# Council Work Session - May 5, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 5, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3650 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3650?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-05-05 - **Last revised**: May 5, 2015 - **Length**: 5,929 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 Council met on May 5, 2015, at 3:00 PM in the Council Chamber located at 200 E. Main St, Lexington, KY 40507, with Mayor Gray presiding. The council addressed five agenda items during the session, including public comment, requested rezonings, budget amendments, new business, and continuing business with presentations. The council took six motions and votes throughout the meeting and heard two public comments on issues on the agenda. All substantive agenda items—Requested Rezonings/Docket Approval, Budget Amendments, New Business, and Continuing Business/Presentations—were approved by the council. ## Attendance **Present:** Kay, Stinnett, Moloney, J. Brown, Akers, Gibbs, Lamb, Farmer, Evans, Scutchfield, F. Brown, Bledsoe, Henson, and Lane **Absent:** Mossotti **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions The council took six votes during this meeting, all of which passed unanimously. **Approval of the April 30, 2015 Council Meeting Docket** [timestamp: 0:00:00] Motion by Scutchfield, seconded by Bledsoe. Passed unanimously. **Budget Amendment for Reallocation of General Fund Budget** [timestamp: 0:00:00] Motion by Stinnett, seconded by Gibbs. This amendment addressed the reallocation of General Fund budget for various projects. Passed unanimously. **Approval of Budget Amendments** [timestamp: 0:03:50] Motion by Henson, seconded by Kay. Passed unanimously. **Approval of New Business** [timestamp: 0:04:51] Motion by Farmer, seconded by Kay. Passed unanimously. **Approval of Neighborhood Development Funds** [timestamp: 0:14:35] Motion by Henson, seconded by Lane. Passed unanimously. **Motion to Adjourn** [timestamp: 0:45:10] Motion by Farmer, seconded by Scutchfield. Passed unanimously. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting included authorization for two financial actions: **Neighborhood Sustainability Grant Program** The body authorized awarding funds totaling $45,488 for proposed projects under the Neighborhood Sustainability Grant program (L0482-15). These funds were designated for various neighborhood projects. **EOP Architecture Contract Modification** Authorization was granted to execute Change Order #4 with EOP Architecture (L0529-15) in the amount of $4,600. ## Public Comment Two council members provided comments during the meeting. **Council Member Farmer** [timestamp: 0:16:12] expressed concern about the council's involvement in decision-making processes. Farmer stated that the council was being left out of discussions and decisions, particularly regarding the Centerpoint issue. **Council Member Lane** [timestamp: 0:21:41] addressed the Downtown Lexington Management District, opposing the proposed new tax for the district. Lane suggested that the city fund the district from the surplus instead of implementing a new tax. ## Contested Items **Centerpoint Issue** Council Member Farmer raised concerns about the council's exclusion from discussions and decisions regarding the Centerpoint issue. Farmer expressed that the council had been left out of the process, indicating a procedural dispute over how decisions were being made and communicated to council members. **Downtown Lexington Management District** Council Member Lane opposed the proposed new tax for the Downtown Lexington Management District. Lane suggested an alternative approach, proposing that the city fund the district from the existing surplus rather than implementing a new tax on constituents. ## Public Comment - Issues on Agenda No public comments were made on issues on the agenda during this portion of the meeting. ## Requested Rezonings/Docket Approval The docket for the April 30, 2015 council meeting was approved during this agenda item. [timestamp: 00:00] Key speakers on this matter included Scutchfield and Bledsoe. The item resulted in an approved outcome. ## Budget Amendments Budget amendments were presented and approved during this portion of the meeting. [timestamp: 00:03:50] **Key Speakers** Henson and Kay led the discussion on this agenda item. **Outcome** The budget amendments were approved, with reallocations authorized for various projects. ## New Business [timestamp: 04:51] The council addressed new business items during this portion of the meeting. Key speakers Farmer and Kay presented and discussed several matters requiring approval. The new business items included various authorizations and contracts that were brought before the council for consideration. Following discussion and review, all new business items were approved. ## Continuing Business/Presentations Neighborhood development funds were presented and approved during this agenda item. [timestamp: 00:14:35] **Key Speakers** Henson and Lane led the discussion on this matter. **Outcome** The neighborhood development funds were approved. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the docket for the May 7, 2015 Council meeting - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the docket for the Thursday, May 7, 2015 Council meeting a resolution authorizing the issuance of up to $4.5 million of Educational Building Revenue Refunding Bonds to be issued by Clark County, Kentucky, the proceeds of which shall be loaned to Sayre School to finance the cost of refunding previously issued Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Educational Building Revenue Refunding and Improvement bonds. This resolution is required by the IRS Code because the Project is located in Fayette County, and the Economic Development Investment Board unanimously approved this bond issuance at its meeting earlier today. The required public hearing has already been scheduled by Council to take place at 6 p.m. on May 7, 2015 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): schedule a public hearing for the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds by Scott County for the YMCA at the Council meeting on May 28, 2015 at 6:00pm. The LFUCG is required to provide a resolution of public support because the project is in Lexington - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the docket for the May 7, 2015 Council Meeting an ordinance defining a retail e-cigarette store and exempting qualifying e-cigarette stores from enforcement of the indoor smoking ordinance - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the April 28, 2015 work session summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve budget amendments - **Motion** — passed (0-0): the list of Budget Amendments on page 3 of the Work Session packet. This budget amendment reallocates funds within the grant fund to meet the needs of the program - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve new business - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve neighborhood development funds - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the docket for the May 7, 2015 Council meeting an ordinance amending section 1 of Ordinance No. 166-2014, which amended and established the schedule of meetings for the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council for the calendar year 2015, to change the dates of the Council meetings scheduled for June 23 and June 25 to June 16 and June 18, with the first reading of the FY16 budget occurring at the council meeting on June 16 and second reading of the budget on June 18 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): enter closed session pursuant to KRS 61.810(1)(c) for the purpose of discussing potential litigation - **Motion** — passed (0-0): return from closed session - **Motion** — passed (0-0): adjourn at 5:31pm --- ## Full transcript He loves the need. Welcome to the meeting, the work session, beginning with public comment for issues on the agenda. Mr. Mundy, anybody signed up for issues on the agenda? Mr. Mundy says no, so that allows us to move on to rezonings and the docket approval. Is there a motion to approve the docket? Move approval. Second. Motion by Council Member Akers and second by Vice Mayor Kaye. Is there any discussion on the motion? I believe we do have walk-ons. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Mayor. I have a couple walk-ons for Thursday night's docket. That are a result of our jobs fund meeting earlier today, which includes two industrial revenue bonds. So the first one is I move to place on the docket for Thursday, May 7th. Councilman a resolution authorizing the issuance of up to 4.5 million of educational building revenue refunding bonds to be issued by Clark County, Kentucky, the proceeds of which shall be loaned to Sayre School to finance the cost of refunding previously issued Lexington Fed Urban County Government educational building revenue refunding and improvement bonds. This resolution is required by the IRS code because the project is located within Fed County and the Economic Development Investment Board unanimously approved this bond issuance meeting earlier today. The required public meeting has already been scheduled by the council to take place at 6 p.m. on May 7, 2015. So moved. Second. Motion by Councilmember Stenet and second by Councilmember Lane. Is there any discussion on the motion? Alright, hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. The second motion is to schedule a public hearing for another industrial revenue bond that will come to us later on this month. So I move to schedule a public hearing for the issuance of industrial revenue bonds by Scott County for the YMCA at the council meeting on May 28th at 6pm. The LFUCG is required to provide a resolution of public support because this project is in Lexington. So move. Second. Motion by Council Member Stennett and second by Council Member Scotchfield. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, then we can vote. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries thank you mayor thank you councilmember scutchfield thank you mayor i have a motion for the docket for thursday i moved to place on the docket for the may 7th 2015 council meeting an ordinance defining a retail cigarette store and exempting qualifying e-cigarette stores from enforcement of the indoor smoking ordinance second motion by councilmember scutchfield second by councilmember acres is there discussion on the motion all right if not then we can vote all in favor please say aye aye opposed no motion carries all right councilmember Massadi I'm sorry I kind of missed the trigger on that one you were quick and I wasn't quick enough I have a couple questions is it appropriate now to ask a question about that or at the time on the docket on for the for Thursday you want to do that okay okay thank you yes ma'am all right now that takes us to the approval motion if there's no further discussion all in favor of the motion to approve the docket please indicate by saying aye opposed no motion carries next is a summary approval is there a motion to approve motion by councilmember scutchfield second by councilmember acres is there any discussion on the motion all right if not then we can vote all in favor please say aye opposed no the motion carries is there a motion on budget amendments motion by councilmember stennett second by council member scutchfield is there any discussion on the motion council member Bledsoe. Thank you, Mayor. I have a motion to make an amendment to the, hold on, I have a motion for a budget amendment for the therapeutic recreation project awarded from the Kentucky Education Fund for the handicapped children in the amount of $5,000 be added to the budget amendments on page three of the work session packet. This budget amendment reallocates funds within the grant fund to meet the needs of the program more quickly. So moved. Second. Motion by Council Member Bledsoe, second by councilmember Lane is there any discussion on the motion all right if not then we can vote all in favor please say aye opposed no motion carries any further discussion on the motion all right if not then we can vote all in favor please say aye opposed no motion carries next is a new business is there a motion to approve motion by councilmember Stenet second by council for acres is there any discussion on the motion councilmember Brown thank you mayor I have a question about item C is there anybody from the administration or a representative okay Chester yes sir sam carnelli represent the applicant okay yeah i just had questions about what um what are the plans for that property included in your packet is a 2006 development plan that's actually the previous owners it's not the app it's not the current owner's plan it i'm not sure entirely why it's in the packet it's not part of our submission it was as i said a development plan from 2006. The property has since been sold to the current owner and somehow that was included in the packet but it was not submitted by the applicant and it's not our plan. All we're hoping to do is to close Ray Street, figure out the property that's there and come up with a future use for it. There isn't a current use currently set but the plan that's in the packet is not actually the applicants okay all right thank you all right so any further uh councilman massadi thank you mayor thank you mayor i have a question on d mr maxwell please on d that was sally you're going to be able to take this one Mr. Maxwell is expecting the birth of his first grandchild. Well, that takes precedence for sure. That's right. Thanks, Sally. This is just for clarification. I'm not sure what's going on here. If you could explain. That's all. Yes. The positions of, and if I misspeak, there's people who can correct me. The IT positions out in corrections, I think, have a history of sometimes they have been in IT and sometimes they were in corrections. And with the MAG study, we had suggested that they be moved to IT from corrections. So we talked to Mr. Ballard. He was in agreement with that. The chief information officer was in agreement with that. And the personnel were in agreement to move to IT. They are moving, they aren't moving out of corrections of the jail setting. Their positions are all now supervised by IT. I think this will give us an idea. They had appealed some of their positions, and I think when we have them looked at in an IT setting, we'll be able to better judge that. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Massadi. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question on item number B. Item B. Mr. Holmes is the man. Commissioner Holmes. Well, actually, Susan Pluger is coming up to the podium. This has to do with the former Jack's Creek Pike landfill, now known as the Raven Run Landfill. And I presume that this is being offered for sale, and you're trying to put notice on the public record that it was a landfill and it cannot be disturbed without approval by the Kentucky Division of Waste Management. My question on this, though, is, is it for sale, and is there a price on it, and are we advertising this? I wasn't aware that it was on the market. No, it's not for sale. This actually is part of Raven Run. And you can see from the map there, you see the parking lot down on the bottom left. That's actually the parking lot for Raven Run. It just so happens that this is the site of an old construction landfill that was in use from 1966 to 1972. It was closed at that time when the city purchased the property for the park. But it was officially closed by the state in 2013. They had some closure money from the historic landfill closure fund, so they officially closed it, and then basically it came to LFECG for inspection and maintenance going forward. So all this does is a deed notice that says there's an old landfill here. That's all that this does. We did the same thing with the old Frankfurt closed landfill in 2008. So even though, well, the way this reads, it sounded like it was on the market for sale. we're retaining the ownership of the property and we'll be managing it and it can be used as part of the park Is that the idea? Yes, it does say for any potential future owner and that's the purpose that the state puts behind it They want to make sure that anyone who does purchase any of these old landfills in the future knows what they're buying Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate that Thank you, Council Member Lane. Council Member Gibbs Thank you, Mayor. I'd like some background on Item N If the commissioner, if Commissioner Holmes could address my name. Which one? I'm sorry, which item I didn't think? M. M as in Mary. Okay. Like in Mary. It's another transfer right away. Okay. Okay. might have no um mr gibbs these are the individuals who are moving us to release this and they can speak to it we've just done the internal review of it and we don't have an objection to it but they can answer your question specifically. I'm just I'd just like a little bit of background on the project and also curious why you would want to take over the street and not just leave the street to the city to maintain and so on. I'll just let you go ahead. I'm Charles Curry, attorney. I represent National Station and Tom Jones. It's my understanding White Street has effectively been closed for years. It's not just partially paved only and mitchell barns owned all the property around it we bought all of his property and the plan is is to file a consolidation and development plan and redevelop the vacant area there's two buildings that were left standing the rest of the buildings have been demolished and the lodge cleaned effectively white street is landlocked it dead ends and it serves no one on either side Is there any sort of master plan for it, or is that just all up in the air? We will have to submit a consolidation plan and a development plan. Well, I'm excited to have something happening back there. Generally speaking, that street, as we all know, is looking better. Yeah, well, thank you. Anything else? That's good. Thank you, Captain. Well, I had a microphone. There were just one other item. I'd like to recuse myself on item A. All right, sir. Item A, that was? Item A, it's concerns the Community College and Lexington Community Radio. I have contacts with both of those. Okay. All right, that's appropriately noted then. All right, is there any further to Council Member Brown? Thank you, Mayor. Item H, Commissioner Baston? Item H. Yep. Just some information on that particular item. How much manpower does that require from our side of it, from the police force? Traditionally, we've had one person, one detective assigned to that task force. Full time, that one person? Full time. So it's not taken away from anything. And have we been doing this in the past? For a long time. We did have two people assigned to it for quite a number of years, and we reduced that five or six years ago. Well, it looked like it was very important. I wondered if, you know, you've got the one there, and it looks like if we could use more staff in there, more police officers, certainly that might be a priority. Well, that's something I'm sure that Chief Barnard will evaluate as staffing numbers would allow to do something like that. But right now it seems to be working very well. They've done some phenomenal work. They've located a lot of high-risk offenders and helped us make some cases. So it's working well the way it's staffing. Does that have anything to do with gang violence in this area at all? Typically what they're doing is picking up people that are wanted in cases. But it's a fugitive task force that they participate in. So they go around the country. They get sworn in as deputy U.S. marshals. They go to Chicago or wherever we think we have someone that's fled that's wanted in a case. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you. councilman brown all right without further discussion then we can take a vote all in favor of the motion to approve new business please indicate by saying aye opposed no motion carries next is uh continuing business is there a motion on the nds motion by councilmember stennett second by councilmember acres is there any discussion on the motion hearing none then we can vote all in favor please say aye opposed no motion carries next is council reported for the council members will please log on and call on you councilmember scutchfield thank you mayor i just wanted to take an opportunity today one of the police officers currently in the room helping us out is officer vincent mattini he is is a clear officer in the Woodhill area as well as the Eastland area. He along with other clear officers we have in Lexington are phenomenal. Working with him has been great. He has assisted my neighborhood which is at the Woodhill neighborhood just exponentially and while he's here I wanted to thank him. Thank you. Thank you Councilmember Scotchfield. Councilmember Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. I wasn't really part of some of the discussions last Tuesday when we had our meeting. And I think some council members were asking some pretty specific questions and had some concerns and interest in a topic. And I'm not going to talk about the topic. I'm going to talk about Well, I may come back to it But right now we're in the discovery phase of Where was the council? When You know, we went into a closed session on another Issue not related to the topic After having Had good council members ask a couple Of kinds of questions about the topic And when we come Out of our closed session, we're greeted by Members of your administration saying We have just sent the letter on the topic. And I just, at one point, we're a legislative body, a deliberative body, an interested body. And I just wonder, in this relative time frame or group of events, how were we left out of any part of any conversation that related to the topic? Councilmember Farmer, I guess it's best appropriate for me unless someone else would like to speak to it. But our commissioner of law is here, so she's walking out of really appropriate timing. Somebody may have to tell me what the question is. I'm sorry. Well, we're not talking about something. It's really about, it's a, the question has to do with the closed session last week and the notice that was sent regarding the center point. And there seemed to be some concern that there was not as sufficient discussion about it beforehand, I think. Is that the translation? I think you're on track. All right. And what I would say, pardon? We didn't talk about it in the public station. No. Right. What I would say is that the administration was acting responsibly and prudently in giving notice according to an agreement. and it was very fluid, and the timing of that coincided with the council meeting that very afternoon. And, Commissioner, you might want to elaborate on that, but I think that's probably the sum and substance of it. And I'll be happy to elaborate, but I'm still a little confused about, are we worried about, I guess what I would say generically is, you know, anytime the law department asks for a closed session of any kind, we always ask for permission from the council first and check out the date. And if that's, is that? You're off topic. Okay. As far as I'm concerned, and I appreciate your time and your talent completely. This just has to do with the council not being treated, in my personal opinion, with respect in relation to this issue. in that council members had questions and wanted answers and were not afforded them. We went into a closed session on another topic, on another subject, totally about council, and when we came back out, action had been taken on this subject that was not, the conversation beforehand did not belie any action. Yet when we come out from another meeting, action has taken place, and it's taken place forcefully, and it's taken place in a way that should have been part of a conversation somewhere, in my estimation, with the council. I understand. I understand your concerns, Council Member Farmer. And what I can say is that we do the best we can, and sometimes that's not adequate according to perceptions. And we still do the best that we can. I think we all do. Yes, sir. And I appreciate that. And I appreciate it sometimes doesn't work out just right. There's others with plenty to say. I'll step out for now. But thank you, sir. All right. Council Member Akers. Maybe I should come back. Does anyone else, I don't want to slow the, impede the flow of this conversation if others want to weigh in on this topic. Anybody? Councilman Brown? If you allow me to. I think the only thing. Point of order, I would say you have members that are signed up. That's on another topic, though. Sure. But they're signed up to speak. Well, I thought they were signed up to speak for a council report. Right. So that's what I'm saying is that. Oh, okay. So this, your point of order is that this would not be, I think, and that would be as the chair, chair is appropriately comments on a point of order. So I think Council Member Brown, if you want to speak to, if you'll just sign up. All right, sir. Okay. Thank you. So Council Member Massadi. unfortunately mayor i missed the meeting last week and i'll be glad to listen very quietly but intently rather but this is not about the issue at hand this was something else about council comments we can come back i can yield the floor all right council member lane thank you mayor i wanted to just make a comment on the downtown lexington management district As you know, I'm one of the, maybe the only council member that so far has not come out in support of it, or at least voted against it on a couple of occasions. And my point I wanted to bring up this afternoon, I guess, is that we're already taxed too much. And I wanted to do this. This is going to be really short, but I just want to read off a list of the taxes that apply to most of the people who live in Fayette County. There's a local real estate property tax. There's a motor vehicles watercraft tax. There's a tax on tobacco and storage, ag products and storage. Insurance companies have to pay a tax on their capital. There's a tax on the aircraft that are parked out at the airport. If you have a boat, you've got to pay for personal use, you've got to pay a tax on that. We are assessing a franchise fee on electricity, natural gas, water, and that will increase from 3% to 4% on the natural gas and electricity, and I think water rate will be going up because our franchise agreement is in negotiation there. We have a net profit tax. We have an income tax based on how much money you earn in Fayette County. And if you sell your property, there's a fee to file your deed. And when you sell your automobile, there's a sales tax on that. and there's on refuge collection, street lights, and cleaning, and we do provide services for this, but this is also a tax that goes on your home, and you have to pay it whether you use the service or not. We are taxing for soil conservation, the agricultural extension service, the Board of Health, we have a tax for that. And I support, you know, the Board of Health is important, so I'm not saying that some of these taxes aren't important. I'm just pointing out how many taxes they are, and they all are applying to the people that live in our county. Then we have the transit authority has a tax. The sanitary sewer service that we provide, there's a fee on that. There's tap-on fees for sanitary sewers. Stormwater management fee for managing stormwater. There's a water quality management fee. Those might be related. There's a landfill fee. I think that shows up on your LexServe bill of like $4.50 a month for every home. When you register your car, there's a fee for that. You register your boat, there's a fee for that. There's a school tax. Then we get to state property taxes, and there's a sales tax, state income tax. There's a gasoline and diesel fuel tax. There's a tax on alcohol and beverages, spirits and storage, tobacco products are taxed. And then we add the federal income tax on top of that. So you have your federal income tax, capital gains tax, estate tax, and your Social Security assessment. And then even when you get out to the airport, when you're trying to go out of town, there's a fee for every plane that lands there and takes off. And if you rent a car out there, you have to pay local taxes to rent the car. Now, the reason I'm bringing this up is that I am in strong favor of a cleaner, safer, and more vibrant downtown. but to me to set up another tax when we currently have between $15 and $20 million surplus in this year's budget, and it would appear to me that we could fund $350,000 to $450,000 rather than to set up a whole entity where we have to assess taxes, send out tax bills, pay the sheriff to collect the money, and then we have accounting, managing all the funds, and then you have to collect the people that don't pay. So you end up with administrative costs. Then in addition, you've got to manage the association that's going to spend the money and go out and hire people. And so a lot of the money that we're collecting may end up going into salaries for ambassadors and all that. Now, having said all that, I had a chance to meet with David Tandy, the new president of the Louisville Metro government. It was just sort of a quirky coincidence that he invited me over to visit with him. And in that meeting, I did discuss it, and he advised me that the city of Louisville, even though they're not taxed, and they do have the downtown district, management district there, that they do contribute money for all of their properties because they feel that it's not fair to charge all the private owners of the property and not for the city government to chip in to help pay for the cost. So anyway, my thought is I'd just like my council members to think about this. This is not a huge expense. We have the money available that we could budget it, And instead of putting another tax that will go on and on and on, would a council member yield some time for me to finish this? All right. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Has yielded. As I said, this is sort of a taxpayer filibuster. So my point is I just like my council, fellow council members, to think about this. Once this tax gets put on, it's going to be difficult to take it off. And as you all well know, once you have constituents and they're getting benefits from it, it's hard to get them to vote to not keep the tax in place. The other point that I would like to make, and I'm going to wrap this up, is that based on an analysis by the PVA, it appears that 61% of the property downtown is owned by private entities based on value, and 39% approximately is owned by the city, state, federal government, or schools or churches, which are all exempt from paying the tax. So it would appear that two-thirds of the downtown, or 60%, say, of the downtown property owners would pay 100% of the assessments to do the work in the downtown area. So that being said, I would just ask my council members to consider that in lieu of passing this tax, that we do support the program. We are for cleaner, safer, more vibrant downtown, but we fund it and not with a new tax. Thank you all very much. All right. Thank you, Council Member Lane. Council Member Brown. Yes. Two items. One related to Council Member Farmer on his discussion there. I think where I'm coming from is certainly this topic that we talked about at Centerpoint. A lot has taken place, and having just come on to Council on January 1st, So I'm trying to catch up to speed with what's going on there. The only thing I felt like was that I felt like the council was kind of kept out of the loop there under the situation. And as the news got reported, it seemed like that the council was the one's city government, city administration, that the council was kind of in support or had had done something. And that's the way it was reported, the perception of it, is that we had done something, whereas the council, myself, had no idea that we were going to do that. I think we look in hindsight. I think we should have discussed it on the second item. Council Member Lane, I think you've got a good idea there, and I'd like to expand on it a little bit more. Maybe somebody can give me some information. We talked about the downtown management district. Who's going to monitor that, or what's the cost to the government to do that management system? Does anybody know? Have we analyzed it? Do we need another person on staff? Are we going to take care of how it's taxed? Does anybody know? I don't think we ever discussed that. David Barbary is rising to the podium. The ordinance contemplates creating a board, and it would be self-managed. The role of the government in this would be, I think, a couple, if I remember correctly, I don't have the ordinance in front of me, but I believe there's a couple ex-officio members that are actually members of the government. I believe the mayor's on it, for instance. Otherwise, the council would play a role in the budget approval of this group on a yearly basis. every time they adopt their budget, you all be involved in that before they were legally allowed to move forward with it. Otherwise, I don't think there is a direct role of the government in managing this. The board sets it up. The board is allowed to come. I'm talking about the administration. Well, it's set up so that they're allowed to go hire the sheriff to do the collection of the assessment. So none of that would fall on the government to do that directly. So I don't know that there really would be. Okay, so it would be the sheriff's department. Right. And we're now going from a tax to an assessment. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And I'm not sure that there's a big difference there, but there is a difference in the terminology there. I've just got some second thoughts because anything like this has got to be, there has to be a cost to this. And, you know, the ideal of the downtown management district, I like that ideal. But I think maybe we ought to think outside the box instead of us voting in a new tax, that it might be just a little bit better for us to try to budget that in our regular budget. We're already doing that to some extent, but I don't have any problem with maybe this board being established and us giving us certain controls and limitations. and for $300,000, I think we're just doing a whole lot of bureaucratic involvement, whereas we could make it so simple, and I like simple government. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Brown. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to share an announcement that tomorrow night at 6 o'clock, there is going to be a public meeting for the two-way street conversion and information for the public to provide feedback and to hear from the folks who did the recent study of the two-way street conversion. That's going to be held tomorrow night, again, at 6 o'clock at the downtown library. If you read in the paper, Main and Vine will not be affected. Maxwell and High will not be affected. So discussion now is focused on Short Street, 2nd Street, North Lyme, and North Upper. And part of those include the second district. So I wanted to make sure people know. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Rakers. Councilman Massadi. Thank you, Mayor. This is just an announcement. Just wanted to let everyone know that this week is Small National Business Week. And I've got some stats here that small businesses create about two out of every three jobs in the U.S. each year. And clearly shopping and dining locally has a positive impact on our local economy. And I just want to invite everyone to shop and eat and do local things this week and help support our terrific small local businesses here in town. That's all, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Sadi. Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you, Mayor. I have a motion that's related to the calendar, and the information has been shared with the council. It would allow us to move forward on approving the budget, giving the final second reading of the budget a little bit earlier in the month of June, so that the administration would have more time to make the final payments, conversions, etc. So I move to place on the docket for the May 7th Council meeting an ordinance amending Section 1 of Ordinance No. 166-2014, which amended and established the schedule of meetings for the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council for the calendar year 2015 to change the dates of the Council meeting scheduled for June 23rd and June 25 to June 16 and June 18 with the first reading of the FY16 budget occurring at the council meeting on June 16 and the second reading of the budget on June 18. So move. Second. Motion by Vice Mayor Kaye and second by Council Member Henson. Is there any discussion on the motion? Council Member Farmer. I'm just paging forward here. You're saying June 16th and June 18th? Yes. you know um i'm sure that that's a that's a fine motion and moving up a week is fine it will i had made some plans based on it being the next week it might preclude me from being here on the 16th and the 18th because i made another plan but that's all i got to say thank you all right council member uh we have a motion and a made a motion in a second yes right any further discussion on the motion all right if not then take a vote all in favor please say aye opposed no no motion carries council member gibbs thank you mayor i just want to address the downtown management district in the comments made by uh councilman um fred brown and ed lane and i have here in front of me a list of benefits that we all get from our taxes but i decided not to read through it. I'm for that proposal. I think it'd be we've got this system all set up where a group of citizens will administer it. It'll be set for five years. We can reject it after five years if we choose. We don't have it set up in any agency of government at this point to take care of it. So I would like to leave. We had overwhelming support in the public comment section I would like to leave it as we have it now as we're going to vote on on Thursday night and I was joking about the list of governments sorry thank you yes sir thank you council member Gibbs that's all council members who've signed on for public comment that allows us to or for council report rather that allows us to move on to the mayor's report there is There's no mayor's report this week. It allows us to move to public comment for issues not on the agenda. Has anyone signed up, Mr. Mundy? And then the motion. All right. I'm going to close this immediately. I believe so. Okay. Sam Carneal has signed on. Sam. I'm with Paul. Okay. All right. Yeah. All right, sir. All right, then that allows us to move on to, we have a, Vice Mayor Kay has a motion. I move that we go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.8101C for the purpose of discussing potential litigation. Second. Motion by Vice Mayor Kay, second by Council Member Lamb. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Oh, Council Member Farmer. Is this the topic from last week that we're going to go into closed session on? I believe that the motion discusses potential litigation, and that's what we need to know in public. I'd be happy to have law correct me if I'm wrong on that. Is the question the reason for going into closed session? Essentially. Yes, it would be potential litigation. Well, I guess I may not be comfortable with the motion based on the background of what I consider to be the topic. Thank you. All right. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? No. All right. Motion carries. Thank you. Is there any discussion? All right. If not, then that motion passes. Without objection, it passes. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. There is a motion by Council Member Bledsoe, second by Council Member Scotchfield. Unless there is objection, we are adjourned.