# Council Work Session - April 28, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 28, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3636 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3636?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-04-28 - **Last revised**: April 28, 2015 - **Length**: 16,144 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government held a council meeting on April 28, 2015, at 3:00 PM in the Council Chamber at 200 E. Main St, Lexington, KY 40507, with Vice Mayor Kay presiding. The council addressed 10 agenda items during the session, covering a range of municipal business including zoning matters, budget amendments, and various administrative items. The council took 14 votes throughout the meeting, approving several key items including requested rezonings and docket approval, budget amendments, and new business items. The meeting included standard procedural items such as approval of meeting summaries and adjournment, all of which were approved by the council. No public comments were recorded during either of the designated public comment periods - one for issues on the agenda and another for issues not on the agenda. The meeting also featured informational segments including continuing business and presentations, council reports, and the mayor's report, though specific details of these presentations were not captured in the available data. The session followed a typical council meeting format, moving through administrative approvals, legislative business, and informational reports before concluding with adjournment. ## Attendance The following members were present at the April 28, 2015 meeting: **Present:** • Stinnett • Moloney • J. Brown • Akers • Gibbs • Lamb • Evans • Scutchfield • F. Brown • Mossotti • Bledsoe • Henson • Lane **Absent:** • Farmer No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included 14 motions, all of which passed unanimously. No transcript timestamps were available for the voting portions of the meeting. **Administrative Actions:** • **Approval of April 14, 2015 summary** - Motion by Scutchfield, seconded by Stinnett, passed unanimously • **Approval of new business** - Motion by Mossotti, seconded by Scutchfield, passed unanimously • **Adjournment** - Motion by Lane, seconded by Henson, passed unanimously **Budget and Finance Matters:** • **Approval of neighborhood development funds** - Motion by Scutchfield, seconded by Mossotti, passed unanimously • **Place funding mechanism for street lighting into Budget & Finance Committee** - Motion by Stinnett, seconded by Henson, passed unanimously • **Support creation of SAFE Parks position in FY16 budget** - Motion by Lamb, seconded by Henson, passed unanimously **Resolutions:** • **Resolution supporting Safe Routes to School Program** - Motion by Stinnett, seconded by Brown, passed unanimously • **Resolution supporting establishment of Forest Health Research and Education Center** - Motion by Stinnett, seconded by Lane, passed unanimously **Organizational Changes:** • **Approve Department Reorganization of Security to Department of Public Safety** - Motion by Lamb, seconded by Bledsoe, passed unanimously • **Approve Department Reorganization of Office of Chief Information Officer** - Motion by Lamb, seconded by Lane, passed unanimously **Committee Referrals:** • **Place traffic study for Jouett Creek Drive into EQ & PW Committee** - Motion by Scutchfield, seconded by Mossotti, passed unanimously • **Place Food Truck Fire Safety issue into Planning & Public Safety Committee** - Motion by Henson, seconded by Mossotti, passed unanimously • **Place unsolicited advertisement supplements distribution issue into Planning & Public Safety Committee** - Motion by Henson, seconded by Scutchfield, passed unanimously **Public Hearing:** • **Schedule public hearing on May 7, 2015 for Sayre School industrial revenue bond** - Motion by Stinnett, seconded by Scutchfield, passed unanimously ## Budget and Financial Actions The council approved multiple financial items totaling significant expenditures and budget adjustments during the April 28, 2015 meeting. **Property Acquisitions and Real Estate** • Authorization to acquire property at 1604 Fr. Sumter Drive for $180,000.00 (L0424-15) • Authorization to accept deeds and easements for Meadow Lane at New Circle Road for $5,000.00 (L0472-15) • Authorization to accept deeds and easements for Liberty Rd.-Winchester Rd. intersection for $30,000.00 (L0473-15) **Major Contracts and Professional Services** • Authorization to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with City Visions Associates/AU Associates for $500,000.00 (L0510-15) • Authorization to execute a Purchase of Service Agreement with Lighthouse Ministries for $67,657.00 (L0485-15) • Authorization to enter into a Consultant Services Agreement with Element Design for $33,000.00 (L0511-15) • Authorization to enter into a contract restatement for Group Life Insurance with The Prudential Insurance Company of America for $775,000.00 (L0521-15) **Contract Modifications** • Authorization to execute Change Order #1 with Riddell Construction Inc. resulting in a $247.62 credit (L0509-15) • Authorization for approval of Change Order #1 to the design contract with GRW Engineers for a $54,690.00 reduction (L0512-15) **Personnel and Administrative Actions** • Authorization to transfer one classified vacant position of Service Writer with budget neutral impact (L0452-15) • Authorization to reallocate one classified position of Safety Coordinator for $672.00 (L0518-15) • Authorization to enter into a rental agreement with the Fayette County Board of Education for $1,200.00 (L0520-15) **No-Cost Items** • Authorization to execute a Meet and Confer Memorandum of Understanding with AFSCME, Local 4468 with no budgetary impact (L0442-15) • Ratification of execution of the unanimous settlement agreement in the Kentucky Utilities rate case with no budgetary impact (L0514-15) ## Public Comment - Issues on Agenda During the April 28, 2015 meeting, a public comment period was held to allow community members to address issues listed on the meeting agenda. This agenda item provided an opportunity for public participation and input on matters scheduled for discussion by the governing body. The meeting included a designated time for public comments specifically related to agenda items, following standard municipal meeting procedures that encourage citizen engagement in local government proceedings. No specific speakers, comments, or concerns were documented in the available meeting materials for this public comment period. The agenda item was informational in nature, serving as a formal opportunity for public participation in the democratic process. This public comment period represents the standard practice of allowing community members to voice their opinions, concerns, or support regarding specific agenda items before official deliberation and voting by the governing body. ## Requested Rezonings/ Docket Approval The council considered and approved requested rezonings and docket items during this meeting. The agenda item was presented as a resolution for the council's consideration. The council voted to approve the requested rezonings and docket items without recorded discussion or debate from the available meeting materials. No specific speakers were identified as presenting or commenting on this item. **Outcome:** The resolution was approved by the council. *Note: Specific details about the properties involved, zoning changes requested, or individual docket items were not available in the provided meeting materials. Transcript timestamps were not available for this agenda item.* ## Approval of Summary The meeting addressed the approval of the summary from the previous meeting session. This routine procedural item was presented for the board's consideration and formal approval. The summary of the prior meeting was approved without recorded discussion or debate. No specific speakers were identified as participating in deliberation on this agenda item, suggesting it proceeded as a standard administrative matter. The outcome was the formal approval of the meeting summary, allowing it to stand as the official record of the previous session's proceedings. *Note: No transcript timestamps were available for this agenda item.* ## Budget Amendments The council considered budget amendments during the April 28, 2015 meeting. The amendments were presented as a resolution for council approval. The budget amendments were discussed and ultimately approved by the council. However, specific details about the nature of the amendments, the dollar amounts involved, or which budget categories were affected were not captured in the available meeting documentation. No specific speakers were identified as presenting or debating the budget amendments, and no particular concerns or objections were recorded during the discussion of this item. The resolution containing the budget amendments received approval from the council. *Note: Detailed information about the specific budget amendments, discussion points, and speaker contributions was not available in the source materials for this meeting.* ## New Business During the April 28, 2015 meeting, new business items were introduced for consideration by the governing body. The agenda item was presented as a resolution and received approval from the members present. However, the available meeting records do not provide specific details about the nature of the new business items that were discussed, the content of any presentations made, or the substance of deliberations that took place. No specific speakers were identified in the available documentation for this agenda item, and no transcript timestamps are available to reference particular portions of the meeting discussion. The outcome of the new business consideration was approval, indicating that whatever items were brought forward received the necessary support from the governing body to move forward. Without access to more detailed meeting minutes or transcript excerpts, the specific nature of the new business items, any concerns that may have been raised during discussion, or the details of the approval process cannot be determined from the available records. ## Continuing Business/ Presentations During the April 28, 2015 meeting, the agenda included a section for continuing business and presentations. However, the available meeting records do not contain detailed information about the specific topics discussed, presentations given, or speakers who participated in this portion of the meeting. This agenda item was classified as informational in nature, suggesting that the content was primarily for the purpose of updating attendees on ongoing matters or providing educational presentations rather than requiring formal action or votes from the governing body. Without access to the meeting transcript or additional documentation, the specific details of what continuing business items were addressed or what presentations were delivered cannot be determined from the available records. This type of agenda item typically includes updates on previously discussed matters, reports from staff or committees, or informational presentations relevant to the organization's work. The outcome of this agenda item was noted as informational, indicating that no formal decisions or actions were taken during this portion of the meeting. ## Council Reports Council members provided reports on various topics during this agenda item. The reports were informational in nature, allowing council members to update the public and their colleagues on matters of municipal interest. No specific details about the content of individual council reports, key speakers, or particular topics discussed were available in the provided meeting materials. The agenda item served as a standard opportunity for council members to share updates on their activities, committee work, or issues relevant to their constituencies. This was a presentation-type agenda item with no formal action required or taken by the council. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps and detailed content of individual council reports were not available in the source materials provided.* ## Mayor's Report The Mayor provided a report on current issues during the meeting. However, the specific details of what topics were covered, concerns addressed, or information presented were not captured in the available meeting documentation. This agenda item was classified as informational in nature, indicating that no formal action or voting was required following the Mayor's presentation. *Note: Detailed transcript information and specific content from the Mayor's report were not available in the source materials for this meeting.* ## Public Comment - Issues Not on Agenda The meeting included a designated period for public comments on issues not listed on the agenda. This agenda item provided an opportunity for community members to address the governing body on matters of local concern outside of the scheduled discussion topics. No specific transcript timestamp or detailed information about individual speakers or comments was available in the provided materials. The item was classified as informational, indicating that no formal action was taken in response to the public comments received. This type of public comment period is a standard component of government meetings, allowing for community input and ensuring public participation in the governmental process. The outcome was recorded as informational, meaning the comments were received and noted without requiring immediate board or council action. ## Adjournment The meeting was formally adjourned following the completion of all agenda items. The adjournment motion was approved, bringing the April 28, 2015 meeting to a close. No additional discussion or debate occurred regarding the adjournment, and no specific concerns were raised by meeting participants. The resolution to adjourn passed without opposition. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the docket for the April 30, 2015 council meeting - **Motion** — passed (0-0): a Budget Amendment for reallocation of General Fund budget for various projects in the amount of $10,436,400 be added to the docket. The reallocation was presented at the April 17, 2015 Committee of the Whole Budget Workshop - **Motion** — passed (0-0): reduce the total for a new government center to $150,000 was withdrawn - **Motion** — passed (0-0): amend to add repairs to Kenwick Community Center - **Motion** — passed (0-0): amend to add Veterans Park improvements $75,000 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): amend to increase the NTMP to $50,000 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place ordinance #15 on the docket without a public hearing - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the April 21, 2015 summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve budget amendments - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve new business - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve neighborhood development funds - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the Mayor's report - **Motion** — passed (0-0): go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.810(1)(f) for the purpose of discussions which might lead to the appointment of an individual employee - **Motion** — passed (0-0): return from closed session - **Motion** — passed (0-0): adjourn at 5:15pm --- ## Full transcript you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Hello everyone. Hello, everyone, and welcome to the meeting of the work session. I'll call the meeting to order and begin with public comment for issues on the agenda. Mr. Mundy, has anyone signed up for issues on the agenda? No one signed up for issues on the agenda. That allows us to move on to the docket approval and rezonings. Is there a motion to approve the docket? Motion by Council Member Scutchfield. Is there a second? Seconded by Councilmember Bledsoe. Is there any discussion on the motion? I believe there is a motion for rezoning. Councilmember, oops. Councilmember Stenet. Yes, sir. This is not for rezoning. Okay. To be clear. This is regarding the docket, though? Yes, sir. All right. I move that an ordinance related to budget amendment for reallocation of general fund budget for various projects in the amount of $10,436,400 be added to the docket. The reallocation was presented at the April 17th Committee of the Whole Budget Workshop. So moved. Motion by Council Member Stennett. Is there a second? Second. Who is the second? Second by Council Member Gibbs. Is there any discussion on the motion? Councilman Lane thank you mayor oh is this I'd like to make a motion to reduce the amount allocated for a new government center for the initial phases in amount of 150,000 instead of 750,000 so move. There's a motion by Council Member Lane is there and there's a second by Council Member Henson. Is there any discussion on the motion? Council Member Stenet. Thank You Mayor. Council Member Lane can you 150,000 can you explain to us how you got to that number from the 750? My intention was to do the site investigation and the initial study for the utilization of the building how many square feet would be required and I think that amount would cover that. Mayor is there someone from the administration that could speak to would that cover that amount? Yeah I think so. Sally could you want to? Is he here? Okay, I can speak to some of it. Did you hear it, Jamie? I told you. All right. Council Member Lane, would you explain again how you came up with the $150,000 so that the podium bearer can get it? Yes, sir. You know, the first point I would make is that I don't know that we've even identified the location for this study, what property we're going to develop. And so before we committed the whole three-quarters of a million dollars on the design and all the other components of the evaluation, I felt that it would be appropriate to just go ahead and do a site investigation and a study of what are the needs of the government, how many square feet the building would require, so we would have a general idea of where we're going. And then when you want to announce what site we might be wanting to select, then we could go ahead and authorize the ballot. So you're saying reduce the 750 to 150 or the 750 by 150? The 750 to 150,000. That would probably do the site investigation and the analysis of the needs for the size of the building. Well, do you want to speak to it or do you want me to? Sure, I can start and you can supplement. How's that? All right. I'm sorry I feel like this is in my wheelhouse a little bit. Sure. Looking back at the conceptual budget, we had about $200,000 incorporated in there for architecture fees for conceptual and schematic design. So if you're going to reduce it just based on that concept, I would reduce it by $200, although I don't recommend reducing the budget at all. I think we've never had a budget for this project, and so everything that we've done to date has been without any real funds. So we've made progress, but we need an investment so we can move forward. I don't think he quite understood. he's saying the motion is to reduce it from $750 to $150, not by $150, but by $600. So you're basically cutting it out entirely. The intent of that is until we know what the location is and what our actual needs are, we've done a site investigation. I don't know that we need to commit all the rest of the money until we have gone a little further down the road on it. And, I mean, I'm very supportive of, I think, a new city hall is a good idea, but I hate to put up three-quarters of a million dollars to do all this conceptual design and all that, and we don't even know what location we're talking about or how big the building needs to be. And so I was thinking we'd do that part first and then come back to the council, and we could authorize the balance of the expenditure. Council Member Stenet, do you wish to? Yeah, I just wanted to finish my question, and I'll go with someone else, and I think you answered what I was going to ask. But the work group we had, would that work group continue, and would that be the same work group we'll use to utilize those funds, or is this a different path? They would be involved, definitely. Just for a little context, the work group that Council Member Stenet served on last year. And the vice mayor at the time. And the vice mayor at the time. They actually selected for the public-private partnership component of the project. they selected a firm. And I think you concluded in either November or December last year. But basically where we're at today is in the negotiation phase with that group. But we don't have a budget to do anything. So we're sort of on hold at the moment. So we need this money to continue our work? Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Let me supplement then. This wouldn't be done all at one time. It would be done in an appropriate sequence following an appropriate schedule. So site selection, yes, would come first as a scope, but it wouldn't necessarily absorb all of the funds. So there could be multiple assignments or multiple contracts. This wouldn't happen. It wouldn't be necessarily one contract. I'm not arguing that point. Here's my point. You're asking the council to approve a $750,000 budget to design a building or evaluate a site, and we really don't know where that location is. We haven't been briefed on. Nobody's come before Council and said we're recommending this location and we need to investigate it. If, you know, we know where we're going, then, you know, I'd be more enthusiastic about supporting the funding, But if we're just going to do a study and not know specifically the site. This is a budget. Is there a confidentiality issue about the location that you don't want to bring before the public at this time because of negotiations? No, it's part of the no. The site selection is a function of a scheduled on a project. This is one phase, the beginning phase. Then conceptual design. Well, actually, first master planning. Then conceptual design. Then schematic design. Then working drawings. Then construction. So this would be, this is exactly what it's described as. It is nothing more than a budget. And it would be employed in sequence, beginning with master planning. Beginning with site selection, rather. then master planning you know what if we spend the 750 000 and then you bring the deal to the council and we say we don't want to go there well i think i think it'd be nice to have some input this is a let's remember this is a budget this simply is nothing more than a budget and then we follow the process the process doesn't say we have to spend 750 000 out of the gate the process says as we first engage the site selection and master planning. That hypothetically could be $150,000, $200,000. Okay, I understand that, but the implication here is that we're approving three-quarters of a million to do this study. And, you know, I'm merely saying we haven't been presented a location or any conceptual idea about, you know, what your strategy is on this. And I feel as a council, before we commit, even $150,000 would be nice. But I think I could gamble on $150,000, but $750,000 is quite a bit of money to invest without having the council backing your decision to go forward with this. It's not my decision, but that's okay. Go ahead. I was just going to make one clarification. We were looking for a commitment to the project of $750,000. I think that's an important distinction because the process would be that the council would be involved all along. We're not going to make a decision to build somewhere without having some input from everybody involved. And that would mean we would come back to you before we did any kind of conceptual or schematic design for approval. I think it's a commitment to the project. I know I've had conversations with all the council members about the project, and I think it's very universal the support for the concept of a new city hall. This is what it's going to take to get us there at the very beginning. We think the project is much more expensive than $750,000. Yeah, I'm sure that it is. I do think what Council Member Lane, though, has introduced is a good question in terms of what you responded to. No commitments would be made from this budgeted amount without the council's approval. So let's say the site selection, for example, and that's just hypothetically, again, that's a $100,000 consulting assignment to examine sites that are available and then to come and report on those sites. Well, that contract itself, that consulting contract itself would have to come before the council before it could be spent. So it's not like the $750,000 is being committed to irrevocably today. Okay. Well, then in that case, Mayor, I don't have an objection. I appreciate your clarifying that because the way it was presented here was a $750,000 budgetary item. It was going to be a done deal, and you could technically go spend that money, I guess. But if you're going to bring it back and we would approve it on a phase-by-phase basis, I'm totally happy with that, and your word suits me fine. So I withdraw my motion, and thank you, Mayor, for the explanation. Well, thank you, sir. Okay. thank you councilman thank you for your for your insights into that um is there any further discussion on the motion councilmember farmer so he withdrew he withdrew okay so my mine would be a motion to amend councilmember extended motion to include a hundred thousand dollars for repairs and improvements to the kenwick community center so moved Second. Motion by Council Member Farmer, second by Council Member Stennett. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right, hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Council Member Lamb. Yes, thank you, Mayor. I would also like to make a motion to amend Council Member Stennett's motion for the reallocation budget amendment to increase the budget amendment by $75,000. for improvements to Veterans Park for foul ball protection. Second. Motion by Council Member Lamb, seconded by Council Member Maloney. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Mayor. This goes back to Mr. Immons. So I have questions similar, I guess, to Council Member Lane's. I think you're right that most of us agree that we need a new government center. But, again, when the reallocation designations stated that they are for urgent needs, I'm not sure that we could spend $750,000 in the next even six months. Planning takes time. Designs take time. finding a consultant to do the designs and plans takes time. So I'm not sure that we need to allocate those funds now, or can you tell me why we need them now and why they're not in the budget? Well, first point I'd make is I suspect it depends on the outcome of the negotiations with the partner that we have engaged. There's an outside chance that we come up with a model that makes really good sense for us and that we need to commit some money up front. So the 750, I think, was an estimate that we developed based on the need to understand that if we encounter an opportunity like that, we don't need to be in a position where we can't afford to do it. But also, I mean, if you go the traditional route and we ended up doing this project alone, it's going to be expensive. And do we want to have to come back and ask you for an additional allocation or appropriation later in the year? We just felt like this number was a good middle ground to start with. I know it sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but, you know, it's just we found the revenue or we found the dollars to appropriate now, and so that's why we're requesting that amount. And when I was, I guess, maybe my first year, maybe my second year, I used to meet with Jeff Fugate and get updates about downtown developments and planning, and there was discussions about the new government center even then locating on top of the transit center. And as Council Member Stinnett mentioned, I think there was a group that met and came up with a plan for an RFP and there was, you know, respondents to that. So I guess my question is what happened to all of that work and those plans and those proposals and are we starting from scratch again or are we continuing the work that we have done the past year? is the transit center still in contention is it somewhere else I can't speak to everything you just asked but I would characterize it as not starting from scratch I think the work that's been done so far as has been helpful as I've mentioned earlier we're in a negotiation phase with the group that council members tenants work group selected so we could so they did select one from the selected yes they selected a partner a potential partner okay So on the memo that we received, summarizing each of the requests, there's $50,000 for space planning, $50,000 for consultant, pre-development activities, legal, a project manager of $150,000. Who's the project manager? Is it not Jeff Fugate? No, no. Well, Jeff has managed the beginnings of the project, but if you're looking at the budget on the email the mayor sent out, is that what you're looking at? I don't think, maybe. I think this came from Jennifer Sally's aide, assistant. The project manager listed on this, no, that would not be Jeff Fugit. Okay. This would be a project manager specifically assigned to this project. And that very well could be a firm that is hired to provide the service of project management, program management. So was the design identified last year? Was there already a drawing, renderings of a potential city hall? Each of the potential partners submitted in their RFP some conceptual schematics. Yes. But they were not any detailed documents, no. Basically they were renderings. I'm just uncomfortable with, I don't know if it's reinventing the wheel, but recirculating the wheel it seems. Maybe it's not. I mean, maybe it's not. No, I don't think it is. It just feels like we did a lot of this work last year and now we're starting it all over again. We're not recirculating the wheel, so to speak. I think we have to exhaust the option that we've come up with. If that works, there's one path forward. If it doesn't work, there's a different path forward. So we're going to continue down that path for the moment and see where it takes us. That's our plan. I think it's worthwhile just to expand on that. The options are broadly financial options. Is that a fair statement, Bill? I'm looking at you. whether or not the city would use its resources to purchase or perhaps lease. So, correct. Those have been the issues that are pretty much front and center. This is planning for next step when we would actually engage then the engineering, the design of the project. Okay. Thank you. These are all good questions, so there will be a lot more, I'm sure. I think what's, you know, just to punctuate this, by voting to support this, it's an endorsement and a recognition that we've got a problem. We need to work on that problem. we're not making any firm commitments at all this is just budgeting for it and if we find that we status quo is okay which we probably don't think it is but if we thought the status quo was okay then we may not do anything and not spend anything of this amount that's budgeted Councilmember Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I had some questions regarding the fire and police vehicles. And just having served on the public safety link for like three years past, I wanted some clarification perhaps from Commissioner Bastin Council Member Henson can I just let me confirm are we still we're on the discussion of the motion we still are on I didn't catch your your question yet so I'm sorry yeah it's on the list okay okay sure Yes, ma'am. I'm just not talking about the government center. Yeah, I got you. We've got another topic on the list. There's more than this. I understand. Is Ronnie going to, yeah, Commissioner, can you help us with that? Actually, I was hoping to get more information prior to this being given first and second reading, But for fire, there's $2.5 million for vehicles. If we could possibly, you know, and I'm thinking about there's that, the relocation or the location study going on for fire. And I just didn't want to jump the gun because if they propose new fire stations, then would, are these replacement vehicles? What are they? What station? What's the age of the vehicles? And I know we've gone over all of this before, and we had an inventory where they were trying to replace apparatuses. It's my understanding these are replacements. So new locations, if those were to occur, would be somewhere down in the future. They wouldn't be impacted by this money or within the next year. The amount of money would go for three engine companies and two ambulances is what it's slated for for replacement. And if Chief Hoskins is here, he may have more information about the age and mileage and those things than I do. And then I also, you know, I had some questions of the same amount is proposed for police. So if we could just get more information as to exactly what we're getting for $2.5 million from each, and you probably know which stations, as far as fire goes, that those apparatus would be replacing what engine. I'm sure Harold does. For police, there's 62 new police cruisers is what the $2.5 million would be for. And then my next question would be, are we getting in better shape? Because I know when I first began on the link, fire particularly, and I know police, you know, I lobby all the time for these officers to get a new vehicle because I don't, those big crown Vicks. But are we getting, you know, where we want to be as far as the replenishing of the old fleets and with newer ones? I can say in terms of police that we have made a huge dent in getting where we need to be with the last couple of years have been significant purchases, which have helped out tremendously. So thank you for supporting those. As with any program where you have fleet, you're going to have a continuous replacement. And what we're trying to work towards is getting caught up from the years where we were unable to do replacements in the fleet so that we can get on a regular schedule and maybe we won't have quite such large amounts. Yeah, and I guess just this not going through the budget process and the link process, I would prefer to have more information. Just it's like we're going to get this many vehicles and we're going to retire this many or whatever. And if you're getting 10 new officers, you need 10 new vehicles or what. Okay. Two and a half million dollars, as the commissioner mentioned, would get us three engine companies, replacements. off the top of my head they would all be of the 1999 to 2000 vintage and those are running consistently in the 100,000 125,000 mile range and i haven't looked at my paper for a while but they would probably be uh the lansdowne engine the shillitoe engine and uh trying to think of the two next, probably the one on Richmond Road. Can we get that inventory like you had given us before? I know my time's almost up, but just how many engines we've got, how old they are, and I know it's not based on actually the age, but maybe more the mileage. That's true, and we look at the repair history. We always consult. We bring all of our mechanics in. They're familiar with the nuts and bolts of those things, and they know that while this one may not be the oldest it may be the less likely to survive okay thank you i'll just rather have you know i know we've gotten that information before and i would appreciate that thank you thank you commissioner all right yes ma'am thank you councilmember henson councilmember acres or councilmember stennett counselor you've spoken already you've both spoken so council member acres thank you mayor um i have a question for i think dowel maybe um regarding the 25 000 additional for um the ntmp m yep ntmp i think this is a great program i think that we definitely should fund it more um in future budget years i'm just curious um how much we've spent in this year how much is left in the last two months and can you spend this additional $25,000 in May and June? Right. It's not actually additional funding. So they've pre-funded the NTMP program for fiscal year 16 with the reallocation. So we actually aren't getting any more money than we got this fiscal year. It's just being funded out of the reallocation. So our fiscal year 16 request for the NTMP funds for $25,000 wasn't funded in the proposed budget. So you didn't get any money in the 16 budget? It's coming out of the reallocation. The same amount that we requested. Only $25,000. Correct. As I understand it. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Well, I think that's going to maybe cause a problem. Can you tell me how much you have spent in 15's budget? Yeah. I think Roger and I talked about this today. I think we've got about $400 remaining for the rest of this fiscal year. Okay. Can I make a motion? I mean, yes, right. I would like to move that we actually increase that to $50,000. So moved. Motion by Council Member Akers, seconded by Council Member Gibbs. Is there any discussion on the motion? Council Member Brown. Dal, could you come back up? I didn't quite understand. We've been budgeting this in the past several years for $25,000 or $50,000? $25,000. And we have been spending it in the past fiscal years pretty much? Yes. Did you ask for that $25,000 in this current year's budget? Yes. And you were told, no, we don't have the money? No. Well, you didn't get that. No, I was told that it was funded out of the reallocation. Whoa, here. So I wouldn't leave it in the fiscal year 16 budget. Reallocation is another budget process, is my understanding. Nobody's supposed to know on reallocation while you're doing the regular budget, are they, Bill? Well, do so. I have slides for this, but if you just want me to do it verbally, I want to go over our budget approach and try to remind you what we were talking about on the Friday retreat. When we were going through the presentations from the directors for the FY16 and they were asking for certain things to be included, we saw many of those that we looked at each other and said, why should we wait? Why don't we try to go and do those now? Yeah. And so we looked at our favorable budget variants, and we said we should ask to accelerate those either because of the timeliness of it or because of the need. Yeah, yeah. Okay. And so that's how we started bringing this list together. And so many of the items were things that came to our attention when we were going through the discussions with the directors, such as the 100th anniversary for Douglas Park, such as this calming, such as security issues, both with security doors at public safety, security at the day treatment center. So those are the lists and how we started compiling those things that we wanted not to wait for the go-ahead to be June and then start the RFP or the purchasing so that it's July or August or September. But let's start that now and accelerate when we can do these projects. They don't have to be spent before June 30, but you get a three-month head start in trying to address these needs. I understand all that. Okay. That really wasn't my question. I thought it was. I'm sorry. The question was is that we had $25,000 budgeted last year and we spent most of it. Why didn't they get $25,000 for fiscal year 16? Because reallocation is not for fiscal year 16. Well, we call it pre-funding. Yeah. We are pre-funding the FY16 request. So you're expanding your budget. The mayor's got a budget. and then we're adding $10 million to this budget, even though we want to spend it or try to spend it before June 30th. So in essence, the budget that we looked at, we're looking at two issues, because I don't remember this, and somebody told me that this was the second year that the mayor did a reallocation budget. That didn't happen in the past. That was done in October or November. when you found out how much funds you had. So this is a new approach or new to me. It is. So it's just the second year you've done it. That's correct. How much did you allocate last year? About 10 million. 10 million last year? But then getting back to her motion, Councilwoman Akers, the motion of the 25,000, it just puts it in 15's budget. Is that correct? Correct. It does with this reallocation. What have we got for 16 for her budget? We have zero for this program because in our presentation to you all is we're pre-funding it. Okay. So you're pre-funding 16's budget then? In many cases. Okay. For all these items there, a lot of them are pre-funded. Yes. So they are a fiscal year 16 budget appropriations. in. They were requests. We're asking for the appropriation to be in Fort Fort. Let's call it what it is. Pardon me? Let's call it what it is. You've got a budget for the fiscal year 16 that you've presented. You're adding another 10 million to that budget. We're asking for appropriation. Simple-minded people like me. It's a three-legged stool. I I understand the budgeting process. It's just new to me. But I would have thought that we would have another $25,000. That's what you're trying to put in, I think. I would have thought for fiscal year 16 we would add $25,000 into the budget, but I don't know if this is the appropriate place to add it. It might be when we do our budget and not in the allocation process. That's my question. All right. We're on the discussion on the motion. So do you wish to speak to the not on the motion? Anybody else wish to speak on the motion? Council Member Gibbs. Council Member Gibbs. Speak on Council Member Acres motion. I just want to say I support. And Adal, can I go to the gym today and make you run up here again? But in talking to people in my neighborhoods, I get the impression that a lot of people are interested in traffic calming measures, and so I would definitely like to have more money allocated for that. I'm also wondering, if someone gets a speed table, the cost is $4,500, is that correct? And you guys will pick up a portion of it. I think a lot of neighborhoods would be interested in those speed tables if they were more affordable. For some neighborhoods, I think it's an impediment to them to getting the traffic calming they need. is that amount written in an ordinance someplace or is that a policy that you guys came up with it's a it's in our ntmp guidelines which we're actually revising and going to be presenting in the may 19th environmental quality and public works committee so currently it's a cost share based on the average household income within the neighborhood correct yeah okay well i just want to emphasize that i would like considerably more money to go to this i'll sit over 25 000 right now but thank you thank you mayor all right council 25 000 that's one in that all right you seconded the motion right any further discussion on the motion council member maloney dal if you come back up i think we had please thank you we had this meeting we're putting it in environmental quality that the speed humps or the speed whatever the other word is that we are gonna it's gonna be discussed on i have a problem of paying for something that you all don't think is legal i mean you're not even though it might be legal to some but for not using our trucks to do snow removals i and those are the kind of problems that I have putting money in there that we and I thought that was intent to have the neighborhood pay that so that match, so I'm getting a little bit ahead so in the environmental medium we're going to be able to talk about what we think should this $25,000 match be paid for and what we shouldn't be paid for so I just want to be cleared up and that being environmental because I have a problem paying for some of these things that may not be legal in your books. Yeah I'm not sure a legal issue but but operationally it's an issue okay thank you all right all right anyone else wish to speak on the motion all right if not then we can take a vote all in favor of motion please indicate by saying aye opposed no motion carries all right all right council member acres sorry Thank you. Oh, sorry. Well, I had two at once. Is Commissioner Reid available? Yes, he is. There's a request on here for fitness trail equipment in Dixie, I guess, park, and it says equipment will be similar to the fitness stations in Masterson Station, and I'm not aware of any, so I just was curious what these are. I've seen them. I'm not aware of what is or isn't in Masterson Station, but it's outdoor equipment. I think Shillitoes might have some of this outdoor exercise equipment that's going to be purchased. I can provide you the picture of it. That would be great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Council Member Akers. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Mayor. Earlier at our budget retreat, we had a question on the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement for $650,000. In the description we received, this is to upgrade our Microsoft Office and other software needs. But it's my understanding that we don't have the hardware in place in order to implement a better grade than Microsoft 2007 as we currently stand. So is this just the software upgrade and not the hardware? And where is the hardware upgrade? Those are good questions. If you will remember, in this current year's budget, we had asked for $200,000 to do an email upgrade. So that project is on track and it's about to finish probably in May, early June at the latest. So we have taken, before this fiscal year started, we were on Microsoft's 2003 platform, which was really released in about 2002, so it was about 13 years old. So the server infrastructure is in place for the general government corrections and the fire department. So we'll go live with that, which will put us on the back-end email platform of 2010. This money that we're asking for as part of the reallocation is for a software agreement that will go on with Microsoft for the next three years that will cover all the licenses so that we can be at Office 2010, Office 2013, or Office 365. We have that choice. So we do have the servers and... Yeah, all the servers have been built. It's in test mode, and we're actually working on a change management plan to meet with division directors. We mentioned at the last citywide directors meeting that, you know, we are moving this way and that we will start migrating user mailboxes behind the scenes. It should be fairly transparent, but this will allow people in the divisions to use Office 2010, 2013, and Office 365. Good news. Very good. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Stinnett. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. Mine is a motion on the docket. It is an item that's on page 5. It is number 15, number 0491-15 and I would move to put this on without a public hearing. So moved. Second. All right. Motion by Council Member Farmer. Second by Council Member Lane. 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. Thank you. Now we can, if there's no further discussion, we can vote on the Original motion to approve the docket. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Allows us to move on to approving the summary. Is there a motion to approve? Second. Motion by Council Member Stenet, seconded by Council Member Scotchfield. 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. allows us to move on to budget amendments. Is there a motion to approve? Move approved. Motion by Council Member Hanson, seconded by Vice Mayor Kay. Is there any discussion on the motion? Yes, sir. Now, right? Mayor, just one. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. Just one on Journal 86075 at the bottom of page 5. To provide funds for energy management projects by recognizing half of the total utility savings demonstrated over a 12-month period and assigned for this purpose in the FY 2014 Sanitary Sewer Fund Balance. I'm just wondering, and this is for $104,000, are these the savings we had anticipated, more or less? I'm just wondering where we are in relation to the plan here. Thank you, sir. Good afternoon. We usually just see you once a year, don't we? Yeah. These are actual savings, so they were verified within utility bills and then encumbered. They stay in an encumbrance until the financial audit of records has been complete, and then we know they're safely available for use. My question was more along the lines of, is this the amount you thought it would be? Had you budgeted an amount? Did you know what this was going to be? I mean, this is just what it is, I guess. That's correct. Okay. We're looking backwards in time. Again, it's a cautionary approach. Rather than trying to estimate what a savings will be, I'm more comfortable viewing them in real time and then transferring monies after the fact. So is this maybe the third year we've done this or second year? The very first analysis occurred in 2010-2011, so we're probably in about our third year. This particular one focused on our larger accounts and a new rate structure to the city. I think the first account we had on this was the larger South Elkhorn station. So what will you do with these funds now that they're going to be encumbered for you? The energy team then reviews potential projects. they're restricted by funds, so these particular ones will need to be in energy efficiencies to the water treatment plants and or pump stations. Very good. Thank you for the expertise. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, sir. Councilman Brown. Yes, page 4, there's journal 85912 for $500,000, and on page 5, there's a journal entry 85913-14. It appears in the wording that there is a little difference there, but I would assume that those are both, those are two different projects. Can somebody address that? All right, Melissa, thank you. These are for one project. The first budget amendment you see is moving it out of the general fund. That's the 85912. Yes. And then the 85913-14, that's moving it into our general fund capital projects fund, and that's got the expense and the revenue there. So it's the same project. The first one, 85912, said it was a transfer from general fund to general fund capital projects. Right. That's taking it out of the general fund and moving it over to the general fund capital projects fund, and then we're recognizing it in the next budget amendment, and then we're expensing it also in that budget. Okay. And so the fund balance change is actually $500,000. Yes, sir. You're taken out of the fund balance. Yes. So that's the budget amendment part, right? In other words, when I'm looking at the fund balance, it's going to be decreased by $500,000. This was something that was proposed in the fall to come out of fund balance. So it was one of the things that council had approved to come back at a later date. So, yes. Okay. But it is a decrease in fund balance. It is. And did that have any budgetary impact on starting with your million five? No, we did. That was not. That was. That's what it started. The mayor started the budget year with a million five. Yeah, that's already taken care of. Yeah, that's not a factor in that. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Council Member Brown. The clerks alerted me to the fact that we did not actually take a vote on the budget amendment for reallocation. So we need to go back and do that. This is the motion that Council Member Stenet made and Council Member Farr, who was second on it? Anyway. Right. All right. So is everybody clear on what we're doing? This is to put the reallocation on the docket. All right. As amended. As amended, right. As amended. All right. So all in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Is there any... Okay, we're back now to budget amendments. Is there any further discussion on the motion? All right. If not, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next is new business. Move approval. Motion by Council Member Farmer to approve. Is there a second? Second by Vice Mayor Kay. Any discussion? Please sign on. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. Mine's on item E that is on page 12 of the packet. This involves intersection improvement and upgrade at Liberty Road and Winchester Road. Just give me how much more easement or what? Tell me the reason just for this piece of business. The reason for this, as you know, this has been out there for quite a while. Yes, sir. And we went ahead and put forward a project so we can go ahead and realign that intersection. Thank you very much. To be more conducive to the turning movements that are currently going on there. As you recall, part of the issue was that the turning movements for especially large trucks were compromising the property there where Charlie's Seafood is located. As we dug into this, we actually discovered that the right turn lane on Liberty Road going on to Winchester Road is actually on private property. Beautiful, beautiful. So this is to go ahead and clarify. We've already met with the owner. Appraisal's been done. So to do it properly, we need to go ahead and get that acquisition. Excellent point of business. Thank you, sir, very much. Yes, sir. We'll all look forward to a better intersection there. And then the other one is on I, on page 19. And really, it's not so much about the improvements to Idelauer Park. I would just like to highlight the fact that the park is under construction. and it's really not in use right now. And we've had a little bit of problem with that. Commissioner Reid, if you want to make commentary to that, it's an inviting place, but it's also a construction area for the next about year. And I just want people to be aware of that. If you'd give voice to it, please, sir. You're correct. It is a construction area. We have had difficulty with people coming on the park and going to baseball fields to practice and to hold games. We recently discovered, well, we discovered two days ago this problem. We have addressed the problem. We are dealing with the leagues who were involved in using the park. It took a while to, took a couple of days to find out who they were. We have had our people over there to shore up the entrance where people have been driving around. We've put up additional barricades. We're also going to repair the property of the property owner who had ruts in their yard for where people were driving around. So I think we have that fixed. We put up no trespassing signs in addition to the locked gates. So I believe we're getting the problem addressed. It might just be wise to throw something up on GTV3 that rolls through and says, you know, Highliner Park closed until senior citizens center is complete or just something by way of public notice. We'll do that. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Farmers. Thank you, Councilman Reade. Commissioner Reed. And next is Council Member Stendet. Thank you, Mayor. Item K, this is the Kentucky Utilities Rate Settlement. Has anyone done the calculation of the impact on LFUCG's budget next year on the rate increase? I know we'll see a 7.9% increase like everyone else. do we have it budgeted oh this be a late item maybe on our budget list i i think james here's what's going to happen as a practical matter it will get offset by the increase in revenues on the franchise fee okay so you're not going to have a negative number probably as a result of that i think james bush actually probably ran some numbers um but i think he went back to his office so he can probably he can probably supplement your the exact uh number you're looking for as far as what the increase is going to be just curious about the individual budget so when they they pay for utilities. Have we accounted for that? I know it's a net gain with the franchise fee, but we work with general services to come up with an estimated rate increase both on the revenue side as well as on the expense side, and we have a blended rate that we put into the total assumptions, so we have an assumption there. Is it going to be exactly right by the time all the different rates are approved? Well, time will tell, but we did compensate for that when we were planning the budget. You're way ahead of us. And the street light, we'll include that in our street light discussion, I guess, I assume, coming up here. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Stenet. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I also wanted to ask Brad Frazier with engineering a question about item E. yes ma'am is is this in addition at the last npo meeting this intersection was approved for tap funds that may be related to something that was going on with traffic engineering if I may before Dow gets up here we put this project forward because we saw the need to go ahead and fix that issue, compromising that private property. Also, DAL was good enough to work with us so that we can go ahead and try to satisfy a need that they have as far as pedestrian flow. So part of the project will also set up conduit and pedestals so that they can go ahead and come in after the fact and put in those improvements. I think that's what you're talking about. Okay. I mean, I think we would all agree, anybody that's been at that intersection would agree that it needs help what i'll do council member i'll go ahead and look into that and kind of find out what that is exactly yeah i could be incorrect on it but let me let me just find out make sure those efforts are coordinated and that was with the mpo was it not ma'am yes so i can answer it um we'll be rebuilding the traffic signal at 7th winchester and liberty it's an offset intersection and providing pedestrian crossings across winchester road which don't exist today um at both 7th and liberty okay and so that was the tap funds that were allocated okay good and it's going to complement engineering's project And you guys will work together to make sure it's... We will. She actually tells me what to do, yes. Does she? Okay. I understand. Thank you. And also, I just wanted to comment on item F about the Lighthouse Ministries and really let them know how much I appreciate their efforts here because I think this is something I've been advocating for years. I think, and you refer to it here as full service dining facility, Dining with Dignity program. So I agree with you completely. I don't necessarily think that dining in the park is humane if the weather is not appropriate. it. So thank you for your work, Tay, and everybody else. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Council Member Henson. All right. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to second what Council Member Henson said about F. I, too, am very excited about the Lighthouse cooperation. I think it's going to be great. I personally support what you do, and I'm really interested to see how this plays out in the next few months. I do want to ask a question about age, and this is in reference to the courthouse. Every neighborhood group that I get asks me about it, where we are. So just would you, somebody from the administration, maybe lay out what this particular 500 is for so that everybody else could know where we are in the progress? Thank you. I've sort of practiced this, so if you'll allow me just a minute. Every time we talk about this project, we hear sort of three things, and that is tax credits, deadlines, and complexity. And I can echo those three things. The importance of these tax credits, and that will play it. that's a lot to deal with why we need to go with City Visions and AU. The importance of this tax credit is $11 million to this project, and that would be $11 million less than we would have to publicly fund for our 22. Now, if you do these tax credits, you have to only do those through a for-profit entity. The for-profit entity will hold our courthouse, And the for-profit entity will then deal with another taxable entity that will buy those tax credits. Now, to do all that, that's pretty difficult. That's way past the kind of skills. I usually am not afraid to take on anything, but I'm even afraid of this one. And this is the kind of project that's going to involve numerous skills and people who have done this before. Now, but when we sell those tax credits, we have to get to that point. And when we get to that point of selling those tax credits, this building has to meet historic standards. And that is from the Secretary of Interior in order to get those tax credits. And there's two kind of tax credits they can get. They can get one from the state, one tax credit from the state, not a tax credit, but a source, and one from the federal. The state has a deadline, and that's what makes all of this procedure process that we're doing today so important. The state has a deadline of June 30, 2019, excuse me, 20,017. We've already passed that deadline. It has a deadline of June 30, 2017. Now, that means that you can't get these state tax credits unless you've finished these eligible expenditures. They call them QREs, but I'll just call them eligible expenditures. So we need to really get cracking in order to get to that deadline of 2017. Now, the federal doesn't have a deadline to it, but all of these tax credits, both the state and the federal, have another thing that we have to deal with, and that says once you start, you've got 24 consecutive months to get all of this done. So that brings us to why we really need the consulting help that we do, because they have got to get all the tax credits applications done, get all the financing of how we're going to finance this building, set up this for-profit entity for us, and do the RFP for architectural services. We have to issue that RFP soon, and we have to award that contract for architectural services as soon as you approve, and that's up to you, the $22 million for the courthouse, because that construction date shouldn't be any later than March 2016. And from the person who's gone through the senior center, one, it just takes a lot of time to do this stuff. And I'm talking about a lot of time on a straight project. Now, when we get into these tax credits and things, it's much more difficult. So in order to get this project done, Councilmember Bledsoe, according to the Secretary of Interior's historic standards, and to get the tax credit money, we need to hire this professional help at this point and start. If that's helped. Thank you very much. I know we talk about it a lot. I think people in the public don't always hear our timeline and all the things that we're thinking about and moving forward. So I appreciate you giving that explanation. Thank you. others can hear. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for asking that question to Council Mayor Bledsoe. Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Mayor. I want to comment on item K and that is this ratification of this settlement agreement with Kentucky Utilities on its rate case. And one of the kind of the nuances of this case, I want to basically share this information with Council and with the public, is that when KU went before the PSC, they divide their request for funding increases between the base rate, which all users would have to pay, and the usage rate, which means how much you actually use the electricity or whatever. The reason it's important is that those who believe that the environment is important and moving towards more renewables is important, is that increasing the base rate is a disincentive for decreasing your own use. And so there was an issue, and in this case it was resolved in favor of putting the increase on the usage fee so that conservation of use would be encouraged rather than discouraged. And I'm very interested in having this government and other entities continue to pay attention to that issue so that we do not find ourselves in the position of granting any increases in the base rate which would discourage the savings of electricity and the decrease in the use of kind of crucial elements of our environment. So thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor Kaye. Councilmember Lamb. I actually wasn't going to say anything today, but I just had a hankering. A question on item number N. I'd like to ask just for clarification of what the group life insurance, what this is, please. Hi. That was a, Council Member Lamb, that was a restatement of our group life insurance. We restated it due to some changes we had in affordable care in the way that we were allocating funds for flex credits. And at the same time, Prudential had told us under our contract that we were eligible for a reduction in our fees. And the fees were reduced up four and a half cents per thousand dollars coverage. which allowed us to do a couple of things. One was it allowed us to increase the benefit, the life insurance benefit for employees, civil service employees, to $20,000 from $10,000. And it also allowed us, while we made the restatement, to make a change in the definition under the optional coverage for the definition of a dependent that would be covered under the life insurance. So that's what that is all about. It's still all fund budgeted out of the benefit pool fund. So this increase, is this a recurring cost? I mean, will it be in the next year's budget? That's the approximate annual budget. It has been for years. Okay. All right. Thank you. For sure. Thank you, Council Member Lamb. Looks like that's all who have signed on to speak to new business so we can take a vote on the motion. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Allows us to move on to continuing business. Is there a motion on the NDS? Motion by Council Member Henson to approve. Is there a second? Second by Council Member Lane. 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. Next is council report. If you'll sign up, please, as council members for council report, and beginning with Council Member Maloney. Council Member Maloney. First, I want to commend Council Member Henson and her aide, Hillary, and Lucy for doing a great job at the sign for the Cardinal Valley Science Fair yesterday or the fair for Cardinal Valley. It was a great turnout. I want to commend you on that. Mayor, I don't know if you can help me on this, but I'm getting tons of questions about the hole. As we know, we don't like to talk about the hole. But when is the bond or supposed to be deadline for the bond? Does somebody from the administration will know when those bonds are due? I mean, it's got to be a limit on how long those bonds can stay out there. Does someone know? Commissioner Paulson is a... I'm sorry, could you ask the question again? I was talking with Brad Frazier. The bonds for the famous hole over here, is there a deadline when those bonds have to be sold by? I think he's talking about the financing bonds. Financing part of it? Yeah. I'm sorry, I'm not sure if there is, but I don't believe there is a deadline for when the bonds will be sold. I've been more involved with the monitoring of the construction than the financial aspects. Somebody told me that the bond was due this week. I didn't want to know if that was true. If there's a deadline, it's an internal deadline for KLC. What? If there's a deadline, it's an internal deadline for KLC. Kentucky League of Cities. Kentucky League of Cities. We don't know of any exterior deadline, no. Okay. My question is, Derek, what's the next step? because I know people are concerned about the embarrassment. They're worried about the Breeders' Cup coming this year and seeing a hole in the ground. I'm not worried about that. I'm worried about the public now. Everywhere I go, this is the hottest issue I've ever had in the years I've been on this council. I've been here just as long as a lot of them here have. I have never in my life, everywhere I go, get a question of what we're going to do with that hole. and is the government ready to tell Mr. Webb or whoever we've got a deadline and we need to get going with this or are we just going to continue to let the public continue to ask each one of us? I assume everyone up here has been asked this question not once, not twice, just about a daily. That's the number one thing. I think it's time we need to stop these questions. we need to get answers and I hope you all can help us do that because I cannot continue to answer these questions I've been told that we got somebody gonna buy this somebody come by this this thing's been going on for too long eight years we tore a building down we shouldn't have well now we gave a permit now we got a hole in there we don't know nothing going in there concerns that I have with this is an example of being a former council member I had a house being built in my district at that time, it had been halfway done. I couldn't get the developer to finish it. And I don't want to see this happen. If this goes any further, we start building something and we don't get done with it, then we're stuck with the same problem that we had when I was a council member with that house being half done and we're going to be the government going to have to go in there and build this thing out. I just want to be sure that we are on top of this because I'm telling you this is the biggest embarrassment I have seen in a long time. And I'm thinking, I'm asking you, Mary, I know you were big on this, throwing the grass seeds out there. I know you're not in favor of what happened, but we've got to start somewhere because this is really getting to be a joke. And the only thing that was exciting about it is that the Herald leader, Joe Pett, that's the only time I've ever seen the center point of sighting is his cartoons where everything is swinging back and forth. Well, that joke had gone a long time ago. Now it's time this government starts making a decision. And I know Mr. Webb. I know him personally. but we've got to put our foot down and say either fix it or we do whatever the next step is. And I know there's a $4 million to come back and dig that hole back in there. But somewhere before we go on break, before we do anything in the next 30 days, I want to see an answer because the public is getting fired up on this. I was going to say there was a lot in there. There was a lot. I know you appreciate the Councilmember Maloney's insights into that. I do. And I've had probably just as many, if not more, questions as well. We did, and I'll say one of the things that we did do when this whole project started with the TIF is we did put in a time in terms of if construction stopped for, I believe it was 60 days, then we would give them a notification that they need to move forward, that something needs to occur in terms of filling that hole. What I will tell you is that we have been monitoring that very closely. This is a complicated project. I don't think anyone doubts that, and I think what we've talked all along is that we do not want to interfere in terms of making sure this product or this project can go forward. There is financial aspects of it that we are not the ones to ask. I think some of the questions you had in terms of the bonds, those are questions that are good for the web companies to ask. In terms of the monitoring, I can tell you, I can assure you, we have been monitoring it. We are watching it very closely, and when that time comes, we will take that action. So that's about the best that I can tell you at this point. Can I follow up with another question? We have a tip. Did we, the body of the council voted a few years ago for a tip for that property in there? Yes. My question is, and I know it's going to be, I'm not a developer, But how did we allow that hole to happen if we know we're going to be involved with the TIF and not make sure that all the T's were crossed and the I's were dotted, before we allowed that hole to make sure that all the finance was in place, before we did allow that hole to be open? And, I mean, I just want to know how you cannot, if we're investing, lie on a tip to happen and we did not should we have looked at the paperwork to make sure that everything was done right before we allowed that hole to be opened and I didn't know or it's because they did the bond for $4 million they're allowed to open that hole up. I just want to know There's a couple things that you're kind of getting in there. Again if there was no tip we would not have been able to do anything Do what now? If there was no tip we would not have even been able to get the $4 million bonds in case construction stops. So if there was no TIF involved in this project and the webs were to have gone forward with this and stopped, there would be no recourse at all. So in many ways the TIF was essential to us having this lever to be able to pull if construction stops for more than 60 days. So I think that's an important thing to discuss in terms of that. If this were a regular project, such as the house that you discussed, we would have no lever to be able to pull in terms of getting them to move forward or getting that the hole to be filled in. So we did review the financial aspects of this. I personally did not review it. It's not my area of expertise, but that is one of the reasons that we did put in this fail-safe percent of those bonds related to filling that hole back in. Again, the thing that I can stress to you, we are monitoring, and if it were a different project, one that did not involve this TIF, that hole could sit there for a very long time. I think we have examples of that in the past in this community where those things have happened. That's one thing we want to try to prevent. So are we planning to stand a message? I'm sorry. Your time has expired, Mr. Maloney. But we certainly appreciate your questions and your insights into this. You wish to speak on this issue? Well, yes. Just to Council Member Maloney's questions. I think we have shared interest and hopes for the project you know we want to we want to see it be successful and we hope to give you an update very soon i know derek's trying to answer your questions but you know it's worth a broader conversation that is very detailed all right thank you council member stennett thank you man a couple items but i'll end on this commissioner polson going back to certain point who holds the note the 4.4 million dollar bond who who has evidence that that's still active when we we have that collateral in place. Who is monitoring that? I'm looking at the finance people, so hold on. We have proof that exists still? It's a construction company up in Indianapolis. I've looked at the agreement. That's Hunt Construction. That's the guarantor. That's a guarantee. It's not a bond. It's not a bond. It's not the bond we're talking about. but if you can give us make sure it's still in place and that proof is still there that it still exists and is active and it's been renewed that would be very helpful if somebody can find that answer we will do that and then have we had a conversation with mr webb to ask him to come to council and give us an update we have not asked mr webb to come to give an update i know we do have weekly meetings or not so much weekly but we do have a meeting i have a meeting later this week with uh members of the web company to discuss the project kind of get updates that That could be an option going forward. Okay. Get an update publicly. Thank you. And then a couple other items. One, and Mayor and maybe our CEO can answer this too, who is monitoring our time-warner agreement that we entered into last fall for the government? Who do we place in charge of that? Maybe Commissioner of Law? Did you draw the lucky straw? Commissioner Graham, thank you. Yes, we are, with outside counsel's help, Linda Ayn, who you all met. So would it be appropriate also or not? and you don't have to do it today, but give Council an update of the ramifications of the merger did not go through, how that affects our agreement. And also, can you look into, I've had some comments from citizens who have called in, and one particularly about the mail-in option. We also negotiated that. Well, I personally called in and asked about that option myself, and Tom Warner clearly said they do not do that, and that's a clear violation of our agreement. So we need to follow up on that. Also, can you follow up on why they're not laying any new fiber lines in our new subdivisions in Lexington because we have pockets of center of Lexington inside the boundary of the urban service boundary now that can't get internet access because they're refusing to invest in that fiber piece and that can be part of our agreement and why that's happening as well as the customer service issues we continually have how do we help systems voice those complaints because we're still getting them and it's not getting better so if we can figure out a form of workshop or some way to continue to address these issues that would be helpful i know there's a lot of citizens anxious about it okay i will do that all right thank you and i know last couple weeks ago we had a uh a grant for our division of police for distracted driving chris can you put that up i thought it went well with our pothole season we're experiencing but you know kudos to our police and our rose for working together so i saw a little humor for the day i hope that doesn't doesn't fall into our distracted driving thank you mayor thank you council member stennett council member lamb thank you mayor i guess i have a question for commissioner graham um i know that uh we do have an agreement that was passed by the council for the center point and i'm just curious do we have any um ability to go back in and re look at that agreement again and the language in it? I think that's probably a complicated question that involves the TIF also. So I think probably I can't add much to what Commissioner Paulson said on that. I think I think the council we would have to go back and look at the whole arrangement on that and that's kind of a broader discussion probably. So maybe if this council would choose to perhaps have that conversation at some point because of the language that's in the agreement that involves that so I don't know that's just just the thought so thank you thanks and on that note I'll end with two good comments wanted to thank the members of the Merry Wives of Greenbrier for a great meeting last night they we had a great conversation and it was wonderful meeting some new constituents. And also I wanted to commend one of our fellow council members. On April 24th, Councilmember Farmer received the Robert Shipley Award for the American Gem Society, and this award is conferred annually in recognition of outstanding service to the society for significant contribution to the science of gemology and for exemplifying the high purposes, objectives, and ideas of the societies in the members' community. councilmember farmer has served as president of the American Gem Society as well as servant and the Jill's of America Board of Directors and having been inducted into the Nationals Jewelers Hall of Fame congratulations councilmember farmer and thank you mayor thank you councilmember lamb congratulations councilmember farmer councilmember henson thank you mayor let's say councilmember farmer's a real gem isn't it But congratulations. We've got to behave. Bridging Families event that took place yesterday that Council Member Maloney mentioned, I was very happy about the success of the event. We had 50 vendors there, 100 participants at least, And these were families, all ages, small children, big children. We gave away a lot of great prizes. Dr. Alvarez with the University of Kentucky was a featured speaker there. And so a lot of work, time, and effort went into this. And I just wanted to recognize our partners that helped plan this event was the Layston Public Library, Family Care Center, Partners for Youth, Fayette County Extension Office, and Fayette County Public Schools. My aide, Hillary Angelucci, is wonderful at planning events, and I just give her a big, big applaud. I don't think there was very few things that we missed on that. Also, I'm trying to get some clarification about some enforcement for in areas where folks let their grass grow really tall. and sometimes code enforcement will come out and give them so many days to mow it or they will mow it because they knew code enforcement will be coming if they don't. But what happens is the grass is left into the street and on the sidewalks and I was trying to get some clarification if that is a violation. I get lots and lots of complaints. That's a good question. I'm not sure, but I'll look into it. I think what code enforcement generally deals with is the actual mowing when it goes into the – it sounds like if it goes in the street, it becomes kind of an environmental quality issue, but I'm not sure what the – I know that's one of the things that we were trying to do is prevent yard waste from going into the storm sewer. I'm not sure if that's a code enforcement issue at this point, but I'll check with David Jarvis. Actually, I think it might be environmental services and Commissioner Holmes. If you guys could get together and try to get me an answer. You know, not only is it an environmental issue, it's unsightly, too. You know, I don't get complaints if it's just a little dusting, But when you have, you know, a lot of grass, I do. I can find out quickly if it's involved with code enforcement. I'll get with Commissioner Holmes to see what type of enforcement there is, if there is any, in terms of it. Okay. We'll check in on that together and get back with you. I appreciate that. And also, I get complaints. I see it myself. I complain about mud in the streets. we've got some neighborhoods where folks are parking in their yards or up in the grass strip and it becomes mud and then they track it onto the street and and i i'd like to know if that's a violation i will check again i think there are some i know we've seen it from construction sites there are rules in terms of construction sites uh about how the sites at the late when you have a land disturbance permit, making sure that that does not get in the streets. I know we've run into that before in some districts, and we've dealt with those complaints. That usually follows from a land disturbance. But what you're talking about does not sound like a land disturbance permit. It sounds like residential, and just parking in the grass, parking in your front yard is actually that is a violation. It actually goes to the police, not through code enforcement. I'm not sure how we enforce it when it's a small residential. I know we have a lever when it is a construction site through land disturbance permits, but we can try to see what there is in terms of that. I would appreciate that very much. And to clarify, I've got 15 seconds center point. Yes. Isn't, by ordinance, any project that has a construction permit, those expire after a period of time? A period of inactivity of six months, generally, yes. So we don't have to reissue that permit? that's if there are periods of inactivity for six months. That is true. Right. I just wanted to clarify. Thank you. Bye. Thank you, Council Member Henson. Vice Mayor Cady. Thank you, Mayor. And I'm, for better or worse, I'm going back to Centerpoint, and I'm not sure who needs to answer. I've got two questions. The first is some additional clarity about the $4 million or the $4.4, whatever it is. Is that a bond? Is that a guarantee? what actually does the agreement say about the relationship between the developer and the city in terms of not moving forward? That's the first part. The second part is should the city determine that there has not been activity for 60 days, what options do we have? What can we do? What can we not do? what because the reason I ask these questions is that I'll agree with Council Member Maloney. People ask these questions fairly frequently. I feel like I don't have really good answers for them on these two specifics. What's the nature of the agreement in terms of the 4.4, whatever the and the options that we have should there be a reason to believe that the activity has ceased? Mayor, would you like me to start? Yeah. I just want to, I would, the council representing the city is Mason Miller on this issue, and he's not present today. And I would caution against us speculating too much at this point in time, especially without his counsel and advice. That's what I'm going to say to you. And that's pretty much what I was going to say. I mean, I'm not an expert on this agreement. My role has been to basically on the monitoring aspects of it. In terms of what the specifics are, in terms of what we're allowed to do, I would defer to the recourse or the cure. Right. Correct. What I've been most concerned with in terms of my part of this process has been keeping up to date in terms of the construction process, monitoring how they're doing things, what they're doing, and documenting everything that's going on. So we have been in constant contact with the Webbs about that. In terms of what happens next, at this point, I don't know if I'm the right person to answer that question at all. Well, I understand that there may not be people present who can answer these questions in a way that is appropriately careful. but I would like to request that we get an answer to those questions so that I and other council members can then retail that information to constituents there's a lot of confusion there's a lot of misunderstanding it's hard for me as a council member to say I understand enough about the details and whoever needs to provide that information or if there are things that you cannot tell us if at least you can tell us that you can't tell us even that would be helpful So I'd like to see some of that information come back to Council as soon as possible. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you, Vice Mayor Kay. Just briefly, since it's come up, the way the situation has been explained to me is that it's an obligation of the developer, if they are noncompliant with the agreement, to restore the site as it was before excavation began. And if they do not fulfill that obligation, through the agreement, we have the right to do the work ourselves. And in that situation, we would be a first mortgage holder on the property. Thank you. That's very helpful. It's not a bond. That's helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor Kaye. Councilman Maloney. Just to follow up on the bond, the $4 million bond, I've done some bond work when I worked for housing, building, construction. We had to renew these bonds after a certain time. It's not a bond. It's not a bond. No, I'm talking the $4 million for that hole to be filled. That's not a bond. What is it? It's an obligation. I mean, that's right. But they have to renew them after so many months, don't they? No. Have we checked that to make sure? It's not a bond. I know it's not a bond, but it's a collateral. Have we checked to make sure it's still there, that they have the $4 million in place? you're saying that they're holding on to $4 million for that purpose? I assume that's how we gave them the okay to get the open account, didn't we? It's a contractual obligation. Now, whether they have those dollars and an account set aside for that purpose, I don't know. I'll have to get back to you on that. Well, I was told that you have to renew these collaterals so many times after a year or every two years or whatever. So if they did a $4 million, and we should be monitoring that. I hope we are. that we're monitoring to make sure if they did not renew their collateral, what then happened to if they did not renew that and we're sitting here with a hole in the ground and they don't have the $4 million? Let me just get back. I'll get back with you some more information. Is that okay? Okay. I want to be right when I give you that. Well, be sure to tell us one of the collectibles. Thank you. Okay. Council Mayor Gibbs. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Paulson, could we grill you a little bit more? My constituents ask me all the time about this. It's in my district, about Centerpoint. And people's perception is that nothing's happened there for a long time. You said you've been monitoring it closely and stuff does happen. Could you tell me a little bit what happens, say, since the cranes went up so I can tell people? Again, I think at this point it's probably best to say that there is progress in terms of there are things going on. In terms of those specifics, I don't feel that it's best to get into all the specifics. One of the things that I've said before as well is there are different ways to monitor progress in terms of what's actually happening. There has been, in our meetings, they have discussed some of the progress that is taking place. Well, I think you've said what you intended to say. We have been monitoring in terms of that. It's difficult to characterize as to. Well, the public perception, maybe we need to clarify this for the public, because the public perception is if they don't do something in the whole in 60 consecutive days, then they've messed up on the agreement, and you've got a different interpretation. If they do something behind the scenes, that's acceptable. I think in terms of what we're getting into is some of the legal issues in terms of how this goes down, and that's why I don't think it's wise for me to start getting into and playing out here what's going on. Well, my constituents and myself would like to have a clarification on about the 60 days. I understand. And I think what we will do is try to put together, I think, from understanding what's been going on in terms of the discussion this afternoon, it's clear that you guys would like to have better information in terms of what you can provide to your constituents. I think what we will do as a team is get together and figure out what we can provide to you to give to your constituents. That seems to fall in line with what Council Member Kay said as well, in terms of what can we tell you that you can't tell. I think those are conversations that may not be best to have here, but because of, again, the way this whole agreement is. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Gibbs. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. Derek? Sorry. I've got a ped counter. I've seen how many steps I can give walking back. Real quickly, there is a site plan, right, construction development plan? There are plans, correct. Has that had changes recently? And one thing that I will tell you is there have not been any changes to the plans that would necessitate them coming back to the Courthouse Area Design Review Board. That's one of those things that is important. They did have to get an approval by the Courthouse Area Design Review Board. If there were changes that would necessitate coming back, there have not been any that would require that at this point. So we have not seen anything in terms of that. That was something we did discuss with them. Are there any changes they have? Because we do have a regularly scheduled meeting, and we did not have any applications or any changes that would require that at this point. so if the site um if the plans have changed that are holding up the project wouldn't we know about it i'm not sure if i follow your like if they've changed the design the construction design um and and then have to readjust things to suit the plan would that hold up the project if they were to change the exterior in a way that again any projects that are within the courthouse area design review board if there are significant changes or alterations they would have to come back at least for a perfunctory review from the board we have not received any applications of that kind at this point so the division of planning they are not overseeing this at all the division of planning no okay just because it's it's one of those things the way that this project is done the way the zoning is downtown that is not something they didn't need to get a development plan in the traditional sense so okay there are building permits that are still active at this point uh and there are again there are we do monitor for the the we do check up on the building permits okay thank you council member scutchfield i promise it'll be a quick question but I Derek go ahead and stay Jamie I thought we had a bond on the property so that if construction stopped we could fill it did you say we had a bond I thought or they provided a bond no there's no bond involved at all it's an obligation through a contract and on the back end And if they don't fulfill that, we could complete the work ourselves. And because of that, we could be the first mortgage holder on the property. Okay. But again, I think back to Derek's point, there's a lot of interest in this in the council and in the community. So I think we need to get more information for everyone. And we'll do that for you as much as we can. All right. Council Member Lamb. I guess my question is, I know we all have a lot of questions regarding this and for clarification, and you said Mr. Miller is the attorney that is, so perhaps could we ask Mr. Miller if he could come and bring information and answer some of these questions? that we have. Is that possible to bring him to a work session? I don't know if this merits closed session. I think we'd probably ask Janet for it. Clearly there's concerns here and I think that we as a council, we should be able to get some answers so i think the simple answer from my point of view is that of course we'll do everything appropriate and give you information now whether or not that happens in closed session or not that's up to the loud part can i do this can i can we check his schedule first and and then answer the question once we figure out his schedule sure probably no problem that's okay yes and thank you thanks thank you very much thanks thank you mayor thank you councilmember lamb all right any other council members sign up for council reports all right if not that allows us to move on to wait just a second mayor's report is there a motion to approve Approval. Second. Motion by Councilmember Farmer, second by Councilmember Scotchfield. 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. Next is public comment for issues not on the agenda. No one signed up, Mr. Mundy? All right. Farrah Alford looks like he wants to speak. Is that right? Is that possible? Yeah, sure. you know the rules i know the rules unfortunately i'm gonna ask three minutes i understand that's it you got the podium i might be able to have a couple more minutes well a council member may uh you i'll i'll go home whenever you tell me to okay uh i appreciate this i know it's not on the agenda and i know thursday night is when y'all gonna be talking about the downtown management district. I, unfortunately, have got a previous engagement Thursday night that's involved with the fundraising activity that I need to attend. With that said, I thought I would steal a few minutes of your all's time at this work session because I don't think I'm going to be able to be here Thursday night. I'd love to have a dialogue with you. I know that's hard in this kind of situation because I'm talking to you all listening. Rarely do we get into a dialogue. The dialogue we had at the last work session was with the attorney representing the other side of this issue. And so I don't have a paid gun here. I'm just here representing myself and my properties that I happen to have in this district that they're talking about, creating this management district, which I'm sure all of you all have a picture of this, a map of this, the proposed district. several things about this map. I don't know what the exact percentages that they say they have. I think they said 51%. It's taken them a long, hard effort to get 51%, which means 49% is not being represented here. If you look at this, the red is the non-taxpaying properties in this group. Roughly 50% is non-taxpaying. So you're going to take the 50% taxpayers, once again, pay for the 50% of non-taxpaying properties in this zone. Also, if you talk about the viability of downtown and what's happening downtown, I obviously am a big downtown supporter. Where the most activities happen downtown is on Jefferson Street. That's where all the neat, cool restaurants are going. That's where all the neat, cool places are, and that's where everybody's going. And that's not on this thing. That would be, even if this was a good idea, which it's not, it would be seem to be necessary to have that area included in this proposal if the 51 percent and last time that we did this about a year ago there were so many mistakes in the map and the ownership representatives that i don't know who's checking that for y'all i think you may have inadvertently found your location for your new city hall just a few minutes ago maybe not but whoever's checking whoever's checking that list uh i would like to check it have my guys check it along with you because i think there's some questions in that list a couple of things i'm just going to go through this try to point by point please feel free to ask a question if you have a question i don't know why we've had we're going to have to get you're going to have to get a council member to give you a well hold on just a second as a council member want to give three more minutes Okay. I'll second motion. Council Member Scotchfield makes a motion. I understand the rules, and I'm happy to play the other rules. Okay, you've got another three minutes. Okay. It's funny to be able to draw a line and say this neighbor gets taxed, and the next-door neighbor doesn't get taxed. I don't know how you do that. I don't know why you do that. When I was here last time and the room was packed, it reminded me of the days when we came down here and updated the urban service area every five years, which you don't do anymore publicly. But we used to do that. We had great participation. Ninety-some percent of the people talking had nothing to do with any of it, which is exactly what we saw last work session. And most of them were involved with a particular company. So that's interesting. I would like to – I'm not sure if you can do what they're trying to do in the first place legally, if you can do that. Right now in downtown Lexington, we have 19 percent vagacy in Class A space. that's the most I can remember in 25 plus years if you're going to raise the price on going downtown which is creating a new brand new taxing entity which in my beliefs we got enough taxing entities I know you guys when you go home you think you pay enough taxes on wherever you live and whatever you do and I guarantee you we do on downtown properties we've had the sewer tax caused to go up because of the lack of our maintenance of our sewers in this town they now tax our parking lots and our roofs for that we've had the lextran tax to go up everything just throws tax on top of tax on top of tax and it's the same people getting taxed in an area that half the people don't even pay taxes 262 million nine hundred and fifty five thousand dollars of the properties on this map are not paying a dime in order to help this whatever this effort is when you listen to it the last time it's going to be cleaner and going to be safer we play a pay of police force we pay a tremendous amount of tax for one of the best police forces in the state. If we're not safe, somebody better tell them about it. We don't need any more safety people on the streets. If you're going to have ambassadors on the street, you already have ambassadors on the street. You've got your parking authority walking up down the street all day, every day. You're doubling up on things you're already paying for. It would be great to have a government body that would see a problem and come up to a solution for that problem without creating another tax that's always the answer hell just tax them some more tax them some more let's time out on the tax let's have some creativity and fix whatever problem you think we have in downtown i'd love to know about it because i own some significant property in downtown and i'd love to fix the problems we've got if that's what we've got ladies and gentlemen thank you for your time i don't know if i'm gonna be here thursday night or not i hope not i hope i was never gonna come back in here i used to live down here back but i got to meet some very nice new council people which is fun mayor ladies and gentlemen thank you so much thanks very all right thanks so much all right and that's all signed on for uh public comments so i'll accept the motion to adjourn oh we've got a closed session sorry yep yep yep council member vice mayor k thank you mayor i move that we go into closed session pursuant to krs 61.8101f for the purpose of discussions which might lead to the appointment of an individual employee so move motion by vice mayor k and second by councilman farmer unless there's objection the council will enter closed session Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Amen. ¶¶ ¶¶ Amen. ¶¶ The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I love you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. you I'll entertain a motion to come back into open session. Second. I have a motion and a second to come back into open session. Any objection? motion to adjourn i have a motion excuse me without objection we're in open session i have a motion to adjourn and a second any objection without objection we stand adjourned thank you