. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Everyone. Greetings and welcome. Greetings and welcome, everyone, to the work session of the council. And we've got a number of issues on our agenda today. We always begin with public comment for issues on the agenda. floor is available for issues on the agenda. And I suspect that some of you all have signed up for issues on the agenda. Okay, Mr. Mundy, we'll just wait until you get that list to us. All right, we have a number of people who've signed up for issues on the agenda today, beginning with Lyle Hannah. Mr. Lyle Hannah, will you please come forward? And then following Lyle is Jeff Collins. And everybody, by the way, Council Member Farmer just reminded me to remind all of you who have signed up to speak that you will have three minutes unless someone yields their time to you, in which case you will have more than three minutes, depending on how many. So, Mr. Hanna, greetings. Thank you very much. I'm Lyle Hanna. It's a pleasure to be here to speak to you just for a few minutes in favor of the downtown management district. I'm a property owner. I'm one of the guys that helped rebuild the Nunn building, so I have a couple of units there. And I think living downtown is awesome. And who in the world would vote for a tax increase? Well, I would, and I've joined a lot of other people here today that would say the same thing. But the deal is that I think this downtown management district will put more focus on downtown and help make downtown an even better place. I already think it's a great place. I wouldn't have put my money where my mouth is. But I think we can make it an even better place. I worked in downtown Louisville for 13 years. I saw what that management district did there. It makes a big difference. You know what? It brings focus. It brings focus for cleanliness, for safety, for lighting, for all kinds of things that make it just a great place to be. So I'm going to yield two minutes and give it up and say I'm in favor of the district. Thanks. Thank you, Lyle. All right, sir. Jeff Collins. I'll yield Lyle's book on my message. All right. Okay, Jeff. Now I'm having trouble. Glenn Delaval. Delaval? Is Glenn here? Yeah, of course. Of course. Of course. Now I'm recognizing. How are you, Glenn? My name is Glenn Delavalle. I've been a longtime resident in Lexington, and we are one of the major marketing companies and management companies in downtown. This impacts five of our properties in which we manage in Lexington. And we are companies in favor it and want to be involved with it and to make this a better community. and we think that the need for it is to improve and be good dollars spent when all of our horse folks come for the big race. So we want to tell you that we were behind it and Beverly and the team to make this happen. Thank you, sir. Thanks so much, Glenn. Thank you. All right, Barry Ramsey. He'll do two, Glenn Delavine. All right, Barry. Tanya Phillips. Tanya Phillips. Was that a yield? Yes. All right. Okay, Tanya. Larry Roberts. Thank you, Mayor. I'm here to just briefly talk about that I'm in favor of it and some reasons why. I know this issue was revisited about three years ago and turned down, and I know the work that's been done to get it on the table today with 51 percent of the owners. I think it's a tremendous effort by Beverly Fortune to have got that done. And some people, I'm sure, are going to say I oppose this because the government ought to do all the work. They ought to do all of this. I mean, I've heard this in other areas. And I don't agree with that. All of us are aware of the many, many examples of citizens and businesses who have given selflessness to our community in so many ways in volunteer time, in money. if you go back and look at the creation of the trolleys, there was some opposition to the creation of the trolleys, but that was all done with private money by firms here in town. And now it's a great thing for this city. The equestrian games that came here could not have been done with just government money. It would have been impossible. The volunteers that were involved with that were tremendous. Their hospitality was unbelievable. It cost a dollar to ride to the games from downtown. That's really something. And that's what makes people want to come when they realize that you're not going to have to spend $2,000 or something. It's like why people go to the Masters. Not only see the golf, but they get a great sandwich for two bucks. And this is important for our city. The games were unbelievable downtown. I went to the games at the park. But downtown, what was done by our city is unbelievable with the concerts and the hospitality by all the people who volunteered time there. We've got scores of individuals who have donated time in our city. Isabel Yates, Bill Young, Calipari, Warren Rosenthal, those are people who, just as an example, are people who donated their time and money to this community for lots of different things, not because they wanted something out of it. I think that the issue here is can this program work, and is it worth taxing somebody who doesn't want to be involved with it, the property owner? And I understand their feelings. But when you look at Louisville, I've been to Louisville at night, and I don't have any problem walking around at night from the Brown Hotel three blocks over to a restaurant. I wouldn't have done it ten years ago before this project got started. It's dangerous. It makes you feel dangerous. Our city can have the same thing here, and I'd like to see you all consider it. But the one thing that I will do, I'm not a property owner in the downtown area, but I will commit to you that we will give volunteers by great numbers to the program. I run a diversion program, and we gave over 200 volunteers to the WEG when it came here that helped the Rotary Club. And I'll do that again. We've cleaned streets here. We've cleaned public parks here. These are college students who get drunk, and I don't let them work when they're drunk. But we sure do get a lot of community service out of them. So I'll commit to you that we'll do that. Thanks. Okay. Thanks, Larry. Thanks, Mr. Roberts. Steve Byers. Steve, welcome. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the council. My name is Steve Byers. I'm with the University of Kentucky and also here to speak in support of the creation of the downtown management district. Mayor, you often speak about Lexington as a university city, and I'm here to speak about the city part of that calculation and how important that is to the university, specifically in two areas, with student recruitment and with faculty recruitment. Students often in in-state are, of course, drawn to Lexington and the vibrancy and the excitement going on downtown. Our out-of-state markets for students are primarily Columbus, Indianapolis, Chicago, St. Louis, and Nashville, all cities. And those students are also drawn to the downtown of Lexington. If you look at our students who also look at university towns in the Southeastern Conference, other than Vanderbilt in Nashville, you don't have any other universities, real cities is what I would call it, like a Lexington. And so that's a competitive advantage for us when recruiting students is that vibrancy of downtown. When we recruit faculty members and researchers, that's truly a global marketplace. And as Dr. Karf often says at UK Healthcare, that first phone call he makes to a faculty member, a faculty recruit, is the tough one. But if he can get them to Lexington and show them downtown, he says, I can get them here. So we support the creation of the management district, what it will do for downtown Lexington, continue the investment in the cleanliness, the safety of downtown, and the continued beautification. And that helps us in those two primaries. So thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Thanks, Steve. Thanks so much. David Frybert. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor. council members. I am David Frybert. I'm with Kentucky Utilities behind the city hall here, but I am also privileged to serve on the board of the Downtown Development Authority and am currently chair of that authority and am here to report to you all that our board unanimously approved supporting the development of the Downtown Management District, and we would encourage you all to strongly consider doing the same. It fits very comfortably with our mission of growing and adding energy to downtown. And I would also let you know, before letting the rest of my time to go to someone else, that as a member of Kentucky Utilities Management Team, we have gladly signed the petition this time and the previous time because it makes sense. We have a big presence downtown, a couple of hundred employees, a couple of big properties. And as the communities we serve prosper, we do as well and would encourage you to consider adopting it. Thank you. All right. Thank you, David. Ann Vandervoort. All right. Okay, Ann. So Susan Buckmaster. All right. Susan Dean. Pardon? Oh, okay. Danny Murphy. Danny's here. All right, Danny. Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the council, I'm here today representing Commerce Lexington, Inc. as a past president of the board of directors. Commerce Lexington, we support this effort both as a downtown property owner and as an economic development entity. Each year when we travel to our different cities for our annual leadership visit, we are able to witness firsthand the impact that these districts make on their downtowns. Renee Jackson, she and her staff researched all of our Commerce Lexington trips going back to the 1973 trip to Toronto. And I will tell you that that research revealed that only three cities do not have some type of improvement district in downtown. And in the past 10 years, only one city, Greenville, South Carolina, does not have an actual management district. However, they are currently working to establish one. And this year, our trip is to Kansas City, Missouri. Kansas City has a management district, so we're hoping that you on the council will join us this year on that trip and have the ability to witness what it does firsthand. We believe at Commerce Lexington that the management district is important and it's vital to the continued growth and improvement of our downtown and to its viability. and we believe that the management district will be an economic development driver as it focuses on making downtown cleaner, safer, and a more inviting place for us to all work and live. Thank you for your time today. Thank you, Danny. Next is Lisa Adkins. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, I'm Lisa Adkins. I'm a downtown resident and owner and president of Bluegrass Community Foundation. At the Community Foundation, we work every day to make Lexington a better, brighter, and more equitable place. And we think that a downtown management district will help us do just that. adding to the vibrancy and the beauty and safety of downtown. I'm a native of Kansas City and can speak to the significant improvements that happened as a result of the management district that is in Kansas City. And as they said, you'll get to see that if you're going on the trip there next month. I'm on the board of the Main and Rose Condo Association. I'm also a member of the board of the High Point Condo Association in the Woodland Triangle. And in terms of both of those, members are, I think, greatly in favor of the management district. Every day I am walking or biking downtown. In fact, my home is right on the corner of Main Street and Elm Tree Lane. And as great as downtown Lexington is, I can tell you that it could be better in regards to all the services that a downtown management district can bring. And I'm very much in support. So I hope you'll give it your strong consideration. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Lisa. Bob Cole. Mr. Bob Cole. Hi, Bob. Thank you, Mayor. I find it interesting among this group of people that I'm standing before you today because I'm probably one of the strongest vocal opponents saying no to this when it first came on the docket. And there were many reasons that I felt that way. I opposed it vehemently, aside from the fact that it was a tax, aside from the fact that I felt that there wouldn't be the control that I would like to see placed on it, and all the issues that I spoke in the meetings. Well, today I stand in front of you wearing the sticker that I'm very much for it. And you'd have to ask why. You know, what happened, Bob, that you changed your opinion in such, you know, what would be a short period of time? My company, Coleman Group, we manage downtown office buildings, suburban office buildings, retail, et cetera. Many of you know that. We currently have four downtown office buildings that we manage. But I'm also an owner of an asset. And being an owner gives me a little bit different perspective. And not only am I spending money by supporting this, but I'm also spending the money of the owners of those other properties. So I take that responsibility very, very, you know, personal. Today, having worked through some of the issues that I have, what I see is an opportunity for me to join a group of people who are very strong in their support to try to change the area I love, our downtown. I see opportunities for us to improve upon it. Most of the folks that have talked today have said those exact same things. I would hope that the perspective that I bring to it from not only an ownership standpoint in putting my dollars into it, but also as a steward of the other property owners, that that speaks volumes to you all. I look forward to this getting passed. I'm ready to step forward and do something I've never done, which is give time and energy to a cause like this. And so to that end, I'm here in support of the downtown management district. Thank you, Bob. Susan Kelly? Hi. I would like to talk about the CDBG grant and the Volunteers of America Family Housing funding from that grant. My name is Susan Kelly and I am the case manager in that program. That program works with families. Each family in the program has to have a child under the age of 18 and they have to either be homeless or on the brink of homeless. It's a partnership grant with the Lexington Housing Authority where the people in the program get to use a Section 8 voucher for the time that they are in the program. Because of that grant we are able to help them cover the cost of the deposit. They're able to get moved in. They come from shelters. They come from the street, their cars to our program. Some of the people in our program, we've had several recently who have come from human trafficking cases, which until recently I didn't realize Lexington was a place where people came from that. So that's been a real eye-opener. And luckily because she has a stable place to live, she's able to get her children back from family members in other states and her family will be reunited and she's going to be able to take care of them and she's going to get the education that she wouldn't have gotten any other way because she has a stable place to call home and she doesn't have to worry about where she's going to go or who she's going to be hiding from next month or next week. We also have been able to help one child who was born with tumors in his lungs, and the doctors were not able to do surgery to help him because he couldn't be released to homelessness. And the communal living at shelters, there were too many germs, and there was no way to do the surgery. Once he came into our program and they had a place to go home to, then he was able to have the surgery and they removed one lung. And for the first time, he can't decide which he's more excited about the fact that he's about to have his third birthday or he gets to go outside and play. I'm not here asking for my job. I'm asking for the families who live in cars and the teenagers who just want to be able to go to school and not have to get up and run in the Y to take a shower in the morning so that nobody knows that they didn't have a home last night to take a shower in before they go to school. And I just really, I feel very strongly. I've watched as people who didn't have high school educations are now finishing colleges and finishing certificate degrees and going on to stably have their family going. We have two people who today moved into permanent housing from our program. And to see them come from where they were, one is the little boy. And the place that he moved has two swimming pools, an indoor and an outdoor. So my guess is it's going to be a swimming pool party next month, but we'll see. And the other one was told that because of her addiction and her history, she would never get custody of her kids back. And a week ago, she got custody of her youngest daughter back, and she is currently in counseling with her oldest daughter. And these are things that a year ago, neither of these families thought would be at all possible. But because this program exists in Lexington, it is possible. And one of the best things about this program is that it's funded by our city. It's our city empowering our people to improve their lives and to do better, and it's giving them a chance. We do not pay their rent for them. They still pay their rent. We don't pay their utilities. They pay their utilities. We don't find their housing for them. They find their own housing. We just give them a hand up. We don't hold their hand and walk them along the way. We show them the way, and they do all the work. those are the people that this grant helps and we would love if you all would vote to fund us thank you thank you Susan next who signed up to speak is John Harden Mr. Harden all right thanks John next John Roberts Hello, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. I'm opposed to the downtown management district. I'm not allowed to access the front of my building with a motor vehicle between nine and five during the months of April through November on any Saturday. I believe that this is a heavy burden on myself and others who have the same need. The parades, races, and other events downtown which cause streets to be closed are an additional burden. Could some of these events be moved somewhere else? I believe the downtown management district will be another burden, an expense for the property I own without any new benefit. I know the city took away the flower pots that held the flowers on the corner of Short and Upper. My expectation is that the flowers that the city did with my tax money will be replaced with flowers paid for by funds from the management district. Double taxes for the same thing. There are several businesses that are paying taxes to the city for solid waste collection and then paying a private hauler to pick up the waste because the city does not have the equipment to collect it. The business is paying double for the same service. This should not happen. How many of the people that were added to the area covered by the new proposed management district are members of the downtown Lexington Corporation? What will funds be used for? I've looked at the agenda. I know what they are, but I still believe that the money will not be spent wisely. I'm opposed to the addition of the downtown management district. Thank you. Thank you, Judge. Next is Woodford Webb. Good afternoon. I'm Woodford Webb, 204 Barrow Road. I'm president of the Webb Companies here in Lexington. And like Bob Cole, we own and or manage several properties within the district, six of them that I'm here representing today. And we are in support of the district. We've been involved for years in trying to implement this district. Other cities, our peer size, have had great success with it. And one thing that makes me comfortable about the idea of the funds being mismanaged or whatnot is the sunset provision. It goes away in five years. It would have to be voted on again. And there's also a mechanism to terminate it under certain conditions if it is mismanaged. So we do support it. I thought I'd signed the wrong list, so I'm going to yield my extra time to Farrah Alford. And he goes. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Woodford. Next is Ron Trichler. Good afternoon, Mayor, members of Council. It's my pleasure as the chairman of the Convention and Visitors Bureau for Lexington to speak in favor of the downtown management district. As you just heard, it's very important to have a viable, safe downtown for many reasons, not only to attract students to the university, but even more important, to be able to attract conventions to Lexington. Right now, we're a good convention city, but I think we can be a great convention city and need to do everything in our capacity to enhance the downtown. Right now, I think our downtown is the best that it's ever been since I've lived in Lexington. I came here in 1987, and it's a privilege for me to be involved with the downtown activities and the convention bureau. And the downtown management district will only enhance the activities downtown and enhance the opportunities to bring more conventions into Lexington. It's a great economic tool, although there are concerns over the costs to implement the program. I think that the financial rewards will greatly outdistance the costs involved in implementing the programs. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Ron. All right. And next is Farrah Alford. And Mr. Alford, I'd seen Farrah come into the chambers, and I thought that I would ask. I knew that he wanted to speak. And others have maybe arrived since we asked for the sign-up sheet. So anyone who wishes to speak to the issues on the agenda, including the management district, if you'll please just go see Mr. Mundy and sign up with him. Hold your hand up, Mr. Mundy, please, sir. Thank you. All right. Mr. Alford. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the council. Appreciate you taking your time to listen to all this. This is not an official hearing on this thing yet. You're just trying to get a feel for it, my understanding is. Otherwise, I'd be much more prepared than just having called in and called to come down here. We are against this. I own some property downtown. We don't know of the benefits that this would create. We have a lot of people here speaking on behalf of it that work for maybe the same company or maybe get some benefit from it from being a salaried employee for somebody that works for it. But as far as an owner is concerned, all it's going to do is create another tax on our property, going to raise the rent on every single tenant inside this district, That has been jerrymandered and jerrymandered and jerrymandered. I don't know how many times. They've worked very hard. And these are all my friends, by the way. So it's kind of I don't like being up here talking. But we're against it. We're against a new tax. We're against a new entity. And a lot of the things they're talking about, the city is responsible to do anyway without more tax and without raising a tax on every single tenant in this district, however it's shaped today. Also, before you go further, I would suggest that you look very closely at the properties that have signed up and see exactly who owns them and see if they are taxpaying properties. In the past, they've had some issues with their role of properties for this tax district. So that's all I did. When we have the big hearing, we'll have a lot more people like that. Thank you very much. Thank you, Farrah. Next is Mr. Mundy. We've got some more. Mr. Bill Lear, and then Barney Miller, and then Thomas Pettit. Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. This is one of those times where I get to show my age. I think the only person in here older than I am is Terry McBrayer, and he's hiding like he usually does. I say what I always say when he says that, at least when my hair died, it had the good taste to fall out. He knew I'd say that. I know I'm burning time, too. My work life in downtown Lexington actually began, I was thinking about that, when Richard Nixon was in the White House and Wendell Ford was in the governor's office. It goes back to the early 70s when I began working as a law student. And I've watched downtown grow and change and really, really experience a lot of things. Right now, the downtown, I think, is doing very well. I think it could do better. But this is my neighborhood, my daytime neighborhood. And I think everybody that works in downtown would say the same thing. And we want it to be safe. We want it to be clean. and we want to be vibrant. It is safe for all the people that don't come down very much. I will tell you, it is safe, but it could be safer. And more importantly than that, it could have the impression for all those that don't work down here that it is safer. It is clean, but it could be cleaner. It is vibrant, more vibrant than it's been a long time, but it could be even more vibrant. You've heard me down here before say that the heart of any city is the downtown. When I travel, I don't come back and tell people about the suburbs I visited. I'm sorry, I don't. I may tell them about the golf courses I played, but the places I like to go in great cities is great downtowns. And we are on the way, in my opinion, to having a great downtown. This can be a tool. It's not the silver bullet, but this can be a tool to make it better, more vibrant. And the one way in which I disagree with my good friend Farrah, and I don't disagree with him much, is I view this as an investment in improving the value, enhancing the value of downtown, and really coming back inuring to the benefit of property owners, I'm one, and employers many times over. I think it's worth the investment, and I hope you all will approve it. Thanks. Thank you, Bill. All right. Mr. Barney Miller. Hello. I'm Barney Miller, third generation owner of Barney Millers Incorporated at 232 East Main. My family is a property owner at that same address, and I wanted to voice my support for the management district. and we've seen the good and the bad in downtown Lexington over many, many years, and I believe that we're heading in a great direction. I think the management district would really be an asset to downtown Lexington. My main concerns would be cleanliness and safety, and I think we're in decent shape there but could be better, and I know we're all for it, so I just wanted to say that. Thanks. Thanks, Barney. Okay, Thomas Pettit. I'm Thomas Pettit, and I live at 350 Short Street, and I'm president of the Maine Rose Homeowners Association. And I moved downtown July of 2011, and I began to know downtown by walking about. And downtown's great if you drive down Vine Street in Maine, but walk on the sides. Dirty sidewalks, trash. It's time to polish the silver, and I think it's worth the money. All right, sir. Thank you. that's all who've I have signed on to speak so I want to thank those and is anyone else wish to speak all right then I want to thank those who who have spoken that allows us to move on to our agenda items we will be coming to the management district we will be coming to it later on when the council agenda addresses new business. And that won't be too long, so if you want to stay, you're welcome to. Next on the agenda is requested rezonings and docket approval. Is there a motion to approve the docket? I'll move. Second. Motion by Council Member Farmer and second by Council Member Scutchfield. Mayor. Is there any discussion on the motion? I believe there are some motions. Council Member Lamb. There are four ordinances that pertain to zone changes that need to have motions with or without public hearings. And I can start with the first one, actually. Ordinance number three, I move to make a motion to put this ordinance on without a public hearing. So move. Motion by Council Member Land, second 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. Council Member Scotchfield. Thank you, Mayor. I also have an ordinance changing the zone. Move to place ordinance changing the zone from a highway service business, B3 zone, to a neighborhood business, B1 zone, for .345 net acre for property located at 21 Liberty Road without a hearing. Thank you. Motion by Council Member Scotchfield, seconded by Council Member Henson. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right, hearing none, then we can vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on the docket without a public hearing, item number five, for a property located at 308 to 310, 322, and 330 Newtown Pike. So moved. Motion by Council Member Stennett, seconded by Council Member Farmer. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. Is there any further discussion on the motion? All right. If not, then we can vote on the original motion to approve the docket. All in favor, please say aye. Mayor. Opposed? I have a walk-on. You have a walk-on. Yes. All right. Yes, ma'am. We'll hold that vote for just a second then. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on the docket for April 16, 2015. Council meeting under first readings of resolution, a resolution recognizing that the tributary flowing through the colony subdivision in Lakeston Fayette County be named Wildcat Chase Stream. Second. All right. Motion by Council Member Henson. Second by Council Member Scotchfield. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay, hearing none, then we can vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. All right, now we can vote on the docket approval. All in favor of the motion to approve the docket, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right, and that allows us to move on to approving the summary. Is there a motion to approve the summary of the work session? Second. Second. Okay. Motion by Councilmember Massadi and second by Councilmember 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. Now as us to move on to budget amendments. Is there a motion to approve? Move approval. Second. Motion by Councilmember Farmer and second by Councilmember Scotchfield. Is there any discussion on the motion? Yes, there is. Councilmember Lamb. Yes, I have a few questions. Budget Journal 85104. This is Division of Accounting, and I'm just curious what part-time position this is covering and if this or these positions are included in FY16. All right. All right, it looks like Mr. O'Mara is rising to the podium. Thank you. Bill? You got the question, right? Yes. This is a part-time position in payroll and is to be there for both cross-training of existing employees, the Solarix project, which brings benefits back to PeopleSoft, as well as working with KRS on our retirement transfer each month. It is not in FY16. Oh, okay. It's just temporary. Mm-hmm. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Council Member Lamb. Another question? I do. I'm full of questions today for some reason. Journal 85187 is Public Safety Administration. I'm just curious of what the business travel is. Commissioner Bastian is coming to the podium with some help on that question perhaps. Absolutely. There is no business travel money assigned to the Public Safety Office. This will be for travel to go to participate in a national committee. Okay. And let's see, journal number 85721. It's community corrections. It's about the hazardous pay for $125,000. I'm just curious if it's a one-time cost. And Director Ballard from the jail is corrections. It's a one-time event. When we began our budget in FY15, they offered me more money. I tried to stay within the budget, out of my control with the turnover. We became short of staff. So as we met with Commissioner O'Mara throughout the year, we realized there was going to be a shortfall. So we focused on our budget, how we could pay for that within our own budgets. So some of those things we had intended to purchase, we didn't purchase. So when we ran short, I wouldn't have to ask for new money, but money moved between my lines. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Two more. Budget Journal 85771. and it's Parks and Recreation. They're decreasing the funds for mowing, and we're getting ready to start mowing season. I'm just curious. Okay, Jeff Reed's coming to the podium. Commissioner Jeff Reed. It's a long walk. I'm sorry. No, that's okay. I got here late. No, everything's fine. Please forgive me. Really? Thank you, sir. The mowing contracts have come in lower than anticipated. They've been awarded. They'll start. We're going to have four mows a month throughout, but the savings wanted to apply towards seasonal where we've been tight to add some additional seasonal workers in the next couple of months. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. And then my last one, I promise. on journal 85349. It's under the grants and special projects. I didn't know if anybody else had this question, but I'm just curious what distracted driving. It's establishing a grant budget for distracted driving. Looks like Irene Gooding is arriving at the podium momentarily. This is an award of federal funds from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. for overtime during the month of April for some enforcement, special enforcement of distracted driving activities, texting, cell phoning, reading, eating, any other kinds of distractions. This goes with one of the other items that's on the agenda? Yes, it does. All righty. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mayor. All right. Thank you, Council Member Lamb. Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to speak to someone about 85753 at the Citation Boulevard traffic lights. I just asked how many traffic lights are going in, and the other question is when is this project going to be done? Two signals are going in, one at Buck and one at Mercer, and I believe the Transportation Cabinet's portion of the project, the goal was to complete it by Memorial Day. I don't know whether the project is on schedule or not, but the signals will not be complete until August. The goal will be to get them in before school starts. Thank you. Thank you, Director Huskins-Squire. And Council Member Stennett. Dow, can you come back? I'm sorry. I was going to jump in. I didn't want to cut the mayor off. On this same journal number, 85753, were these planned when this project was led, and why isn't the transportation cabinet paying for them or the project costs? Why are we moving money from our map funds to pay for signals if we knew this was coming? Do you know why this is coming late? As I understand it, the plans were developed in the early 2000s, 2001, 2002. We realized that signals weren't in the plans after construction started. and asked the Transportation Cabinet if we could do a change order to the plans to include the signals, and the answer was no. And so that's where we are. Well, shame on them. We'll have to make it up somewhere else. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, sir. All right. That's all who signed on for discussion of the motion. Is there any further discussion? All right. All right. If not, then we can vote on the motion. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next is new business. Is there a motion to approve? Move approval. Second. Motion to approve by Council Member Farmer and second by Council Member Scotchfield. Is there any discussion on the motion? Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Mayor. If you could have someone come up to speak on P, I assume it's Crow and Derek Paulson, one of those two would be wonderful. What was that? Did you say? P is involved. P as in Paul? Okay, that would be perhaps, yep, Commissioner Paulson. Yes, sir. A question I have, when I worked for the Commissioner for Housing, Building, Construction, we made some rate increase because we were needing them to pay the salaries and all that for the employees there, and the state has gone through a lot more tougher time than Lexington has. I don't want to be raising fees just because the city of, I mean, the state of Kentucky did it. Why are we raising these fees here? Is there a reason? Are we going to help employees? Are y'all just doing it because they're doing it? The state is requiring us to do it as part of our agreement with them, and so we are going to use it to increase our HVAC inspectors. Well, we don't have to increase just because the state increases. Is that right? That's not the way I've been told, no. I was told if we didn't have to increase, the rules I was told, if we ever do raise it, we cannot go higher than what the state requires. And I'm just concerned, well, we're getting ready to pass the tax, and what we do, we always get told why we're passing the tax and why we're passing the fee increase. I have yet to hear why, just because the state did it. And I understand why the state did it, because I used to work there. short. Lester's going through a heck of a lot better time than what the state is. And before we start raising just because the state does, I want to hear why we're raising this. And I believe I'm right on this. We don't have to raise fees as long as we don't go higher than what the state is. We can be below that. So if you don't have a really good reason why we're raising the fees, I hope we don't support this. So if you have a great reason, just because the state did it, I don't want to hear that. Well, I can say this. We can confirm whether or not that that is true. From what I've been told, we are supposed to increase them with the state, but we are also going to use this to increase our HVAC inspectors, which is something that we have been working with the developer community because they have had issues with how many HVAC inspectors we have and our HVAC inspections. So we have been working with them. I've been working with Todd Johnson and the Home Builders Association to improve that HVAC inspection rate, and this is one thing we think will help us. But, again, I think it does go back. It is our understanding that we are supposed to increase these rates along with the stay. Okay. I like to see at least. I will look into it to see if we can get to that information. But we are, again, we are planning on using this increase to improve our HVAC inspection, which is something that we have worked with the Home Builders Association because it is an issue that has popped up in the last year. So we are trying to make sure that we are providing better customer service. Do you have the organizations backing you all on this from the industry? Yes. Yes, we've talked to the homeowners the entire time through this, and they are fine. One thing they have consistently said to us is that we are going to raise fees. It better be to improve service, and this is one of those things we're going to be able to do, is to improve that service. Thank you. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Mayor and Commissioner. Before you sit down, on this same item, how much will this increase generate? We estimate somewhere around $260,000. And it will go into the general fund? That is my understanding. And how many new inspectors for HVAC only were you hired using that money? I believe we were hiring two. Two additional? I know we were short, too. We can confirm on that. Very good. Thank you. Yes, sir. Then on item J, this was the Anniston-Wickland stormwater project, Phase 3. Those of you who have been on council a while remember in 2007 we started Phase 1, and we're ending this project finally with Phase 3. I just want to, Charlie, you don't have to come up. I'll save you a long walk. But I just want to thank you and especially Greg Lubeck and your department because not only did this project come in under budget, which you see a decrease here, which we rarely, rarely see a decrease in some of these projects, but this project worked. It was the first time the city has done a project this size, and as of last Friday's rains, these homes did not flood anymore. So thank you all. You know, every time it rained, these homes flooded, and this project is coming to an end, but it's with good management, Charlie. Thank you again for your division and Greg Lubeck for all their hard work on that. Can't say enough praise from the neighbors and the neighborhood. Then on items Y, Z, and Double D, I don't need anyone to come up, but once again, these are moving money from operating budgets and increasing our personnel budgets. And in the last 12 months, we pulled the numbers yesterday, there's been over a half million dollars moved from operating to personnel. And I know this is going to be corrected in the new budget beginning July 1, but my big question is for that new budget, and maybe Commissioner America can answer this, will we reduce those operating budgets in next fiscal year since those funds weren't needed? in this fiscal year, or are we keeping the same level of operating? Because, again, if they're not using it, why do we keep putting it in the budget? And if personnel is our big need, which I know you're going to fix, are we going to reduce all those divisions by that operating budget amount? We will go over this Friday in the workshop that we're going to have explaining our approach to the FY16 budget. But in the operating, we looked line by line at actual spend for FY12, 13, 14, and the 12 months ending December 31st, compared that to the budget ask, and decided whether that budget ask was in line with their spending history. That's a good answer, going back to averaging the last three years, and I appreciate that. But we will go over this Friday at our workshop and review how we'll handle this going forward. That's right. thank you all for your hard work on this. I know this has been a tough one to try to figure out. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mayor. All right. Thank you, Council Member Stennett. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. Mine is just a clarification on item L in the packet that has to do with a change order for the Eidlauer Park. As an earlier email pointed out, the alternatives 3, 5, 6, and 7 do not total 118,000. and they total 113,000. This is not a change. It's just giving you all the correct number. The actual business item is correct. The description of it was incorrect. So I just wanted folks to understand that the item is correct, but the description was incorrect. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. All right. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Mayor. Item D, I'm just curious if this, is a new part of the hiring process for the Division of Fire. I guess it would be for Chief. Chief is here. Can you handle that, Keith, or do you want Commissioner Bastion? Okay. Is this a new part of the hiring process for recruit firefighters? I just didn't remember this being something that was, I mean, I think it's a really good idea to get the word out, but I'm just curious if it's new. No, this is the second time we've done this process, and it has worked for us because we have focused on getting a better quality candidate throughout the region and the state. Last time we expanded it up to even Ohio, and this time we've just limited it to the state of Kentucky. So it has worked well for us. Does it help with getting more diversified candidates also? Yes, ma'am. That's where it all stemmed from. Thank you. Awesome. Thank you. Also, on item L, as Council Member Farmer was talking about, I'm just curious of why three, items three, five, six, and seven were not funded at the very beginning of that process. I'm just curious. All right, Jamshid Baradaran. Thank you, Jamshid, for coming to the podium. Help with that answer. The original budget for the project was $450,000 from two different sources. The base bet came in, I believe it was $300,000 and change. There were four ad alternates that were included, part of the original package that was advertised. and the idea is trying to get at least an idea of what each of those items going to cost and what happened was at a time due to uncertainty because of the nature of the project they were worried about if they're going to run into some unforeseen conditions which they have in some cases to wait until you get around a 60% completion so now that we're at 60% point these items being asked to be funded and approved in order to move forward and complete the project. So is it still within the amount that you had budgeted then? That is correct. All right. Thank you. Thanks. And then one other last question on items YZ and DD. When I left government, we were not doing reclassification, so I guess I'm just curious if items Y, and these are in fleet services, and Z is in waste management. Are these vacant? Well, I think I know the answer to Z. It is a vacant, but is Y a vacant position? The position in item Y originally was in fleet management group, and then that position was temporarily transferred over to Parks and Recreation to provide services to their technicians that work on lawnmowers and so forth. Now that position is vacant, and it's been, all that's happening here is they're transferring it back to its original location, which was fleet management. So is the position vacant? The position is vacant currently, yes. All right, thank you. I'm just curious, Mayor, are we reclassifying positions now? Is Mr. O'Mara still here, or Sally, can you come up and help with that question? I need to make one more clarification. My apologies. That specific item is vacant right now. It's currently under the heavy side, but providing services into equipment more so than your large vehicles like dump trucks and garbage compactors and so forth. And as the positions become available, we do an evaluation of what we have currently in terms of resources and what we think we need for the next 12 months and beyond. We found out that we could definitely use that position through the reclass in order to add an additional resources in our actual, the high-end equipment repair and troubleshooting. So this will give us the capability of hiring people at a higher level background and expertise and certification. All right. Thank you. And I think Ms. Hamilton is. Thank you. In our MAG study, we had authorized or we had a plan for reclassifications. And you saw one of these come through probably about three weeks ago, and that was the coroner's office. There was a reclass in the coroner's office. There have not been very many of those. I think there's just been the one that has come through. You will see when we do Friday, when we talk about the budget process, that we have put some money aside in the budget for reclasses in the future. And basically trying to get ready not to take this money out of operating and get away from as many of this abolish and create as possible and go more back to what it should be, a reclass system. All right. Thank you. I just know that in the former years, that once we started the reclass process, then it started just kind of snowballing. And so I think we need to make sure, and I wasn't here when the last audit was done on positions, so I guess perhaps I'll be glad to listen to that update on that. But I just want us to make sure that the process that's in place for the reclass is fully vetted and doesn't become a snowball effect. I think that's very important, and I will be in charge of the snowball. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Lamb. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. I wanted to recuse myself on item E, which is the relocation of graves at 4100 Nicholsville Road. my company and I have provided consulting services to Bayer properties thank you all right thank you sir councilman Massadi thank you mayor Commissioner Holmes item Z please item Z like in zebra Z all right I think that's it's Tracy here no you're gonna take it all right yes ma'am we had a little bit of a discussion in my office about this earlier and you said basically this position was being formulated as kind of a liaison between under your shop between HR and solid waste. Yes, ma'am. Correct. My question is, is how many complaints or grievances do we get filed on a monthly basis or yearly basis that supports this position? I don't have those figures handy, but I can get them to you before Thursday. That would be great. Certainly would. Thank you. That's all, Mayor. All right. Thank you, Council Member Sidi. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Mayor. Item M, as in mom, authorization to submit various applications. I just really need a clarification. It says there is no budgetary impact for the submission of the applications, but accepting of grant awards will require 20% local match. I guess my question is, are we going to get this additionally if the grant application is accepted? Is it going to come before us again? or is this in the budget already irene's gooding thank you irene these are several applications that were 10 applications that we're submitting it's a given that we will not be funded for all 10 applications so as they are funded individually they will come back to council for your approval For acceptance. At that time, a budget amendment is done, and we will find the match. At the time that we accept the award, we will have the match. For the 20 percent? Yes. So that is not a budgeted line item at this moment, then? Not at this moment, no. Okay. While you're up there, Q, authorization to accept awards, if offered. And it says down there a budget amendment is in process. Could you explain that to me? These are our transportation planning grants. In the Division of Planning, we have nine employees that are funded under grants, and these are all of the grants that we are, and these are done annually. We've had these for several years, and the match for these projects are being requested in the 2016 budget. So why are we voting on this until we look at the budget and vote on the budget? Well, this is a request to submit the application, and then it should further say and to accept the award if funds are available in 2016. 2016. Okay, so it's pretty much the same as Elm then to accept the award so we don't have to do any match. But this one here will be a budget amendment also. Right, this one, well the budget amendment is going, the budget amendment. It's in process and I'm confused there because if it's a fiscal year 16, why would it be in process? And we, you're right, we cannot actually process 2016 budget amendments right now. It's in process. I've submitted the budget amendment, but you won't see it until the first two meetings in July. And is this a 20% match also? Yes. Okay. Thank you. One of them is 15%. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Council Member Brown. Council Member Evans. Commissioner Bastien, this is for you again, because we had a lot of eyebrows raised about the grant for the distracted driving. I guess I want to make sure and be clear. So we're all on notice, apparently. I'm curious about, is the grant just for enforcement, or can that be used some other way? And what is that enforcement going to look like, if you can reveal that? I'm sure. Well, it's intended to reimburse overtime spent during enforcement, which is targeted towards distracted driving. and that distracted driving can take any form of, it can go from texting to eating in the car, a number of things that would cause one to be distracted. And that's the only thing that we're aware of that the money can be used for. So that looks like just officers patrolling in their cars and looking? It will be. It'll be on an overtime basis. So it won't be folks that we have dedicated to patrols or other assignments. It'll be folks that come in when they're off duty to do just to focus on distracted driving, to try to have an impact for a one-month period. And has there been an increase in accidents based on distracted driving? I mean, I know it's an issue and we have texting and all that, but I'm just curious if there's been any research done on that just for Lexington in particular and why it is so important. I'm not aware of that. this is coming through, I think, a state-funded grant, so it's just a priority for now. They do that periodically. Every year they'll have a couple of initiatives that they focus on, and we participate in. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Evans. All right, is there any further discussion on the motion? All right, hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. That allows us to move on to continuing business and presentations. And first on our agenda is NDFs. Is there a motion to approve the NDFs? Motion to approve by Vice Mayor Kay, seconded by Council Member Scutchfield. Is there any discussion on the motion? I was given a note that the Gainesway Neighborhood Association, an addition of $830 has been added. It's been added to it. All right. That's just FYI to the council members. All right. We have a motion. We have a second. Is there any discussion, any further discussion on the motion? If not, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. And next on our agenda is a summary of the planning and public safety committee meeting by councilmember missati thank you mayor the this is the meeting summary for the February 10th committee meeting meeting was called to order at 1 p.m. all committee members were present councilmember Evans Fred Brown and Ford were also in attendance the committee discussed committee structure and heard presentations on the design excellence ordinance and subsequently today at the planning and Public Safety Committee meeting we still kept in committee design excellent ordinance information there were amendments to the fire code that were also dispensed upon and approved upon by full council and Zoring ordinance violation was also approved as well in reference to the committee motions on the tassie cab ordinance that has been tabled to the September I believe it's September 20, I'm sorry, August 27th, the planning and public safety meeting, and there were no other motions at that time. The meeting adjourned at 2.53 p.m. That's all, Mayor. All right. Thank you, Councilman Masati. All right. Next on our agenda is a presentation of the Downtown Management District. Renee Jackson and Beverly. Okay, Drew, why don't you, if you would, Drew, introduce yourself and anyone. who's with you that you want to recognize? Well, thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, Council Members, for having us today. As you can see, there's a lot of us out here, so it'd take a lot of time for me to introduce everybody. But my name is Drew Fleming. I'm here as Chairman of the Board of the Downtown Lexington Corporation. But more importantly, I'm here for several downtown organizations, but also, and most importantly, the 175 property owners who own an assessed value of just around $225 million of property in the defined boundary that we'll talk about in a minute for the management district. So today, I'm going to give a brief overview of what the management district is, talk about some of the benefits, and there are many benefits to it, but I'll talk about just a couple of them today, and then also talk about, one, how it's funded, two, what the board makeup is, and finally some safeguards to make sure there's continued satisfaction with the management district. So this is the proposed boundary of the management district. And as you can see, the best way to describe a management district, it's very similar to a homeowners association, where you have property owners in the defined area that pay an annual assessment. the money is pulled into a fund that is directly invested back in the management district. The fund is managed by a board, which a majority of them are property owners or appointees of the property owners in the management district. And each year, the board decides how best to utilize the funds that have been pulled. And so today, I'm just going to give you a couple examples of how some of these benefits can help Lexington. The first is we need a cleaner downtown. If you're looking on the slide to the left, that's the current state of Lexington, and on the right, that's what could be with a management district. We'll have increased power washing, gum removal, graffiti removal, bottles and cans on a daily basis. And so this will allow us to help compete with some of our peer cities. Additionally, a downtown management district will help make Lexington safer. This can be accomplished through a number of mechanisms. The first is we can have ambassadors who are the eyes and ears of downtown walking the streets answering questions, helping people walk to their car after dinner. Additionally, we can help improve occupancy. One of the things that's been so successful in management districts in other cities is the concept of a pop-up shop. And that's where we can help improve occupancy so people have a better idea that downtown is safe because there are many businesses down there. Finally, we can also help make downtown safer through a wayfinding system. People feel safe in areas where they know where they are and they know where they're headed. We can also make downtown more attractive. This is through additional landscaping, public art, and other streetscape improvements. I'd like to give a great example if you see Lexington on the left and also Lexington on the right. If you're downtown on a Friday night, you're going to a great dinner at some of the restaurants, and you're sitting outside. You might spring for that expensive bottle of wine, but half a block away, you're looking at a bunch of Kirby's that are overflowing with trash. You don't see that in other cities. What a management district can do is it can make trash corrals, and it can help make Lexington uniform. So if you look at the picture on the right, that's what you're seeing when you're downtown. Now, the management district is not a new concept, and I'd probably like to point out to Bill Lear and Terry McBrayer that the management district concept is older than me. It's been around since the 1970s, and currently we have over 1,200 management districts throughout the United States. We heard from representatives from Commerce Lexington that many of the cities that they have visited have these management districts. Louisville, Cincinnati, Knoxville, Memphis, Charlotte, just to name a few. In the early 1990s, when Louisville enacted their management district, They did so with only support of 35% of the property owners. When that went up five years later for reenactment, it had overwhelming support, and the boundaries were expanded, which is, again, a routine that we're seeing in other management districts. This is a proven track record. And the reason there are over 1,200 management districts is because the people see the value and the benefits they give to the owners of property in that area. So how do we create this management district? For KRS 91-750, it's a two-prong test. The first prong is that 33% of property owners must sign a petition, and the second promise of those 33%, they must represent 51% of the assessed property value in that district. Well, we have far exceeded those expectations. we have 51% of tax-paying property owners, which represent 62% of assessed property value, which is equivalent of $225 million. Those are property owners that are asking this council to let them invest back in their properties. So how is this funded? It's a minimal amount of money per property owner. It's actually one-tenth of 1%. So if you have a property that's valued at $500,000, you're only paying $500 a year. Based on current PVA assessment, we're estimating that it'll have about $362,000 of revenue a year. When that revenue comes in, who decides where it goes? Well, the best thing about a management district is it's the actual property owners in that district to decide how best to use their money. It's made up of business owners, residents, some tenants, some commercial property owners, also some city council members and the mayor. So it's that board that decides on a year-by-year basis how best to utilize the funds they've created. So it's a very malleable process. So each year they can change how their investments are to make sure they're getting the most bang for their buck. Finally, there are some safeguards to ensure continued satisfaction with the management district. First, there's a five-year sunset. So if this council approves the management district, we'll have to come back in five years and ask for them to reapprove it. Second, at any point in time, 33% of the property owners that have 50.1% of the assessed value can ask this council to ban the management district. And third, as the independent board is making up the budget each year, they then have to get approval from the council. So in summary, we have overwhelming support for the management district. 51% again of tax paying property owners that represent $225 million of assessed value in the district. They see the value of it. They see the value of enhanced services. This is not a double taxation by any means. It is services to go above and beyond what the city is currently providing. And why do they see this benefit? Well, it has a proven track record of well over 1,200 management districts in the area. So at this time, I'm going to take questions from everybody here. But before doing so, I just want to pose a question to you guys. Please just think about all the possibilities and what can we do to downtown to really make this better. All right. Thank you, Drew. just procedurally is someone here I think it might be worthwhile just to take us through the procedure. Yeah, David. Maybe before questions because there's a public hearing at which counsel is invited or expected. it. The legal requirements are as follows. The expectation is that you would put an ordinance, there was an ordinance provided in draft to the, as part of the petition. I believe in large part that's probably part of your packet as well that was given to you all. So as part of the petition process, the people that signed the petition as well as the ones that did not were provided a copy of the proposed ordinance that you would ultimately end up voting on as a counsel. The legal requirement is that you would go ahead and, if this is what the council chose to do to move forward, the ordinance would be placed on for first reading. But legally, you have to have a, similar to what you do on a TIF district, you have to have a public hearing prior to the adoption at second reading. So I think what's been proposed is if you assume that this gets walked on for first reading this Thursday night, there is also a tandem motion that would schedule the public hearing for the meeting on april 30th at your regular council meeting six o'clock you all would have the public hearing at that point in time and then it would be up to the council to decide based upon what they heard at the public hearing whether they wanted to adopt the ordinance as is whether they wanted to modify it in some respect but that would be the final opportunity prior to a second reading for the council to have all of the public input related to their decision on whether or not to adopt the ordinance. All right. Okay. Thanks, Dave. Thank you. All right. So council members wish to comment or ask questions of those who are here making the presentation. The floor is available for that now. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Mayor. I see you're after me. If you want to go ahead and... No, I don't know how I got on. Okay. I don't want to steal your thunder. Mr. Fleming, if you wouldn't mind. Uh-oh, I think I clicked. Is you on here, Council Member Stenner? All right. Okay, go ahead. Okay, thank you. You and I had this discussion earlier, and I think it would be advantageous if you could talk to the same issue that we had spoken about before to the public. But my concern was what I had said to you, and I believe to Miss Fortune was earlier, is I want to make sure that the voting was equitable. Because I know some of the property owners, as Mr. Webb came to the microphone and said, that he was one, I think, Woodford, you said four or five that you owned, because you owned some right out and you owned some involved in LLC, if I'm correct. Is that correct? I believe so, yes. And there are others that are in that same position, other property owners. What I want to make sure is that there is equitable representation by those property owners. So some that maybe are because they're involved in LLCs don't have more of a voting membership, or they do. So maybe you need to explain that to me and to the voting, to the public. Glad to. So first, I mean, it is a two-pronged test. So the first prong is 33% of real property owners. And an LLC is considered a separate entity. And often you'll find property owners that might have multiple properties owned by multiple LLCs. And one of the main reasons behind that is each LLC might have many different members or owners in that entity. Is that answering your question? Well, okay. So I understand that component. So then we have Mr. Webb who's possibly, what, five or six parcels altogether? I'm not exactly sure. I can't remember how many there were. Six. Six, okay. I'm here with the Webb companies. Okay. And it's a management company. It doesn't own any real estate anywhere in Fayette County. It manages properties for LLCs primarily, which are owned by individuals. None of the six properties I'm here in support of have the same composition of owners. But do you have six votes? Correct. Okay. So if you have six votes and owner B has five votes and owner C has four votes, how does that comprise the 51%? Well, to clarify on that, each LLC has one vote. Okay. So if the LLC has 100 members or two members, each LLC only has one vote. All right. I think I understand what you're saying. I just want to make sure that there's not unequal representation because there's a property owner who may be involved in other properties. And likewise, you might have one property owner that owns 15 different parcels of land. They're only entitled to one vote. Very good. Thank you. I think maybe Wes Holbrook. Wes, you have something that you want to add, and you might want to tell context. Yes. I was one of the individuals who reviewed the petitions, and in some instances where you had companies that had separate properties, they were either one listed all in the same petition, or they were listed as 11 and then 11A. and so there were 175 petitions signed by different owners. 175 separate entities you're saying then? Yes. Okay. I just want, as I said, I want to make sure there was equitable representation, that's all, when you've got the final formula. Right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you to Renee Jackson and Beverly Forge. I know you've worked hard to bring this back to us and bring it back in a timely manner. A couple questions for David Barber. First, who certifies the petition? Because we haven't seen it yet up here on council. And are we required to have a copy and there's a certification of those signatures? The executive branch of the government is required to review and certify the petitions. I think Wes has essentially done that. If you require something more formal before you all give the second reading, that would be fine. Yeah, I just didn't know. It wasn't in our packet. I didn't know if there was a certification process and how we know it was that owner that signed it. They actually signed something? What would they actually sign a document? A petition type format? Actually, it's under... Yes, they all sign a petition that indicates that they understand what's in front of them. They're all provided a packet with the petition. And then there's a, I think there was a review process done with the PVA to make sure that the person representing that they had the ownership interest that signed it was actually represented as being that person. Okay. I just wanted to ask that. And the second question is for our administration. Maybe our CAO can answer this. How will the city, based on the efforts we're already putting into downtown and the maintenance and care, how will that change? and how will we interact with this new district? Will our level of service stay the same, or will it be reduced? All right. It looks like Commissioner Reed is proceeding. And we've got back up here. Just out getting water. What was the question? The city, we already invest in downtown. We already have a function that parking racks performed. Yes, we do. They do flowers. They do a lot of things. Will that level of service stay the same? Will it be reduced? Well, in anticipation now, it's remaining the same because nothing's happened. So contained within the budget is basically a continuation budget. I think if this is passed as we move forward, there would have to be discussions as to what responsibilities would be who's moving forward. Well, who will maintain the streetscape improvements and things we've done? Would that be part of that discussion? Yes, absolutely. And how soon? We haven't had those discussions yet? No, sir. And how soon do you think we'll have those? Before this is enacted? I'm just trying to get a clear picture of what we'll do and what they'll do. I don't think that this is contemplating. Just let me help with this answer. I don't think this is contemplating. The management district is not contemplating that the city will diminish significantly what it's doing today. I'm just asking. Yeah, I understand. As the administration, I want to hear that. That's what you just heard. I don't want it to be reduced. Yeah. That's what I'm trying to get to. No. So making sure we all understand that. I mean, they're always stretched. Right. And I think that's the reason that these people are here. I'm always hearing how stretched Commissioner Reid is on trying to get the work done for the, you know. And our work for us. Sorry, sir. Well, I was just going to say, thanks to former Vice Mayor Isabel Yates, you have the hanging baskets to maintain. Thank you. Thank you. And she's here today. And she's here today. So who will decide, Mayor, on those hanging baskets? I think what he said was that we can't decrease our level of funding. I'm sorry. Jamie's showing you something. After the establishment of the management district, the legislative body shall not decrease the level of publicly funded services. Very good. That's what I wanted to make sure. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, sir. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question for you. In the ordinance, it says properties owned and used by the federal government, Commonwealth of Kentucky, or any political subdivision of the state will not be assessed. But it says further, properties owned and used by the federal government, excuse me, the district may contract with the owners of any property exempt from property, taxation or assessment for the provision of district services to such properties. So, you know, we have, you know, the city hall, the police department, the courthouses, city parks, churches, schools, Rupp Arena, the Opera House, and city garages around town. And those are all exempt from taxation. And so are we going to enter into an agreement with them to charge them a fee to provide the services even though they're not taxable? There's no plan today to enter into an agreement with them. But if you look at the other management districts across the country, historically, tax-exempt properties see the benefits of this and often opt to contribute to the management district. Yeah. Well, to me, I have an office in downtown. I don't own a property downtown, so I'm going to only be affected by the fact that the building that I am in, And the lease says that any taxes assessed by the city will be pro-ratically shared among all the tenants in the building. So essentially when we put this in, there will be a tax increase on every tenant in every major building that has that provision in it. And that pass-through will mean it will be more expensive for tenants to be downtown. We already are downtown where the rents are higher. higher, and we have to provide garage services here because you get free parking in the suburban area. So I'm concerned a little bit about the impact it may have on the rental market downtown. And it would seem to me that it would be fairer if everybody paid, and if they can't be assessed, that we could at least bill them for their pro rata share of the district services, and I think that would be something we might want to consider, and it is provided for in here that we would have a pass-through provision, you know, asking people to pay for the service. It sort of infers if they don't pay, they don't get any services at all around their billing, I guess. So that would be another question I have. You know, the other concern that I have as a – sorry. If you want to speak to Woodford, go ahead. No, Woodford was just pointing out that these are tax-exempt properties, and by statute, we can't force them to pay into this. But as the other management districts or countries show, often they do opt in. Okay, well, I don't know whether you can force anybody, but I believe that most of the leases have a provision that if the taxes go up or any assessments from the governmental agency go up on the building, that each tenant would pay their pro rata share of that increase. So it may not be that you're going to send them a bill, you know, a tax bill, but they'll get it through, you know, the billing from the landlord when they do the common area charges for the building. Okay, the other concern that I had is whether the taxes could increase over time. And it appears that the maximum tax that's being charged right now is the maximum tax going to be paid over the five-year period. Is that correct? That's correct. It's one-tenth of one percent, which is the ceiling. Right. And if the management district board decides over time that the fees are less just based on the services that are needed, they could certainly adjust that. So it is a ceiling. All right. If somebody owns a condominium in a condominium association building, does each one of those owners sign off on the increase, or can the management for the entire building sign off for that? How did you handle that, for example? Like Rose on Main, how did that, did each individual owner of that property sign, they wanted to have an assessment? That building set up where each one's a condo, and each owner signed up individually for that, yes, sir. Okay. All right. Okay. Well, I guess just in closing, you know, I know most of the people here that are in real estate, and many of them have supported this, and many of the people in other parts of the community. I've just been hesitant to see us put another tax in. I mean, I was thinking today the mayor submitted a proposal to the council to spend $10 million in surplus money for our budget, and you're only asking to get $362,000. That's 3.6% of just the surplus that we have available right now. And, you know, the question would be rather than to set up this organization, you know, have all the process involved to do all the billing, you know, to collect all the money, to allocate it back. I mean, we're creating another administrative environment to operate, you know, this particular district and to collect all the money. And maybe it would be, you know, I mean, I'm for downtown. I want it to be clean. I want it to be safe. I agree with everything everybody said. I'm just not sure this is the best way we could approach it. Have you thought about that at all? I mean, you worked on this a long time. Absolutely, and I'm glad you brought that point up. One of the things that separates this from just the tax is you actually have people here. We've got 51% of the property owners, 175 property owners that own $225 million of property that are asking you to pass this tax so that they can reinvest in their area. The second question that you had, I think it's very fair for everybody in the district that's going to be benefiting from those services, which may include tenants, to pay their fair portion. Right. The only argument I have on that is that some of these buildings are very, very large, 200,000, 300,000 square feet. And one or two buildings like that pretty soon will run up 50% of the value of the property downtown. And the building owners, like in my building, they're speaking for the tenants there. They didn't ask me whether I wanted to be assessed through their common area charge for the additional service. So I just worry about taxes. Taxes don't go down. And it's very rare that when was the last time you heard of any government terminating a tax? So once this tax gets in place, it's just going to keep on giving. are taking, as the case may be. So that was my concern. I think you've answered most of my questions. I thank you very much for your time. Thank you. All right. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Fleming, excuse me. I had talked with Ms. Fortune last night, and the information that was in our work session packet, I think what we determined was this was the petition that was created back in 2013, I believe, and it had some different information as far as the annual budget and also the structure of the board. I'm just wanting to know is, did all of the petitioners that signed the petitions, did they get an updated copy of the ordinance, the draft that we see in our packet today, or did they just receive this petition packet? The petition was updated in 2014, and so that's what everybody signed. We have these 175 petitions. It's the 2014 version that they signed. Okay. If you don't mind, I might address that, but we signed for our six properties within the district in 2013 and had to re-sign again with the new version. So everybody that signed in 2013 had to re-sign in 2014 again, And the staff was very diligent in getting that done. Drew may not be as familiar with that. Thank you. Thanks. Also, I was just wondering if you had said there were 200, of the 175 people who signed, that consisted of, made up $225 million of the 362. Is that fair? Yes, ma'am. So there's $137 million worth of property that's not included. I'm just curious if there's any way to get the – I mean, I'm just really curious as to who either didn't choose to sign, or did you just approach – did you approach everybody in the district? Well, the petition was sent out to everybody in the district, but it's often difficult to find everybody. And I take the position, even though not everyone signed it, that's not to say the people that didn't sign it are also not in support of it. Okay. All righty. And also, I believe this question is for Mr. Barbary, please, in the law department. And this is on our ordinance for the council's reference. It is on page 113 of our packet, but it's page 5 of the ordinance, and it's subsection 7. there is that's where the actual assessment fee is set up and there is some reference in here to the cpi and i would just like for clarification of what that means please it's going to mean nothing in this case if they're going to assess the maximum 10 it's a maximum 10 cap there's there will be no cpi if they assess it at the 10 so the c this language would be in place if it was actually lower than the maximum amount they had put in the first line so if you had if they had adopted like a .08 instead of a .10, then the CPI might come into play. But I think their intent is to go ahead and adopt it at the maximum amount, which is the .10, so that will have no impact going forward. So will that language be taken out, or does it have to be included in there? I think it would be in there in the event, like he described, they decide three years in, it only needs to be .06. That language would possibly come into play then once they establish it at the .06. So there's not a need to take it. I mean, but you all have control ultimately. I think if you made too material a change, it would arguably change the petition process. But it's your ordinance. So if you all feel there's a problem with needing to clarify something or you'd like it to be taken out for some other reason, as long as it doesn't materially change the petition process, I think that that purview ends up going to you all. So if for some reason you think you don't want to have that in there, that it just causes confusion, I don't think there would be any problem with taking that particular language out. Well, obviously I would rely on the law department and their expertise to make sure that we made. But I think what's going to happen as a practical matter, we'll have no application if they go ahead and want this assessment at the .10 maximum that the ordinance calls for. Okay. I have one more question for you. On the next page is subsection E about the advisory council. I'm just really confused. I'm wanting to, what would be the role and the makeup of the advisory council? And I'm just really curious about that. And if you might not know, maybe Mr. Fleming. Sure. I can speculate on what the role would be, and I'm not sure they would ever intend on doing that. But I suspect in other similar situations, you may have a group that actually kind of gives them some advice on some overarching issues, but would not be the decision makers as far as making the actual decisions for the board. So is it, Mr. Fleming, is it the intention to have an advisory council? Well, that would be up to the decision of the board. And if the board thinks at some point it would be nice to have a sounding board for ideas with an advisory council, they could certainly do so. But, again, the decision-making authority rests with the board. Okay. And I guess I'm just curious because there were a couple of people that spoke and shared their concerns and oppositions. I'm just curious in the board makeup if there would be some consideration to perhaps have someone on the board that didn't sign the petition that was opposed. I'm just putting that out there for, you know, discussion. And the other thing is, I guess, Mr. Barbary, could the council's role be expanded to include a voice in who manages the district? I realize that the board of directors, as the way that it's set up right now, the board of directors chooses who manages the district. I would advise against that. This is intended to be a separate legal entity by statute once it's created. They're the ones that will control the expenditures and whatnot. You all actually have representation on the board, which you know by looking at the makeup. I think the mayor is a member, at least one council member is a member as well. So given how this is set up legally, I would not advise you all to expand your role as it's currently set up in here. You all will be in, similar to some other organizations that are actually separate legal entities, you all have a role in approving their budget. so to me the real influence you all are going to play going forward if this gets off the ground is going to be they have to come to you every year with the budget here's our plan and you all may say that's too much money i don't think you should be doing it the you know you should do it a different way and and that's where where the council would provide its overarching input into the process and then i think by having the mayor and by having other council representatives on the board, they would be there to provide that advice or those recommendations on an ongoing basis. Is this, and this just came to me, I know that Lex Tran actually has to bring us an annual. Is this the same situation or similar? I would describe this being similar. I don't think there's anything you all have in play right now that is identical to this. This is the first time that I believe that they had the previous failure to launch a a little while back, but this would be the first time we've actually created one of these in Fayette County. Okay, thanks. I know that the LexTran budget comes before this body, and it's pretty much just a kind of a rubber stamp. But I just thought that was an interesting question. And I would like for the council to, should this move forward, that maybe we entertain the discussion about asking someone who didn't sign or is opposed to be on the board of directors. I don't know. I think that might be something. And thank you, Mayor. All right. Thank you, Council Member Lamb. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Mayor. I support this proposal. I think it will enhance downtown a great deal. One aspect I like is it will draw more people downtown. It will have more workers on the street. And the famous words of Jane Jacobs, put more eyes on the street. I like to point out that the proposed management district is almost wholly in the third district, which I represent. If there's voter disgruntlement, it will be directed primarily against me. And I'm willing to take that risk. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Gibbs. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Fleming, I just have a quick question. We talked earlier, I represent Beaumont Center and Corporate Center Drive, which has arguably a large amount of workers equal to or close to equal to downtown. You know, and Beaumont Association has a, when you buy a lot in there, you automatically are part of the association. You pay dues to the corporate association, and you know that going in. Do you anticipate, and I know we've talked about this a little bit, but for everyone else, do you anticipate this kind of raising the barrier to entry downtown to be, to draw people out, to send people more to the suburbs who are, as Council Member Lane said, renters? Council Member, I think the exact opposite. I think this will actually draw more and more people downtown. And I think the existing 1,200 management districts show that that's the case. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Council Member. Bledsoe. Council Member Evans. A few questions. I believe Mr. Lear had talked about the safety of downtown and that generally downtown is safe, but talking about making it safer. I'm curious about what additional resources the district would be talking about and what might be the unintended consequences when you do focus on safety. Is there the idea to get off-duty officers to come patrol, and then what's going to happen to the areas that they normally do that with. So that's my first, I guess, question to you. That's another great question, and I'm glad you asked that. I think there's two things to talk about when you think about safety. Is one, actual people there, like security guards, et cetera, and then two, the perception of safety. And what the management district would do, it would have downtown ambassadors who patrol the streets. Part of their job is to clean up and sweep, but the other thing is they're the eyes and ears of downtown, and we're not asking them to enforce the law by any means, but if they see something happening, they get on their cell phone, they can call a police officer to come right there. The other thing is the perception of safety. If you're going out to dinner and it's late at night and you're alone and you want an escort to your car, you might be able to call this ambassador that will walk you to your car. And the additional presence of those ambassadors downtown would increase the perception of safety. On that same token, a wayfinding system where people know their surroundings better, that's another way for people to feel more secure downtown. And I guess I might ask the question that no one's willing to ask, I don't know. But at its heart, it just seems that this might just be, that there are other ways that this can be accomplished. Why not have those who are for it, it seems like it's more of just a good neighbor kind of thing. Why is this having the council impose a tax the best way to do this? Because it seems like those who are in favor could just get together and decide that all of these things that you've listed that you want to do can be done. So I'm really just curious to just put that question out there. Why is it the best option in bringing it to council? Well, everybody in the area benefits from the enhanced services, so it's equitable to make everybody pay their proportionate share. But everyone's not in. But I guess if you're talking about businesses, then those businesses who are in favor could theoretically just address their businesses or the businesses they own. And I guess I'm curious as to why force others who are not willing to do it, why force them? Why can't this be a truly voluntary issue? Well, just based on past management district success, by getting everybody invested and everybody involved, you continue to have better results. and in order to really have a catalyst downtown, this really gets everybody invested and there's a true sense of buy-in to it. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Council Member Evans. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I want to congratulate all of those who were here before and have come back today. You have done your homework, the homework we ask you to do, and I appreciate it and I suspect more than the majority of the council does too. but uh mr barbary you said that we could we would have to walk this on potentially thursday i i i would think we could make a motion to that it depends on the it depends on the time frame that you want from a legal standpoint the largest concern would be the timing of a public hearing before second reading if you all you have any number of options um one i think that it was a council member gives that it suggested to you all that he would be prepared today if you all wanted to do this to make a motion to have this walked on for first reading on this thursday night in ordinance for first reading and then you would have the public hearing on it scheduled for the meeting on april 30th that's one track but that does not have to be the track that the council decides to take as long as there's a critical path i'm appreciative and will not meddle in it thank you sir i look forward to council member gibbs comments council council member scotchville thank you mayor i'm truly conflicted about this i see benefits but then i also see drawbacks you know for for me both i bought a house in a neighborhood deed restricted community i pay automatically in but i bought into it knowing that. I rent my business address in a deed restricted community as well. I knew that going into it. I always struggle when you sit there and put a tax or a fee on somebody, whether we had a majority vote at 51, it's still not everybody and it's a post fee. But that's, you know, I also see good things about it. When was, well, I won't ask that question. The question I have, has there been any discussion? We have several different organizations that have their hands in different parts of downtown. Has there been any discussion about merging, combining, doing anything with these so that we don't have, so we know what, they know what everybody else is doing? Well, sorry, I mean, first of all, the management district is a truly independent board, mostly made up of the property owners in that area, because they're the ones that are paying into it. And so we believe they should be the deciding of how best to use their funds. But secondly, to your point, I think it's very important that the management district has conversations with the other downtown organizations so that everybody's on the same page and everybody can work together. I guess my concern is we can say right now we're going to have conversations, we're going to do, but what happens when we have people adverse, people that don't get, I mean, we've had it before, people that just don't want to agree to something, so all of a sudden you have a conflict in somebody that's supposed to be promoting downtown, both, you know, both three organizations that are supposed to be promoting downtown. I just, I think there needs to be a broader discussion about maybe bringing some of these groups together under one roof, possibly. But that's just my thought. Thank you, Council Member Scottsville. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Mayor. One quick question. Mr. Fleming, I forgot to ask you. How did you determine the boundaries and who was in and who was out and what properties were in and out? Well, we thought it was a fair representative of the heart of downtown. And we did expand the boundaries from when we came to council in 2013 based on support from adjacent property owners. Residential or commercial? Both. It's actually a pretty fair makeup of, and I've got it in front of me, the numbers. If you see, well, downtown, the people that are in favor of the management district is a very similar proportion to the, and the proportion of that meaning commercial and residential is very similar to the actual makeup of the management district being residential and commercial. And what we did after 2013 was we extended the boundary slightly because there were adjacent property owners that saw the benefit and the value in this and wanted to be included, which is a similar trend that you see in other management districts such as Louisville. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Massadi. Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Bobbery, a question about the budget. Somebody mentioned Lex Tran. My understanding, because of the way in which Lex Tran is constituted, that while we review their budget, we cannot modify it. We can approve it or disapprove it. And they would have to come back to us. If we disapproved, they'd have to come back to us with a new budget. Is this set up differently? This would be similar to that process. You have an approval override over what gets presented to you all. But we do not have the opportunity to go into the budget and save $10 more for flowers. It depends on how you exercise your approval. I think I understand. Thank you. That helps. And then, if I can, a couple of comments. It seems to me that the question before us is one that's put before us because the people at the state level authorized this at the local level. And they set a set of thresholds which they thought would be reasonable given the concerns about not having free riders, that is people who benefit from a particular activity but don't contribute to the cost. I'm impressed with the way in which the folks here have worked hard to exceed those thresholds significantly. And I think it speaks to the fact that there's a very broad consensus downtown about the need for this and the usefulness for it. And you've mentioned its success in other places. I think those, in my mind, are the overriding questions to be answered. That is, is there enough support? And the answer is clearly yes. is there good evidence this is likely to succeed? And I think, again, the answer is yes. So I'm assuming that my colleague will be making a motion, and I will be supporting that motion. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. All right, Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to make a couple more brief comments and then introduce a motion. First of all, Council Member Lane made a comment about taxes never going down, And I think we need to remember there is a sunset clause in this, and if it doesn't work, we can roll this back. In answer to a question you had, Council Member Evans, about some people doing this selectively, I think that defeats the whole purpose. If you had one storefront that was filthy out front and another storefront that was beautifully done, the idea is to make our downtown attractive, and that would defeat the purpose. There would also be practical difficulties. For example, Danny and Wendy Rowland, who live in a condo, if they approved it but other people in their condo didn't approve it, how would they deal with that? Would they only clean one-third of the sidewalk? I think it's just impractical to do it in that way. But that's my feeling on it, at least. But at any rate, as to the motion, I move to place on the docket for April 16, 2015, Council Meeting, an Ordinance Creating and Establishing a Downtown Lexington Management District Pursuant to KRS 91.750. So moved. Second. Motion by Council Member Gibbs and a second by Council Member Farmer. Is there any discussion on the motion? Motion is to put this issue on the docket. All right. If there is no discussion, then we can vote on the motion to place this issue on the docket. And all in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. And voting electronically. And those who oppose, please indicate by saying no and voting electronically. All right. Has everybody voted? All right. The vote reflects passage of the motion and allows us to move on to the next issue on our agenda, which is a council. Wait just a minute. We've got another motion. We've got another motion. Council Member Gibbs. I'm sorry. I need to make another motion. I move to schedule a public hearing on the question of the establishment of the proposed downtown management district as required by KRS 91.756 for April 30, 2015 at 6 p.m. So moved. Second. Motion by Council Member Gibbs. This is related to the public hearing on this issue. Motion by Council Member Gibbs. Second 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. And vote or oppose, no. Motion carries. All right, now we can move on. And thank you all for joining us today, those members of the audience. Now we can move on to council reports. The floor is available for council reports. If you'll please just sign in. Council Member Gibbs, did you sign in for the council report or no? Okay. Council Member Scutchfield? I'll just wait. Yeah. Good idea. Wait just a second. All right. Council Member Scutchfield. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to announce, I guess, for 7th District, we're having a President's Roundtable on Monday night at 6 o'clock at the Eagle Creek Library for the neighborhood associations and organizations in the district. Also, on Tuesday evening at 7 o'clock, the Childsburg Neighborhood Association will be having their meeting. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilmember Scutchfield. So let's wait until everybody exits, and then we'll continue with council reports. All right. Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor, after plenty of discussion with the administration on concerns about four-way stops to signs and everything, I've got some good news that the administration has come up with a procedure. So I'd like to place the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program into Environmental Quality Public Works Committee for review and discussion. So moved. Second. Motion by Council Member Lonnie. Second by Council Member Farmer. Is there any discussion? Second. All right. If not, then we can vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Committed. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. Council members, I sent an email around yesterday on two items in regards to our pavement management. The first item is a RFP selection of a pavement management consultant to perform the work on reworking our pavement management list. And I'm happy to inform you we have reached an agreement, and I'll be bringing that to you by email and walking it on on Thursday night's council meeting so you can see the final contract amount and the person we selected. So that will be Thursday night. The second item was we have remaining funds in this current year's budget within the division of Streets and Rows that we allocated or took away last year from the Manowar project. Manowar, between Beaver Creek and Takes Creek Road, is probably one of the highest accident, if not the number one, two, and three accident locations in Fayette County, especially during the rainy season we're having. So that road was requested to be done. The council took it out with the hopes of this spring reallocating any paving money to that project so we can go ahead and fulfill those needs in that part of the district. In addition, the contractor that works for the city has notified us that after the 1st of May, they'll be focused on New Circle Road, Citation Boulevard, Leastown Road, amongst other state projects, and will not be back to city roads until later this summer. And giving those two situations. And the third is we don't have a pavement management list that's accurate now, but we will later in this year, at which time we can use the FY16 money to begin our neighborhood roads once again. So I'll make a motion to direct the administration to go ahead and utilize any remaining resurfacing funds to that project. So moved. Second. So motion by Council Member Sennett, seconded by Council Member Loney. Is there any discussion on the motion? Council Member Gibbs. So I just need clarification. Would this take money from the third district at this point? Because we got beat up pretty badly this winter. We got a lot of potholes. They've been doing a lot of sewer work in my district, and there's some very rough areas. So I'm concerned about my area losing money to go out to, which I'm concerned about. I was in the meeting where they talked about the problem out on Manowar Boulevard. Certainly there's a problem there, but I'm just concerned about losing my funds or my district's funds. Thank you. well your predecessor had already allocated your funds last year through our payment process and right now we're actually revamping those lists so those lists that you have now are inaccurate at best on some of the ratings the cost estimates so there's no funds have been reallocated yet two neighborhoods this is this is remaining funds within the streets and roads paving budget okay so that money is not allocated for mine not specifically yet okay well thank you all right i'm wrong commissioner holmes i was going to say yeah wait a minute what happened did somebody lose somebody all right we're still in discussion we've got the motion is there any further discussion on the motion are you satisfied jake with that okay i should have said council member gibbs sorry all right all right is there any further discussion on the motion all right okay hearing none then we can take a vote all in favor please say aye opposed no motion carries uh council member lamb thank you mayor i have uh just a couple of three things i want to announce the university of kentucky annual honors and recognition program was held last night and I'm happy to report that 4th District constituent and former Vice Mayor Linda Gorton was presented with the Citizens Sullivan Award. The Sullivan Award is given to citizens whose commitment to service evokes a spirit of love for and helpfulness to other men and women. Previous Sullivan Award recipients have included former Councilmember Deborah Hensley, former U.S. Vice President Albin Barkley, Gloria Singletary, Lucille Little and many others since recipients were honored since 1927. She has dedicated her life to serving others, both as a nurse and as a former council member and vice mayor. She currently serves on the UK's Board of Visitors for the Martin School of Public Policy and on the Dean's Advisory Board for the College of Nursing. I wanted to recognize and congratulate former Vice Mayor Gorton on this honor. And also, I wanted to report or announce that with former council member Ford leaving the council, The position chair of the General Gov and Social Services Committee was vacated. At the last committee meeting held last Tuesday, the committee selected myself as chair, and Councilmember Evans was chosen to serve as vice chair. We look forward to working together and with the other members of the committee. And then one last thing. This past week, this past Thursday night, I attended a documentary that was held at the Kentucky Theater. It was called Dreamers and Doers, Voices of Kentucky Women. And it's a documentary that was filmed by Michael Breeding. And Ms. Eleanor Jordan was the executive director along with Madeline Abramson and Jane Brashear. They all brought forward this documentary. And it was just an outstanding documentary. And Council Member Henson and I were attending. And what they're going to do is they're going to bring this documentary back. and they're going to put it into the public schools, and they're also going to be bringing it and having it available at the public libraries. But also it's going to be aired on KET in June, and I don't have the dates yet, but I just want to tell everybody that it was just an outstanding documentary about the women involvement in Kentucky, and I really appreciated being able to see that, and thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Lamb, Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you, Mayor. Legal has asked that we have a closed session, so I move that we go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.8101C for the purpose of discussing pending litigation. So move. Second. Motion by Vice Mayor Kay and second by Councilmember Farmer. Unless there is an objection, Council will go into closed session. at this time. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ The End ¶¶ so Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ The End Thank you. Thank you. Chris, thank you. Yeah, it's on. We're on the air, too? Yes. All right. When you give the people what they want. All right. I'll ask for a motion to return to open session. Is there a motion? So moved. Second. Motion by Vice Mayor Kaye to return to open session, second by Council Member Massadi. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then without objection, we'll return to open session. Is there a motion, Council Member Stennett? Thank you, Mayor. I move to place the docket for Thursday, April 16th, a resolution initiating text amendments to provide for day shelters to be permitted uses in certain zones and conditional uses in other zones. Second. Second. Motion by Council Member Stenet and second by Council Member Loney. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. All right. The motion carries unanimously. unless there's further any business I'll accept the motion from Council Member Stenet to adjourn, seconded by Council Member Farmer unless there's objection we are adjourned Thank you.