 25, 2014. Don Jenkins, Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N, 13.025 Hourly, Effective Upon Passage of Counsel, both in the Division of Waste Management. Jeremy Hobbs, Human Resources Analyst, Grade 115E, 1,593.04 Biweekly in the Division of Human Resources. Kristen Fields, Telecommunicator Senior, Grade 113N, 17.102 Hourly, and Ashley Hewitt, Telecommunicator Senior, Grade 113N, 16.679 Hourly, both in the Division of Emergency Management 911, Effective August 25, 2014. Sarah Farley staff assistant senior grade 108 and 12.185 hourly in the division of police Trampas Porter skilled trades worker senior grade 112 and 24.686 hourly in the division of fire and emergency services Troy Hager building inspector mechanical grade 113 and 18.482 hourly in the division of building inspection all effective August 25 2014 authorizing the division of human resources to make a conditional offer to the following unclassified civil service appointments Nathan Dickerson aid to counsel grade 0 to 2038.46 biweekly in the Council Office effective July 28, 2014, in Randall Davis Fleet Parts Specialist Grade 109N 17.802 hourly in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management effective upon passage of Council. Number 18. A resolution declaring a surplus and authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government to execute deeds and any other necessary documents for the sale and Transfer of 2057 Buck Lane, 305 Dantzler Court, 309 Dantzler Court, 313 Dantzler Court, 549 Grantchester Street, 4024 Lillydale Court, 905 North Limestone Street, 907 North Limestone Street, 909 North Limestone Street, 1001 North Limestone Street, 431 Marquis Avenue, 134 Northwood Drive, 138 Northwood Drive, 142 Northwood Drive, and 504 Parkside Drive. Number 23. A resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a purchase of services agreement with Roots and Heritage Festival Incorporated for the 2014 Roots and Heritage Festival at a cost not to exceed $35,415 plus additional in-kind services. And number 47. A resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a professional services agreement with the law firm of Frost Brown Todd LLC acting by and through Donald L. Crane for collective bargaining negotiations with the divisions of police, fire and emergency services and community corrections at a cost not to exceed $70,000. All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Is there a motion to approve? Motion by Council Member Stenet, second by Council Member Henson. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then Madam Clerk, if you'll please call the roll. Thank you. Mr. K. Yes. Mr. Lane. Yes. Ms. Lawless is absent. Ms. Massadi. Yes. Mr. Myers. Yes. Ms. Scotchfield. Yes. Mr. Stennett. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Akers. Yes. Mr. Beard. Aye. Mr. Clark. Yes. Mr. Ellinger. Yes. Mr. Farmer. Yes, not all. Mr. Ford. Yes. Ms. Gordon. Yes. And Ms. Henson. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The vote reflects passage of the motion. It allows us to move on to communications from the mayor. Is there a motion? Motion by Council Member Stenet, seconded by Council Member Scotchfield. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The motion carries. Next, communications are for information only, and that takes us to announcements. We have one police disciplinary item. Assistant Chief Dwayne Holman is here for that. Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council. On Wednesday, April 30th, 2014, an allegation was made that Officer Bamford Hill violated General Order 73-2-H, Section 1.02, Misconduct. At the conclusion of the investigation, the employee met with Chief Ronnie Bastin and has accepted 80 hours suspension without pay and mandatory EAP for anger management. This recommended discipline has also been approved by Public Safety Commissioner Clay Mason. We seek your approval. Move approval. A motion by Vice Mayor Gorton, seconded by Council Member Farmer. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right, hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you. Chief. And next, Assistant Chief Harold Hoskins from FIRE is here for a FIRE disciplinary action. Hello. have a disciplinary action, a charge of absent without leave for Lieutenant John Walker. The uniform disciplinary guideline recommends on the first defense a written reprimand, and we have a signed letter of conformance for that recommendation. Newly approved. Motion by Advice Mayor Gordon is seconded by Council Member Beard. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Any council members wish to speak? All right, that allows us to move to public comments. And I have Bernard McCarthy and Bill Wheeler signed up. Your Honor and members of the council, for the record, my name is Bernard McCarthy. My address is 515 Harry Street. First of all, it's nice to see Ms. Masati's injuries seem to be healing. I remember she had her arm in a sling before the break. But the big thing that I want to fuss about tonight is that one lane of Sir Barton Way is hash marked out and blocked off approaching the intersection with Winchester Road. I think it's crazy to not use a lane of pavement that we've got sitting there. We need all the street capacity we can get. All right. Thank you, Bernard. Thank you, Bernard. And Mr. Bill Wheeler. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. I will wheel her name, 187 Jessalyn Drive address. I am here tonight, Mayor and Council, to withdraw my issue about the conservation tax rate as a result of conversations I've had with the Frankfurt office, state office for the Department of Local Government. I have discovered an answer that I've been looking for in the administration here. The tax rate for the conservation district in the state system of approving property tax rates is rounded to the third place. Here in our system, it's rounded to the fourth place, and that does not even allow the district to increase its rate this year, for instance, from 5 to 516 or 520 or whatever they wanted. So what happens in the state system is that the conservation rate of 5, well, that's three digits, 305. In the state system, that's rounded to 201. And it really means that that district for this year could have used that 2.1 rate and raised $230,000 legally within the state system. So what I'm saying is there has been no failure to comply with the statutes, even though looking at logic and looking for a person looking at his own tax rate and looking, I'm looking at last year now, where the rate went to 305 from the previous year, 304. And that's obviously a 25% increase. But here logic takes backseat to the state system. And the conservation district is all right with the rate they're being approved now. And as a matter of fact, you could double that rate and stay within the state system for approved rates. So I thank you. Thank you, Bill. Thanks for joining us. All right. It looks like that's all before the council. Is there a motion to adjourn? I'm adjourned. Motion by Vice Mayor, second by Councilor Mary Ellinger. Unless there's objection, we are adjourned. Good one. We'll be right back. Put it on my face, I should be so fine