I'll open the floor for public comment for issues on the agenda. Mr. Mundy, no one signed on for issues on the agenda? All right. That allows us to move on to docket approval. Is there a motion to approve the docket? Motion by Council Member Akers. Second by Councilmember Scutchfield. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can vote. No, I have a... Councilmember Henson? We don't... We haven't received a docket for approval, I don't believe. And I know that there's a zone change on there that I was going to move to. And I believe some others had. Okay. Councilmember Bledsoe? We don't have the work copy docket, so it can't be approved yet. I think it was emailed, but we don't usually have it at our seats. And, of course, we've been in meetings all day, so we have not had a chance. Here's one. All right. We've got a motion. We can do it. What's that? Approve it? Say that again? Speak into your... Mayor, we can schedule the hearings on Thursday night if we need to before the readings, and you can schedule them at that time since we don't have the docket. Because we don't know what number. Well, nobody else does. It's coming. The docket, the paper copy is arriving. Even as we speak. All right, thank you. You ready? Yes, sir. All right. Council Member Henson? In regard to ordinances, first reading, number 10, zone change, I move to have a public hearing for this on May 19th at 6 o'clock. Motion by Council Member Henson and second by Council Member Farmer. Is there any discussion on the motion? You've got 10 people. All right, if not, we can vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Vice Mayor Kaye. I'm sorry, Mayor. I just want to make sure that we have enough people for that date. I know the people just approved it, but we've been close to the minimum on the last couple of zone change hearings. If it's not inappropriate, I'd like to see hands on how many people can be at that meeting on whatever date that was. May 19th. May 19th. So will you raise your hand if you can be at that meeting on May the 19th, please? May 19th, right. What time was the meeting, please? 6. 6. It's a Thursday. So please hold your hand up again. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven. You got it. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Is there any further discussion on the motion? On this? On the motion? You've got another. All right. We need to vote on this motion. All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on the docket with a public hearing an ordinance change in the zone from a P1 to a neighborhood business B1 zone and from a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone to a professional P1 zone for property located at 3600 Palomar Center Drive and 2101 Palomar Trace Drive. for May 10th at 6 p.m. May 10th. Everybody understand? Second, yeah. All right. Motion by Council Member Bledsoe, second by Council Member Farmer. Is there any discussion? Vice Mayor Case, same question. I just want to make sure we have a minimum of 10 people who can show up that night. May 10th. Two, one, two, three, four. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Is that 10? One order? It's not really a point of order. You got 10, right? Okay. Okay. No, I'm sorry. I thought it was a week that we were going on. All right. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? All right. If not, we can vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Mayor, if I could, Bruce Simpson on behalf of the Harrisview Neighborhood Association. We had requested the hearing on this last zone change that you all set for May the 10th. Mr. Clendenin and I are working toward hopefully a resolution, and if that happens, we'll ask that that hearing be withdrawn. and that may be before Thursday evening. So just to give you a heads up about that. Thank you. Okay, thank you. All right. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. Mine is a motion to walk on. I move to place on the docket for the April 7, 2016 Council meeting a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute change order number one to the contract with Bluegrass Contracting Corporation for the Idler Park Improvements Project, adding 30 days to the work schedule and increasing the contract price by the sum of $159,497.35, from $479,230 to $638,727.35. So moved. Motion by Council Member Farmer. second by council member scutchfield is there any discussion on the motion right if not then we can vote all in favor please say aye aye opposed no motion carries thank you thank you council member gibbs uh thank you mayor i will walk on as well um i moved to place on the docket for the april 7th 2016 council meeting a resolution resolution authorizing the mayor on on behalf of the city-county government to execute a consultant services agreement with THP Limited Incorporated for the Government Center Garage Structural Repairs Project at a cost not to exceed $87,955. So moved. Motion by Council Member Gibbs. Who is a second by Council Member Brown? Council Member James Brown seconds. 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. Any further motions? All right. If not, then we can vote on the original motion to approve the docket. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. I'm going to ask Council Member Scotchfield for a motion. I'm sorry, Council Member Massadi for a motion regarding a presentation that we need to move up because the recipient of the presentation needs to get back to her job. Thank you, Mayor. I move to move the presentation of the Spoke Award, originally slated to occur during continuing business, to instead take place at the beginning of today's work session as the first item on the agenda. So moved. Second. Motion and a second. Unless there's objection, we will move forward with the presentation. And Tammy Walters is going to make this presentation. Good afternoon. I am, of course, with the Division of Human Resources, and I'm a committee of the Spoke Award. And you may recall a year or so ago when Wanda Keene was recognized by this council for exceptional work investigating a billing issue, which resulted in a refund to the city in excess of $49,000. Both the council and the administration saw this as an opportunity to create an ongoing recognition program whereby employees can nominate their peers for their exceptional work. As a result, the SPOKE Award, an acronym for Skilled, Professional, Outstanding, Knowledgeable, and Exceptional, was born. It's a way to identify and recognize an employee, employees, or a division for their outstanding performance and contribution to their job. Our committee has six additional members from various divisions to include our Chair Stephanie Hong from Youth Services, Cassie Felty from Water Quality, Stacey Diamond with Government Communications, Teresa Grider from the Council Office, Harold Koons from Parks and Recreation, and Sean Wright with Aging Services. We opened up the application process and accepted nominations from January to mid-February, conducted a review of the nominations, and reached a unanimous decision regarding the winner. On behalf of the committee, the Council, and the administration, I'm thrilled to invite our first recipient of this award to come to the podium, Angie Dixon. Applause As an administrative specialist senior, Angie keeps everything Streets and Roads does organized. She's the lead contact on all financial matters, whether it pertains to purchasing, contracts for road resurfacing or other major projects, or developing the Division's budget submittal. She is the go-to person and gets things done. And it's her willingness to go the extra mile during a winter weather event or mobilization that singles her out for this award. Angie directs the administrative staff and is the point of contact for the Division both internally and externally. Oftentimes she is juggling conflicting demands like running payroll, processing accounts payable for contractors, running a report for the mayor's office, and answering phone calls from LexCol, urban county government employees, and the public. Angie does all of this with a great attitude and is always helpful when called upon. She is a tremendous resource. Angie, I couldn't agree more with all of this and I am very proud and honored to present this award to you today. Thank you. Thank you. come up here too. Yeah. Okay. I know. He knew it. He knew my job. Angie, congratulations. Congratulations. All the way out of the picture. Okay. Angie, congratulations. Congratulations. All right, this allows us to move on to the next on our agenda, which is approving the summary. Is there a motion to approve the summary? Moved. Second. Motion by Council Member Scotchfield, second by Council Member Farmer. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. If not, then we can vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next, budget amendments. Is there a motion to approve budget amendments? Second. Motion by Council Member Massati, seconded by Council Member Farmer. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. If not, then Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Mayor. I have two budget amendments I'd like to just ask. It seems like the increase in concrete cost has become a thing. Journal 94018, it is talking about replacing the Haley Pike. Can you explain what's the area to be replaced on that, please? Sure. There is existing about six, maybe a little over six acres of concrete out there at the compost pad. It's basically where all the piles of mulch are that we take the yard waste and it becomes mulch piles. And so about a third of that concrete pad needs to be replaced. The reason for the budget amendment, the project was fully funded in fiscal year 15 budget. The plans and specs weren't ready in time to put it out for bid in fiscal year 15. And we're almost running out of time in fiscal year 16. But it wasn't funded to the same amount. It was funded in 15 at $750,000. It was only funded at $300 and some change in fiscal year 16, so we need to budget amendment the balance to be able to pay for the concrete pad. Okay. All righty. Thank you. I was just, that's a lot of concrete. And then I guess Mr. O'Mara wanted to find out about on Journal 93939-40. This is increasing professional services account to cover the portfolio management fees for the city employees pension fund. Is this in excess of, is the amount increased that we normally pay them, or what's the? I believe it's a function of the amount that is invested. So as the investments go up, then the fees go up. Okay, so it's based on that. Okay, all righty. Is this something that we will actually approve within the pension fund board, or is this eventually? I believe the fee itself is approved by the board, but the amount needs to be a budget amendment in order to approve. But I'll double check and make sure I'm telling you correctly. All righty. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. That's it. All right. If there's no further discussion, then we can vote. All in favor of motion to approve budget amendments, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next is new business. Is there a motion to approve? Move approval. Second. Motion by Council Member Farmer, seconded by Vice Mayor Kaye. Is there any discussion on the motion? Please sign on. All right. If not, then we can vote. Council Member, it wasn't showing. Well, it wasn't showing, so now it's showing. Well, that's because I'm waiting. It's better just to hold up, if you would, hold up your hands, and it's a whole lot more efficient. Council Member Lamb. Well, I actually did wait, so it's not anything a malfunction of the system. It was just me being reluctant to wait somebody else to speak first. Okay. But since they're not, so I'll take it. Item C, I wanted to find out, is this a new agreement or is this a renewal agreement? Council Member, this is a renewal agreement from the software that we utilize for the representative paid program. Okay, good. All right, thank you. I was going to ask a question of Mr. Blevins, but I understand he's had another commitment. I was going to find out what the harp machines were for the voting system, but I'll ask him that. But the Dell Agreement, item M, as in Mary, I know this was approved in 2014, but I was wanting to know how many years is this Dell Agreement for? Hello, Mr. Stiefel. Hello. This Dell Agreement is a four-year lease. This is the third one that we're doing. So each one is a four-year, and this is the third agreement? This is the third one we're doing. Okay. All right. All right. Thank you. And this is a question for law regarding item T. The $15,000 in order to reclassify this position, it doesn't state where the money's coming from? I think it's part of the salary compensation study general fund money that they've put aside for reclasses, but I would defer to Bill O'Meara for that. Excuse me, is your question about the 12-month amount? No, sir. Well, yes, the $15,000. That's the cost in the next year, which would be in the base of the salaries for next year's budget. Okay. So it's not going to have to come out of this fiscal year? No. Correct. Okay. So is this part of the packet where we're going to start reclassifying people again? I'm going to have to defer to HR on that. Or is this just a random? This is a regular reclass. I think like some of the other reclasses they've done, we don't have to defer to HR on just the general process of that. I can tell you about Michael Cravens in the law department. He started out as a clerk, been here, actually he's been here about 10 years. He took the bar a little later than some of the folks, but that's his story. So I guess, Mr. Maxwell, are we going to start, if people come to Human Resources, are we going to start reclassing, or how is that working? We will reclass if the director and the commissioner agree that the position should be studied. And in this case, there was a time when actually we would automatically reclass this particular position, but we did study this position and it was eligible for a reclass. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. Thanks. I guess the other one is item HH. It has to do with the Raven Run Canopy Walk Initiative. I was wanting to know if we could just receive more information about the Raven Run Canopy Walk Initiative and what it encompasses. Maybe. I don't know if it's something that's easily spoken. Thank you for the question. Yes, we're actually still in designing the grant application. It is not due until May 1st, but we needed to go ahead and get the approval through the grants on the information. So we will certainly be forwarding you that as soon as we get a little more of the grant application put together. Okay. All righty. All right. So it requires a $75,000 match? That is correct. Okay. All right. All right. Thank you. and I guess item I.I. There's a deed notice for the Haley Pike landfill. Is this deed notice required by a certain time after the closure of the landfill or is this we're just planning to sell it? No, we're not planning to sell it. This is part of the closure of the landfill. Okay, it's part of the closure. Yes, we're in what's called the closure care, which is about two years after it stops receiving refuse. We're in that process. We're going to move to the 30-year post-closure period. This is part of that process to get us there. Okay, that's good. Thank you so much. All right, thank you, Mayor. All right, thank you, Council Member. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Bastin, what are we leasing on National Ave? Item D. This is some space that we've used for our narcotics operation and the police print shop. And I'll ask Chief Parker to come up if you have questions about the amounts. I was just curious what we were leasing. Okay. That's good. This would be the final year of that lease. I'm sorry? This would be the final year of that lease. Okay. Thank you. And then I have a question on H, either Commissioner Squire or Mr. Martin. Hi, Charlie. How are you? This annual audit that's every year up to $100,000 annually, can we not have the audit just done one time and then learn from that audit and move forward, or do we have to have an audit each year? The audit will only be done one time. Not to exceed $100,000 a year annually is intended to implement the findings of that audit. And here in the early stages of it, I don't know what it's going to find. And so I tried to set this up like we do a lot of our other consent decree type of stuff to where we establish a number at which the council is comfortable with, and we write task orders as long as we stay within that budget. But this initial audit, I expect, is going to uncover some things that we need to address as far as upping our requirements of it. Particularly one that has been getting a lot of attention is high voltage, as our folks deal with high voltage. And there's been a lot of questions on the part of the employees about whether or not there is an adequate program in place in order to provide safety for them. So the audit is the $34,000 and change. That's just the audit. The other stuff will be handled via task order to implement whatever recommendations are determined from the audit. Write a program for confined space. Write a program for high voltage. Train the employees for those type of things. Basically, we don't want to do an audit and then sit it on the shelf because basically then we've got some liability because we know the condition exists and we didn't do anything about it. Very good. Makes sense. Thank you. And one last question. I guess, Mayor, you would answer this or maybe Commissioner O'Mara. What happens if we don't get the $10 million from the governor in reference to the Civic Center expansion? The $10 million is part of the mayor's proposed budget bond package. We do not know at this time whether that will be necessary or not, depending on the state budget. And so even if June 30, we might not know, we can approve the bond package as is. then at the time the bond is issued, we can decide whether it's appropriate for that $10 million to be included or not. Okay, very good. Thank you. All right, Council Member Hensley. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question on E on the Windstream 2T1s. Is Aldona with us? yes sir hey um good morning afternoon so i guess um the question i have on the hundred and seventy six thousand dollars in that contract term that we're talking about is for two t ones um have we explored using sip trunks or anything like that i mean that seems expensive for 48 phone lines to me i would think they when we met with winstreet we explored all the options for what we bring into the building what would be the most efficient manner of handling the admin costs for all three divisions that are in that facility. So we did explore all the options. Was it just a curiosity, was SIP not available because the hardware wasn't available or that was really just you have the capability for SIP and it's still the best option? I believe it's still the best option in this case. I just didn't know if you might need hardware upgrade is what I was questioning. Okay, thank you. The other one that I have is on item HH on this Raven Run Canopy Walk Initiative, Phase 1. If someone could explain that to me a little bit better, it would be great. Good afternoon. Thank you. So again, this is a grant application for the Department of Local Government. We're requesting the federal funds in the amount of $75,000 from the LWCF, Land and Water Conservation Fund. We're still in the process of writing the grant. It's not actually due until May 1st. We do have a letter of support from the University of Louisville, so we're still working on exhibits and diagrams and maps in order to get the entire grant application together. But it's my understanding that we needed to go ahead and get it on the docket. Okay. And with any of the state legislation that's being passed on this, would that impact any of the application process on canopy tours and things? I am not sure. I'd be happy to find that out and might ask the grants folks as well. Thank you. You're welcome. The last two that I have are for Commissioner Paulson, if he's with us. Good afternoon. Afternoon, sir. On KK and LL, it says the funds are budgeted for the design of the sidewalks, but do we have the construction funds budgeted for actually building these items? Two different projects. One of them is in the budget. One is a further down the line project. And, Jonathan, if you have more specific questions we can give you, But the Euclid commercial corridor study is one that is a – Charlie Martin's folks are going to be coming down Euclid in a few years with a trunk line replacement. So we're trying to get in advance of that design work. It's not going to be construction drawings at this point. But then for the Southland Drive project, that is in the mayor's proposed budget. Okay. Thank you. That's all. Thank you, mayor. All right. Thank you. Council Member Scutchfield. Thank you, mayor. Janet, I just have a quick question, and I apologize if part of it's already been answered previously. On GG, do we have people that are moving into these two positions? I think you alluded that. No, what we're doing is we had a risk manager position, which is basically the claims manager, and we had a staff assistant position where somebody moved up to an admin spec. So the risk manager retired. Instead of trying to hire somebody to do claims, we had already outsourced most of our claims functions, so we went ahead and outsourced that portion too. So instead of rehiring something that's outsourced and something that we really didn't need, we wanted to use that money and create two entry-level attorney positions. And since we would hire entry-level, which is below the people that retired, I think it would actually be a savings to the government. Okay, and I guess with hiring of two new attorneys, we get the reports of all the litigation reports. Are we going to, I guess, do less outside contracting with attorneys? I think that's a real possibility because I think if we free up some of the upper-level folks from doing what I would call more routine matters, then they would be able to potentially handle some more in-house. Okay, and I think that's one of my biggest concerns is I'm a little concerned with how much over the years we've kind of increased our contracting out. So I hope that we would see that. Okay. All right, thank you. Councilmember Henson. I want to, Commissioner Paulson on LL, is Euclid, I heard it one time it was a state road, is that true? It is. So once this multimodal improvement study's done, will you then go to the state to get the funds to make the improvements? I think at this time what we're looking for, what this will give us is a better idea of what we plan to do on this project. One of the reasons we're doing it now is if you continue on Euclid, it becomes Avenue of Champions, and UK is going through a great deal of construction along that corridor. We're trying to do, and again, the project that Charlie Martin has is going to start on that end of Euclid as well. So what we're trying to do is get out in front of that in terms of the project, in terms of the design. At this point, we don't have funds of it. We don't have funds identified because we don't know exactly what we're going to be proposing in terms of the full scope. I think we're going to have a slate of things we can propose, which would include things possibly even as much as, you know, bearing. I just know we have a lot of studies and things on the table that are not being funded. So I was just asking, and you know why I'm asking. I do. I do. No, and we have not identified funds at this point, but we've also not gotten to the phase of that part of that project either. Yeah. Okay. Just keep that in mind. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. All right. If there's no further discussion, then we can take a vote. All in favor of the motion to approve new business, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. That allows us to move on to continuing business. Is there a motion to approve the NDFs? Second. Motion by Council Member Scotchfield, seconded by Council Member Akers. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. If not, we can vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next, Council Member Lamb, if you'll give us a summary of the General Government and Social Services Committee meeting from April the 5th. Yes, thank you. This is the General Government and Social Services Committee, March 1st, 2016 summary report out. And the first item of action was the approval of the committee summary. And then we pretty much talked about the extended social resources process through the entire meeting. Commissioner Ford presented the proposed ESR policy revisions and consideration for the FY17 funding cycle. Potential policy revisions include reestablishment of the annual grant cycle, redefining funding priorities, establishing funding limits, and revising the evaluation and ranking process. There was discussion on the following points, the importance of an apples-to-apples comparison of applications during the review and scoring process, the feasibility of requiring a single application versus multiple program applications from a single agency, potentially amending the innovation and collaboration scoring components, potentially allowing applications for one-year pilot programs within the two-year cycle, applying the proposed process and amendments, process amendments to previous application cycles to examine the impacts of the proposed changes, ensuring that services to seniors are addressed within the proposed funding categories and the need for clarification within the proposed funding categories. A motion was made by Council Member Maloney to accept the policy revisions as presented, seconded by Evans, and the motion passed without dissent. And then Council Member Scotchfield made a motion to amend to keep the ESR process in the committee and have a resolution establishing policy revisions come back to committee for further consideration. That was seconded by Council Member Bledsoe, and that motion passed as well, and that's all. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. That's all for continuing business. That allows us to move to Council reports. If Council members will please sign on for your Council report, I'll call on you, beginning with Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Mayor. If you could have Kevin Atkins come up, I would appreciate it. Kevin, I want to give a little bit of history, and then I want to answer you a question, if you don't mind. When I came back on to work for the administration, one of the C.L., we went back to the governors at that time, Steve Scheer, and asked him to give us back our funding, what we used to have for the marriage training center. Beth Mills and all of them went down there to fight for that. At that time, I was told to be kind of put it on hold because there was some election going on that year. They didn't want to hit anything that was a funnel. going through their main election. And the following year, we had Adam Edelman do an audit on this during the Bushirs administration. And that's like in the second year of his second term, which we were, again, I believe, with your help and with other folks, that we went down there to try to find somewhere where we can get our piece back from the Bluegrass ad and from what the audit showed. It was a severely bad report. And the concern I have is I know we have a hole down here at Centerpoint. I feel there's a hole here in the whole city of Lexington when we took the marriage training center out. And to me, when I was here for the last 20 years, I had constituents. I had seniors. I had African Americans. I had people, places to go to get an opportunity to get a job. And I understand then there might have been a management problem, but once we lost that money, it was hard to get back. And the problem I have is that the governor at that time, Steve Beshear, did not, I felt like he delayed a lot of this stuff because, again, it was an election year at the end of the term, and it was for someone else. And the question I'm going to bring to you, and I understand we're getting fined, I mean, for the grass-eyed and all that, and we've got a new governor and a new—can we go back down there and ask them that when we had this in the city of Luttington, that not only did we help people who live in Luttington, we had people that came out of the county that went to the Merit Training Center, too. They report the people coming out. Can we try? I'm not saying it has to be the mayor's training center. It could be the workforce or whatever. Do we have a better shot with this than the previous governor who used it as a political base because he didn't want to upset people? But now that this is a new governor and a new administration and we've just got a report back that Bluegrass had his major problems, do we have a chance to get our money back and try it that way and to go a new direction? Well, I think there's a couple of questions in there. The first, as it relates to the mayor's training center, I think we've discussed before, those were historically set-aside dollars, which under laws that came when that was done, under WIOA, you can't have those set-asides anymore. You can't dedicate those funds. the funds have to run through the Regional Workforce Board, which in this case is the Bluegrass Workforce Board. I can ask a question. If we would have never sent the money back, that rule would have never come in place. Is that correct? When we were still getting money back before the administration, at that time when I voted no, against taking this money out of Lustington, that opened the doors, and when that shut the opportunity of us forever to get the money back, if we left the money here, we would have never been in this situation. That would be a legal question at some point, but what I'm saying is you can't do those type of set-asides any longer. Okay. So basically what you answer me is that likely there's no way we're going to get any money set aside in any way, fashion, form because of the new board. I think what we want to accomplish is, you know, I think the mayor expressed his concern yesterday about the findings. You will recall that we were at the forefront of calling for the original audit back in 2013. I think Secretary Hiner's letter showed the concern that he has about the actions and what has gone on there. and I think back to the statement yesterday, it was very clear that we are hoping and expecting changes based on the letter we received last Friday. And I've read the letter and I think it is important that we continue to fight on it. I just feel like, and I know my time's up, but I just feel like we've been robbed and I don't know how we can get it back. And hopefully, I hate to see that if we do pay this fine or the bluegrass, most of that money is going to be coming from us because if we get the bulk of our population, it's what helps those other counties get their money. It's what Lutton's in population, and we're only worth one vote. I just don't think it's a win-win-win anywhere near. Hopefully you all can come back. And, Mayor, I hope you can help us with that. And if you have something to say about it, I'd be glad to hear what your comments are on it too. what you've said. I think Kevin has expressed the attitude or the point of view of the administration. And the Bluegrass ad said that if the fines were, this was the executive director reportedly said that the fines could be supported by the Bluegrass Act if the full fines were paid. Is that right? Yes, sir. Thank you. Yeah. All right, Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Mayor. Just a quick item of business. I know at the end of last year when we were talking about fund balance items, we came up with a capital allocation, a capital spending amount for each council member, and there were some good guidelines in place, But I think one of those guidelines in particular, the minimum amount of $5,000 has paced a lot of undue burden on the finance staff and administration, as well as some council members have figured it out, as I said they would, saying I told you so, but go around the system. And to avoid all that and to slow down all the going back and forth with the administration and let's get the projects done. If they're a good project, they're a good project. So I'm going to make a motion to remove the $5,000 minimum from our council rules that we set for that money so that other council members who are having a hard time getting smaller projects done can go ahead and get those done. So move. Motion by Council Member Stenet. Who is the second? Council member Gibbs. Is there any discussion on the motion? Oh. Discussion is arising at the podium. I'm only doing the minimum. I'm not removing any discussion. Okay. But we can talk about it in a second. Is it okay if Bill goes? Is it all right if he goes? All right, go ahead, Bill. Excuse me. Just a comment. If Council wishes to undergo an amendment, you might also want to take away the requirement that be a capital expenditure. What we're looking for is things that do not have ongoing expenses, not payroll, not additional ongoing expense commitment by the government. The projects that the council have come all have good merit and can be considered on that merit. And we've created certain hurdles where can it be capitalized yes or no determines whether it has merit or not. One speed bump doesn't. Three speed bumps do. That type of thing. So if you want to look at the 5,000, that's a great amendment. amendment, but if you want to delete the word capital, that might assist you in evaluating the merits without having arbitrary evaluation. Well, Mayor, I'll start with that motion. Mayor, I'll just leave that motion as it is for now, and then we can talk about the second item. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? Council Member Lamb. I guess my question would be, if we don't have the capital in there, should we put the language that you just spoke about at the, I mean, about it being something that's a one-time cost? I mean, I'm not against this, changing this, but I'm just scared of opening up a... I believe the term one-time cost is already in the resolution. Oh, is it? It is? Oh, okay. All right. Well, then, okay. How do you know? Council Member Stenet, I wanted, is it relative to the speed bumps and all that? Oh, yeah. First of all, it's putting undue burden on Commissioner Mayor and his staff. Hundreds and hundreds of, hey, is this good? Is this allowed? Is this not allowed? We don't need any of that based on the minimum number of 5,000. There's $2,500 speed humps. There's $2,500 safety things that people want to do in their districts. That should be allowed underneath these guidelines, And that's why mine's just to remove the $5,000. And it's just a one-time thing, this one time, or are you going to amend the rules? No, the rules apply to just that pot of money. Okay. So unless we put more money ever in it, it's one time. Okay. All right. Thanks for the clarification. All right. Any further discussion? Council Member Evans? I guess I'm curious to know what kind of projects you can't accumulate that minimum amount. I mean, it's something we discussed this and hashed it out. I don't know. I guess I'm curious, and I guess we can always revisit something, but this was something we talked about extensively, I think at least what we were going to spend it on, because there was discussion. I don't understand why we're, but for understanding, we understood the burdens that it was going to put on the staff. And, you know, my apologies. But I think we as a council understood that it was going to take some tracking. I'm not, I don't understand why we're backtracking. I need some more explanation, because that's. Councilman Bledsoe, then Councilman Maloney. Thank you, Mayor. As someone who argued vigorously on this issue, probably, I think the intent was very clear. I think we've come now to the beginning of April, budgets are starting to go down, and people are trying to spend it on smaller projects, and they're arguing, is this capital, is it not? Well, if we think of it like this, it might be. And I think it has caused lengthy email and discussion that was probably not the intent, certainly of Mr. O'Meara or myself or Vice Mayor Kaye when we were working hard to put this together. That being said, I will support said motion in an effort to try to be mindful of everyone's time as we spend down the money for worthy projects, even though that's very frustrating to say. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. I just need to get a clarification. I kind of agree with what he's saying. My question is what Bill the Mayor came up and said, the capital projects, and now like, for instance, if you've got a nonprofit that wants to come in here and wants something and they need one-time money, is that going to be considered a capital project? Now, that's why I want to be clear what I'm hearing. Or are you using NDF money to go into neighborhoods association to get money to help their neighborhood association. I got messed up when he came up and said what the definition of a capital and what he was talking about. I thought it would, I just wanted to hear what the clear, where we are with this. I think I understand any problem, if you need a sidewalk it's only going to cost $1,200 and it's in a park. I understand that. I got confused when I thought he said capital in other use and what is considered other use. Is that, for instance, I try to clarify? It's not part of the motion. That's not the, well, I think I messed up on that. Well, never mind, if that's not part of the motion, I'm fine. Go ahead, go ahead. Let me use some examples of requests to illustrate a $5,000 capital item, one speed bump may be $1,500. But three of them on the same street would be one project. Four or five of them in a community may not be, and they have to be considered individual. So you have a project with merit of putting speed bumps into an area, But because of the details, they may not reach the definition of over $5,000 and a capital item. Snow equipment for sidewalk snow removal or things that parks may have, they may be $1,000 apiece. So it has good merit, but you have to buy more than five of them in order to meet the $5,000 minimum. So that's why the leaving of the $5,000 and looking at the merit of the request, removing the requirement that it has to be capitalized would then open this up to equipment and things that are one-time expenses without recurring costs, no payroll, nothing like that, but it would not have that capital requirement and a minimum of $5,000. Vice Mayor K. Thank you, Mayor. Bill, I'm sorry, but the difficulty, let me start from the beginning. I anticipated some of these difficulties. I was not a supporter of the motion at the time. so that's where I begin and then I supported the motion to make a $5,000 minimum because it seemed to me that would make it easier actually on you folks that we weren't going to be doing $500 here and $1,000 there and $1,200 there that I myself put in a request for AED equipment four or five of them that would have been over $5,000 But individually, they don't qualify. So I understand what the difficulty is. But I'm concerned that, well, I have a lot of concerns, but I'll go right to the bottom line. When you say capital requirement, and I know that's not a part of this motion yet, when you say capital requirement, why is a snowblower, if I get five snowblowers at $1,000 apiece, Why is that not a capital project? Because each of those snowblowers do not meet our capitalization requirement for accounting. For a capitalization requirement for accounting? Yes. If we remove that requirement? That's my suggestion. The capital requirement, not that it be, because my concern is, as Council Member Maloney said, It seems to me the intention was never to have it be to support nonprofits, to do NDF, but it was about one-time expenses for? Correct. Okay. And if we, okay, I think I get it. I think I understand. So it's really about the way in which you have got to book things. Correct. That we get crosswise with if we have five of them, even if it's a single request. Okay. I will support the motion. Thank you. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? Council Member Scotchfield. I know that I've had some discussions with my aide and with traffic. I've got, for example, in my district, I've got rumble strips. There's an area of Hayes Boulevard, if anybody has traveled this area, there have been five, six in the last year cars that have gone through a fence there because it gets slippery. Rumble strips are about $2,500. I don't have enough. I can't do it. And we're talking about a safety issue in that area, and we desperately need to have this done. So this is kind of the example, but that's a capital expense. One time getting it taken care of, but luckily it isn't more than $2,500 to do it. But that's an example for me. Okay. All right. Any further discussion? Councilman Henson. Thank you. I would amend the motion to remove the reference to Capitol. Oh, what was... You'd have to add. You'd have to add. Well, in the original document, there was a reference to Capitol. Right? Bill? So there was a reference in the ordinance we passed. My understanding there was. I believe, and I don't want to speak for a council member, but the motion didn't include that. But you're referring back to what was in the original resolution that was passed, which is what my reference was, too. 5,000 capitalized. Okay. I think we're stretching it. So if I amended this motion to add the removal, will that work, Council Member Stenet? No. We need a separate motion. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Is that it? All right. Can we have the motion repeated? Okay. Council Member Senate, will you repeat the motion? Yes, sir. The motion is to remove the $5,000 minimum requirement from the Council capital funds. Right. All right. All right. Are we ready now? We're clear? All right. Let's vote then. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. That's all. So is this actually a resolution, though? I'm not trying to complicate it, but if it is a resolution, then technically we should amend the resolution. We are. That was the motion, and it will be on the docket Thursday night. Okay. We don't even know the resolution number or anything? Well, I'm sure we can get that. It's not that difficult. But this is just trying to get it done, so there's three or four council members waiting to get this done. So that's why we're doing today. I'll bring everything Thursday night, and we'll be all happy. So we'll know the resolution Thursday night then. Okay. All right. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Mayor. This weekend's a great volunteer opportunity. It's our annual Reforest Bluegrass program, and Susan Pluger is here. And, Susan, you're going to say a few words about it, right? Great. Thank you. This is my little prop. Well, this is native. Now, I just want to invite everyone to Reforce the Bluegrass. It's this Saturday. We need a lot of volunteers because we need to plant 7,000 of these. This is what our plan is for this Saturday. It's going to be from 9 to 1 at 1960 Bryan Station Road. Rain, shine, or snow, we're going to be there. So we invite you all to be there. This is a detention area that was built back with Aniston and Wickland, the Stormwater Project. And so it's going to be a really good time. So we just hope to see everybody there. Thanks, Susan. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, sir. All right. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Mayor. I just have two items that our office has been working on. And we've been working with Chris Ford on the Summer Youth Job Employment Training Program. and we're doing a reception on Wednesday, April 20th from 8 to 9.30 in the morning. We're kind of hosting a coffee and orientation, asking businesses who are looking for an opportunity to mentor youth students. So that's Wednesday, April 20th from 8 to 9.30 at the Lyric Theater. And then we got a call to our office in the fall, and then again in the spring, about some Airbnbs that were operating and kind of questioning if they were operating legally and their guidelines. And so we got involved in the Airbnb discussion, which was a lot of fun. And through work with Mary Quinn at Visit Lex, we thought a good idea was to have kind of an educational seminar trying to help constituents understand what it was to be compliant with our own city rules and guidelines. And so that's actually happening. We call it a, quote, for rent by owner education seminar, which is April 7th from 12 to 2 at Smiley Pete. And actually, it was such a good idea, it's already sold out. So we're having a second one, which I would just ask. We'll send around an email to everybody. If you would just publicize that to the constituents in your area so they can also understand how to be in compliance and be good ambassadors for Lexington, have the proper licensing and planning. And Rusty Cook and Revenue were going to be present at both those seminars and presenting. So I'm very pleased with where that's headed. Thank you, Mayor. All right. Thank you, Council Member Bledsoe. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, thank you for including the corridors asked in your budget. I know the corridors commission will appreciate that, and that work there will go on unimpeded. Thank you very much. Then I just wanted to add my kind words to the great life of Rice Leach, who was here the last time we were here. if he gave a great personal testimony here. He had great life and love about him as he sat here. If and when I face death in that capacity or whatever, I hope I can have as much grace as he had. He was a beautiful human being here that night. He served on behalf of our community and the whole state in so many ways, and he will be so missed. But he just had such a peace about him that night, and I just appreciate that we were able to have him here at that time and to celebrate with him because I thought it was very untimely still when I got that word while we were on our little vacation or break. And now about neighbors and stuff. I know that somewhere in our committee structure, we've begun to take up an issue that we've been asked to look at in terms of potentially permanently closing Rose Street and I think potentially permanently closing Hilltop Avenue. And I think that's a great discussion to have and something that the citizens should be involved in. However, I think, too, that our relationship with the Flagship University, who places its home here in Lexington needs to be, to me, broader and more holistic. I appreciate on the one side that they want to move ahead with centralizing their campus and making it more pedestrian-friendly and safe, and I might even be in support of that. But I can't really see taking those issues up without looking at other issues that face us in our relationship with the state's flagship university. Specifically, if we were in some sort of constructive, fruitful conversation about a new contract at Rupp Arena for the basketball team to play there, I would be really happy to talk about closing streets at UK. But if we're not having discussion in one area, I don't think it's proper or really in the best interest of the entirety of the city to have a conversation in another area. So I'm not sure when this will come to us in the committee structure. But personally, I think that we should weigh every part of our relationship before we move forward in one area. because I think everyone needs to benefit from the good neighbors that we have in our corporate community, our business community, and certainly our educational community. In this instance, we have a lease that is running out and needs proper time and consideration, and we have the needs of the university internal to itself that will impede upon the perception of how you travel through and around campus. And I don't think that we should have these conversations separately. I think we should have them in tandem at best or in a broader group. But I think it's important for us just to think about that as we begin to enter into those discussions or to stimulate those discussions because time ticks on the lease and the opportunity to close streets forever is a totally different kind of thing. But it's part of what we should consider as a council in the community to do as partners rather than just wiping off one pane of glass and not cleaning the whole window. That's where we need to get down to. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I was going to go ahead and make a motion at the recommendation of Commissioner of Finance to remove the reference in our board resolution. Sorry. to the fund balance resolution to remove the reference of capital. So moved. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Henson, second by Council Member Farmer. Is there any discussion on the motion? Council Member Lamb. Well, I'm going to go back to what I said earlier. Is this a resolution or is it a policy? I've actually had correspondence over here where some say it's a reso and some say it's a policy. It's definitely a resolution. Is it for sure? Yes. We do. Because I'm hearing conflictual things. I will send you a copy. So that means that it is, if we're going to change it in a resolution, then that means it's permanent and it's not a one-time thing, which I believe, Council Member Stenet, I thought that's what he said. So, anyway. I think it is an ongoing resolution. It does not. Go ahead. I guess this shows you that if we're going to bring things to the council, it would be nice to have a copy of the document that you're going to amend so that we can have it before us, and that's what I will say. All right. Is there any further discussion? We have a motion, right? Yep. All right. No further discussion? Council Member Brown? Yeah. Just to remove, at the request of Commissioner of Finance, to remove the wording, the capital. The reference to capital projects, that's in our resolution. I've got a question. Council Member Maloney? Are you saying remove the word capital? That is what Bill recommended. It's going back to what I said. If we move capital, then we can give it to anybody we want. No, because there is also a part in there that says it must be an internal expenditure. Okay, I'm fine. I'll just go on. I'll send everybody a copy of it. No, I'm all right. I'm just trying to make it clear because I got messed up before. Do you want? Okay. I'm going to ask for the vote, and I guess if you don't agree with it because you don't have the resolution, you can vote no. But I'll ask for the vote. All right, on the motion, Council Member Henson's motion. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. All right. Okay, let's show of hands. All in favor, hold your hand up or vote electronically. Vote and vote electronically. Just vote electronically. All right, the motion passes. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Henson. Back to Council Reports now. Yeah, I had one other thing. I just wanted to also just piggyback up on what Council Member Farmer said about Dr. Leach. And, you know, I just think he was like this extraordinary person that I didn't actually know him real well until recently when I started, began serving on the Board of Health. but he was I think when it came to death he had this acceptance about it and that made it just a part of life and very peaceful and he will definitely be missed and I will hope that we can find a replacement at the health department that will serve the way that he has served, or as close as possible. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Henson. Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to remind Council Members that you're all invited to a presentation by the Gale Studio, which will be at 1030 in the Farish Theater this coming Thursday. The Gale Studio is the preeminent quality of place, city planning, architecture, et cetera, firm probably in the world. And they're here as part of a project that's sponsored by the Knight Foundation. In any event, a lot of the people who work on relevant parts of our government, parks and recreation, streets and roads, and so on, so on. We'll be sending people to listen to the presentation and I hope that you all will make the time for it also. So that's 1030 in the Farish Theater Library, Thursday morning. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Gibbs. Sorry about the second round. I just wanted to make some comment about Council Member Farmer's comment. When it comes to Rose Street, we've got that in committee and it's coming up. Dahl, what, in a couple weeks it's coming up? Next week. Yeah, it's coming up next week. Right now I tend to lean towards favoring closing Rose Street because of a safety issue, and that's why the U.K. wants to do it. But I'm waiting to hear what traffic engineering has to say about it, what planning has to say about it, before I make my final decision. But I think Rose Street should be considered as a separate issue. I don't see where Rose Street is linked to Rupp Arena. In fact, I find it a little bit disturbing to think about potentially using the safety of the faculty and staff at UK as a bargaining chip for Rupp Arena. And so I do like to keep issues separate. And I think that I don't know if Councilman Farmer would like to ask us to delay this voting on Rose Street until we have negotiations about it. Is that what you were implying, that we should slow that down? Not that I want to rush through Rose Street. I want Rose Street to be very seriously considered. but I don't personally feel like it needs to be in any sort of consideration bundled with Rupp Arena. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Council Member Gibbs. Council Member Hensley? Thank you, Mayor. I also would like to say thank you for including one of the requests that I had in the budget today for the PDR program being restored to full funding. It was a large project, and thank you for that. And then also thank you for creating some conversation, which has gotten the future of broadband in Lexington moved forward by putting some pressure on the vendors. And yesterday, Windstream announced that they were turning up gigabit service in several thousand homes in Lexington, which could be ordered today. And if not but for your conversation to put those pressures out there, I don't think that we would be on the same timeline to get these small steps going forward. And so thank you. And that's all. All right. Thank you, Council Member Hensley. Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Mayor. I didn't have anything to necessarily talk about, but I want to wait. Now that it has come up, I want to weigh in on the Rose Street. I was in favor of it about 10, 15 years ago of closing Rose Street because I walked that street many years ago. But it's right that it's the heart of the University of Kentucky, and it never made sense for it to be a through fair road. And, in fact, I don't guess the last 10 years it has been because of a lot of construction going on. But having said that, I think that was a major road at one time, and it did relieve traffic off of limestone. And I think we need to study this a little bit better because my understanding was that we were going to have limestone would be better adapted at regular traffic. plus there would be a road on the other side where, I don't know if it's College Drive or what it is that they come off of the alumni, was supposed to take on that side of the University of Kentucky. And I think we really need to study the whole road system around the University of Kentucky before we start closing a particular road. There's got to be some give and take on another path north and south because we have a real bottleneck there going north and south. And I think University of Kentucky has got to be part of that player. And I think definitely with the street going right down the middle of your campus, they've got a real valid point. And I just think we need to maybe have some type of committee that brings all these issues, especially all the traffic issues. We've got Euclid. We're doing some things on Euclid, the Avenue of Champions. they're building a lot of new things there at the uk campus and i think i don't have any problem with what council member farmer raises because this is part of our whole economic impact and what we can do there and this is just another probably another item on the agenda that we ought to lay on the table and there may be others and i think we ought to have a list of things to make the partnership between the City of Lexington and the University of Kentucky a real good partnership where we're all on the same page. And you just don't do this overnight. We used to have a town and gown commission or committee that was trying to resolve a lot of these things. It had to do with neighborhoods more than anything around the University of Kentucky. And that still may be something that should be on the plate. But I think this is a big item, And I think we need to maybe, you know, wrap around it or get something going or get a task force or put it into committee or do something and get all the players on board. Thank you. Councilman Gibbs. Dahl, your people are considering all this sort of stuff right now as part of the discussion when it comes before the committee. That's what I'm hoping. That's what I'm waiting to hear how you guys feel about it. I didn't want to have a full-blown discussion about this, but I do want to reiterate, I feel really awkward about having a discussion about, you know, with the U.K. using safety as a bargaining chip. In fact, it's borderline immoral from my perspective. I think these are, I'm sorry, I don't mean you guys are immoral, but I think you need to think about this. We need to think about safety, and then we need to think about, you know, Rupp Arena or other things. But we certainly should think about traffic patterns around the whole university and what that means to the city. I think that needs to be part of it. I expect it is. Is that correct? Right. I guess procedurally there's two things. So the item is in Planning and Public Safety Committee, and it will be presented at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, the 12th. No action needs to be taken. That's just an informational presentation made by UK. Secondly, UK has submitted a right-of-way closure request to Environmental Quality and Public Works, which we're taking through the traditional right-of-way closure process. So we've sent out their packet to utilities and different divisions within urban county government. That right-of-way closure process will then go through council. So, you know, once we've gotten comments back, it would have to go through the typical council process. At this point, I can tell you we don't have enough information. Traffic engineering specifically doesn't have enough information based on what UK has provided us to make our determination whether we recommend closing Rose Street or not. not to say that we wouldn't support it, but at this point we don't have enough information. So, you know, I think, and I've talked to Council Member Gibbs about this, you know, the process is moving fairly quickly because I think the intent is to do the work over the summer. So I think, you know, I think that's the timeline and that's the time crunch, the issue behind the time crunch. Well, and I don't feel any urgency about it. You know, they may feel urgency. I don't necessarily feel urgency about it, but it is an issue that needs to be considered, in terms of traffic flow and safety and balancing those things. And I don't see where Rupp Arena has much to do with it. That's my attitude, at least. But thank you. Thank you, Doll. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Gibbs. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Mayor. This has nothing to do with Rose Street, so maybe Council Member Farmer would like to respond. I thought he had something, because this is completely different. Well, let's just return to the Mayor's budget address. he talked about how fruitfully we work together as a group of 16, which we do, we have, and we will. We do not enjoy that level of trust or relationship with the University of Kentucky, period. Yeah, this may be in committee for next Tuesday. They're going to show up here and be all happy, hey, glad to see you, let's take care of this and move along for whatever reason. And factually, Rose Street is closed today, now. i'm just saying we can be of two minds and for you to say that this you don't understand and this both of these are in your district sir rup arena is in your district these roads to be closed in your district i'm just saying and i'm the fact that we're gonna have discussion on it is excellent that's the way we work i can't imagine we would take action on that that day because it's still new to us we'd have to go at least another month on it my estimation before we could see what we think about the first one. Plus, she's got her work on the diligence on the second one. I'm just saying, there's room for public discussion here, but there's room for private movement on a couple of issues that face this city. And we should be having those conversations. And I just want to, you know, I like that let's kind of shake them and wake them thing. It's time to have fruitful discussion about extending the lease or not extending the lease at Rupp Arena, period. Do it. Don't do it. let us know. Working around on things on campus, we're glad to help with them. But we have to have a proper basis for discussion on more than one issue. And when it suits them, they show up and it's fine and everybody's good. They can find our phone, they can come and get us. In other instances, they can't find our phone number, they can't answer our emails, they can't deal responsibly. I'm just asking in a very public way for us to take that up or them to take it up or pretend to be involved in a conversation that will lead to an outcome. If there's one thing that Lexington lacks right now is outcome in a couple of areas. And the public is tired of things in a certain respect. And, Mayor, you've done a lot of great things, and the council's helped you do a lot of great things. But there's still some great question marks here that we need to turn into periods. And this is the time for those discussions. Thank you. Councilmember Sadi. Thank you, Mayor. I, on behalf of the Council, just wanted to express condolences to the Schultz family, the young couple that got killed in Brussels, a horrific young couple that just starting off their lives, and this is what they faced. And it's just so sad that there's so much hate out in this world anymore that it's depressing. But we certainly need to go forward and realize that those occurrences are done by cowards. And in order for us to move forward, we need to show that we are not in that same ilk and believe in peace and believe in respect. And I think if we continue with that type of a mindset, that will overcome what we are dealing with now. And it was just, again, sad for me to read about a young couple like that who their life was just starting and was taken away so wrongfully. And that's all, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman. Thank you, Councilman Massadi. Councilman Maloney. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to follow up on this discussion about Rep Arena. And that's one of the things that I brought up a while back. Why have we signed a contract with the University of Kentucky before we go down to Frankfort? I wanted to be sure everybody was on the same playing field. But what concerns me now is what has happened in Frankfort, as we know. Unless you all feel good that we're going to get the Rupp Arena money, I don't feel good about it because either two things are going to come out of it. we get the money, but they don't pass the hotel tax. And then we're sitting there going, well, this ain't going to work. Where is UK in the picture and the communication? If we don't get really to, everybody needs to understand, the money is for the convention center. So I want everybody to realize that's what we should have done the first time five years ago, done the convention center and didn't work in the Rupert Arena now. But are they looking at all the options of building their own arena on campus, or are they just ignoring us? Are they just saying, well, you can't go nowhere because you're up arena and we've got the basketball team, and are they just playing those kind of card games with us? What is the relationship that we have with the University of Kentucky? and where, I mean, that to me is a logic question. Are they going to play the card game, say, we're at the University of Kentucky, we're going to be number one in the country next year, and you're all going to keep the rough arena, and we're not going to sign a long-term contract with you. Or they're going to build their own arena. What kind of relationship have you gotten out of that, Mayor? I don't know if you or whoever is negotiating for us. Clearly there's a lot of speculation in your question. One of the reasons, the principal reason that an institution like the arena and the convention center, just like the airport, is set up as a separate entity within the city and with its own governance system, with its own board, is to work to address these issues. And I think what my interpretation of what Council Member Farmer has said is that he, being a member of that board, he is seeing these issues up close, and he is illuminating, perhaps, that there are issues that need to be addressed. And in a transparent way, which is the way that this body operates, he is illustrating that. That's it. Well, it just seems like we've gone a long time without negotiating a contract yet, and I'm just wondering if they're just saying we're going to be number one in the country next year. We've got the best basketball team, and you all need to bow down to us. Or we're going to build an arena. I mean, and I commend these two guys for sitting there. I understand what they're doing, what they're going through, and I couldn't ask for better guys on there. It's just I don't see where UK is in any of them. Now, UK's got a 4.5% of their budget this year, as we know. and they're going through problems right now. It seems like if it's every time that everybody needs to come together, it's us and the U.K. coming together because we're having a pretty good year, like you said in your speech, and I commend you for that. And maybe we ought to work with the U.K. and say, here, guys, why don't you get on? We're here to help you and we'll go through these tough times and let's work together and get through these times. So I just don't know where the breakdown is, but we need to fix the breakdown. And wherever that is, we've got to fix it. Good encouragement. All right. Does anyone else need to speak? I have no other council member signed on for public comment or for council reports, rather. That allows us to move to the mayor's report. Is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve by Council Member Scotchfield, second by Vice Mayor Kaye. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The motion carries. I would like to say a couple of things that have already actually, council members have already referred to this. First, the Schultz family that Council Member Massadi referred to. Of course, our sympathy goes out to that family when acts of terrorism strike so close to home. It makes us all aware of our mortality, and it makes us all aware of how fragile the democratic processes are in our country and abroad. I also want to speak to Dr. Rice-Leach. i had the chance to go by the visitation today in frankfurt and um and there were of not unexpectedly there were people of all walks of life there and and many and and and rice's family was all there as well and i think that um councilmember farmer you said it well councilmember Henson, you said it so well. He really had a remarkable, he was a remarkable, remarkable person. I don't think I could use that language to describe any one person more so. And he loved life. He had an incredible, extraordinary sense of humor. And as you said, Bill, he He faced mortality. He faced death with grace, with dignity, with calm and equanimity and good humor throughout. And a lesson for all of us. In the way that he managed, in the way that he didn't just manage, he led. And he led our health department. He came in at a time when it was really in a fragile condition. and I'll always remember the few meetings that we had where he would, just at the right time, he would have just the right thing to say as an intervention that calmed everybody down and pulled it all together. And those who served, like Council Member Ford, who served on the board and others, always knew that he was there as an anchor to us all. So we will miss him. I think that leads us to public comment, and then there will be a motion for a closed session. Mr. Mundy, has anyone signed up for public comment? All right, then I'll ask for... Councilman Massadi has a motion. Thank you, Mayor. I move that we go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.8101M to discuss floor plans and security and safety assessments that are exempt from disclosure under KRS 61.8781M for the proposed security plans for the Council Chamber in the fifth floor. So moved. Second. Motion by Councilman Versati, seconded by Vice Mayor Kaye to enter closed session. Unless there's objection, we will enter closed session. to open session and without objection we're in open session is a motion to adjourn have a motion and a second to adjourn without objection we're adjourned forevermore You are all I long for All I worship and adore