Isn't it a mystery? If there's nobody's building It's everybody's game You gotta catch a thing Thank you. Thank you. Greetings, greetings, and welcome to the meeting of the work session of the Council. Before the formal agenda, we have two items that we need to address. One is a public hearing regarding the mayor's proposed budget. And let me read this, and then we will go into that. In compliance with the Urban County Government Charter, we are providing an opportunity for residents to make comments about the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. A summary of the mayor's proposed budget is on the table at the back of the room. So I suspect that this may be why some of you, I suspect that some of you all are here for this. So we welcome you in the spirit of the full and transparent democratic process. Thank you for joining us. I will declare that the public hearing is now in session and ask for comments from the public. So if you have, Mr. Mundy, have folks signed up? Have folks signed up, Mr. Mundy? Do we have that? All right, sir. Thank you. We have the list. Thank you very much. All right. I suspect that there may be some more. I know that they're here. Lindy? I think there's some confusion because there's a sign-up for the work session as well as a sign-up for the mayor's budget. All right. Most folks here represent organizations that... I want to speak to the budget. Why don't we do that? Because we are at the point in the process that we do want to take your comments now. All right. And I believe... Now, I do have Neil Chattuck. Neil, you're here. Good. Thank you, sir. Why don't we just then go ahead while others are signing on. I'll ask Neil to speak. representing the Carnegie Center. Thank you, Mr. Chetik. Thank you, Director. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Vice Mayor and Council Members. My name is Neil Chetik, and I'm the Executive Director of the Carnegie Center. And first, I want to thank you for your service. I saw your list of meetings for the next few weeks as you're getting the budget together, and it sounds like your spring is going to be spent indoors. I also wanted to thank you for 23 years of support of the Carnegie Center. Some of you may not know, but the council created the Carnegie Center in 1992 to handle and address the literacy and education challenges that are in the city. And then from 92 to 2003, the council funded it completely. Starting in 2003, they began to wean us off of the city funding, and we were completely off around 2010, at which point we began applying for social services through the agency. And we were very warmly greeted in 2012, 12, 13, and 14. We had increasing numbers, and we were able to grow our tutoring program, which is our signature program, from 125 students up to 200 students. That's 75 kids who will get one-on-one tutoring for free every week through the whole school year. This year, the council had given us the money to get us from $125 up to $200. We asked for an increase beyond that because our waiting lists are massive, and we not only did not get anything further, but we had all of our funding from the city cut. So we are in a position where we have the full infrastructure to help 200-plus children who need one-on-one tutoring, and we don't have the money to pay for the three-part-timers that need to do that job. I hope, I do understand that the process is important, and this is a difficult process, but I hope that at this point in the process that people start to come to the surface, and we start to look at what's happening in our community where we have a God's pantry, and we have a Salvation Army and we have a Carnegie Center, and all of us are completely ready to do the work, and all we need is some funding. And in some cases, in our case, you created the infrastructure that is allowing us to do this work right now. So we just ask that you consider in the next few weeks as you look at the budget, consider some of the organizations that did not get funded, and that when I looked at it and saw there appears to be about $1.8 million that was not funded. If we funded every one of those last 20 at 45%, which is the lowest amount, it would cost an additional $850,000. So for $850,000, you could fund the other 20 organizations that want to do social services in this community. Thank you. Thank you, Neil. Thanks so much. And I have three who have signed up in addition, Lindy Carnes and Marion Gwynn and Harvey Wilkinson. Maybe there are others, but those are the ones that I have. Is that right? All right. So, Lindy? Mayor and Council, thank you so much for this opportunity to speak with you all today. You know, as I have had an opportunity to chat with people over the last few days, several people have said, well, it's the process. And, you know, I know a lot of people worked really hard on that process and attempted to be fair. And as I say to my clients as a tax accountant, I have to say this a lot, fair happens once a year at the county seat. And I guess you're it. So I appreciate your attempt to be fair. I would also say that when I was in the fourth grade, my mother took me to the Groton, Connecticut town council meeting and said, for the rest of your life, you will know that really this is where it happens. If you are a citizen in a community and you want to talk about something that's important to you, you have this opportunity, and it is the only place that you will have this opportunity. So I'm here today to talk to you about the Salvation Army. To me, the process is not over because this is part of the process, an appeal and an opportunity to talk to your council people is part of the process by which agencies are funded, by which decisions are made. The Salvation Army has been in this community for 125 years. We provide services to homeless women and children. Last year we housed almost 1,800 people, and we also provided there's a health care clinic there that's free to the public. We provided child care for people's children while they worked and looked for employment, trained. We provided after school programming for their children. We also have a program called our transitional program, which is a dedicated 15 beds for typically older women. women like myself sadly I don't know how that happened but who perhaps did physical labor in their life and no longer can do that or who were referred to us by adult protective services because their families were taking their checks and not taking care of their needs or people who come to us from the council on aging their opportunities for employment are limited their opportunity for additional services in the community are also limited because they're not veterans, they don't have children, they're not drug abusers or addicts. They are simply garden variety homeless people. And those women typically take three to four months for us to stabilize them and to get them into a stable housing situation. Some of them owe money to the housing authority and they have to save up and pay that back. Some of them are waiting for elderly housing here in the community all of which has a waiting list but that is what we do and we have been doing it for a long time so how why am I here I am here because for some reason and it may have been inadvertent we are ending up with about a third less funding than we had in last year and part of that is because of the bifurcation of the process between homeless dollars and social service dollars. And I'm probably not using the correct terms, but those are basically the buckets from which the money comes. Our transitional housing is in the social service bucket. Lindy, excuse me just a second. I know that the council will want to give you some more time. We do have a protocol that has a limitation of three minutes, so I'll take a motion from a council member to extend your time. I so move. Second. A motion by Council Member Lamb and second by Council Member Massadi, unless there's objection. Another three minutes. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. So when that bucket got bifurcated, somehow the transitional housing beds were not funded, and somehow some of the youth development services were not funded, and somehow we got a little bit less from the housing piece, although, again, in total, we lost a third of the dollars that we had from the city. We think the city is our partner. We think we are providing a service that no one else provides. It's not like if we don't do this, the homeless shelter down the street is going to, because there isn't one. Most of the women that are in the transitional housing will not reappear. They are not chronically homeless. They are not people who are historically in and out of the shelter. Once they get stabilized, we have a very low recidivism rate with those women. So what is the solution? You know, the Salvation Army provides $4 for every dollar that you all provide. We think we leverage and steward your gifts well. We hope that you will be able to reconsider the allocation of dollars. We are not suggesting that any other agency is unworthy or any other agency didn't deserve the money they got. We simply believe that the housing of homeless women and children is a basic essential service that government should support. and that no matter what else happens, no community wants homeless women or homeless women and children huddled near the library, in the park, in their cars, in this community. I'm certain that no one wants that. And whether or not you all will be able to find the money to fill that bucket for us, we are not asking for any money in addition to prior years. We would simply like to stay at a status quo. I don't even really know public finance well enough to know how that would happen. But I do thank you for your time and listening. And if you have any questions, I know there's a lot of rumors, a lot of stories, a lot of anxiety and emotion that go with these types of issues because we feel passionately about our causes. So thank you so much again for your time. Thank you so much, Lindy. And next is Marion Gwynn. Marion? Yeah. Good afternoon, and thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak and represent the organization for which I am the CEO, God's Pantry Food Bank. I'd like to express my concern today regarding the lack of funding for God's Pantry Food Bank's Fayette County Pantry Program in the recommendations made by the ESR Grant Program Award for FY16 and 17. Food insecurity in Lexington is currently at 16.6%, which translates into approximately 51,000 people in this city, in this county, who routinely do not have enough resources to meet all of their needs for nutrition. To address this need, God's Pantry Food Bank has been active in this community for 60 years. We currently provide about a week's supply of groceries to more than 2,300 households, which translates into approximately 6,000 people every month. Over the last seven years, this program and demands for its services have grown approximately 10% each year. In 2007, we were serving an average of 1,170 households per month. Now we're serving an average of 2,300 households per month. Highly collaborative, we receive referrals for this program from approximately 200 different Fayette County entities, including other human service agencies, churches, doctor's offices, and schools. And each of our four pantries are located within buildings owned and operated by other entities, whether they're churches or the community action. With careful attention to operating costs and support from host agencies, the food industry, and the USDA, we're able to keep costs very low and turn every dollar that's contributed to God's Pantry Food Bank into $10 worth of food to an individual in need. With funding from LFUCG the past two years, we've been able to keep pace with increased demand. We're concerned that without funding for the next two years, we will not be able to meet the needs presented to us. On behalf of God's Pantry Food Bank, I asked the council to add funding to support the Fayette County Pantry Program, at least at the 2015 level of $137,186. Losing this funding jeopardizes 1.3 million meals for food insecure Lexingtonians over the next two years. Thank you. Thank you, Marion. And Harvey Wilkinson. Harvey, thanks for joining us. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and distinguished members of the council. My name is Harvey Wilkinson. I'm currently the chairman of the board of God's Pantry Food Bank. First of all, I want to tell you how much I as a citizen appreciate what you all do. You put in countless hours to do the good work of our community, and we really do appreciate it. And I just want to tell you that right off the bat. Thank you for your service. You heard from Marion the facts and the details, and I won't go over that again. I'll be respectful of your time today. But I just wanted to tell you that we've been watching this recovery from the recession carefully at God's Pantry Food Bank. And it's been a very uneven recovery, quite frankly. We started the official recovery around mid-2010. we were out of the recession and moving forward. But there are a whole lot of our neighbors that were left behind. A lot of our neighbors. And God's Pantry Food Bank is really the ultimate safety net for so many of our neighbors. And when I say neighbors, every zip code in Fayette County has people that are impacted by God's Pantry Food Bank. And so I would ask that you all look for ways, be creative to try to restore some of that funding that we lost so we can help out our neighbors who really have serious nutritional needs that aren't being met any other way except through these services. And again, the last thing we want to do is pit any of these agencies against one another. They're all very worthy agencies. They do a great amount of good for our community, but we do want to respectfully ask that you all look at reinstating some of our requests. There are a lot of our neighbors that will go hungry if we don't. Thank you all. Harvey, thank you. That's all I have to have signed on to speak to the proposed budget. does anyone else wish to speak that maybe didn't sign on Mr. Mundy did anyone all right all right then we especially want to thank you all for coming today that allows me to declare that the public hearing regarding the proposed budget is now closed and again want to thank you all for joining us today next on our agenda is a statement concerning the municipal aid program this is also required and we will have a public hearing regarding the municipal municipal aid program if you'll just bear with me i need to read this today we are holding a public hearing on the proposed fiscal year 2016 municipal aid program budget as required by krs 174.100 the hearing will include all proposed budgets for fiscal year 2016. Municipal aid program is estimated to have $11,966,550 available during fiscal year 2016. These funds may be used for supervising, inspecting, building, and all expenditures incidental to the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of a road or street, including planning, locating, surveying and mapping, or preparing roadway plans, acquisition of rights of way, relocation of utilities, lighting, and the elimination of other hazards. During the hearing, any person may speak with regard to any project which he or she feels should be built or done which has not been proposed, priorities for completion of projects, and any other matter related to road or bridge projects. The Urban County Council shall not be bound by the testimony heard at the hearing, but shall give due consideration to it. Proposed eligible projects for the fiscal year 2016 municipal aid program include, one, annual street resurfacing, two, eligible labor costs in the Division of Streets and Roads, three, debt service for resurfacing bonds, four, major road improvements, five, eligible labor costs in the Division of Engineering, six, the pavement management program, seven, grant match for eligible federal grants, and eight, traffic signal equipment. I'm almost finished. A representative from the Department of Planning, Preservation, and Development is here to answer any questions the council or public may have. All right, so now I will declare that the public hearing on the municipal aid program is now in session. Are there any comments from the public? All right. If not, are there any comments from the council? All right. Then if not, the public hearing is now closed. Thank you all for that. And next on our agenda is we're now going into our routine agenda. So, again, if anyone who is joining us today wishes to stay, of course, we invite you to stay. if you feel like you've been here for the business that you needed to, then you're welcome to take an exit as well. So thank you all very much. All right. Next on our agenda is rezoning and docket approvals. Is there a motion to approve the docket? Motion by Council Member Scutchfield. Is there a second? Second. Second by Council Member Farmer. Is there any discussion on the motion? I do believe we have a couple of walk-ons. So, Council Member Stennett? Thank you, Mayor. I move to placing the docket for the Thursday, May 28th Council meeting, a resolution authorizing the issuance of up to $19 million of tax-exempt bonds to be issued by Scott County, Kentucky. The proceeds shall be loaned to the YMCA of Central Kentucky, who finance the cost of a new YMCA facility at Hamburg Place and renovate and expand the existing YMCA North facility. approximately three million dollars of the proceeds will be used to refund outstanding bonds which were issued by LFUCG for the benefit of the YMCA in 1999 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 as mean on May 5th the required public hearing has already been scheduled by the council to take place 6 p.m. on June 11th so moved Thank you, Council Member Stenet. Motion by Council Member Stenet and second by Council Member Henson. Is there any 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. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Stenet. Next, Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on the docket under first reading of resolutions a resolution supporting implementation of the findings and recommendations contained in the first sales row corridor study and encouraging future state funding for this project. So moved. Second. Motion by Council Member Henson. And was that a second by Council Member Scotchfield? All right. Second by Council Member Scotchfield. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Henson and Councilmember Farmers next. Thank you, Mayor. Mine is a walk-on that has to do with Town Branch Commons project. I move to place on the docket for the May 28th Council meeting a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute and submit a grant application to the U.S. Department of Transportation and to provide any additional information requested in connection with the grant application, which funds are in the amount of $13,180,620 in federal funds for the Town Branch Commons Corridor Project. So moved. Second. Motion by Council Member Farmers, seconded by Council Member Akers. 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. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Mayor. I have a walk-on as well. I move to place on the docket for the May 28th Council meeting a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute a change order 1 to the contract with Randall Davies Construction Company, LLC, for tennis court repurposing at Kirk Levington Park, increasing the contract price by the sum of $31,483.33 from $49,880 to $81,363.33. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Lamb. Motion by Council Member Lamb. Is there a second? Second. Second by Council Member Farmer. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right, hearing none, then we can vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right, looks like that's all the walk-ons that we have now that allows us to vote on the original motion to approve the docket. All in favor of the motion to approve, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Allows us to move on to the summary. Is there a motion to approve? Approved. Second. Motion by Council Member Henson, second by Council Member Farmer to approve. Is there any discussion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next is on our agenda, budget amendments. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Motion by Council Member Farmer, second by Council Member Akers. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. If not, then we can vote. All in favor, please say aye. Oh, I'm sorry. Forgive me. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Mayor. You're getting quick on your draw there. This has to do with Journal 86539, where code enforcement is going to have mobile access. I've got a couple questions. I want to know if this is going to take care of all of the mobile access for all code enforcement officers, or is this just a beginning? Mr. Hollinger is walking to the podium. Thank you, Jonathan. This is a database for all of the officers, both housing and nuisance. So we already have the iPads for all of the officers. In the next year's budget, we have requested funding for the data plan so they can have data in the field. And this will be the final piece, which is the database, that they will store all that information in. Awesome. And then one other question. The $25,000, does that leave any amount in the nuisance abatement fund, or does that deplete it? There should be some remaining funds in there. Right now, code enforcement's on a big push to do some cleanup. Obviously, the spring is where a lot of their abatement money is spent. So we're trying to figure out just how much was spent on that abatement in the spring. They're doing a push in the central sector to clean up some alleys before the end of this fiscal year. So we anticipate there will be money left after that and this budget amendment. Okay. All right. Thank you. And I have one other question on Journal 86543. It has to do with it's providing funds for the Lexical phone system by decreasing the funds remaining from Berry Hill Trail Project. Is this project, is it complete, or does this, I mean, impact? it looks like uh commissioner reed is coming to the podium for this is money that's left over from from that project excess that uh we were looking for money to complete the lex call system and that money was available and was sent all right so it directed to that okay cool so it's not I'm gonna it's it's a positive thing great thanks thank you mayor yes ma'am thank you councilmember stennett thank you Mary the question on the last page of budget amendments number 86 763-64 from the vision of engineering in regards to our sewer construction fund so it looks like Brad is Mr. Brad Frazier thank you sir if you can help with that one did you get it my question is you know which one I'm talking about the Starshoot Liberty Road project yes sir I do we moved the sewer line to build Liberty Elementary so we're just now getting this money back from the state we're just now getting that money back yes sir wow so as far as trying to provide a timeline to that I'm not exactly sure since it was a couple years ago but we can go ahead and provide a summary to council and everything. It's about five. Yeah. So my question is, though, we used sewer money to move the line at the time? I guess. And I apologize. I'm not sure. I believe we did. So it's a reimbursement. As I recall, I think this was all tied to the bridge project that happened through here. And it required a relocate of that line. But my question is, if we use sewer money, which is dedicated revenue, this should go back to the sewer fund. Is it going back to the sewer fund? It should. Because here it says to provide for street construction. I think it had to return back to the sewer fund. I would too, but how can we verify that today? Otherwise, we can hold it and bring it back later. We can do that and that'll be fine. Do you think we can get answered today or do you want me to wait until next Tuesday? Probably next Tuesday. It'll be alright unless Commissioner O'Meara can answer. Thank you. He might have something to say. Budgeting assures me it's going back into the sewer fund. So what road projects or street construction, do we know what that answer is? I can't explain the wording, but I can tell you that it's going back into the sewer fund. Okay. So the next, can we get an answer on what project it's going to be used? That's, you know, $250,000 almost. For street construction, I'm just curious about what street. Council member, I'll tell you at this point, as far as this quarter of a million dollars being allotted to do road construction, I can tell you right now that I'm unaware that that is going to be dedicated for that function. Yeah, I'm just curious if maybe it was a typo or. It probably is because I can tell you as far as what we have outlined and what we're doing, that is not going to be used to go ahead and do for a road component. Okay, if we can find that out, I'll let it go today. If we can just find out where it's going to be used within sanitary sewers, it'd be great. I will let everybody know. They may have a project they need to redo paving on or something. But I will pass it along to everybody. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Stenet. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. Mine is just a comment and a compliment. It's the journal entry that's at the top of page four to provide funds for the Corridor's Beautification Green-Up Project via Keyplex and Beautiful Commission by recognizing a donation from Quantrell Auto Group. And this is one of those where we're going to be ready for Breeders' Cup. And we've asked folks in the business community to help us, and others may have come through. This is the first one I have seen, and I appreciate the Quantrill Auto Group giving us $12,500 to make Lexington look better for the coming Breeders' Cup. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Mayor. This is back on 86539 on code enforcement. Oh, which one is that? What page is that? Page three. It's page three. Page three. Two questions. First, since this is a public record, will this database be accessible to the public? Yes. We anticipate that we will be collecting a lot more information and a lot better information about our code enforcement cases, and that information will be available to the public and to council members, obviously, as well. We will have to have some discussion about some of those items. I'm not sure that, for example, photographs of private property will be available to the public, but status updates about the current status of the case violations, things of that nature, will be available. And you partly answered my second question, and that was to be about training that's going to be provided because the present record-keeping is sometimes not complete. It's very hard to determine when you look at a file what's really happened. So I'm hoping that you'll have a more complete format for people to fill out and training for the people who are investigating so that someone who does look at the file can figure out what's actually happened. And this software is really designed at using the software itself to drive that consistency. So the fields will be required. So every time an inspector goes to visit a property, they'll be required to type in that same information. It'll be intuitive. It will be just the way you would expect to have code enforcement data. There's cases, there's inspections, there's violations, and all that will be laid out in a way that's accessible both internally for their internal process and externally so your average citizen who is not a code enforcement officer can understand that as well. And the timing for implementation? We, these licenses for this particular software are actually on a state contract, so we're actually able to fairly rapidly procure those licenses. We're looking to do that in mid-June and start the configuration of that software and we hope to have it out for testing in the fall. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question on journal entry 86638 in the Division of Community Corrections. This is a request to provide funding for hazardous duty overtime. It says by decreasing various operating accounts. I'm just curious, is this a cleanup of the entire fiscal year, or is this just recently needs to be adjusted? Good afternoon. Obviously, we identified this problem early on in our budget meetings with Commissioner O'Meara back in September and October. I grew up, and my business model is that I learned to live within my means. So starting last September and October, if staff wanted four items, I bought three. If things wore out, we waited until it was not repairable, and we fixed it to save money, because we knew the short come was coming. Today, I'm 43 officers short. I've averaged over 20 officers short for the last 11 months. At an entry-level salary, that's $565,000 a year is what I've been sure. So it drives my overtime budget. Other operating expenses I was able to save. In the beginning of the budget, last year we predicted doing X number of business drug tests with the family courts and probation and parole. The state of Kentucky chose to use their private vendor that they had subcontracted for all 120 counties, reduced my expenses and that 74,000 that was in that line to buy drug testing reagents were no longer needed we moved that money so we've been due diligent in trying to manage our budget within our own means okay thank you thank you mayor thank you councilman Rakers thank you director Ballard thank you that Pierce any other question any other comments or just in discussion on the motion all right if not then we can take a vote all in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye opposed no motion carries next on our agenda is new business motion by councilmember Farmer to approve second by councilmember councilor Massati I was a do it between vice mayor Kay and councilmember Massati is there any discussion on the motion All right. We're now talking about new business. Yeah. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. A couple things. One on item H. This is the grant we received from the Kentucky Division of Emergency Management. I want to thank our Stormwater folks who are here, Greg Luback, the manager. They've been trying to get this grant for a number of years, and it finally came through, and their persistency paid off. So the folks over in the Eastland area will be offered a lot of assistance going forward. So thank you for doing that, Greg. We appreciate all your hard work back there. And then I need to recuse on item O. Mayor, I just want to put that in there for the record. That's my neighborhood, so I need to recuse from that grant and had no involvement in it. And then on item BB, this is our vaccination agreement with Kroger. Is it cheaper to go to Kroger and pay them $21 than to administer these at our health clinic, or are we just doing this for convenience sake? I'm just curious, do we have records on how many people actually go to Kroger that work here to get their vaccinations? Yeah, it's actually cheaper and it's more convenient. It's cheaper to go to a third party than to offer it at our own clinic? That's correct. Interesting. Okay. Just had to ask. And then, let's see. Last is on item GG. I'm sorry, Council Member. GG. GG. Yes. GG. Got a long list today. Yes, sir. This is the Tex Creek Road sidewalk project. This is a change order as well as I.I. is a change order as well for the Southland Drive bike lane. Where's the extra money coming from for both of these? It says it's budgeted, but the original budgets were a lot lower. So where are we pulling the funds for these, for the changes? On the Tates Creek project, actually we had $90,000 in the grant, so we used the leftover grant money. Leftover grant money for that project specifically? For that project, yes. So this is going to use how much of a $50,000? So where is the other $40,000 going to go? No, there's that much money left in the grant to use. The $50,000 is? Yes. That's the exact amount left? Yeah, we're not using any. So the change order just equaled what we had in the grant? Pretty much. Okay. I like that math. And what about II? That's the Southern Drive. It's about $131,000 change order. On II, we'll have to take it out of our FY15 budget. So it's coming out of your operating budget? No, it's going to have to come out of our capital improvement budget. That's where that will have to be funded from our projects. Yes, sir. I know it's a good project. Great turnout for it. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Mayor. I have several questions. The first is on item D on page, well, I don't know what page it is. it's to do with the new LexCol 311 phone system I don't know who would be let's see is there someone here so Sally you oh Aldona great I'm just curious if is this going to take care of the immediate and future needs for the LexCol phone system when they move out to the PSOC it can but it's certainly going to take care of the immediate needs As you know, the phone system in 311 is tied to our system. So if we have an issue with one, they have an issue. If they have an issue, we have an issue. Consequently, we would like to untie that dependency. This will do it. If the PSOC finds that they need a system other than what we're implementing for them, this system can be configured to several other departments. And by the way, we have several that are in need. Cool. Awesome. Thank you. I appreciate that information. Then I will go over to item CC. And I just have a question. I thought that I had a conversation that we were giving a 3% raise with 3% structure movement. And I'm just curious if with only a 2% structure, does that mean that some will not get an increase? because if you move the structure 2% and if somebody's topped out, then they won't get that extra percent. And I was just wanting clarification on that, please. That's correct. If we give a 3% across the board and we move the structure 2%, then those who are at the very top of the range would get a 2% increase instead of a 3% increase. okay by ordinance um currently the way the ordinance is written um can it go above the range right right okay and then one other question i was trying to make sure that i read this correctly but it doesn't clarify non-sworn i'm sorry do you need to correct something um tammy's we did notate did we get it in the um oh it's in this ordinance okay it's in the ordinance that we are giving a 3% no matter what. I wasn't sure that was passed. I thought that's what I had been told, but I wanted to clarify because as reading this, it doesn't read that way. So, you know, I just wanted to be known that everybody's getting a 3%. The other thing is it doesn't clarify non-sworn. It just says, so I was just curious, it just talks about permanent employees, full-time and part-time. So is this just non-sworn, or is it for? It's all classified and unclassified civil service employees. There are some exceptions that are part-time and seasonal. Okay. Okay. So it is not the sworn? It's not sworn. Not intended for the sworn? Correct. Employees. All right. Thank you. The other, the next questions I have, and I know I'm running out of time, but if they're items k m and ff um i've been waiting for reclassifications to resurface as i have tried to keep up with the everything and i have done some homework and prior to today i actually have gone through the there is a new reclass a new classification and compensation policy and procedures that apparently the council, former council, has approved as of the MAG study. And it explains that for reclassifications that there is a difference in the process that you get an increase of 7% for one grade higher than when you're being reclassed to one grade higher. You get an additional increase of 3% if you go two grades or higher. So that's 10%. And then for each additional grade after that, it's 2%. If I do my math correctly, then I have a problem with the increase on item K and M, one of the positions on M, because they don't follow this policy. And I guess I just would like to know clarification on that, please. Okay, if I can address K especially. Yes, ma'am. It's an unclassified position, and those do not follow in those same percentages. But let me, if I can, address Kay itself. Kay is something that I went to the governor about, and I'm going to use names, the governor, I'm so used to doing, that I went to the mayor about. And I went to the mayor, and I said that I did not feel that Jamie Emmons, who we're talking about in Kay, was compensated correctly. And I said it made me uncomfortable, and it made several other people uncomfortable. And why I said it made me uncomfortable is because Jamie and I work as a team, and we do just most everything together. I make considerably more than Jamie. If I look at the top commissioner, that top commissioner makes 35% more than Jamie. I told him that I felt that this was not appropriate and we needed to do something about it. It was my idea that started this whole thing. Now, what Jamie did when I told him this and when I told the mayor this, Jamie said, I have to look at my own group, my own mayor's office to see if everything is correct. So he did that. And that is what has caused this string of raises that you have seen and that we have talked about. My indication was the last one we do was the first one because my concentration was on Jamie. And because I felt and I still feel very strongly that his salary is not fair. It is there is no way that I should make 25 percent more than Jamie. And just as a parting remark, I mean, he's got a heck of a job. No offense, sir. But, I mean, you know, it's a very, very difficult job. And that's what this was really my idea. I went to the mayor about this one. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Hamilton. I guess we haven't had a lot of reclassifications for a lot of years. I think that process has been put on hold for a long time. And I know that at one point when we did reclasses, that they would, oftentimes they would trigger inequities in the government. And I'm curious as to what we're going to do if we start allowing reclassifications again about further inequities in our government. I do have serious concerns with that. I realize that when people do a good job, they need to be paid. I will be the first one to say that's great. But when we're dealing with 3,000 employees and the process is different for some than others, then I think that we're setting a precedent that is going to be very, it's concerning to me. So, and I guess my time is over, so I guess I will concede. was going to say if you wanted if if a council member wishes to to yield some time or to give more time then we're happy to do that council member lamb if any council member all right council member massadi thank you is there a motion to a motion to yield to give more time or year all right all right thank motion is there a second second by vice mayor k unless there's objection go Go ahead. Thank you. Well, so I guess that Ms. Hamilton's response about the unclassified, that would also refer to item M because those are unclassified. One of them is getting a 10% increase and the other is getting a 13% increase. I think that my other concerns revolve around what I was saying during the Committee of the Whole earlier. I know that there were people that didn't fill out the job analysis questionnaire, i.e. JAQ, and those that did not fill out their JAQ now are coming forward with concerns, and now they're being reclassed. Again, I think this sets a bad precedent, and it is concerning, and I just hope that when we start seeing these reclasses come through on work session agendas, that this government is prepared to be fair and equitable as we handle all of them across the board. because it is not fair and equitable to give some 26% and some 3%. So I just hope that we really, really look at this. And I guess the job rank and factor comparison methods, I know Ms. Walters and I had a conversation about this, and I know that you all, I believe it's correct to say, that you all took the information from the mag study and that's how you have the new whole job rank and factor comparison methods now so so that will be used across the board for everybody i'm assuming so um i just think we need to look at this really hard so and that's about what i have to say thank you very much thank you councilmember lamb councilmember brown thank you mayor uh item q You and V have the same question. I guess my question there, and you may have answered it before, you've got a budget amendment is in process. Can somebody follow up on that? Councilman Brown, you're talking about Q now, right? I'm talking about all three of them. Oh, Q and? The statement is that there is a budget amendment in process. And I'm just wondering, I mean, we're voting these new items. I think I had asked this question before, but I'm still not sure of a good answer. These are grants for fiscal year 16. So by saying the budget amendment is in process, you'll actually get it, those first two meetings in July. So shouldn't this be recorded a little different, or the language? Well, we've written the memo. And you're asking us to vote on this, but it's still, the budget amendment has not been voted on. Well, a couple years ago, we stopped connecting our budget amendments to this action. We separated them. The budget amendments are entirely separate from the resolution to accept the award. Accepting the award. Do you even need that language, a budget amendment is in process, to accept the award? We think we do. It's for information. But they're separate actions now. Okay, just technical. Item BB, authorization to execute agreement. I think Council Member Stenet had mentioned something there. the problem I have with that is that I think this type of contract or arrangement or whatever I think we should go to our own agencies within city government and I think certainly the health department I don't know if they bid on it or how this was how it came about but I would think we would be supportive of our own health department health clinics within this urban county government over an outside party. Now, that's the way I view the two. Is that, was that thinking, did you use that logic at all? Well, we did run a process on that, so there was a bidding process, and they won the bid. Well. Because it demands over $20,000, so we were. I understand the bidding process, but I don't even know why you'd bid that out. I think it should automatically go through one of our own agencies and facilities because we're supporting them with tax dollars. We used to allocate actually out of the general fund for the health department years ago, but they are part of the urban county government as far as I'm concerned. But anyway, I just state that. I know if you bid it out, you bid it out. Yeah, they did an RFP process on it. Yeah. Okay. Well, I just wanted to let you know, to vent my idea on it. CC, I guess the question on that, when you was looking at this 3% adjusting the salary schedules by 2% effective June 29th, and I might be dealing with a minor issue here, Are we giving raises or increases for two days into the new fiscal year? Are we paying people the 29th and the 30th for salary increases for the fiscal year ending 17? Yes, we are paying them starting June 29th because that's the beginning of a pay period. I understand that. I figured that's why you were doing it, but I didn't know what the legal technicality was. Out in the private sector, when you get increases, they're effective a certain day. And in this particular instance, I thought it was effective July 1st if we passed the budget. We haven't even passed the budget yet. So these people are getting the increase, the 3% increase for two days. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. That's it, Mayor. Thank you. okay thank you councilmember Brown councilmember Bledsoe thank you mayor I council member Senate asked several of my questions already so I won't go back but I do want to ask maybe Commissioner Paulson to speak on the south and bike lanes where exactly are you doing the additional paving and leveling and wedging or if Brian speak to that councilmember forgive me we don't want Derek to talk about this at all so That's fine. I'll pay for that later, too. To answer your question, to give you a breakdown, Southland Drive was a little unique once we started the construction. Typically, we like to work within a box area from curb to curb. We didn't have that. We had open ditches. And so as we began digging, if you will, it got to be real difficult, and we found a bunch of base failures. And I hope you're able to see this. What we have is the plan view. The one on top starts from Rosemont Garden. No, other way. Sorry, folks. Anyway, we had base failures at the Rosemont Garden intersection and Southland Drive. It was a massive base failure. And then as you can see throughout the project, as we were doing the construction, we encountered more base failures. And so I just want to give you a graphic representation of what it was that we had to deal with right there on the spot. And since we were putting forth this effort and this endeavor, we wanted to do it correctly, and so we had to treat them. That represents 51% of this change order as far as the asphalt and the DGA component of it. Another high percentage also applied to the addition of adding a level wedge section across the roadway because the other thing we discovered was that the road is incredibly flat, and so going to that 42-foot width, we made it even flatter. With the overlay, they're just wanting enough height to go ahead and let us really make sure we get the water off the road. Again, it's not a curb section. It's an open-ditch section. So we had to go ahead and bump it up a little bit more to make sure it can cross that additional footage Great, I want to do it right. We're spending a lot of money in the area. So I appreciate that. Yes, ma'am Thank you councilmember Bledsoe councilmember Evans Couple of issues first of all, I'll need to recuse on letter I and Then letter J I guess this would be for Commissioner Holmes regarding the U.S. Geological Survey, the agreement. I'm just curious about that more than anything. Is it a full survey of Fayette County? And then what's the end product of that? Or is there an end product? Uh-oh. good afternoon what was what was the question again please i'm just curious more than anything what what the end product of that is um and then are they is it a survey of the entire entire Fayette County and then what how is whatever they're doing being used and no it's it's a system of 12 precipitation and stream gauges that we have throughout the county there's one on top of this building a rain gauge and basically it transmits data via satellite to the USGS every five minutes and we basically get it in real time over the internet so we can see how much rain is falling and what the streams are doing in response to that rain Okay. Okay, so I guess that was my question. What is it really used for and how is it? Part of it we're using on the town branch hydrology and hydraulics study. They're using the gauge out at Yarnleton Road. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. And then I had an item. Let's see. I believe it was. I think letter T I just wondered if that was a continuation of position that we already have that would be Irene that one I think Irene is can help us with thank you Irene You understood that was item T, Irene. Yes, this is an additional nurse. Okay. We have nurses under contract, and this is an additional one. Okay, an additional nurse. Same nurse? I mean, do we have more than one? I guess that's my question. Yes, we have six or seven under contract. They're under contract, and they come out as they're called, as is necessary. so it's just adding a new an additional one yes okay thank you welcome that is okay thank you thank you councilmember evans councilmember sadi thank you mayor um i have a question couple of questions one on dd commissioner reed if you don't mind. How are you? Good. Looking at this, just my thought is, because we're going to have the master plan done for the entire park system, is this, and we're going to do, and we've got the process already started for the pools, wouldn't it maybe behoove us to look at the whole master plan park process first before we engage someone in the pools? Well, I think the thinking was let's address the issues around our aquatics program and then let the overall master plan focus in on issues other than aquatics. Just the general usage of the parks, what we're going to do, where we're going, do we have too many, where do we need to have more? I think it was the timing issue, I think we've learned a lot in how to do the master plan by this exercise with the aquatics plan. And I think the information we're going to get back will dovetail nicely into the plan. But, you know, your point is legitimate. But because the council funded the aquatics plan first, we move forward with it. And I think we'll get some very useful information. I was just thinking that they came back and said, you know, I'm not sure this pool is necessary or something like that in the larger plan, if that would be an issue. Well, I think if there are findings that come out of the aquatics plan that are of interest or create some conversation that the master plan, the timing of it coming on afterwards, we could have a second look at those findings. But the bigger issues are going to be the indoor pool issue. We're also going to be looking at the issues. Do we do splash pads rather than pools? Do we need the pools we have? And I think getting that done over the summer is going to be very useful. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Hamilton, if you wouldn't mind coming up to the podium, please. in reference to item k council member lamb was talking to you about salaries and i will tell you you're a great advocate for everyone else except for yourself i know what you make and i know you're at the bottom of the page scale of all the commissioners are pretty near the bottom and i certainly would hope that someone would take recognition of what your abilities are i mean Basically, you run this ship, and without you being here, and I don't mean to be ugly or disrespectful, Mayor, but she's the glue here, and I think we all recognize that. So I certainly would hope that not only I recognize it, but I think the rest of the council members recognize it. And when it comes to equity and fairness in pay, Ms. Hamilton, you are not where you should be. You are way below where you should be, and I certainly recognize that. And if I can do anything along with my colleagues to make that happen, I'll do my best. Thank you for your service. Appreciate your comments. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to follow up on the question about the rain gauges and that expense. And I'm just curious if somebody could explain why it costs $116,000 to, I don't know, monitor rain gauges. Well, that is the urban county government's share of that. I think that's 40% of the total cost. So actually the USGS pays most of it, and it's fairly expensive equipment. They do all the maintenance on it. Like if we go back to early April when we had the big rain, it was kind of interesting to look and see how the rain fell. But if we notice that one isn't working right, they monitor them also. If something doesn't appear to be working right, they send people up to fix it. I typically never have to call them, and it gets us all the data. So, I mean, it's a fairly intensive operation. All right. That's all. I just wanted a little clarity. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Mayor. All right. Thank you, Councilman Rakers. It looks like that's all council members who've signed up for discussion on the motion. And we can take a vote. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next on our agenda is continuing business and presentations. And first is the NDFs. I'll ask for a motion. Move approval. We got a motion from Vice Mayor Kay. Would that be a second from Council Member Scotchfield? Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. If not, then you can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next is an abridged committee report. Yes, sir. All right. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. This is just a single item. We're reporting out in advance of the budget consideration. this is an item we took up as part of the course of business at our may 19th meeting and pursuant to discussion about the distillery district update we had a motion that's made by council member stennett to reallocate the remaining balance of bond proceeds set aside for the distillery district to the economic infrastructure fund and to reduce the amount of the bond funds appropriated in the in the fiscal year 15 16 budget accordingly this was second at the time by council member waloni and we had discussion and the motion passed without dissent and i would so make that motion on behalf of the committee now so moved motion by council mayor farmer second by council member stennett is there any discussion on the motion if not then council vice mayor k yes i'm i'm fine with the reallocation uh from that fund but i would like to offer an amendment that half a million dollars of that 1.6 be allocated directly to the fund to provide incentives for the people developing in the proposed downtown area that will be covered by the design excellence proposal so move motion by vice mayor kay and and second by councilmember gibbs is there any discussion on the motion wait a minute yeah wait a minute we've got a motion motion to amend we take this motion right all right is there any discussion on the motion we need to go back you need to be on the floor screen i've got the on floor council member farmer's got a wrinkle with his no yeah well you wish to speak you wish to speak there we go here we go on the request well that went back again There we are. Boom. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. So, Vice Mayor, this is to take a half million dollars out of this reallocation and dedicate it to incentives for the design overlay, which we've talked about in the last couple of committee meetings, just by way of shepherding and bringing it forward in terms of it was a zoning component as well as an allocation component, which I think this would go towards that. What was the total amount here? It's not present in the motion. I'm sure it was present as part of the committee meeting that day, but it's not part of the report out here. It was around 1.6, wasn't it, or 1.2? I remember 1.6. 1.6. All right, so that would leave the balance just to reduce the bond. All right. I think I've answered my own question. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. All right, sir. Any for Council Member Stenet? Yeah, again, the reason why the timing of the motion at the committee meeting has to do with our budget. There's a million dollars for the Economic Infrastructure Fund, and if I remember correctly, Commissioner Paulson, that would include the design excellence project should there ever be a design excellence program. And right now, that whole discussion is still in committee. It hadn't left that committee, so I'm a little uncomfortable with the timing of it. I don't necessarily disagree with it, but I think until we get some resolution on what it looks like, are we really going to have a design excellence board downtown, are we going to have all those parameters, the money can still be used by that group if it stays in the Economic Infrastructure Fund, which I just think it's a matter of timing at this point. So I won't support the amendment right now. Commissioner, was that? It is correct. One of the things that we've discussed is that it would cover a range of areas that are economic development areas, so by zones, of which the downtown infill area is one. Again, the way we have discussed it, it would be for infrastructure projects, public infrastructure projects related to economic development. So there would be a jobs component. So it sounds as though this might be something a little less jobs component related in terms of the 500,000, which is something we can consider, but I think. Well, and that's still to be determined, right? I'm sorry? That's to be determined on the front. Correct. I think that's one of those things. I mean, we're, I don't think I can do it on the fly at the podium, but I think that's something that's important for the infill aspect of this. Thank you, Mayor. All right. Thank you, Council Member. Vice Mayor Kay. Commissioner. So my understanding of the original proposal that these funds would be applied to was that it was for a million dollars. Correct. And it was basically earmarked for infrastructure for any project that could show that it was producing new jobs. Is that correct? Where we are going, and this is where we're still working on the specifics, I think one of the reasons we've been a little slow is to make sure that it is going to be in the budget and we're not going to do a lot of work if it's not going to make it in. Now that we're feeling a little more comfortable, we will be able to provide a little more specifics. The idea behind it is to make it very similar to the jobs fund in terms of there have to be jobs created above a certain salary range. I think one of the things that's important is, and again, it would be for a period of time, Again, the benefit of it, we're putting that public infrastructure, is that there is this benefit from the tax side of it, our payroll taxes. The way we will be looking at it is to simply, in many ways, a metric. How many jobs, at what rate, and what is the expected 10-year return? At least this is one example of the way we look at it, and weighing that against what the proposed public infrastructure request is or application is. if you get someone who comes in and is looking to put in jobs that might, you know, $25 or $30 an hour, 30 jobs, if we have an expected payroll increase of $1 million in 10 years and they're asking for $100,000 of infrastructure, I think that's easy enough for a group, a committee to weigh. When it's something a little less, again, without that jobs aspect, it becomes a little more difficult to how do we make sure that there's an impact that weighs out that cost for the public infrastructure. It's just something at this point we've focused on the jobs-related aspect because we know from an economic development standpoint, those are issues that we've been hearing from our economic development land work group, that in terms of attracting people here, those are real issues. We know there are real issues downtown as well when it comes to creating jobs because we have very old infrastructure downtown. There are pipes down here that have been put in in the 1800s that are still around. So there will be places where we can take advantage of that, and that's why it's important that we make sure it's for downtown. I think in terms of expanding that out, we just haven't gone there yet. In terms of could it be for something more than just economic development? It quite possibly can. In terms of the geographic area, downtown is definitely one of those areas that we want to make sure is covered. Thank you for that answer. My concern is that that set of criteria is too narrow, and it defines economic development too narrowly. What the intent was in providing some incentives for the downtown area was specifically to focus on downtown for any kind of development, with the understanding that development has certain barriers to overcome when you try to develop downtown, starting with the cost of land and so on. And that if we want to accelerate development downtown, we need to provide some support for people who are willing to come forward with proposals for development. So it might be residential. It might be commercial. It might be a variety of things. It would not necessarily be tied directly to new jobs. And so that's why I proposed this amendment. I think this would allow us to use some of those funds specifically for the downtown area with broadened criteria and would still leave a million dollars as originally proposed for the Jobs Development Fund. So that's why I offered it, and that's my comment for the moment. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Akers. I was going to ask some of the same questions, I guess, that the Vice Mayor asked about jobs. But I have made the point before that I think also that we should be providing incentives for infill and redevelopment. That's what we preach constantly, consistently in this government. And so I would like to see funds like this set aside for infill redevelopment, not just necessarily tied solely to jobs. So originally the request was for $1 million. We took the $1.6 million from the distillery district. I think if we have a project that is for residential, that doesn't provide the job numbers, the math doesn't necessarily add up, replacing that aged infrastructure is an investment. Economic development, I think, is defined in different ways by different people. So I would support the motion and appreciate that you brought it forward. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Akers, Council Member Farmer. Thank you again, Mayor. So the original motion from the committee is to move all the funds and leave the million or to buy down the million that was proposed in your budget so that we wouldn't bond that million. And then at the time that we had this discussion, how did it contemplate what we do with what was over the million? Just that it would just be set off to the side in some capacity? I might ask the maker of that motion to articulate for me a little bit. Please, sir. Well, it would go into that fund. Again, the fund parameters have not been set. I think we're confusing design excellence with what this fund can do. This fund has not been said we can't use it on infield development. We haven't had that discussion as a council. Derek may have one suggestion, but we get to make the final decision on what that fund looks like. This amendment uses just design excellence money. The money, 1.6, was moved to this economic infrastructure fund, and it can sit there. And next budget cycle, you'll only need $400,000, for instance. You wouldn't have to bond a million, because the theory is you want to do a million a year. And keep it as a kind of sinking fund, to a certain area. But was it one of the motivators to bond a million dollars less at the same time, all at the same time? The timing of the motivation to make the motion was because of the budget, to reduce the money. Oh, I agree, yes. Why bond money? We're not going to spend anyway. If we had a year. We had it sitting in the corner. Okay. Thank you, sir. But that's why the 1.6, and, you know, again, I don't disagree with what Council Member K is trying to do. I think until we establish a design excellence, we don't have it yet. It's still in committee. But one of the reasons, if I may, since we're in a discussion format, one of the reasons it's still in committee is because we haven't put any money behind it to get it going. Not necessarily. I don't think that's 100% true. Well, it's up to everybody in their vote. I agree. I wouldn't say it's 100% true. Well, all right. I think there's some things why we need another board downtown. Well, I think that's another great discussion. How many boards does it take to run downtown? A lot, apparently. All right. Thank you. Thank you both and all. Councilmember Stennett? No. Okay. I'm exhausted. Councilmember Massadi? Councilmember K., we're going to have that for next month, your design excellence. We'll try to wrap it up next month, and I don't know if maybe you would feel more comfortable just waiting until next month, kind of withdrawing the motion at this point. I support the motion, but there's some that feel more comfortable that they would wait We kind of, the devil's in the detail next month and want to go forward then, but I will have it on the committee's agenda next month. Yes, it is on the agenda for next month, and I'm hoping that we can move it forward at that time. But as Council Member Farmer has indicated, we kind of have a chicken and egg problem for some people. Some people think that we need to show a commitment from government to provide some financial support for the people who will be subject to additional regulation. Not everybody thinks that. And some people think that the additional regulation itself is an economic incentive. It will improve our downtown. It will protect the investment that's already there. But there are some people who would like to see something on the table. I was not going to bring this forward, but when Council Member Stinnett made this motion, it occurred to me that this was funds, right now they're not allocated, that we could indicate as a council that we think it's important to do that. So when we meet next week and I bring forward the entire proposal, we will already have something fairly concrete. It will not have been finally passed, but it will be in the budget that's then going to go forward for first and second reads. So that's my thought, and I seek support for it. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Mayor. I, too, am exhausted, Councilmember Senate. However, I believe I have been one of the council members who has not been in support of the design excellence creating that area because we didn't have the incentives. And so this is now going to provide those incentives. Commissioner Paulson asked for $1 million for the Economic Development Fund. He's going to get the $1 million. So there's $600,000 remaining. Vice Mayor Kay is asking for $500,000. This is a step toward those incentives that developers have asked for to develop and work in downtown. I think it's a great first step. And as far as boards downtown, I believe it's my understanding that the Courthouse Area Design Review Board would go away once this is created, or those would be combined. So we would do away with one board. And so, again, I think we have 600,000 sort of floating out there, and I don't see why we can't use it here and move all of these projects forward. Thank you. All right. Looks like that's all the council members who've signed on for discussion. That means we can take a vote on the motion to amend. All in favor of the motion? Okay. I'm going to ask Vice Mayor Kaye to repeat the motion. The motion to amend is to take half a million dollars of that 1.6 and allocate it specifically for incentive fund for downtown development, any part of downtown. It's the three B zones, B2A, B2B zones that are included in the proposed design excellence standards and guidelines. So that area, that these funds be allocated for an incentive for development in the those three zones all right council member stennett i just want to be clear that what people are understanding the economic infrastructure fund can be used downtown it can be what you're saying is you're shrinking that to just design excellence program that's it whereas under commissioner paulson's proposal you can use it anywhere downtown not just according to design excellence. Is that what you're saying? To use it just for design excellence, correct? That is exactly correct. Okay, thank you. And if I may, the reason for that is that that is the area where people perceive there to be significant barriers to development that don't exist outside of the B2 zones. And so there's a feeling among some folks that we need to have that kind of an incentive. That's the reason for doing that. Thank you. All right. All right. Now we can take a vote on the amendment, right? You good, Council Member Brown? You're clear now, right? All right. Okay. All in favor, please indicate by saying yes or voting electronically. Opposed, no. We have everybody voting? Looks like the motion passes. The motion to amend passes. It allows us to now vote on the original motion, Council Member Farmer's motion. Would you repeat that motion? The original motion was to reallocate the remaining balance of the bond proceeds that was set aside for the distillery district to the Economic Infrastructure Fund, which we are now saying we're going to split $500,000 off into the design overlay incentive package and reduce the amount of the bond funds appropriated in FY15-16 budget accordingly. All right. Is everybody clear on the motion that we're now voting on? All right. Okay. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. And voting electronically. Right. The motion does carry. All right. Next on our agenda is a proclamation. And I'll go around to the podium and read it. Okay. Hey, Dewey. So Dewey Crowe is going to be up here with me today. We are both pleased and on behalf of the council, pleased to present a proclamation in recognition of our employees and those outside the government who work to keep our buildings safe. Dewey Crowe is here representing our department, our division of building inspection. Dewey, as you all know, is our director, and I'm going to read that proclamation and then ask Dewey if he would like to say a few words. It says, the proclamation reads, National Building Safety Month. In celebration of our city's building inspectors and code enforcement officers, professionals who work hard to ensure buildings are safe in our city, I, as mayor of Lexington, do hereby proclaim May as National Building Safety Month in Lexington. So, Dewey, would you like to say a few words, and I will present this to you, sir? Thank you, mayor. We do appreciate the mayor and the council bringing, help bringing some public awareness to the issue of building safety. We live that 12 months out of the year. That's our mission, and that's what we try to do, along with our partner agencies, code enforcement, and fire marshal's office, to ensure that the buildings that we all work in, would live in, and play in, are safe for the Occupy and are safe and secure. So I do appreciate the proclamation by the mayor and the support of the council and the mayor for our continued mission. Thank you all. Thanks, Dewey, and thanks to all who work in behalf of our city. You might want to get a picture of this. Let's get a picture real quick for you guys. We're going to post a picture with Dewey Crowe. Picture, yep, yep. He heard that. Thank you. next on our agenda is council report I'll ask any council member who wishes to offer a council report to please sign on electronically all right going going going on. Okay. There we go. There we go. Next is a mayor's report. There is a motion required. It's a motion required. Okay. Motion to approve by Vice Mayor Kaye, second by Council Member Akers. All right. Is there any discussion on the motion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Mr. Mundy, has anybody signed up for issues not on the agenda they okay all right sir thank you all right I have is Rebecca price still in the is Rebecca still with us she's already left okay all right so i believe that's it then mr monday nobody else anybody signed on that that we've missed all right if not then i will next on our agenda is adjournment is there a motion to adjourn motion by by council member massadi and second by council member scutchfield unless there's objection we are adjourned The