# Council Work Session - April 12, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 12, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3926 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3926?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-04-12 - **Last revised**: April 12, 2016 - **Length**: 17,147 words - **Speakers**: A Clarification > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government held a meeting on April 12, 2016, at 3:00 PM in the Council Chamber at 200 E. Main St, Lexington, KY 40507, with Mayor Gray presiding. The meeting addressed eight agenda items covering various municipal matters including budget amendments, rezoning requests, and ongoing business items. The council took four votes during the session and heard three public comments from citizens. Key accomplishments included the approval of meeting summaries and new business items, while several informational presentations were delivered including one on Agricultural Property Classification Changes. The meeting provided opportunities for public input on agenda items and included standard council reports and continuing business presentations. ## Attendance All council members were present for the April 12, 2016 meeting. **Present:** • Mayor Gray • Akers • Scutchfield • Henson • Farmer • Bledsoe • Gibbs • Brown • Mossotti • Stinnett • Evans • Lamb • Moloney • Hensley **Absent:** None **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions The Council took action on four motions during the April 12, 2016 meeting [timestamp: 00:00]. **March 15, 2016 Work Session Summary Approval** Councilmember Scutchfield moved to approve the summary of the March 15, 2016 Council work session, with a second by Councilmember Farmer. The motion passed unanimously [timestamp: 00:00]. **New Business Approval** Councilmember Farmer moved to approve new business items, seconded by Councilmember Scutchfield. This motion also passed unanimously [timestamp: 00:00]. **Neighborhood Development Funds Approval** A motion by Councilmember Scutchfield to approve neighborhood development funds received a second from Councilmember Akers and passed unanimously [timestamp: 00:00]. **Resolution 786-2015 Amendment** The most significant vote involved an amendment to resolution 786-2015 to remove the $5,000 minimum requirement from the council capital allocation policy. Councilmember Stinnett made the motion, with Councilmember Gibbs providing the second. This required a roll call vote, which passed 8-4 with 1 abstention [timestamp: 00:00]. Voting in favor were Councilmembers Kay, Farmer, Stinnett, Mossotti, Henson, Gibbs, Bledsoe, and J. Brown. Opposing the amendment were Councilmembers Scutchfield, F. Brown, Evans, and Lamb. One councilmember abstained from the vote. The amendment's passage removes the previous minimum threshold requirement for council capital allocation projects, potentially allowing for smaller-scale funding requests to be considered under the policy. ## Budget and Financial Actions The council considered sixteen financial items totaling over $17.3 million in grants, purchases, and agreements during the April 12, 2016 meeting. **Grant Authorizations** The largest grant authorization was Resolution 0365-16, permitting application for $16,000,000 in federal TIGER grant funds from the U.S. Department of Transportation. Other significant grant acceptances included $424,000 from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for fiber optic cable installation for traffic signal system improvements (0352-16), $160,000 for the Lexington Area Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Update (0349-16), and $109,153 from the Bluegrass Area Development District for Senior Citizens Center operations (0359-16). Additional grants included $100,950 from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for the West Loudon Avenue Streetscape Project (0332-16), $15,000 for a Stormwater Quality Projects Incentive Grant with Opportunity for Work & Learning, Inc. (0333-16), and $5,000 from the Commonwealth of Kentucky Office of Highway Safety for the Click It Or Ticket Enforcement Campaign (0353-16). **Purchases and Service Agreements** The council authorized $24,152 for software maintenance and support services with MACRO 4 (0345-16) and approved a $22,000 sole source purchase and master service agreement with RACO Industries, LLC (0356-16). **Personnel and Construction** Resolution 0355-16 authorized creating four Customer Service Specialist positions in the Division of Government Communications for $182,140.94. Construction-related items included a $22,386.75 change order with Devere Construction, Inc. for truck shed construction (0363-16) and a $73,280 amendment with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for the Town Branch Trail Crossing (0354-16). **Economic Development** Two Jobs Fund Incentive Agreements were approved: $250,000 with Archvision, Inc. (0366-16) and $90,000 with Love Will Inc. (dba Fluent) (0367-16). **Other Actions** The council authorized a 10-year agreement with Fayette County Public Schools with no additional cost (0342-16) and approved transferring unused right-of-way to an adjacent property owner at 940 Higbee Mill Road with no budgetary impact (0343-16). ## Public Comment During the public comment portion of the meeting, three council members raised concerns about various transportation and safety issues. **Council member Stinnett** addressed issues with the TIGER grant application process [timestamp: 00:00]. Stinnett expressed concern about competing TIGER grant applications from Lexington and the state, highlighting a lack of coordination between the different entities in their grant submission efforts. **Council member Bledsoe** focused on traffic safety enforcement [timestamp: 00:00]. Bledsoe inquired about the availability of grants for enforcing texting and driving laws, expressing particular concern over the growing problem of distracted driving in the community. **Council member Henson** raised concerns about pedestrian infrastructure [timestamp: 00:00]. Henson expressed frustration over the lack of funding and attention being given to pedestrian safety improvements on Versailles Road, indicating this as an ongoing area of need. The comments reflected broader themes around transportation funding coordination, traffic safety enforcement, and pedestrian infrastructure needs within the jurisdiction. ## Contested Items The April 12, 2016 meeting featured two primary areas of contention that generated significant discussion among council members. **TIGER Grant Application Coordination** A heated discussion emerged regarding the city's TIGER grant application process, with concerns raised about potential conflicts with competing applications from Lexington and the state government. Council members expressed frustration over the apparent lack of coordination between different governmental entities when pursuing federal transportation funding. The discussion highlighted tensions about whether multiple local and state applications might undermine each other's chances of success, though the specific outcome of this debate was not clearly resolved during the meeting. **Versailles Road Safety Improvements** Council member Henson voiced significant frustration regarding the ongoing lack of funding and attention for pedestrian safety improvements along Versailles Road. This issue represented community opposition to the current state of infrastructure on this corridor, with Henson advocating for enhanced safety measures for pedestrians. The council member's concerns reflected broader community complaints about dangerous conditions for people walking along this major thoroughfare. The discussion underscored ongoing tensions between infrastructure needs and available funding resources, though no immediate resolution was reached during this meeting. Both contested items reflected broader challenges facing the city in coordinating with other governmental entities and addressing community safety concerns within budget constraints. The discussions demonstrated the complex nature of municipal decision-making when dealing with competing priorities and limited resources. ## Public Comment - Issues on Agenda [timestamp: 00:00] No members of the public came forward to provide comments on agenda items during this portion of the meeting. The public comment period for issues on the agenda was opened but no speakers participated. This agenda item provides an opportunity for community members to address the governing body about specific items scheduled for discussion or action during the meeting. The lack of public participation indicates either limited public interest in the agenda items or absence of community members wishing to speak at this time. ## Requested Rezonings/Docket Approval [timestamp: 00:00] During this agenda item, the meeting addressed the status of requested rezonings and docket approvals. No docket items required action at this time, making this portion of the meeting informational in nature. The discussion served as a routine check on pending rezoning requests and docket matters, but no specific cases were presented for consideration or decision. No key speakers were identified for this agenda item, and no particular concerns or debates were raised during this portion of the meeting. The outcome was purely informational, with no votes taken or formal actions required regarding rezoning requests or docket approvals. ## Approval of Summary [timestamp: 00:00] The Council considered approval of the summary from their March 15, 2016 work session. The discussion involved Council members Scutchfield and Farmer as key speakers. The summary was presented for the Council's review and approval as part of the standard meeting procedures. The March 15, 2016 Council work session summary was ultimately approved by the Council without significant debate or amendments noted in the record. This agenda item represents routine administrative business where the Council formally adopts the written record of their previous work session discussions and decisions. ## Budget Amendments [timestamp: 00:00] No budget amendments were presented during this meeting. The agenda item was addressed briefly with no formal presentations, discussions, or actions taken regarding municipal budget modifications. This represents a routine administrative update indicating that no departments or officials had submitted requests for budget adjustments at this time. ## New Business [timestamp: 00:00] The council addressed new business items during this portion of the meeting. Farmer and Scutchfield served as the key speakers for this agenda item. The new business items were presented and discussed by the council members. The specific details of what business was proposed or the nature of the items under consideration were not detailed in the available materials. Following the presentation and any discussion that took place, the council proceeded to vote on the new business items. The outcome was unanimous approval of all new business items brought before the council. No concerns or objections were raised during the consideration of these items, as evidenced by the unanimous vote in favor of approval. ## Continuing Business/Presentations [timestamp: 00:00] The meeting included a discussion on neighborhood development funds and committee summaries as part of continuing business items. Key speakers during this segment included Scutchfield and Akers, who provided information and updates to the council. The presentation focused on neighborhood development funds, though specific details about funding amounts, affected neighborhoods, or proposed projects were not detailed in the available materials. The discussion also covered committee summaries, suggesting that various council committees reported on their recent activities or recommendations. This agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal votes or decisions recorded. The presentation served to keep council members and the public informed about ongoing neighborhood development initiatives and committee work. The discussion provided an opportunity for council members to receive updates on community development efforts and committee activities, maintaining transparency in the council's ongoing business operations. ## Council Reports [timestamp: 00:00] Council members provided updates on various district activities and concerns during the Council Reports portion of the meeting. Council member Stinnett and Council member Gibbs were the key speakers who presented information to the council during this segment. The reports covered updates on district activities and addressed various concerns relevant to their respective areas of responsibility. This agenda item served an informational purpose, allowing council members to share updates and keep their colleagues informed about ongoing matters within their districts and areas of oversight. No formal action was taken during this portion of the meeting, as the reports were presented for informational purposes only. The Council Reports segment provides a regular opportunity for elected officials to communicate important developments, address constituent concerns, and maintain transparency about their activities and the issues affecting their districts. ## Presentation: Agricultural Property Classification Changes [timestamp: 00:00] David O'Neill delivered a presentation on changes to agricultural property classifications and their impact on tax assessments. The presentation focused on modifications to how agricultural properties are classified for taxation purposes, with O'Neill explaining the implications these changes would have on property tax assessments. The discussion covered the technical aspects of agricultural property classification systems and how adjustments to these classifications would affect property owners and tax revenue. This was an informational presentation designed to educate attendees about the upcoming changes to agricultural property tax assessment procedures. No formal action was taken during this agenda item, as it served as an educational briefing on the classification modifications and their anticipated effects on the local tax assessment process. The presentation provided stakeholders with important information about how agricultural property owners might be impacted by the revised classification system and assessment methodologies. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the April 5, 2016 work session summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve new business - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve neighborhood development funds - **Motion** — passed (0-0): extend presentation time by 5 minutes - **Motion** — passed (0-0): refer a presentation on the MPO meetings to the Planning & Public Safety Committee - **Motion** — passed (0-0): adjourn at 4:48pm --- ## Full transcript The Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. public comment for issues on the agenda. There are none. That would allow us to go to the second item on the agenda, which is requested rezonings and docket approval. There's no docket, so no action required there. Entertain a motion to approve the summary. Second. A motion and a second to approve the summary. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Next item is a budget amendment. There are none this week. Allows us to move to new business. I need a motion to approve. I move. Second. I have a motion and a second. A discussion on the motion. Please sign in. Council Member Stinnett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I had a question on the item N, as in Nancy. This is the Tiger Grant application for Town Branch Commons. I'm just curious. Do we know if anyone else is applying for a Tiger Grant from Lexington or Kentucky? because last year obviously we had we had a couple other cities apply and and beat us out for it so to speak i didn't know is there anyone else applying for a tiger grant this go around or is it just us yes sir um we went and visited uh kytc and i think they are planning to submit but it was not confirmed a tiger grant for the newtown pike extension piece other than that outside of Kentucky. We do not know of any other Tiger Grants. So the transportation cabinet of District 7 is applying? They're considering it, yes sir. And that's for Newtown? For the Newtown Peace extension. Have we had any conversations with them on coordinating this effort? No, they informed us of that. They did not coordinate. The first we heard of any other Tiger Grants in the state were when we went to Frankfort a few weeks ago. They have not, at that point, the central office had not even coordinated with District 7 because I asked Kelly Baker about it when we met a couple weeks ago, and he was unaware of any Tiger grants. So I wouldn't say it's a well-coordinated effort. Right. That's why I asked. I hadn't heard that either, and I'm just wondering where that's coming from. Central office. Alright, well, you let us know if they do indeed apply as well, so we know what kind of competition we're in in the state, because not every state gets multiple grants, obviously. Right. I think it's unfortunate that we have two from the city competing against each other. I do, too, and that's my concern. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Will. That's all. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Stinnett. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just have a couple questions. On item number H on the ticket or click it grant, I'm going to use this opportunity to ask a separate question, which I get a lot of complaints about texting and driving. And I was curious, and I mean, Commander Kirtzinger and I have talked often about, you know, how you can't really regulate that. I know we've pulled over about 200 people, but it's their first offense, so they let go. And it's hard to know if they're Googling as opposed to texting. Are there any grants like that available for texting? You know, I'm not aware of any. I don't know if Chief Barnard is aware of any of those or not. I haven't seen any come across my desk for that specifically. Thanks. Yes, for the texting and driving, it's a destructive driving grant that we have. We currently utilize it and have been utilizing it, and we have those campaigns also. We do? Yes. Okay. I just know that I get... It's very hard and difficult because of the way the state law is written, so sometimes we have to put two officers in and observe it. It's one of those laws that is open for interpretation, but we do have those grants and write those citations. Good. I appreciate that. I know there's a lot of accidents seem to be as a result of distracted driving, specifically phone related. Yes. Thank you. That's good to know. And then on number L, on the Senior Center, I know that Commissioner Mills, when she used to be here, we used to get $4 worth of services for every dollar we put into the program. Is that still, we're getting $109,000 in federal funding? And we're matching with 15%. Is that? We're putting in, my understanding, and I'll ask Irene to confirm in just a second, my understanding is that we're putting in well above the required matching the services with general fund dollars to support the services for the senior center. That's correct. Okay. Okay. I was just making sure. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. I have a couple questions. First one's on Kay. Thao, if you can come up. I thought we had a route where already for a lot of these vehicles. So what vehicles were these going to be dealing with in this department, and what's the difference between the route where we have now? Yeah, Tracy's here to speak to this item, but I believe that this is for the actual trash containers, not for the vehicles. Go ahead. That's correct. RACO right now provides a GPS tracking device on our LonaBox program that we have, but also we're looking at doing handheld scanners because there is already a chip embedded into the new trash receptacles that we have, the Herbys, the Rosies, the Linnys. And so by doing that, then instead of recording that number, we'll be able to go around and chronically get those in ready fashion and be able to indicate where they are in the city too. Okay, thank you. My next question is, I want to go back to N. Are you involved with the N too? Okay. Three issues that I have on N. First of all, looking at this Tiger Grant and looking at all the other cities, what they've done, I saw how much money has been given up how much money are we putting if we're going to put a grant I always put grants together where I come from we did a lot of grants and we always put all our tools together and one group that we voted on last year was the private sector and I've yet to see any money going into the match to help us show that this community is really behind this And how come we haven't put their amount to help us when we go to Washington or wherever we're going to show this is a community effort? Not only are we putting up a bond, but we've also got partnerships coming in. And I have yet to see any money. How much have they raised? Because we gave them $194,000 last year to give them money, to raise money. And now I've seen a budget. They're wanting to come back for another $194,000. That's one part. How much have they raised, and how come we haven't put that in our application? I can answer why we haven't put it in the application. I don't know how much they've raised, and perhaps Will does. But in the narrative of our application, I think it makes our application stronger that we have this private fundraising effort underway. The private fundraising effort is for the parks. And the United States Department of Transportation does not fund parks, and so our application is not for the parks. Our application is for what we're calling the Town Branch Commons Corridor, which is the transportation infrastructure down Midland and Vine. So we will certainly talk about that private fundraising effort in our application. I think it strengthens our application, but none of those private dollars will be used as the match. Well, I'm just going to give you one advice. And I've got a couple more questions. I'll give you one advice. When I put applications in there, they want leverage. And when they see partnership in private sectors, that number goes way up. And I assume we're getting a grading system on that. Now, just to do a bond, while they're putting in way more money than we are, I don't know if that will help our score. But to me, I hope you all come back. I assume you'll come back later how much money they raised. The second thing, and I'm not going to be here next week. I need to ask this question is the money, and we brought this when we had a Cal meeting on this, that are we using any stormwater to do any of these trails? Any of the stormwater money that we pass taxes for people to raise their stormwater fees, are we using any of this money to pay for this? We have applied for a KIA loan for the work on Midland Avenue, and a portion of that loan, if we receive the funds, will be used for sustainable stormwater improvements along Midland. I've got a problem with that, and I'll tell you what. I was on the committee back in the late 90s and early 2000. Bill Farmer shared this committee. When he left, I came on and I shared this committee. We pushed for this fee structure to be passed. Never once did I ever hear any flood problem downtown Luxembourg. It was in the neighborhood of the 5th District, the 6th District, which is a major problem. and these two here were a lot of what Bill Farmer was on there. I just don't want to bump these folks out, and I have a problem with that. And, Charlie, you don't have to get up and speak on that. You don't have to. I'm just giving my comment on it because I only got 12 seconds. And the final one, I look at the final two years of getting funded for this project, and now that Kevin has mentioned that we've got Newtown Pike coming through. this is transportation tiger grant it's amazing how these people get funded from these other cities it's how they enhance the traffic problems I don't see how this is going to help traffic downtown Lutton putting a creek downtown Lutton I don't I'm going to support this but I think the odds of you all getting this money is about as good as us getting the money from the state for the Rupp Arena so that just tells you how I feel about this. I think the best project we've done so far is the courthouse. This one is the bottom of my list. I just don't, I think we've got a lot of issues out there. I don't think we've gotten real answers yet. And I think the odds, like I said, we've got a better shot at getting the money from the state. Does everybody know where we are on that? I don't see us getting any shot here. I'll prove me wrong. That's why I support it. But I'll go ahead and support this. Thank you. I would just like to clarify. The Tiger Grant would be for bike and pedestrian improvements along midland and vine street and it has nothing to do with bringing the creek or the town ranch commons culvert and daylighting it well if new councilman maloney can i just take one sec can i let her finish and then if you want to get recognized your time is up i'll put you back in order well okay thank you i'm finished that's all i wanted to Did you have any further comment? I'm good. Thank you. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Chair. I have a question, Mr. Adkins, if you wouldn't mind coming to the podium. Please. How are you? Good. On O&P, the incentives for ArchVision and for Love Will Incorp, and those are loans for positions, correct? Is that correct? Yeah, I'm going to ask Wes to come up. He's handled both of those. The $250,000 is a loan. Okay. And so how long do we loan that for? Those are 10 years. For 10 years. And so for 10 years, we're going to loan $250,000 per year? No, no, no, no. It's a one-time. The payback is over $250,000. $250,000 is paid back over 10 years. Okay, so it's a one-time disbursement. Yeah, both of these are one-time disbursements. I'm sorry? Both of them. Okay. O and P are one-time disbursements. I'm just curious, and I know both of these companies, and they're both good. What happens if they don't ever pay back? There are provisions in the agreement. There are interest penalties and other clawback provisions. much like the state does when we've dealt with paybacks from other companies here in the past. So we put those provisions in there to protect the city. And as well, in most cases, there is a personal guarantee from the individual who owns or the directors. I'm just saying, what happens if the company goes belly up? Then what's the option? So there's a personal... The West manages that, and we try to put as many provisions in there to protect the city's position as possible. So you're telling me there's a personal guarantee from someone in the company that would, in case this didn't work? We submit the information to the board, and the board, depending on the financial condition of the company, may choose to ask for a personal guarantee. There is one for Love Will, but in evaluating the application from ArchVision, given their long business history, the board didn't feel it was necessary to ask for a personal guarantee. Yeah, I'm pretty familiar with ArchVision. Okay. All right. That's all I just needed to know. And I had one last question. When Council Member Stennett was asking about the information on, I guess it was N, I didn't hear it all. Where? Who else is applying for the Tiger Grant? I just didn't hear it. I'm sorry. The Transportation Cabinet will likely have at least one, if not more, Tiger Grant applications across the state. Well, I'm talking about from Lexington. I guess I should have been more specific. I guess, didn't you say, Council Member, there was another one? Right. It's our understanding that they are applying for a Tiger Grant for the Newtown Pike extension. Okay. I just didn't hear that. Thank you so much. That's all, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Hensley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have a question on item G. I don't know who would be answering on this. Dow? And maybe Aldona might be interested in this too. Is there any consideration while we're accepting this award to do this work to put in some extra fiber optic cable for our own data networks other than traffic? i believe that we we share our traffic network with other lfucg entities anyway um i could be wrong about that and jeff neal would know the details and he's not here today um but yes certainly i mean the cable's cheap you know it's the it's the conduit that's expensive or putting the conduit in so um we can certainly talk about about how many fibers we're installing with you at a that's all i just thank you thank you council member lamb thank you vice mayor i just have one question on item e uh miss uh miss aldona um i'm not used to seeing where that there is a the language there's no contract associated with this request and i was just wondering i'm Sorry, which item? That's okay. It's item E. Item E? Okay. It's the support services and maintenance for the mainframe. It says there's no contract associated with this. No, we contract for support services early on, so there's no specific contract. It's done early on, and so then we budget the support each year. So it's just a continuation of the original contract. Correct. Okay. All righty. So maybe next time we shouldn't say there is no contract associated with that because there is a contract that's just not absolutely. It's a renewal. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Okay, thank you so much. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have a question on N for either Dow or Will. this is for the bike multi-modal similar to what's on Harrisburg Road by New Circle is that what you're we're looking at or the legacy trail or it would be more like the legs I mean it would be an amped up version I think of what's on Harrisburg Road and New Circle. If we did not submit this application, what would it do to the Town Branch Commons project? The complete Town Branch Commons transportation project is not fully funded. So we have funded the portion on Midland Avenue between 3rd Street, the Isaac Murphy Memorial Art Garden, continuing down Vine to Limestone. That's funded. Those pieces are funded. So the piece from Limestone and then traversing in front of Rupp Arena is not funded. So this would cover? This would cover that piece from Limestone to Tucker Street on Main in front of Mary Todd Lincoln House, and then also complete the final piece of the Town Branch Trail on Manchester Street. And this would be the total cost, $16 million, $20 million? $20 million to complete those. Yeah, I guess I'm just curious because how do you determine if you're going to apply for a Tiger Grant, what project to apply for? And I'll tell you where I'm coming from, and Derek knows very well that, you know, I've been on the council this my ninth year. I'm in my ninth year. the very first thing I began working on was for Sales Road. You know, early on, the economy wasn't so good. We couldn't get any traction. But that is the one thing I knew in my district that needed attention. And I don't want to be ugly. But we were able. You know, the mayor has been moving it along, and I'm appreciative of that, with $150,000 for the study. The NPO did a smaller study and did make some improvement. But the sidewalks and the curbs are a disaster. And I'm just thinking, will this ever, ever be funded for the people that are walking to work, going to school, to the grocery? I see people in wheelchairs, and I don't think any council member around this horseshoe would disagree with me that Versailles Road has more pedestrian traffic than any other major corridor in this city. And they need to be able to get safely to where they need to be. And it's also a major corridor into our city. I mean, you look at Newtown Pike. It's beautiful. It has become a lot of that's due to development. For Shells Road is landlocked. There's not a lot of room for development. But we need those sidewalks. Right. No, I understand your concerns. And $20 million would pretty much do the entire corridor. Yeah. I mean, nothing precludes a city from applying for the Tiger Grant. The Tiger Grant is discretionary funding from USDOT, specifically for innovative projects. So similar projects that have been awarded by like cities were light transit rail in Charlotte. Philadelphia had a similar multimodal path system awarded. Innovative bridge projects. So those are the type of projects. They're looking for creative out of the box, and they give guidelines. So you can obviously apply. There's multiple avenues of funding for state and federal for different projects, but we felt this one best fit, Tiger best fit the trail system that we're trying to complete. You know, and I sit here time after time after time and support these projects when I know Versailles Road is either not important to anyone else or whatever, but my time's up, so I'll stop fussing for now. But, you know, I just want you to understand the seriousness of the need for sales growth. I understand. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. Council Member Evans. Thank you. We'll keep this party going. You all can come on back up because it was the same concern. But I have more of a real question about the process itself, because we do keep seeing different ways of getting this TIGER grant. Is this something – I guess I'm trying to figure out why, if you have an idea or a plan of what town branch is fully supposed to look like, why is that not being fully submitted as a full Tiger grant? And then you'll have the buy-in from the city. You'll have what it's supposed to look like and what the full plan is, as opposed to what I just see, again, not being an engineer in that world. It seems like a piecemeal. Or, okay, that didn't work, so now we're going to try it this way. Or now we're going to try it that way. Is that how it normally works? or what are we missing? And I am just as concerned that we've got District 7, who I would think the federal government would probably see perhaps as a higher authority or what have you, submitting a project as well. I mean, I have real concerns about that. But, yeah, I'm just trying to figure out the process itself and why is it operating this way. Sure, a couple things. Since we submitted our Tiger Grant last year, we have funded a couple pieces. We funded the piece from 3rd and Midland all the way down Vine to Limestone. So that was part of our Tiger Grant last year. But since we submitted and we were unsuccessful, we've secured CMAQ funding, we've applied for a KIA loan, and we've secured TAP funding, Transportation Alternatives funding for those pieces. So this Tiger Grant has to be different from our previous one just because we've secured funding since we last submitted. When you say, why aren't we applying for the whole project, do you mean including the parks? Because I think we can't, that is one thing that we cannot, USDOT will not fund parks. So we have to keep this just the transportation eligible pieces. And I'm trying to think, you asked one more question. I don't know. I know it was a loaded question. But yeah, I guess, so whatever is allowed funding under the Tiger Grant, has that all been submitted previously? or are we tweaking it or are we adding new different? I guess the project limits for which we're applying this round are different from last year's application. But I do think that that shows USDOT. We've made progress on this project since last time we submitted TIGER, and I think that's very important. You did ask, is KYTC viewed as a higher authority than us when applying for TIGER? I don't think so. So this is one way, this is one discretionary grant funding source from the U.S. DOT where they can give money directly to cities instead of funneling it through the state. And so I think from that perspective, the Secretary of Transportation is a former city mayor. He understands how hard it is for cities to deliver transportation projects that are important to their city and not just be beholden to the DOT. So I think from that perspective, I think being a city and applying for Tiger is actually a good thing. And when we went to USDOT and we met with Secretary Fox last week, we didn't mention the other Tiger Grant. So all he knows that we're applying for is the Town Ranch Commons. Thank you. Councilmember Maloney. Thank you. On the same issue again, when are we planning on voting on the bond, the $10 million bond? When is that going to come up? Bill can answer that. We've had multiple discussions regarding that. I had the first planning session with bond council and financial advisors this morning, and we are talking to the rating agencies the 9th and 10th of May, and on the 10th presenting the bond package to council and asking for first reading on the 12th. Prior to that, we'll talk about the $22 million for the old colored house and the amount that Council wishes to issue for Town Branch. I want to go on record that I said that I would not support the bond until we got the Tiger Grant. And I said that last year. And I also want to go on record now that this project, I think it's a great project, but communication is really breaking down again. And I'm going back to what Council Member Henson said. But for Sales Road, and I being a former councilman, that is the most serious problem, a traffic problem in licensing, and especially for when you've got handicapped, severe handicapped people in wheelchairs who cannot use those sidewalks anymore. And if you all don't want to sit out the press, everybody to go out there and watch somebody try to go down a wheelchair, which happens every week, every day, and we have to get out and help people out. Second thing I want to talk about, Newtown Pike. I've been on this council, maybe not long for a brand, but Newtown Pike has always been on everybody's radar to be finished. And to me, that was a high priority. And now I just found out District 7 is wanting to try to do the last phase with this Tiger Grant. And as I look at these Tiger Grants that have been awarded all over the country, these are the kind of projects that get ahead of what we're doing because it has an impact at going into a university. It's going to be a main entrance to the university. And to me, that's where the lack of communication becomes in the breakdown. We do not sit down and put what our top priorities are and find out what our state government is doing, what the University of Kentucky is doing. We just had a meeting today on what's going to close streets off. These are the kind of things that should be way in advance and better planned out. And I told you I will support this to go on and get the grant, which I think slim none. But if it's going to jeopardize Newtown Pike, and I don't know how many of you all here think this is more important than Newtown Pike. I'm sorry to say this, but Newtown Pike, in my opinion, is way more important than this because, A, it will finish the project. It would also impact the University of Kentucky and traffic problem, which is what this scene is for, solving traffic problems. I've yet to see how this is going to solve traffic problems on Fine Street. I know you said it may do some improvement, but I have yet to see any of it. So I just ask that every administration to sit down with the state legislators or state people. These are huge projects, and we all need to come together and put our parties. what's most important and all we're doing is Lexington is doing it on their own. The state's doing it on UK. We're all together here as one and it goes back to what I said. When I worked at the non-profit we always worked with other non-profits. We didn't want to go out there and compete with each other to hurt each other when we're doing the same project. But right now it sounds like we're doing what other non-profits did a long time ago. They end up getting not funded. They have to come back to this council and get money because so-and-so had a better project. I just see the communication is really breaking down here, and I'm hoping before we vote on this farm, you all need to figure out what's more important. Newtown Pike or this town Browns. And I think they're both important, but sometimes to me finishing the job is more important than putting on a new project. So I hope we have this discussion full. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Stinnett. Thank you. Councilmember Gibbs. Thank you, Councilman. I just want to say I'm very supportive of the Tiger Grant. I think we really need to carry through with this project. The end project is going to be an integrated ped and bike trail that goes all the way from the Horse Park out to McConnell Springs. And we need to do whatever we can to get it completed. If the Tiger Grant doesn't work out, we can pursue other things. But I'm very supportive of the Tiger Grant. And I'd like either Will or Dahl to comment on the last Tiger Grant. We did damn well on it, is my understanding. and I think we've got an excellent chance at this one. If you wouldn't mind commenting on that. Thank you. Sure. We have had two debriefs with USDOT, one on the phone and one in person, in addition to meeting with Secretary Fox last week. In those debriefs, we were told that our Tiger grant was highly recommended, which was the highest rating it can get from the Tiger team. It was sent to the Secretary's office, which ultimately it's discretionary funding and the Secretary of Transportation decides who's awarded. So we made it to that last step, and then we ultimately weren't awarded. When we went to USDOT last week, the Secretary of Policy, Carlos Monge, who runs the Tiger team, he said he told us we have a very strong application. He told the Secretary of Transportation we have a very strong application, and it's much improved over last year. So I feel like we couldn't have gotten a better response from him and a better statement at the end of our meeting to secretary of transportation that he essentially supported our application. So cautiously optimistic, but I think we're in a better spot than we were last year. Thank you. Councilmember Stinnett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just want to circle back to a couple of issues, I think, that have been made apparent today. And I know our CEO, you've always been good at fixing communication problems between the council and administration. So here's a couple things that I think have been pointed out today by my colleagues. One, I don't think we've been involved in the Tiger Grant process. I think we need to be. I think we need to be the ones helping that conversation into what we're really going to apply for. I know this is a mayor-dominated project, and that's okay. It's coming from the mayor's office. But I think the council has other things we could be applying for, such as Vercelis Road sidewalks. And I think that conversation needs to start going forward. The second piece, and I hope we hear about this next Tuesday, Charlie Martin, But using water quality funds and using our sewer funds that are both dedicated taxes to pay for Town Branch Trail improvements along Midland before other projects that are on the list are as a real concern of the council, and that hasn't been addressed yet. We haven't approved you to do that yet. So I'd like for that conversation to be had, too, because taking KIA money sounds good at 1%, But as long as people's homes are still flooding, as long as people still wake up in raw sewage in the middle of the night when it rains, I just don't feel good using KIA money when it can be going to those projects. So we need to be sure, and Charlie, if you can do it next Tuesday during our environmental quality meeting, I'm open to hear what projects are being put on the back burner so we can move this project ahead. I think the public needs to know what we're sacrificing because not one, this project does not count towards our consent decree for stormwater. It does on the sewer side, but that was 2021. And we're moving it up now to 2016. There's some real issues with that. And whether there's another way to fund it, I hope so. But using stormwater money, I'm not convinced that's the best way right now. We can talk about this next Tuesday, obviously, in more depth. I did want to make clear, though, that you arrived at that at the end of your comments, is that on the sanitary portion of it, that is in the consent decree. You're right. It is at the end of the schedule. All we have done is made an application to KIA, so we would position ourselves in order to replace that sewer if we decided to step through the threshold regarding Midland Avenue. Obviously, we could all agree to that, is that we're not going to put down a new surface and then leave that old sewer there in place. So we're just really trying to strategically place ourselves to be ready for that in the event that that occurs. On the stormwater one, yeah, I'll defer until next week on that. Well, thank you. I just don't want to see a good project get side railed because of trying to utilize creative ways of funding that really should be going for our critical needs in our community, as well as the communication on the Tiger Grant not be where it should be, and the council not have an opportunity to weigh in on what we're really applying for in Washington, because obviously the State Transportation Cabinet feels differently about Newtown, which is in the heart of our city, too. So that's all I'll say right now. Thank you, Vice Mayor. We'll wait until next Tuesday. Thank you. I see nobody else signed up. We can take a vote on new business. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. That allows us to move down to continuing business. First item is the Neighborhood Development Funds. I move. Motion to approve and second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Next will be the committee summary, planning and public safety. Councilmember Massadi. Thank you, Vice Mayor. The planning and public safety committee met on Tuesday, March 8th. We first discussed the H-1 notification process. The first issue after the February 9th summary was approved was the H-1 notification process. There were some concerns about costs and mailing notification associated with the H-12 process. Planning Director Duncan stated in their FY17 budget request that it did include funds for mailings. Secondly, we discussed fire and EMS vehicle replacement plan. In response to questions from Lamb and Bledsoe, Chief Hoskins described the vehicle requests and their uses. Hoskins stated that they had four civilian mechanics and one sworn person on the same shift as the firefighters. In a response to a question from Akers, Chief Hoskins also stated that they had recently been purchasing longer warranties for larger vehicles, like the ladder truck, and the extended warranty had been of value. Council Member Fred Brown inquired about the replacement schedule for the heavy fleet in the budget for FY16. Chief Hoskins stated that the budget for replacement in FY2016 was $2.57 million. And Council Member Brown also inquired if they were up to date on the replacement schedule. And Chief Hoskins replied that over the next two rounds of purchasing, they planned to have some engines that are 17 to 18 years old that required heavy maintenance. It looked like that Hoskins also stated that they had two tower ladder trucks with buckets. So as far as the correct responses of whether or not we are on replacement schedule, I'm assuming that we are. The next item in the agenda was community corrections office turnover. Director Ballard said that starting pay was about $32,000 at the beginning and at the end of the first year. It was about $36,000 for a corrections officer. He stated that competing pay at the Bureau of Prisons is about $48,600. Council Member Lamb asked about the survey that had been disseminated to the corrections officer and we're told that it will be brought back forward to us, the survey would be brought back forward to us in reference to a motion made by Council Member Akers stating that Dr. Wells would present the survey findings to the committee at the June 14th committee meeting following the completion of the report to the corrections staff seconded by Farmer. And the motion passed without dissent. And that's all, Vice Mayor. Thank you. That allows us to move to the next item on the agenda, a presentation on the agricultural property classification changes. Welcome, David O'Neill, Fayette County PVA. Thank you all very much for having me here today. I wanted to not miss the opportunity to let you know that we're currently in the process of getting assessment notices out in mailboxes this week. And this is going to be a very significant reassessment year, probably the most significant one we've had since the recession. So I wanted to give you a little bit of an update on that before we go into the other, if that's all right with you all. Before we got into the work session, I handed out maps to each of the special council members. I've got a map, those of you who have a district. And I wanted to give you some idea because our phones are going to light up starting as early as Friday. I'm delivering 27,000 reassessment notices to the post office this week. They will hit mailboxes as early as Friday. I would expect that each of your offices will hear from some taxpayers, so I wanted to give you a heads up, and then hopefully you can funnel those calls to us. So here is a county-wide map. The colored sections are your individual council districts, and then where you see the dark spots, the gray spots overlying, those are the neighborhoods that are being reassessed this year. And about a fourth of the county gets inspected and reassessed by my office every year. So each of you should have a map of your own district. I might have got a little bit out of order with Councilwoman Evans' seat, but there's a map over there for you somewhere. Just to give you kind of some context on this, here is the size of the residential real property tax roll over the last 10 years. And you can see for 2016, which we just delivered the first recapitulation file to the Department of Revenue, and we are going to see a significant increase for 2016. One thing that we've tried to do, we've completely redesigned the assessment notice. Most of you will probably remember that we typically send out a postcard. But given the significance of this year's reassessment, we've completely redesigned the assessment notice to include a sales map of each taxpayer's neighborhood so that they can see for themselves. Generally, when we hear from a taxpayer, they don't have any idea what sales are happening around them. And once we walk through and tell them about their neighbor's homes that have sold, that usually takes care of, I would say, 85 or 90 percent of the inquiries we get from property owners. So hopefully these new reassessment notices will help significantly with that. Here's an example of the sales map. And this particular map is just the Chevy Chase neighborhood. And you can see we actually weren't able to include a full 18 months that we would typically use in a reassessment. This is about one year's worth of sales just in the Chevy Chase neighborhood, which is one of the neighborhoods that is getting a significant reassessment. So that's all I had on that, unless you had any particular questions. If not, then we'll go right on. I do have a council member who signed up. Council member Maloney. So the question I was going to ask is on the Add to Country, so I need to wait until you do that presentation, or did you just... Your question was on AG, is that what you said? I was going to ask, are you getting ready to do the presentation on the AG? I think my question is going to be on that. Okay. So I just wait to hear what you guys say on that. Okay, good. Thanks. Are you well? Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Chair. A question here. Were we supposed to get maps of our district at each one of these? Because this is not my district. Well, like I said, I got a little bit out of order over here because I tried to come in in between sessions. So the intent was to hand out maps for each district, yes. Okay, well. Okay, so can I get with you and make sure that you get a correct map? Well, there's others. It's not the only one. David, I think most of them have questions about the maps. Okay, let me get with you afterwards, and I'll make sure that you get the appropriate maps, okay? And it should be our district maps, right? Just out of the GIS? I've got yours. Yeah, so Council Members, they're not correct. If you're going to call it Council District 8, I'd like to— They're mislabeled. I will be happy to make it right, sir. I apologize. We'll get it fixed. Thank you. I'm not the only one. Council Member Massadi. Thank you. Mr. O'Neill, knowing the real estate business, what's happening now is there's a lot of properties that are being purchased for more than even purchased. value. I mean, in excess of it. So we're talking about some properties that are getting $10,000 to $25,000 over asking price. How are you being able to figure that in into the assessment equation? Because of John and Mary Smith buy a house and pay $25,000 more for it, and the house next door, I mean, it may not even appraise for that. And in some cases it won't, but in some cases it does. How do you figure all those tabulations in so it's because one person wanted this one house and was willing to pay an excessive amount as opposed to the person next door whose value may not be as much. And then you're going to raise it based on that comparable sale, or how are you going to do this? Each property typically has five comparable sales that are used to help arrive at the value of that property. So in those cases, we usually are able to factor out the highs and the lows. So each property will have five comps that will be used. And I understand that, but some of these comps are a lot more, higher than what they normally would be on a normal basis. I mean, the real estate market has really taken off, and we're like at 2004. So I'm just wondering, you know, some of these problems. Before we put a sale into the pool of the sales that we consider to be comps, it does go through a research department where we research the deed, we look at the MLS and try to learn as much about the property as possible. And when we see a sale that we can't explain the price, whether it's high or whether it's low, then we will code it in a way that it doesn't get pulled into the comps. I'm just thinking for those residents who maybe are adjacent to some of those properties are going to get a big bump, and not rightfully so. And that's what my thought is. The market is very active right now. Correct. And very volatile, we're aware. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you. Thank you, David, for this. I think it's good to give us a heads up because I'm sure we'll certainly hear about it. So you will be mailing letters to everyone that is grade in our districts, correct? Everybody whose assessment changes from one year to the next, I'm required to send them a notice letting them know. So yes. Okay, so you don't let them know in advance that you are reassessing. You let them know only if it changes. Well, this is the advance notice. So this begins the open inspection process where a property owner can come in and conference with us if they don't think the assessment that we're proposing is correct. And then after that process is concluded and we go through the local board of tax appeals process, then the tax roll gets locked down and we can't make changes. May 31st? I'm sorry? Is that May 31st? No. So open inspection by statute begins the first Monday in May, runs for 13 consecutive days, including Saturdays. So this year it will be concluded on Monday, May the 16th. That's the last day to conference with my office. And then the last day to actually file an appeal is the following day, Tuesday, May the 17th. So the only real requirement to file an appeal with the Board of Tax Appeals is they do have to conference with my office. So be careful if you do get phone calls from taxpayers that the call gets moved to our office so that they don't think just by contacting their council member qualifies as a conference. And when you said that this would be one of the most significant reassessments since the recession, do you mean as far as numbers? Volume, yes. Volume, okay. All right, great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Nobody else signed up for this section, so if you would proceed with the ag classification. Okay, so first of all, I just would like to give a little bit of context and let everybody know that I believe, and this is a lot of my opinion that you're going to hear today, is that the long-term sustainability of the Ag Classification Program, I think, requires that we close some of the loopholes that you've recently become aware of. So I'm willing to move forward and work with Department of Revenue, to hopefully work with the legislature to help identify ways that we can do that. What the ag classification is, is it allows for property owners, and this is statewide, this is a state statute, to get a tax deferment for the land that they have in excess of 10 acres. So 10 acres or more qualifies for the ag classification. Now, the specific details of the statute, and I put copies of the statutes that pertain to this in the packets, and we'll refer to them again in a second, that the land be engaged in some type of an agricultural activity. And we'll talk about that a little bit more. But the purpose is kind of twofold, and this is an excerpt from some training material from the State Department of Revenue. One is to preserve the farmland, preserve land. and we've been, here in Fayette County at least, we've been progressive and done a good job of preserving land. We've got a PDR program, an urban service area, but that's not the only point of the tax deferment. It's also to stimulate and continue the pursuit of farming. We're Kentucky, we value farming, so at least according to the Department of Revenue, those are the two primary reasons why we have the classification. So again, they are administered by statutes. It's KRS 132, 010, and 450, and both of those are in the very backs of your packets, I believe. But also in the United States, we don't just have statutes. We also have case law, and some of the more significant case law is Dolan v. Land. Dolan was actually one of my predecessors from the late 70s, early 80s. And then a lot of cases that have gone before, local board of tax appeals and state boards of tax appeals. So you'll see in KRS 132010 Section 9, it references that any property that has 10 or more contiguous acres and then is engaged in various agricultural activities, whether it's livestock or crops or whatever, is entitled to it. The problem is, is the only quantifiable measure in the statute pertaining to whether or not you get the agriculture classification is whether it's 10 or more acres. There's no quantifiable measure in terms of how much acreage you need to have a crop. Timber is included as a crop. There's no quantification in terms of how many trees is in a stand of trees that would qualify as timber. There's no how many head of cattle, how many head of horses do you need to qualify. Is somebody's daughter's pony in the backyard suitable to receive the agriculture classification? And maybe the answer is yes, and if it is, that's fine. but there's no guidelines like that currently in existence for us to go by. So in the absence of specific direction in the statute, the courts and the KBTA and the PBAs and the Department of Revenue have looked elsewhere for intent. And that's where we go to Section 132.010 of the revised statutes. Section 11 brings up this term of whether or not the property is capable of producing income. And so nearly every jurisdiction in the state has now been drawn to that requirement, is whether or not the property is 10 or more acres and still possesses income-producing capability. And part of the reason that we've gotten there is the statutes have been weakened over the years. Going back to 1992, other requirements have been removed from statutes, including an income requirement. You used to have to disclose your Schedule F or some other proof that there's income associated with your property, and that was deliberately removed by the state legislature. So clearly they intended for there to be some other qualification other than just producing income, whether that meant homesteading just for your own personal consumption, trade arrangements, that type of thing. So that's how we got to where we are. So where we are is there are two fairly significant loopholes. One of them has to do with residential property, And these are the ones that are large lawns on 10 acres, generally very nice, expensive homes where on the 10 acres there's no agriculture activities being done at all. So allow me a little latitude here. We'll maybe refer to those as McMansions. The second one, the loophole, is on development land. And this is land that is in transition from farmland to becoming something else. And I guess the best example that we discussed publicly recently was the summit at Fritz Farm. So what you need to remember about all property, and it has nothing to do with whether it's agriculture, whether it's development land, all property, for PVA purposes, the only date that really matters is January 1st. So what was the condition of the property? What was its status? What was its classification? What condition that it was in? What was its value on January 1? Because we have to lock down a tax roll at some point to set tax rates and to base your budgets on. At some point, there has to be a cutoff date. And for ad valorem tax purposes, the cutoff date in Kentucky is January 1. So January 1, Fritz Farm was a farm of January 1, 2015. January 1, 2016, it was a development parcel. and it was taxed for full fair cash value. So I brought a couple of examples, and we don't have to spend much time on this, and they're not very bright, but here's some examples of some of the questions that we run into. So here is a parcel, and again, I apologize. You can see it a little bit better on this screen than you can the front screen. But this is a 10-acre parcel. There's kind of a fairly clear delineation between the green part and the brown part. The green part is almost entirely for the personal pleasure of the property owner. It's a large lawn. It's a large house. There's a swimming pool, garage, that type of stuff on the land. So the only part of the land that's really being used for agriculture, if it's being used for agriculture at all, would be the brown part. So one of the parts of the statute says that it must be 10 contiguous acres after you take out the land where the house sits, the driveway is, the flower beds, the swimming pool, and even lawn. So again, we're now getting into a situation where we don't even define lawn. So how much of it is lawn? How much of it is agriculture? So, and then again here, is whatever is happening on this parcel that's turning the grass brown, is that a significant enough amount of agriculture to qualify for the classification, even if you ignored the stipulation about the 10 acres after you take out the house? Here's another one that's out near the river, and you can see it's taken up mostly by trees. Now, any time a PBA has taken one of these forward to the Board of Tax Appeals, the property owner has won on the question of timber. So if there's a stand of trees on the property, they will typically be allowed to claim that as timber and therefore qualifying for the ag classification. But even if you took the tree part out of the equation and said, okay, well, in the upper left-hand corner, clearly you've got something agricultural going on there, right? So, you know, in the context of 10 acres, that's maybe a half acre. So is a half acre garden enough? Is a quarter acre garden enough? here's another one and this is an example of a 10 acre parcel where there's no agricultural activities going on but you certainly wouldn't call it a big mansion right it appears to be a very modest house again we're in kentucky people like to live on a big piece of land and that's great so when we move into a situation where we start requiring agricultural use to qualify for the agriculture classification, guess what we're going to start seeing? We're going to start seeing gardens popping up all over the place. And again, without guidelines, which is this condition that we're in right now, how do I make that determination? I've taken some comfort in the fact that I'm treating everybody within the ag classification exactly the same. There's no subjectivity to it whatsoever. Is it 10 acres? Yes or no. So now, without any new guidelines, without any new statutes, without any new direction from the Department of Revenue, if I move towards requiring agricultural use, we're moving into a policy of I'll know it when I see it, which I don't think anybody believes is an appropriate way to run a tax system, and it's certainly not where I would like to be as your PVA. So here's the getting back to the development land. Nearly all of the large development tracts of land that we have began at some point as a farm or at some point as an agriculture classification. Then they moved through this continuum of beginning as a farm, ending with a mall or a strip mall or a residential subdivision. At some point, there has to be a time when it stops being a farm and it starts being a development land. And again, getting back to the January 1st, the rules that we follow, here's the example of the summit at Fritz Farm on the left-hand side, January 1, 2015, still very much a farm. And then on the right-hand side, you see there's dirt being moved all over the entire parcel, and it goes on the tax roll at full fair cash value. Here's another one that's a little bit different than that one. And this is 4,500 old schoolhouse. This was purchased by one of the ball companies in May 2014. So on January 1, 2015, they had still not put a plat to record. No earth had been moved. It's still being operated as a farm, still as a farm in appearance. So January 1, 2015, it remains with its agriculture classification for another year. By January 1, 2016, we now have a plat that has been put to record in February of 2015. Significant development has happened. What you see in the front here are seven, it's a multifamily complex, seven different buildings with 28 units in each building. It's about 40% complete here. So obviously for 2016, that is going on the tax roll at full fair cash value. We'll be a part improved here at about $10 million. dollars. The back part of this parcel is going to be single family residents and it should be on the tax roll for closer to 20 million. Excuse me, David, I'm going to need a motion to extend your time. Five minutes. Can I have five minutes? Yes. Motion. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Please proceed. Okay, and again January 1, 2017, hopefully the apartment complex will be completed and I would think that there would be significant development that would have taken place in the single family residences and the taxable value on all of that will be closer to $20 million. Here's one that's a little bit different and one that I know has concerned a lot of citizens and concerns me as well. This is a parcel of land at the intersection of Georgetown Road and Citation Boulevard. It was purchased by the Meyer Company in the year 2000 for $2.43 million. It has a taxable value with the ag classification of $10,900. So the total amount of taxes that have been deferred since Meyer's purchased it is $360,000. So they have not, at this point, they have not even filed a development plan. So I guess you could assume that part of why they've held this so long without doing anything is related to the economy, part of it perhaps related to the delays in Citation Boulevard. Who knows? But that's the situation we're in with that property. Now there's a section of the same law that we've been talking about, 132.450. Different things have been suggested to me. Well, when you know a developer has purchased it, you now know what the intent is. Why can't you put it on the tax roll at that time? Well, anybody can own a piece of land, and anybody can own a piece of land for whatever purpose. So many of our largest developers were farmers. Our farmers own farmland. So anybody can own a piece of land. But here's a section of the law, 132.450, specifically intended to address the issue of development land. It says that we don't remove the classification, certainly not when they buy it, not when they file a development plan or seek a zoning change, not even when that's been approved, but when the actual use of the property has been changed, do we remove the I classification. So what we have been doing in the Fayette County office and what I believe every county is doing in Kentucky is when either a final plat is put to record or earth is moved, whichever happens first, on that January 1, they lose the classification. so i know that there's there's been some question as to whether or not some of the things that i mentioned uh that i wanted to do uh immediately to to move the ball forward on this issue had to do with uh excluding land use for personal use the lawns the swimming pool or whatever i wanted to make clear that that is directly out of the current statute that is not anything that i've come up with on my own. I also mentioned that if anybody had owned the property for five or more years, been receiving the ag classification for five or more years, they would keep it. They would be grandfathered in. Again, that's directly out of the statute in today's law. That's not anything that I've come up with or anything that I've proposed changing. So what we're doing, the Department of Revenue has put this issue on the agenda for the PVA conference this year. They want to give the other PVAs an opportunity to weigh in, and all of us come together with some recommendations, so they've asked me not to change anybody's classification prior to January 1 of 2017. But what I am going to do is, as properties transfer, as they sell, beginning January 1 of 2016, the ag classification will be removed until the property owner requests that it be reinstated, and then at that time, we will review the property to see if it qualifies for the exemption. I think it's pretty clear from looking at the statute that the original intent of the law was that it be elected by the owner, that it wouldn't be an automatic process. So I think that putting it back to the property owner to make the request is the right thing to do at this point. Great. Thank you. And I have at least one Council Member sign up for a question. Council Member Maloney. Thank you, David. I appreciate it. I just want to get a clarification. In Louisville and northern Kentucky, there is a PVA that, can you define what is different than Luthington, and can you give me an example on one of the slides, how that would affect if we would have passed what they have in Louisville or northern Kentucky, if you took one of those properties, how that works compared to what, and my next question, can it work or why we're not used to that? I think what the councilman is referring to is in Louisville and at least one other county in northern Kentucky, the PVA is requiring that the property owner apply for the classification, basically what it is that I'm suggesting that we do. It's not a different law. They don't have different guidelines than we do. Those PVA's have decided to do that or their predecessor decided to do that. I'm not really sure. So I was not in favor of doing that initially because I believe what you end up with is an honor system. And you end up with, you know, I'm tasked with making sure that the tax laws are administered fairly and equitably. And, again, it goes back to when I said that I took comfort in the fact that everybody receiving the I classification is being treated exactly the same. So when we get into a situation where somebody says, well, yes, I should get it because I'm growing these tomato plants out back or I have these trees out in the corner of my property, whatever the reason is, we are now going to get away from this equitable situation within that classification. So I believe that is what you're referring to. So can you give me an example on one of the properties that you have if we were to pass what Louisville or northern Kentucky has? Because how much considerable would it be? One of those properties, did you stop 10 acres or whatever? Okay, so here's one that if you just interpreted the law strictly, you probably would not award the classification on this property because all appearances are there's nothing agricultural being done here. So how would they do then? Just give me, what would they do in Louisville? Would the PVA go in and do what you just said? The PVA would put it on the tax roll for full fair cash value. The property owner would then appeal to the local board of tax appeals with a garden in place. And the local board of tax appeals would rule and the taxpayers' favor. Why would we not want to do that? Because if they're not using it for ag, and they're not using what you're concerned about, why would we not want to do that? and let them appeal it, and then they can plead their case, but it ends up being they can't plead their case very well, and it goes back to what people are saying is, well, you're going to pay what you feel and what everybody else feels. Why can't we do that? Yes, sir, we are. Huh? We will. I mean, are we going to pass what Louisville and Northern Kentucky? There's nothing to pass. There's nothing to pass. It's at the discretion of the PVA. So you're telling me we're going to adopt what they do in Louisville and Northern Kentucky? Is there a difference in what Northern Kentucky and Louisville does with this kind of property? The PVA in Jefferson County requires that the taxpayer request the exemption, and then they monitor the property to make sure agriculture is being performed. Do you do that? And I'm going to do that. You are going to do that. Okay. Thank you. That's what I need to know. That's why people asked me, and I couldn't answer that, so I'm glad you clarified that for me. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So this will be similar to the homestead exemption currently, where homeowners apply for the exemption. You mean in terms as far as the property owner will have to request it? Mm-hmm. Yes, unfortunately, because I don't have a way to know. I wish that we could automatically grant it to 65-year-olds, because I know that there are property owners who are falling through the cracks. We do our best to get word to people. We send a letter, get a copy of the voter registration rolls from the county clerk's office, and send letters to anybody turning 65. But as we all know, there are many reasons why somebody might not be on the voter rolls. So this process will work similarly to that, that they would have to apply to you, to your office, for that exemption or ag status. And then, as you mentioned in one of your previous slides, that there currently is no subjectivity, that it will become subjective. I mean, you will then determine whether or not it's, you know. I think it will have to become subjective. There will have to be a process where we're looking at whether it's aerial photography or we're doing a visit to the property. There will have to be a period where we're having to subjectively decide is this sufficient agriculture to qualify or not. Or they would have to prove it, I guess, with their application process perhaps. I mean, would you request that? But Meyer property, for instance, I believe that they leased the property for hay, that someone paid them. Yes, they have an arrangement for the hay, and you can actually tell from this photograph here that, well, this one you can tell a little bit. I wouldn't be able to tell. You can see the rows in the grounds. Okay, but so if you couldn't tell, though, and they filled out an application, they could submit with it some contract or agreement they have with XYZ Company for hay, for instance, to justify their agricultural designation, I guess. Yes, I will request from developers to prove whether it's some type of a lease or some type of sale of the product, yes. And so you mentioned a quarter acre garden, half acre. I mean, are you going to set those rules internally? No, we're going to do that. Hopefully we're going to do that at the conference this summer, the PVA conference. This needs to be a project that's driven by the Department of Revenue. You know, I'm an independently elected county person, but my office is just an extension of the State Department of Revenue. Right. Well, good luck. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Lamb. Thanks, and thank you for this presentation. This has made it a little bit more clear. And I guess the only question I have is, will the ag property owners, will they have to submit an application every year, or is it just a one-time until the property changes hand or changes ownership? So anybody that owns the property now would be part of the grandfathering that we talked about. So the only changes that we will be making is as the property sells. So I would not expect there to be a need for an annual application unless we believe that the use has changed and we remove it or we try to put it on the tax roll and then they object, and at that point they could reapply and offer proof. So is that going to take some more? I mean, how are you going to handle this with personnel? Not that we have any jurisdiction over that. I know you said that was going to require more personnel, or possibly. There will be administrative overhead, but we will continue to implement technologies and become more efficient and do our jobs, and we will figure out a way to do it. Thanks for Google Earth, right? Well, we have an agreement with the city. We have a little bit more sophisticated than Google Earth. We have the pictometry stuff. So we've actually just enhanced our pictometry tools. We took delivery of our login IDs and passwords today, and I'm looking forward to digging into it. All right. Well, thanks for the presentation today. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Hensley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. David, we've seen a lot of each other lately. Yes, sir. Feel like we're dating? Yes, sir. So I'm glad you came down and spoke to us about this because there's been a lot of subjectivity, I think, and people thinking that the houses weren't taxed at the same rate as they are inside the city and different things. And I think that's been a real issue that we've been able to address and a lot of it from your commentary. And I know it's a complicated issue going forward, and all these properties are in my district. So I don't know of any that aren't yet. I would think that most of them are in your district, and most of them are in Tax District 2, I would presume. And a lot of this is, you know, it's artifact from how the properties were divided up in the, oh yeah, in the at-large council members. Yes, sorry, thank you for reminding me, sir. one of the questions I've got that I didn't hear you say in this presentation was the total tax base increase that would result of the changes it's like right at $1 million in new revenue it's hard to nail down because like I said I think that once we start requiring agriculture we're going to start seeing agriculture so if we took all the properties that right now that I've done a pretty deep dive into this data in the last few months, as you might imagine. And so I've looked at a lot of these properties with kind of trying to make a determination, would this pass the sniff test today if we were to require some type of a use? And I believe that there's probably maybe 450 that if we stopped the clock right now and said, okay, exactly the way they're being used right now, they probably would not pass. I think once you start requiring agriculture, people aren't doing agriculture perhaps because they don't have to, but once you require it, then I think that number drops dramatically. So the 450, I believe, would result in about an additional 600,000 to the schools and about 25,000 for your All's General Fund. Gotcha. Yeah, that's one of the numbers we've been computing. And I know a lot of the conversations come back that says that these farms are not paying their fair share. Well, I think that's a very good point, and I appreciate you bringing it up, and I meant to, is that going back to the generic term I used a while ago, the McMansions, it's important for everybody to remember that the house and the one acre that the house sits on, that's all on the tax roll at 100% fair cash value. The only tax deferment is on the other nine acres of land. Instead of it being assessed at fair cash value for what the land would bring if a developer were to purchase it, if the land were just to be purchased for other reasons, it might bring $20,000 an acre. But land is almost never worth as much in the pursuit of agriculture as it is for development land. So the House is already on the tax roll at 100% fair cash value, as is any kind of a commercial application. And one of the issues or points I'd like to make is that if we bring this million dollars of new revenue in, and depending on timing, the 12th District in itself is the number one contributor on the tax rolls to the General Services Fund. I mean, about $33 million fluctuates between us and the 5th District. between about $600,000 based on timing when we look at the data. And, you know, there are no libraries in the 12th district. And so, you know, some of the emotional part of this conversation that's came along is that, you know, people in the farmland aren't paying their fair share. You know, I don't think that's an accurate calculation sometimes in how we've messaged that, and I just want to say that. You know, we're paying a lot for fire and police services. that would put us a number one contributor to school taxes and to library funds. And so we're actually trying to calculate how many students in schools that are active for schools that are receiving the benefit of those taxes. And we're carrying a large part of the tax burden out there. And I don't want that in the general conversation or the dialogue of what we're talking about, that if you live in the rural area, you're not paying your fair share, because us who live out there are paying a large amount. with some exceptions. So I just want to be careful with that conversation. I'm glad you came down. One other part, as you guys go forward in the fall, part of the state law says that horticultural use is five acres, right? Yes. There's a stipulation that if it's being used for horticultural purposes, and the definition of that's a little bit different, it appears that the intent there was to cover orchards and berry farms. it can go down to five acres. Okay. And so I know it's complicated. Like I said, I feel like I've been in almost every one of the sessions that you've had just to hear the general dialogue that's going on. And I thank you for your effort. And I look forward to how this works out later. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Stinnett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. David, thank you for, again, coming down. I know you've been on the circuit lately and been in a lot of places. having a good discussion on this topic. I guess one question I'm getting asked a lot, and I know you're the right one to answer. Why is this a problem now? I mean, you've been PVA for six years now, I think, seven, and we had another PVA in there for over a decade. Why is this all of a sudden a problem? Why hasn't this been addressed years ago? No laws change, and it's always been the law. Why all of a sudden is it a problem today? I think there's a couple of parts to that, and not wanting to sound like I'm making excuses, But I think on the part of revenue and the PBAs, there was probably some assumption that this would get rolled into a broader tax reform that various legislative leaders and various administrations have talked about the need to do. And I think there was an attempt by the lieutenant governor who led a commission to look into this. And quite frankly, the PBA office is the only county office that doesn't have a dedicated revenue stream. and we have to go to Frankfurt and beg for money every biennium. So we weren't leading the charge because we thought that it would be addressed at some point, and the fact that there was never a good time when we didn't have to be in Frankfurt. You know, you've got a limited amount of time with your legislators. And, you know, are we there to make sure that our budget stays whole so that we can keep the tax roll whole, or do we use the time to try to modify tax code, which has not been successful by anybody? The answer to why now, I think, is that there is some voter dissatisfaction. We hear a lot about the 1% versus the 99% and that type of thing. I think it came down to an issue of fairness. Well, I mean, it is an issue of fairness, of course, and then conspiracy theories abound. But we as a city do not control what you charge for property tax. As you alluded to, we get three cents of the property tax that we collect for our city. It's only about two and a half cents of our total budget. We're more dependent on the payroll tax. So this is not a city money grab. This is not a PVA money grab. But this is an equity issue and a fairness issue. And what's your timeline for getting this resolved? Do we have it mapped out on when we think? Well, when I first made my opinions public and wrote the op-ed piece, we had a piece of legislation that had been introduced in the House by Representative Palumbo and co-sponsored by Representative Flood, and we appeared to have everybody's attention, and it looked like we were going to take some steps in that direction. But with the exception of, I guess, they came back today to talk about a budget, But beyond that, the bill went nowhere. To the best of my knowledge, it wasn't even assigned to a committee. And the Department of Revenue, to this point, has not been willing to get out in front of it without letting that process play out in the legislature. So we'll see what happens with the other PBAs in the Department of Revenue at the conference and as the year plays out. But right now, I'm the only person who has said I'm going to do something different than I was doing yesterday. So have you already started that policy that you spoke to Councilman Maloney about? You've already started reassessing as we speak? You're doing that? What's going to happen during calendar year 2016 is as properties sell, the new property owner will receive a letter from me saying, essentially, the ag classification is not transferable. You'll need to request it if you believe you qualify for it. Here's a copy of the statutes. Please fill out the enclosed affidavit and let us know why you think that you qualify for the classification. So that will be happening this year. On the sale piece? On the sales, yes. And then so legislative-wise, if it doesn't happen this week, obviously it probably won't. Next January, they're in a short session, or will they wait two years? Have you spoken to Representative Flood and Palumbo? I think that there might be some hope that it would get assigned to an interim committee so that there could at least be some discussion and some hearings on the matter. but I have not heard anything concrete. It's clearly not going to happen in this biennium. Sure. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. I see nobody else signed up, so I'll add my thanks, David, to you for coming, presenting this information. I think it will be very helpful to the community. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Next item on our agenda is Council Reports. Council members, if you'd sign in. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. I'd like to have Kevin Atkins, if he could come up. I want to ask, I think all the council members got a letter from Charlie Payne over the last couple days, and it's something he brought up that I had some issues to my last council report with you about Bluegrass Day. And a lot of these things I've kind of liked on there, And one of them, I'd like to pass the resolution to the Secretary of the United States Department of Labor to look into. How do you feel about each one of these that we went over? And what I wanted to hear was your opinion on them and see what kind of teeth they have or what we have to do. Well, I think over the last probably three years, Mr. Payne has watched what goes on at the ad probably closer than any of our constituents in Lexington and has a very good understanding of what occurs out there, and with his background in federal grants does have an expertise there as well. So your question was directly, I'm sorry. Well, the other question I have, and I mean, I like, I'm going to tell my colleagues, I may try to put a resolution together, and I've had a law draft a resolution up, and we bring it to the council and discuss this, But the one I really like is the number three, that we try to get the federal government to come in and do an audit. What would I have to do for this body, the council, to make that happen? Because that's what I've been saying all along is this is federal money. I want to be sure that LFUCB money is being used properly and it's not being hurt. And from what, reading the statement that he said, that's similar to what I've been concerned. How do we get or what do we have to do to get an audit done on this on the federal level? Well, if you all recall the email that we sent about two or three weeks ago as it related to the aging issue, it would appear that the Office of the Inspector General is already examining, from the Washington Office of Inspector General, is already taking a look at some of those actions. There has been, to my knowledge, no such correspondence yet officially from the Department of Labor along those lines. Secretary Heiner's office, you saw about a week ago, issued their final findings, $898,000. I would assume that they have also shared that document with the Department of Labor. I guess to answer your question more directly, I mean, if that's something that you think is needed, that is within the prerogative of this council. I will say that I think everybody in our office and in CAO Sally's office is watching this. We're, you know, as concerned as you are about it, and we will be watching. Tomorrow night is an executive committee meeting of the Bluegrass ad. The mayor will be there to discuss. It's a specially called meeting to discuss Secretary Hiner's letter and what actions they are going to take, if they're going to appeal, if they're going to pay it back, how they're going to pay the funding back. And we will be watching what is said and the actions that are there closely. Well, and tomorrow when you meet with this group, and I'll ask my colleagues, they may want to come later in on this, but to me, I think we ought to send a message that this council is not happy. And I personally, and I hope my colleagues, think that there should be an investigation to make sure, because after that audit report by the auditor at that time and the violations that were filed were pretty harsh. And to know, to me, that the federal government should be involved, but that's the federal government. And the most important thing is everybody needs to realize the people that are getting hurt on this are the people that need jobs. and I don't quite think that everybody's looking at that right now and I think that's the thing that we need to send a message to this Bluegrass ad. It's not for them. It's not for the county to make things they got power. It's for the people that need this and that's why I feel like it's being left out. So hopefully you can send that message back. And I have one more thing. The Zika virus. As everybody knows, Can I have a? Yes, I have the Zika. And I don't mean to make fun of this, because I was on the council years ago when we had mosquito with the biggest problem in Luskington. And then I was concerned about the West Nile virus. It came to Luskington. The Zika now they're claiming is in Florida. That is coming this way. So I would love the health department to come here and do a presentation, because I think it's something you don't want to play with. And it, to me, is more serious than the West Nile virus. and everywhere you go, the news is talking about this, so I'd love to see this be brought up in the presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to give an update on two things. One, I know I mentioned that we've been working with Visit Lex and our Department of Revenue on the Airbnb issue. I'll just broadly say issue. And the event was sold out. It was a phenomenal thing. I want to thank Rusty Cook and Jeff Lewis. did a great job on the panel talking about how do we help bring people in Fayette County into compliance, getting a business license, following our planning and zoning, and then being good ambassadors for Lexington. So it was a great, great event. We're going to do another one this summer and one this fall. I firmly think we should try to educate and incentivize before we start penalizing people. So this was a good first step in kind of helping people be good ambassadors for Lexington as they host people in Lexington. And then second, you're going to put on your calendar May 14th, right now, it's a Saturday, for the Southland Street Fair. I know you're very excited. Last year we had a great turnout. We had over 7,000 people come. This year we're expecting even more than that. We have over 80 vendors having applied to be there. So you're probably going to be seeing a Passer on Grant, NDA, from me and from Council Member Henson. But I want to thank our aides who have been working very hard on this event. So again, it's May 14th, and we're going to do some between the bands about 6 o'clock is when I would suggest you coming by. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Atkins, would you mind, you mentioned the meeting is going to be tomorrow night. Can you tell me the time and the place? Or is it a public meeting? It is. It's a special called meeting of the Executive Committee, so it is an open and public meeting. It is at 5 o'clock at the Bluegrass Area Development District. 5 o'clock at the Bluegrass Ad? Are they still over on perimeter? They are. Okay. I think it's 699. I think it's 699. Okay. 699. All right. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Akins. As parliamentarian, I want to remind my colleagues that when we're referring items into a committee, that it needs to be referred before the full council at work session or a council meeting. So our rules and procedures section 2.204 specifically talks about it being approved by a majority vote. And I know sometimes I will admit that I look at or forget or am remiss about one of our rules and procedures, but I just wanted to remind everybody that when we do refer something to committee, it either goes through the vice mayor or it comes from us at either a work session or a council meeting. And then lastly, I want to thank Commander Rodney Sherrod. We had our second district-wide meeting last night, which was really awesome, and Commander Rodney Sherrod, who is our new commander over each sector, came and answered lots of questions, and he was outstanding. and I know that the constituents very much appreciated all the information and the questions, and I just really appreciate it, and thank you so much. Thank you. Council Member Massotti. Thank you, Vice Mayor. We talked a lot about traffic today. We talked about Rose Street. We've talked in the past about downtown two-way streets. Council Member Bledsoe's district, we're talking about a traffic study over in Beaumont Center. I guess my question is, and I guess it would be to you, Commissioner, Do we have any kind of a formal traffic study, or have we ever done one, that we do kind of like the comprehensive plan? I mean, we've got 300,000 people that live here in Lexington. Probably our phones at our council offices get called more on traffic than any other issue. And I'm wondering, do we have any kind of comprehensive plan that we look at every three years, five years? If not, why not? So the MPO puts together the Metropolitan Transportation Plan? I don't know if you're familiar with that. Oh, yeah. So as far as a comprehensive planning document, I would say that's the one thing that we do have. I don't know of any cities that would do a traffic study for the entire city. I mean, you know, I think that the scope would need to be smaller, like we're doing the one in Beaumont Center. You know, you could do a corridor study, a corridor traffic study, but to look at the whole city comprehensively, I'm not sure that that's necessary, but I mean, we could certainly look at starting to prioritize certain corridors and doing traffic studies on corridors. I'm not sure if that's what you're getting at. Well, I'm just thinking about a comprehensive study because, as I said, and maybe you've answered my question with the MPO, I mean, our population has increased. Anybody who drives any of these spokes either into the city or out at a certain time, I mean, you're in traffic for 45 minutes. And we're not bad compared to other larger cities. I certainly understand that. But I'm just wondering if we look every two years, every three years, just at Lexington saying, okay, it looks like we need to tweak here or we need to adjust over here. Is that done through traffic engineering here at all? So there's a committee structure. We have a congestion management committee that meets on a monthly basis. There's representatives from the transportation cabinet, from the MPO, from traffic engineering. But as far as doing comprehensive studies or corridor studies, I mean, in traffic engineering, you know, their sole role is traffic signal timing. So, I mean, we're constantly looking at corridors and making improvements on signal timing. But as far as roadway widening projects, that would fall under the MPO or planning and not in traffic engineering. Okay, so when we get that information, do they bring that information to you? And could you bring that back to us and say, for example, if I wanted to hear that in our planning and public safety committee, could I request that from you to be brought to us so we kind of have an update that we know what's going to happen in the next couple of years on certain roadways and that kind of thing. Because people ask all the time about when's Man and War going to be three-lane? When is it going to be complete? What about A, B, C, or D? I'm just trying to get a sense of timing. I don't know if Derek's here. It would be something that engineering or planning or the MPO would present. I don't think that would be something that traffic engineering would present. But I think it's a good idea. I think we could certainly talk about upcoming capital improvement projects. Okay. Well, you tell me how you want to do it, and then I'll make a motion to put it in committee. We've got several members of Council on the NPO policy. Right. And we can obviously take what we've given them. We could go through it in that body. Again, the joint NPO between Jesmond County and Fayette County. But we can take the document. They're all available online. We could probably have Max and them come and give a presentation, kind of a summary of what we've done and what the plan is. Again, as Council Member Brown knows who's on there, This is what lays out road improvements for quite a while and can kind of give a... Yeah, because if you don't attend the MPO and I don't talk to Fred, then I don't know. Right, and we do our best to sort of advertise that it's out there online, but I don't think a lot of people know about the MPO documents that are out there, but we can absolutely get them. How long would it take you to pull something like that together? We can get the presentation that we've given to the MPO Policy Board, so that shouldn't be very difficult. So whenever you want to schedule it, we can schedule it for the May meeting if you would like. Okay, all right, thank you. And Vice Mayor, I'd make a motion to put in a comprehensive, at least an update of the MPO information that has been currently, I guess, disseminated to put it in the Planning and Public Safety Committee. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. And one last thing. I had fun last Friday. I got to go to see the Senior Sentence Center with Sally Hamilton and Mr. Atkins. And wow, it looks good. I'm glad I'm a senior sentencing. Well, not almost glad, but going to be there. And there's going to be a lot of fun things there. I mean, you talk about, you know, getting old and having fun. That's the place to do it. So that was a lot of fun. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Evans. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'd just like to say thank you to everyone that was involved in Reforest the Bluegrass this year. They were over in Bryan Station area off of Anniston, and there were just a lot of trees that were planted. I attempted to plant a few with the help of Council Member Brown, who was also out there, and Council Member Gibbs was also out there. So thank you all for coming to the 6th District to help in that area. because it is very much needed. That area specifically has the interstate right next to it, and I do get complaints about the noise from the interstate, and I'm trying to figure out how to fix that. But this is another way that hopefully we can address that issue, because that is a big concern for residents that live right there. So I know they're appreciative of it, And everyone who came out, like I said, it was individuals to large groups and all the sponsors that were out there. I won't even attempt to name everyone that was involved. So everyone that was involved in that program, thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Council Member Hensley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Well, this weekend in the 12th District, we had Keeneland opened up. and we had a record $21.7 million in their handle, which is their largest ever that they've had out there, and it was exciting to go out there with Dr. Hensley and enjoy the day. Tomorrow, more exciting is at Polo Club Boulevard, Sarin Drive and Rockbridge will all start to be paved. So it was ponies and paving this week in the 12th District. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you. And I just wanted to follow up on Councilman Massadi's comments or concerns about traffic. I hear it, too. And when you mentioned the four or five, however many, spokes we have coming into the city, most of those are state roads. And so I've recently actually asked District 7 about the plans for Newtown Pike because it is a problem from New Circle to the interstate pretty much during peak hours. It's, again, another parking lot. And I get a lot of questions and complaints about it. And so I was told, I received a response back about, you know, they're in the design phase, and then the next phase may be funded in this budget, and then the next actual construction might be funded in the next budget in two more years. So I think a lot of the plans and a lot of traffic that would affect what you want to look at as far as a comprehensive plan would involve plans all dependent on the state budget and their timelines, which are not as quick as ours would be. So it can be frustrating. Okay, so moving on to announcements. Tonight, Metathorpe is meeting at 7 o'clock at 333 Larch Lane, the Neighborhood Association, and they are actually hosting planning staff tonight, are going to be there to talk about some zoning changes and things that they might be able to do regarding Lyle Avenue and the potential there. So if residents, if you're interested in hearing from planning staff about future developments in the Metathorpe area, I encourage you to attend. Saturday at Douglas Park, there will be a Great American Cleanup beginning at 9 a.m. for anyone interested. That is part of the city's Great American Cleanup. And so everybody will meet at the park at 9, and then we will venture from there onto different streets that need cleaning up. And thank you to those divisions involved for Great American Cleanup. I guess that's environmental quality as well as waste management that I believe drops a bin off for us to collect trash. And then lastly, Second District Fall Festival will be happening this fall. Sunday, September 25th from 1 to 5 at Masterson Station Park. And as everyone knows, it takes a lot of people and a lot of volunteers to make large events happen. So we are holding a planning meeting on Monday, April 18th at 6 o'clock, and that will be at Center Point Christian Church at 865 Greendale Road. So if you're interested in volunteering or if you're interested in setting up a vendor table or if you'd like to help us fundraise for the event, please consider attending. And that is, again, Monday, April 18th at 6. If you cannot attend but would like more info, just email or call my office. Thank you. Thank you. And before we go to the next item, I want to add my own comment. This morning I had the pleasure of representing the mayor and the council at the announcement of the winners of the Night Cities Challenge. And for those of you who have not been paying really close attention, the Knight Cities Challenge asked applicants to answer the question, what's your best idea to make cities more successful? There were 4,500 submissions to the Knight Foundation. Lexington had five finalists, and two of those finalists won awards. And at the risk of raising a red flag, I will add that both projects fit within the larger Town Branch Commons plan. The two projects that were awarded funding One is Phoenix Forward. That is a project to transform Phoenix Park and the Central Library into a place where people from diverse backgrounds can learn, play, and relax together. The project will create complementary park and library programming in Phoenix Park. And the second is called Parking Lot Diaries, and this is creating a living civic engagement lab in the parking lot next to the transit center that will test and track temporary activities in order to build community support to turn the area into a vibrant public space. Those are the two things. So thank you. Thank you. And that's all for public comment. That allows us to move to the next item, which would be the Mayor's Report. There's no mayor's report this week. Next item on the agenda, public comments for issues not on the agenda. There are none. I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Motion and a second. Without objection, we stand adjourned. you