Baby, tonight, yeah, I'll take a chance on the dance, make a little romance, huh? Baby, tonight, yeah, I'll take a chance on the dance, make a little romance, huh? Baby, tonight, yeah, I'll take a chance on the dance, make a little romance, huh? Baby, tonight, yeah, I'll take a chance on the dance, make a little romance, huh? Welcome. I'd like to go ahead and convene the January 21st, 2020, Council Work Session. And the first item on our agenda is public comment for issues on the agenda. And we have several people signed up, so as I call your name, if you will come to the podium, state your name and address, and you'll have three minutes to speak. Or if you've decided you don't need to speak, you can tell me that, too. All right. First up is Jim McKenzie. If you can come to the podium, state your name and address, and Jim, you'll have three minutes. Caught me off guard. Jim McKenzie, 3495 Green Tree Road, Lexington, Kentucky, and I'm the president of the Landlords Association. Okay. Can I speak now? Okay. Hey, I'm here. Can I speak now? I'm here on behalf of the landlords. We've got a pretty good turnout, but we've had a bunch of landlords, and we're here for the disruptive tenant ordinance. Being the president, I want to say this. We've had many, many landlords that cannot be here today because a few of them are sick, a lot of them work at Toyota, and they just cannot come today. But we've had a large group come out today. The thing that we want to talk about is they're trying to take this from what we've seen and what was given to us is they're making this disruptive ordinance, tenant ordinance, and they're trying to make the landlords responsible for our tenants. And that's how we perceive it. Our fear is, there's two fears. One, that kind of makes us the police over the tenant. Two, we think we can control the tenant to a certain point, but if we have somebody in there that might have a, and we know this, we've got a big opium problem out here, we've got an alcohol problem, we can only tell the tenant so many things. Other than that, the only thing we can hold over that tenant is an eviction. That's all we can do. Sometimes the tenants, and we all have a lot of nuisance orders, sometimes the tenants can't even control their own stuff. They might be a single mother, they have their boyfriend come over, their ex-husband come over, their child, and I've seen it many times where they can't even have the children with the child, that they have them come over and they get a nuisance order. Well, me as a landlord, and I'm one of them too, what that's going to create is two things. One, I can't afford two nuisance orders. If you all give me a fine, I can't afford that. It's going to cost me at least $2,000. The other day when we were reaching out, they said, well, it's no big deal, you can just go down and fight that at council. Well, if you're under LLC or you're an apartment complex, I just can't go down and fight a $50 fine or a $500 fine. I've got to send my attorney, and everybody knows what attorney fees are. So that's one of our big issues with this right now. But at the end of the day, what I'm saying is more than anything, a landlord's in Lexington, Kentucky is against a disruptive tenant ordinance. That's really all I need. Any questions? Thank you very much, Jim. Tim Scott. Welcome. Hello. My name is Tim Scott. I'm president of Modern Property Management, 1501 North Limestone, Lexington, Kentucky, and 40505. I'm coming to speak out against the nuisance ordinance as written. The ordinance, I understand, is addressing a problem. I was born 65 years ago here in Fayette County. I've watched it grow and change over many decades. And I've owned property, rented property, managed property. I understand all that aspect of it, too. The thing the ordinance is doing is it's giving us responsibility without authority. Tenants live in their units. Those are their homes. They have many rights, the same as if someone who owned a home. We do not have the ability to simply go in and police them, nor do we have the expertise or the budget to go in and police people in their own homes. We have a few rather drawn-out tools, 14-day notices, evictions, if we can get proof that they have violated some sort of a law or some sort of an ordinance. But without that sort of a burden, we do not have the ability to really change people's lives in their own homes. Now, the way the ordinance is written, it's as if I rented a car from Hertz. I took the car out and I ran a red light. I got a ticket, and instead of me paying it, Hertz has to pay it. And that's just not fair. What I see as the core problem here is that we have a very slow court system. If the police go out to a property and cite the people there for having had too much alcohol or too much noise, whatever it may be, then the kids are gone. And it seems to be a primarily university issue. But the kids are gone by the time they get to the court system. I think your problem is with expediting things through the court system. If they're going to be leveled a fine, let them get the fine. And then the landlord won't have the burden of policing a property that it has no right to police. We do appreciate the fact that you have a problem. We appreciate the fact that you're trying to solve a problem. But this is not the solution to that problem. Thank you. Thank you very much. And before I go on, we have a few more to speak. Could we just have everyone here who's with the Landlord Association please stand, just so we know how many of you are here? Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Kevin Munoz-Mendoza is next. You'll pass? All right. Joe Markham. I'm Joe Markham, 1219 Highland Park Drive here in Lexington, Kentucky. I just have a few questions about why the laws and ordinances in place aren't being enforced. If the enforcement of the party plan is stopped because it's too difficult for the city to convince judges or convict property owners for the poor choices someone else makes on the property, why does the city think it will be easier or better for landlords to try to enforce those decisions on people? So if someone's breaking one of the laws or ordinances already in place and mentioned in the ordinance, in my opinion, they should be held personally responsible and face the repercussions for their actions and choices. The burden shouldn't be placed on the property owners. This ordinance does nothing to actually address the offenses or the offenders. It just places an undue burden on landlords. According to the statistics provided by Mr. Gibbs, 36.5 percent of the campus drinking occurs at off-campus residents. Why are they targeting the small minority of property owners instead of the other 63.5 percent that are drinking at other facilities, bars, clubs, restaurants, things like that? This is the purpose of the ordinance. It seems like it's too broad. As they said, most of these occurrences are occurring in a very small area of town and around campus houses, property. This ordinance applies to all of Lexington and the potential is broad in its application and it's open to abuse either from people that are just annoyed. It could be someone that's a neighbor. It could be someone that just has it out for you as a property owner. So there's an issue with potential for abuse. How is it going to apply to commercial properties? Hotels, apartment complexes, short-term rentals like Airbnb, I know that's on the agenda to be discussed at a future date. But something like that, if the neighbor is not happy that your Airbnb has somebody and a car comes in every day or two and disturbs them and they check in at 2 o'clock and they hear a door slam, is that a disturbance that's going to get you on the list? And then that's just a disruptive premise to someone that lives next door to a car door closing. So it's not narrow enough and specific enough. I think the broad application is subject to abuse. Thank you very much, John. Thank you. Stephen Marshall. Good afternoon. My name is Stephen Marshall. I live at 2909 Summerfield Drive, and I'm general counsel for the Greater Lexington Apartment Association. I do over 3,000 evictions every year. Dealing with problem tenants is what I do every day. And what I can tell you about this bill is that it is going to wreak havoc on the student housing owners. Anybody that's got rental property around campus is going to be faced with two very negative decisions. If they come under the ramifications of this proposal, they have two options. They can evict those tenants. That leaves them without rental income. At an apartment complex, if they lose a tenant, they have a very broad pool from which to replace those tenants. Student housing rentals, it takes place in November, December, and January. That's when students lease for the upcoming August semester. Once that pool is empty, it is gone. Those landlords will not be able to replace their tenants. They'll be stuck without rental income, and they'll start doing other things with their properties. The other option for them is just to pay the fine out of their own pocket. If you'll notice in this bill, in this proposal, the fines are increased from the current proposal fivefold. That's not a viable option for landlords, as Mr. McKenzie just noted. Well, those landlords can pass the fines on to their tenants. In theory, sure they can. In practice, they cannot. Students are not going to be able to pay those, and so what's the landlord going to do? He's going to be left having to evict those students. So he's back to losing rental income that cannot be replaced. On a different point, 2017, HUD issued guidelines to landlords across the nation restricting the way they can use criminal background checks. They've limited the way that landlords can screen their tenants based on prior criminal behavior. So in other words, landlords are being forced by federal law to be more lenient on who they allow into their properties. Now, when you put that juxtaposed with what we're trying to do here, which is give them more responsibility for those people that live in their properties, that puts them between a rock and a hard place. They have to let people into their properties who may have committed crimes in the past, and they're going to be held responsible for their noise disturbances now. That's unfair. And then just some specific issues with this particular proposal. It doesn't provide any notice to the rental owner until the property is designated as a disruptive premises. So the first notice, it's going to go to the occupant. Second notice, it goes to the occupant. At that point, the landlord's property is deemed a disruptive premise, and he or she has no idea about it. So that's a specific problem. Mr. Marshall, I'm so sorry to interrupt you, but your three minutes has expired. Certainly. We appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Thank you. Judy Rola? Oh, okay. Are you Judy? Okie dokie. There you are. Thank you. She's giving you three more minutes, Stephen. Fantastic. Thank you, Christy. So no notice to the owners is a specific problem. The second is that the way the proposed ordinance is written is that a premises can become a disruptive premises overnight. We're not limited here to a situation where there can be one party, the police come out, issue citations, strike number one, and then they shut it down for the rest of the night and everybody goes home. That's not often how it works. A lot of times there will be the party will quieten down for an hour or two, and then they reconvene, maybe in smaller numbers but just as loud, another complaint, another visit by the police, strike number two within the same night. A landlord can wake up having his property designated as a disruptive premises when he went to bed the night before, and it wasn't. So that's a specific problem. Next specific problem is that, as you all know, Fayette County has adopted the Uniform Residential Landlord Tenant Act. It does not allow us to evict for any violation of the law or the lease. We're only able to evict for what's called material noncompliance with the lease. What I can tell you is that a party that disrupts other people is not material noncompliance. That's considered a minor violation of the lease, which, if repeated over and over, can become material noncompliance and then grounds to evict. The statute goes on to say that a tenant must be given 14 days' notice and an opportunity to correct the violation. So let's just assume that the landlord did actually learn that the tenants are engaging in this behavior. The landlord still has to give 14 days' notice, still has to give the opportunity to correct. So it's not a matter of the landlord finds out his tenants are engaging in disturbing behavior and can just get rid of them. The landlord has to give notice, give the opportunity to cure, and then has to go in front of a court, which the running time to get a court date for evictions right now is about three weeks. At that point, the court enters a judgment which gives the tenant seven more days to vacate or file an appeal. I have an outstanding appeal right now that we're waiting on the judge since March. I have another one since April. Those tenants are still in the property, and there's not a thing the landlord can do to get them out. Beyond that, the tenant can appeal to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. They never agree to hear the case, but it takes them six months to say no. Those tenants are still in those properties. Landlords are accruing fines the entire time, and they can't do anything else. So I think this is a very minor, excuse me, a very serious problem within a very small slice of the city. So to hold the entire city of Lexington responsible for a very small problem or a large problem within a small slice is simply unfair. Thank you all very much. Thank you very much. Angie Roloff? Pardon me? She wants to yield her time to you. Do you want to say anything else? Okay. Thank you very much. Then would you like to speak? Okay. He said he's finished. No? All right. You have three minutes from Judy. You know, I think it's, just like Stephen said, it's a good idea, but it's putting a broad net out there. And just like the fisherman that's trying to catch tuna and they get 25 porpoises, it just gets a broad net to all of us. So we've got to be very careful when we're passing laws. What is the unintended consequences of that? And I'll give you an example of that. I was just out over the weekend cleaning out a property, getting ready to flip it, and it had a couch in there. I'm thinking, oh, my gosh, it's got this couch. Well, I've got to fumigate this place because it's heavily infestated. And I'm thinking to myself, gosh, garbage day is not until Thursday. I can't have the couch inside. I'll never get rid of the problem. I can't put it on the porch because then I have a code violation. So then I'm thinking, oh, my God, I hate to be that tenant or that landlord or that property owner that puts a couch on the curb that's going to sit there for four days. It was the unintended consequences. Because in normal situations, just put it on the porch. The porch is huge, but you cannot have a couch on the porch because the next thing I know, code violation. And it takes two weeks for them to come out. It wastes massive cities' time to do that. Even though they're not going to fine me, it wastes massive cities' time, and then I have to go back out there and reset it again. So we've got to be very careful when we pass these laws. Unintended consequences. I think we don't know what's going to happen if that law is passed where it puts us all in this big fish with its net. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. Connie Whittaker. I will pass. All right. James Whittaker. You're passing, both of you. Thank you. Philip Petra. I'll pass as well. Okay. John Withers. You're right in the front, John. Greetings. Greetings. As I have told several of you many times, I do not envy your position at all. I do not want to be on city council. Here you are in another dilemma. John, if you'll give your name and address. John Withers, 3217 Marston Place. Thank you. I have an amount of rental property in the city, mostly single family. And our mission of our companies is we redeem distressed houses in distressed neighborhoods for distressed people. We're one of the few landlords who will accept felons and people coming out of drug treatment. We have about a 50% success rate with those people being able to stay clean and stay free of crime. An ordinance like this will make it impossible for me to keep renting to people like that. It's part of the reason for homelessness in the states where the laws are so strict against the landlords that they are unable to provide housing except to the very most qualified candidates. So I just appeal to you to take into consideration that low income housing could be disrupted, at least in part, by those who start getting fined as a result of the behavior of people that we're trying to help. So take that into consideration. And I want to remind you that approximately 48% of Fayette County residents rent their property. They rent their home. So this is not a small issue that you are addressing. I know there are problems in this campus community. I don't want campus housing. I just want to rent to families and individuals who need a place to live that's comfortable and clean and well kept in a low income neighborhood generally. So I think there are some issues there for the landlords in those neighborhoods. I want to appeal to you not to pass this thing. Or if you do, to make some major revisions, especially in terms of how quickly a landlord can get a person out of their property. But I think there's a state law issue there and that you're not able to do that as I understand it. But we can get someone who doesn't pay out in less than a month. But as Stephen said, it can take quite a while for other reasons. It's taken me three months to get a guy out who's just filthy and full of bed bugs. But he's finally out. At any rate, if I'm under the gun from a series of increasing fines as a result of people being in there that we're taking a risk with, then I can't keep taking that kind of risk. So please either change this considerably or just don't do it. Thank you. Thank you very much, John. Rock Daniels? Welcome. Rock Daniels, 1519 Old Leestown Road, Lexington, Kentucky, 40511. And I'm opposed to this. Of course, we have property in downtown Lexington. But they hit a lot of good points. I think a couple of points that weren't hit are increased rate and gentrification. I mean, we as a city are saying that we're opposed to gentrification in these downtown neighborhoods. Well, as more and more affluent people are moving into some of these downtown neighborhoods, how easy is it going to be for them to call police and have a house deemed a nuisance just to get rid of a tenant? So I feel like this is focused in on campus. I understand. I lived on Sunset Drive before it was really cool to live on Sunset Drive. So I know what it's like to live around a lot of students. But I believe this is a slippery slope into something that we really don't want to see, which is an increased rate of gentrification in downtown. The other thing is two weeks ago I went on a maintenance call to one of our properties. I was talking to the tenant. He's sitting there on his couch, and he throws his foot up on his coffee table. He's got a gun on his ankle. There was a couple out of Lexington that owned property in Moorhead a couple of years ago, and they were going to evict a tenant, personally went out there, and they were killed at the property, searched for their body for weeks. So if you're having us police the tenants, and we're out policing the tenants, and say a tenant pulls a gun and shoots me, who's going to pay my wife? Who's going to support my kids? So I think it's a slippery slope. I think that the city needs to police the tenant, not the landlord, and I think we also need to look at the ramifications of gentrification in some of the lower socioeconomic neighborhoods because of this. Thank you very much. Thank you to all of those of you who spoke. Next on our agenda is approval of the summary from January 14th. Council Member Misati moved and Council Member Foreman seconded. Are there any questions or comments? We'll go back. I skipped the docket. All those in favor of approving the summary? Mayor. Anyone opposed? Yes. I had a discussion item on approving the summary, but didn't know whether we were going to go back first. There are three references to me having abstained. If those could be changed to having be recused, and with that motion to change that part of the summary. Okay. Second to the motion. Council Member Fred Brown seconds. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Other changes, comments, additions, or corrections? All right. All those in favor of approving the summary as amended, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. Now we're going to go back up because I just received a sheet with three more speakers. And so we have three more folks who'd like to speak about issues on the agenda, and then we'll go to our docket. First is Caleb Wade. You're going to pass. All right. Norm Biller. Sorry about that. My name is Norm Biller. I live at 3409 Montevesta Road, 40502. Mr. Farmer, I've seen you out evenings speaking to our community, and I appreciate the work that all of you do. I know it's not an easy job. I am here to speak about the disruptive premises ordinance. I have some concerns, and I just wanted to ask a few questions. If I were to rent a car from, say, Hertz or Avis or Enterprise, and I go 80 miles an hour in a 55-mile-an-hour zone, who should get the ticket? Me or Hertz or Avis or Enterprise? Whose fault is that? Who should get their points assessed to their license? You know, who should be held responsible for that kind of behavior? Or let's say, and this is fictitious, I didn't do it, but let's say I break into the home of one of you. I steal a butcher knife out of your kitchen, and I go outside and I murder somebody with it. Who should be held responsible, me that did that or the owner of the knife? If a tenant rents a home and then the tenant murders or rapes somebody, who's responsible for that? Is that the tenant's fault? Should they be held accountable, or should the owner of the property be held accountable for that? Or what if the tenant holds a party and it gets too loud? Is this a slope that we want to step out onto, or does it lead in the wrong direction of where a just society wants to go? Just, you know, I understand it's a real problem, and I urge you to work on the problem. It needs to be solved. I'm just concerned about the direction of the existing proposal and how shifting responsibility from the people who do something to somebody else is an easy technique. Right now landlords aren't real popular in our society. We've got real high prices for owning homes and for renting homes. I'm not sure that's the landlord's fault. It's a combination of a good economy, a community where a lot of people want to live, and it keeps on growing, a lack of space to put more houses. Please don't punish the people who didn't do the crime. It's a concern that I have. Sir William Blackstone famously said it's better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent person suffer. Don't you agree with that? Please keep working on the problem. It's an important problem. I'm real concerned about the existing proposal. Thank you. Thank you very much. Bob Clark. I want to thank you for the opportunity to be able to address you. I've never done this sort of thing before, so I apologize if I look a little confused or incoherent. I've lived in Fayette County for 42 years. I've owned rental property. I'm supposed to state my name and address. Bob Clark, 1760 Eastwood Drive, Lexington, 40502. Lived here for 42 years. I've been a landlord for almost 40. I'm a small-time guy. I've got a fourplex. And it seems to me that what this bill would allow is that it would allow somebody who lives across the street from my fourplex to accuse one of my tenants of being disruptive. And if we get two of those, then I'm subject to a $500 fine imposed by a bureaucrat. So the result of this is that I get accused by two people that I've never met of having a disruptive property, whether it's true or not. And I get a fine imposed on me by somebody who's never met me, never heard my side of the story, and I've never had an opportunity to present my case. I can either pay the $500 fine, I guess, or I can hire an attorney for a couple of thousand dollars, I suppose, and dispute it. One of the things I've always believed in in this country is the right to due process. I see no due process for me at all in this. Thank you for the opportunity to address you. Thank you very much. Now, is anyone else signed up in the back? We got everybody. Okay. Thank you very much. Now, Council, I'll need a motion to approve the docket. Second. Council Member Farmer moved approval. Council Member Ellinger seconded. Are there questions or walk-ons? Council Member Bloman. I have a motion to walk on. I move to place on the docket for the January 23rd Council meeting a resolution approving and directing the permanent barricading of Ivy Bridge Drive at its southern terminus and waiving the procedure set forth in Resolution 339-81. So moved. Second. Council Member Fred Brown seconds that. Is there any discussion? If so, please log in. Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Mayor. This is an issue that we postponed since Council Member Bloman could not be here last time. I just want to repeat what I said then. On the merits, I don't know where I would end up on this issue, but in terms of procedure, it seems to me we have not heard from our staff about their review and their recommendations. And I don't think this is a – in terms of time, it's not a pressing issue. I see no reason why it shouldn't go through the usual process and go be placed in committee so we have a chance to hear both from the neighbors and from those who are interested in actually making this closure. So I'm going to move to amend the proposal that we place this into committee for review. So moved. Second. We have a motion by Vice Mayor Kaye, second by Council Member Farmer to place this in – which committee would this be? Planning. Planning and Public Safety. All right. Is there any discussion? If you'll log in, please, if you have discussion. Council Member Bloman, are you logged in for discussion? Discussion on the amendment? Yes. On the motion on the floor. Well, I will not vote for that amendment. I think that there has been a lot of conversation about that. The neighborhood has met one-on-one with almost all of you, and I would like to see it on the docket so we can move forward on this. So I would oppose the amendment. Thank you. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. I agree with the Vice Mayor, and certainly since I seconded it, I'm going to vote for it. But in the cover letter that the Council Member has sent, the main quote, the main reason I have not asked to put this item into committee is that the process is not needed. I just can't draw that same conclusion. I think that the process is there for a reason, and I agree with the Vice Mayor. There's no timeline with which this has to happen because, as this points out, they've already bought the land on the other side, so there is time to go through the process, which is the reason we have a process, not to buy land and obviate it, but to find a way to use the process that is there and then follow it. Then we make a decision, which probably would be the decision that is wanted here, but I don't see that buying the land obviates the need for the process or the usefulness of its outcome. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other discussion about the amendment? Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to vote against the amended motion simply because there has been information that we've gotten as each council member on this particular issue, and I think the major fact is that we're going from Fayette County into Jessamine County if that particular street or whatever stays or becomes open. Well, having said that, the fact that the people in that neighborhood have bought that particular area there, I think basically my position right now would be I think it's a waste of the committee's time, and I think it's a waste of having all those people come in because what you're going to do is you're just going to have a neighborhood come in that supports it, and you may have our staff that may oppose to it because it doesn't meet full process or procedure. So I think, you know, just to move it along and not waste a lot of people's time, including this council, I'm going to vote against the amendment. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Mayor. And I just want to ask Council Member Plowman, is there any information that she can share with the council? Because I have the same concerns. I do understand that there's a process, but if steps have already been taken to move this forward and it is going to be a waste of the city's time, employees' time, is there anything that you can share why we might support not going through the process on this issue? Thank you, Council Member Brown, and I'd be happy to share that. Again, I think, as Council Member, the other Brown said, this is kind of a mute point. We started the process, and we respect the process, but the bottom line is that it has been purchased. So at the end of the day, it would be taken care of because the purchase had been made. We're talking about eight acres behind this neighborhood. That is in Jessamine County. And from what I've heard from the neighborhood, they would like to do a park-like setting, which would be an asset. There already exists, or there will be, five different connectors onto Brandon Road. So it's not a matter of connectivity. It's there. It also was brought up about the safety. And at this point, we have Lexington's emergency services are closer to the neighborhood than any of those in Jessamine County. The nearest fire station to the neighborhood would be Lexington's fire station number 22 off of Clearwater Way. All of these connectors are within a few miles of Ivy Bridge. As a matter of fact, less than a quarter of a mile, there is one that's open, and that is Forest Lake. And Hobbs Way connects it to Brandon. So to go through all the motions and having to get the committee and having to bring it back, when we have done due diligence on this, I oppose the amendment. I think it's time to move on. The neighborhood has done a great job. Each resident has invested in making sure that this land is what they thought it was going to be when they bought it. This is a narrow road, and there's actually two, let's see here, there's two small traffic circles. They're much smaller than our modern roundabouts, and they replace stop signs at four-way intersections. So, again, this is not typical to what we do with our connectors. So, again, it makes sense to move this forward, and I do appreciate my fellow councilmembers for postponing this until now because I could not be there that first week in December. And I thank, again, Councilmember Brown for presenting that at that time on December 3rd. Thank you. Thank you. We are still having comment on the amendment. Councilmember Evans. Thank you, Mayor. We have a room full of people here today because we, as a body, didn't thoroughly vet an issue. And I appreciate Councilmember Pullman's advocacy for this, but I think there are questions. I mean, if it's something that's a done deal, I'm not so sure why this process isn't just, why they don't just stop the process. I mean, if it's that easy. So, I do have questions, and I admit I have not read what's given because there is a process to go through that I would eventually hear all of the information. But I think today is a really good example of why we don't need to speed up our processes, and we need to be thoughtful in all of our decisions. And, you know, it might come out in the wash that we do it, but we have processes for a reason. And, you know, if something was truly an emergency, I haven't seen it. But, I mean, we can make emergency decisions and emergency clauses, but I don't see the need to fast-track this. And, again, a room full of people here today when we decide we're going to fast-track something and not think it through. So, I'd have to agree with the amendment and send it through the process that we have because we have them for a reason. Thank you. Thank you very much. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to just make one thing clear in this, and this is the resolution of the sentiment of the council at this particular time. It can be changed in the future with eight votes of this council. And so, like before, when there's been resolutions to have streets stop or not connect because maybe that development, there's no one there yet. We haven't seen new voters there because they're just not present. Today, there are, and those same people want connectivity in different places. And so, while it may make sense today to do something like this because of the way it's being purchased for the land, because there's nothing there, et cetera, that is not necessarily the case moving forward. So, I just want to be transparent in that a resolution today does not bind us moving forward. It's not permanent. It's not without changing due to conditions that one day Jesamine County needs that land or you choose to sell that land for some other reason. Any of that could change the sentiment of this vote. I very much sympathize with you. I hope the park is lovely. I just wanted to make that very clear. I think sometimes it seems like we take a vote and it's final, and these resolutions are not that. They're just sentiments of the time today. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, just a couple points. My understanding is that there has been some initial vetting by our staff and that they recommend disapproval. I don't know why because we haven't had a hearing. We haven't had an opportunity to hear from them in committee. I would like to have the opportunity to hear from our staff and decide for myself whether I would support their recommendation or not. And then secondly, with all due respect to Council Member Bledsoe, this is about a permanent barrier to be erected. And I would like an opinion from law, if that's possible, about whether if we pass this resolution and we decide to erect a barrier, whether there's an opportunity to then take that barrier down at some point. Yes, afternoon, Council Members. That's correct. Even if this resolution were passed as a permanent barrier, it could still be removed by future councils. Okay. So that gives us some flexibility. You are correct. That's all I have. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. This is the most fun I've had all decade long. This is great. Three weeks. You know, I think that I love the way that Council Member Evans kind of conflated the issues here today because if someone decides to buy a party house and the party house goes away, there's no reason to have the party plan. And that's what we're saying with this motion is that, you know, because they bought this, they bought their way out of it, they don't have to go through what everyone else would have to go through because they already have the land bought. That doesn't speak to the issue of the presence of the Council, the presence of a process that we go through on behalf of the entire citizenry, not just the neighborhood. We all value neighborhoods here. We work for neighborhoods. Council Member Plowman is working for her neighborhood here. I appreciate that. It's just that when all the answers are there and you refuse to look at them, you have to think about why is that. And that's where I'm on this. Why is that? There's time to do this. There's opportunity to do this. And I believe there's votes there to do this. I just think it's a bad precedent to step back and go, well, because all the answers are there, we don't need all the rest of this. We're just going to go ahead. Thank you. Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Mayor. I think one of the things that we've got to remember is that it is in Jessamine County. That land is Jessamine County. The usage or access to that is Jessamine County's decision, and the owners of Ivy Bridge own the property. So I don't see that that would happen. Down the road, I mean, Jessamine County could get involved in doing something, but it would have to go through their zoning. It would not be ours because the land that's up to that is not our land. It's the owners. It's the neighborhood. So, again, I disagree. And I don't think this is something that we're just pushing through. It's something that we've probably spent over a year looking at. And the decision not to go through the process was based on, well, it's going to end up in the same place anyway. So why use that time? Why use that process when it's going to end up in the same place? I think that sometimes we all think, well, we've always done it that way. And things are different. I know we have had five closures of streets in the past 10, 12 years. I think the last one was Agape. And then there's others. But none of them had the land purchased by the neighborhood. None of them. So this is unique. And because of that, it's not, like I said, it's not being rushed. It's just common sense. This is going to happen anyway. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Council Member Maloney, you haven't had an opportunity to speak. Would you like to go ahead and then we'll go? I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing. Now's your chance. I've sat here a long time. I've seen a lot of process go through here. And everybody follows the process. Everybody don't follow the process. We've had four-way stop signs go through here. And nobody is walking on the last minute. And it goes through. We've had 25 miles an hour speed limit go through. And when I used to be here a long time ago, I like to bring this up, we used to have everything go through the service commission. Everybody had to go through the process. And nine out of ten times when we did the roads, staff was against it. Every time. Most of the time. Very rarely were they on the same side as the neighborhood. But the council always over-voted. I understand what you're going through. We've seen a lot of things go through here the last few years that did not go through the committee. And I commend what you've done. I met with these neighborhoods. I've found a lot of people met with these neighborhoods. I know that the staff is a force against doing this. I agree with where you're going with this. I have no problem. But I understand the process. But if we're going to do this process, and I sit here every time I see somebody make a motion, we're going to do 25-mile speed limit, walk it on. Or we're going to do this parking, walk it on. I don't think she's doing anything out of the ordinary here, folks. I just want everybody to realize we've got to be careful how we say we follow the process. But I'm going to be against this motion, amendment. I support what she's done. I think everybody knows where this is going. But if we're going to go back and do the process, I'm all in favor of it. But I just don't like the way we throw things here, throw things there. It's just, to me, we're just not being consistent. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Massotti. Thank you, Mayor. I guess I have a couple of questions. Has someone from Jessamine County come to the neighborhood or to you, Council Member Plowman, and said that they have a desire to make a connectivity? No, not to me at all. I don't believe the neighborhood shared that that has happened as well. Can the neighborhood have a representative to comment on that? Well, we have other council members who want to speak. I mean, is it a yes or a no? I just brought it up with a comment because Council Member Massotti asked the question. Yes or no? Where are we? A yes or no, I guess. Can you come to the podium and give a yes or a no, please? My name is Michael Allen. I live at 5081 Ivory Bridge Drive in Lexington, Kentucky, 40515. The only reason I asked to speak was because Council Member Massotti asked the question about Jessamine County. One of the things that we did before we purchased the land was speak to several people in Jessamine County. As a matter of fact, we've talked to attorneys there. We've talked to the Planning and Zoning Department there. We've talked to an attorney there. We've had several people. We've talked to an engineer. Many of these people were involved in the planning and zoning and the latest update planning and zoning. I'm sorry, I can't think of the right terminology, but it's urban. Well, anyway, you go through a planning and zoning process every five years, I think, in Jessamine County. Comprehensive plan. What's it called? Comprehensive plan. Comprehensive plan. Thank you very much. So many of these people were involved in the comprehensive plan. The reason we bought the land was at the recommendation of those people in Jessamine County who said, you will have control if you own the land over what happens there. I would like to go ahead and further comment, because it is totally in Jessamine County. It's not Fayette County property. Second of all, there's been some information that has been put together for the council. Sir, I think you've answered my question. I certainly appreciate it. Thank you very much. I just lost my train of thought. But, anyways, so Jessamine County told you to, I guess, they purchased the land so they would not have the potential of having this connectivity. So, again, I'm wondering about the need to have this done so quickly. Number two, they've got the land already. So if Jessamine County is saying to you, you know, buy this land so we don't come in, to me, again, it's a moot point. I guess I'm a little confused about this. But I do support Vice Mayor Kaye's amendment. We've got a process, and we follow a process. And if we, you know, if we kind of pick and choose how we're going to do this, every neighborhood down here is going to come and do this and say, well, you've done this for this neighborhood and that. And that's going to make it unfair. So I think we need to put it in committee. And I'll be glad, as chair of that committee, to see if we can get that on the agenda as soon as possible. Because I don't know if there is a need to have this expedited any time soon. Thank you very much. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Mayor. I have done, I agree with several comments here. And also I have spoken with Mr. Allen and the neighborhood, too. But my question would be for either, I don't see Mr. Duncan or Mr. Mulvaney. I thought I saw him. Mr. Duncan is here. Oh, okay. You were bending over. I didn't see you. So I just wanted to ask the question of when you're looking at connectivity with another county, how does that process play out? And I don't know if either one of you two gentlemen or both of you want to expand, but please. Certainly, Council Member Lamb. Anytime a property in an adjacent county seeks to change the property through a rezoning process and they notify the government, the local government of the adjacent county, so we get notice of that. So we are aware of what's going on. We also pass that information on to the district council representatives so they know as well. We sometimes review the plans, the proposals, and then if it's necessary, we can make a comment on that based on how we feel that that development would impact what's already happening or what's planned to happen on the Fayette County side. Okay. And then I don't know if Mr. Mulvaney has anything he wants to add as far as traffic. No? Nothing at this moment. Okay. All right. You know, just like Council Member Maloney said, we've handled these processes 10 different ways. And just like Council Member Bledsoe said, a resolution can always be rescinded. You know, we have lots of ideas, and I like to try to respect the council member that's bringing this forward for their district because of the fact that we each know our districts very intimately and the representation thereof. So I would like to continue to support Council Member Plowman's motion to move forward and not support the process. And I know that goes against what I normally do, but I just feel like that there are these moments, you know. And it's on TV now, so yay. But I just feel like that if there is an issue that comes up, we can come back to it. But right now, everything that I have heard doesn't lead me to those concerns, and so, therefore, I will not support the amendment. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think everyone has spoken. And so, council members, you will recall we had a motion to walk on the issue about barricading Ivy Drive, and the amendment was made to put it in committee. So the amendment is on the floor for a vote. If you will please log in your vote whether you support the amendment to go to committee or not. And it looks like that amendment fails. Is there one abstention? Oh, okay. Wait a minute. The vote was five to nine. Is that correct? Do we have? Okay, stop. Okay, now we have our vote correct, and it's ten nay, five aye. The motion on the floor is to put to walk this on to the docket. Is there any further discussion before you vote? All those in favor, please log in aye, and those opposed nay. We need one more vote, I believe. All right, that motion passes ten to five, so that gets added to our docket. Are there any other motions for the docket? All right, I see none. All those in favor of the docket as amended, please say aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Now, next we have budget amendments, council members. Council Member Farmer moves approval. Council Member Ellinger seconds. Budget amendments start on page three. Council Members, if you have questions, please log in. Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Mayor. A question on the two journal entries, I think, from our distinguished council members at large. My understanding is that those capital monies would be turned back in and that each council member from each district would get an allocation. That's the way that's written. Is that correct? And I want to thank both of those at-large council members for helping us out and some of the projects we might have in our particular district. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to budget amendments? All those in favor, please say aye. Oh, hang on. Are you good? Okay, all those in favor, nay. All right, that motion passes. Mayor, sorry, I was trying to say something after you said yes. About budget amendments. Yes, I vote yes on all, no on 121171-72. 121171-72. Second from the bottom of page three. All right. So there's one no vote. Thank you. All right, thank you so much. Now, do I hear a motion for new business? Council Member Plowman moves approval. Vice Mayor Kaye seconds. Are there questions? Council members, please log in with your questions. New business starts on page six. Council Member Evans. I do have questions on item B. That does go to Council Member Reynolds' previous comment. Page seven, Director Haney or Commissioner Armstrong? Commissioner. Thank you. I realize this is for inmates that were housed in 2015 to 2016. Do we have a breakdown of how many individuals that $35,000 covered and what their average stay? No, ma'am, I do not. But I'll try and gather that information for you quickly. The time frame that it's associated with that specific is from July 2017 to June 2018. Say that again? From July 2017 to June 2018 is the time frame that that covers, if I'm not mistaken. Let me see again. The second. Page seven. I apologize. Hang on just one moment. It says this was for inmates. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, for a minimum of four consecutive days during 2015 and 2016. Okay. I was advised by the detention center it was the dates I provided you. I apologize. I'll talk to the detention center and grants and determine which is the accurate information. Okay, because that did lead to the next question of is the federal government that behind in paying governments for that? Well, the grants as they're set up, for instance, whenever you make the request, you actually request for, for instance, if I use the date July 17 through June 18, that grant doesn't become available to apply for until January or February of 19. So they refer to it as the 19 grant, even though it has nothing to do with incarceration levels during 2019. Okay, so this is money. I guess I'm still confused. So this is money from just 2018? Yes, from 17 July. Again, I'll have to check on that because there does seem to be a discrepancy in the paperwork and what I was told by the detention center. Okay, because, yeah, that's, and again, yeah, I'd like to know more about that and how it's used and how that's calculated by the federal government. I may be able to provide a little bit more just because we do the application. But the partial answer to your question is yes, the federal government is that far behind. These are FY18 funds in terms of the federal government's fiscal year. It takes them that long to process applications and award applications and award contracts. They run around two years behind on these funds. In terms of the numbers, and we can get you those either through Commissioner Armstrong or my office, this is essentially a reimbursement program. It's easier to think of it that way. We send them our numbers of the number of inmates that we had that met their criteria during the time period they give us. And then based on, strictly based on the numbers served, we get a flat amount. It's awarded one time up front, and then it can be used for any number of expenses. It actually serves all inmates. And that's what I'm curious to know, how many inmates equals $35,000, or 36 actually. And yeah, how we do use those funds. And how much are we expecting, I guess this year, just trying to figure out what inmate population is this $35,000, $36,000 going to? So yeah, we have some time front issues. Sure. And that number can vary. We can show you that. If you may recall just a couple months ago, you approved the FY17 allocation, which was significantly lower. It was like $9,700. So that number goes up and down, and so the amount we receive fluctuates. And I know in this one particular, the last round that was used for expenses associated with GED contracts and providing GED instruction to inmates. So there's actually a pretty wide variety of options they have for using the funds. All right. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Are there any other questions about new business? All right. Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? Yes, and no on B, please. Okay. Thank you. All right. Very good. Thank you. Those all pass. Now, let's move on to continuing business and presentations. Council Capital Projects, page 24. And I believe we need a motion. There's one item. Second. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger, Vice Mayor Kaye seconds. Is there any discussion? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? That motion passes. MDF Funds, page 25. Motion approved. Second. Council Member Ellinger moves to approve. Council Member Plowman seconds. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? That motion passes. Next is Planning and Public Safety from November 12th. Council Member Masati. Thank you, Mayor. This is from the Planning and Public Safety Committee meeting on November 12th, 2019. The committee approved the October 8th, 2019, summary. Item number two, Beth Overman, Director of the PDR Program, provided an update on the PDR Program. She explained that if the Ordinance Review Committee sticks to their schedule of monthly meetings, they should be able to present their findings to the Rural Land Management Board in February or March of 2020. If those recommendations are accepted by the Rural Land Management Board, they will be reported back to the Planning and Public Safety Committee next spring. When asked to explain the new farm bill, Chair Martin said the good thing is that there is more money than there used to be, and if property owners donate their easements, we may use that as part of our match funding, which would be a positive thing. No further comment or action was taken on this item. The next issue was with Fire Department. Kristen Chilton, Chief of the Division of Fire, presented the five-year public safety plan for the division. There were a few comments on response times and the need for a station on the south side to serve the 4th and 9th districts, and Chilton said it would be great to have one in that area, but there is no land available. There was a suggestion to have something in place that will trigger the need for a new fire station based on growth in a particular area. Chilton said the division would love to have a seat at the table with those discussions. There was also some discussion about attrition and retirements, and Chilton explained the lengthy hiring process for replacing employees. No further comment or action was taken on that item. The last item was in reference to the party plan ordinance. Thomas Kurtzinger, Police Commander, provided a presentation. He emphasized that this is not targeted at parties, but it is targeted at a disruptive behavior that results from parties that is the issue. When asked what constitutes disruption, Kurtzinger said officer discretion is a key factor, and if it crosses the property line and can be heard from the sidewalk, that will be sufficient for taking enforcement action. There was concern expressed regarding the eviction process and the need for better communication with landlords. A motion was made by Councilmember Gibbs to repeal the current Lexington Area Party Plan Ordinance and approve the new Disruptive Premises Ordinance and refer it to the full committee. On behalf of the committee, I so move. Second. Councilmember Misati has moved, and Councilmember for the committee, and Councilmember Plowman has seconded. Is there discussion? Councilmember Gibbs. Thank you, Mayor. I put this item in committee originally. It generated a fair amount of email discussion, and I saw a couple of suggestions from rental property owners that I think have merit. And so I'd like to consider those amendments, but I don't think a work session is the proper form to do that. And, by the way, I'm in no rush about this. Despite a comment earlier today, I never intended to rush this. This went through committee in the normal way. I wasn't rushed then. I'm not rushed now. But so what I would like to do is postpone moving this item to the docket and put it back in the Planning and Public Safety Committee for further discussion and amendments. So moved. Second. All right. Councilmember Ellinger seconded that motion to place this issue back into committee. Is there any discussion? All right. I see none. All those in favor of the motion to put back into committee say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes, so this will go back to your committee. Yes, ma'am, and that concludes my report. All right. Thank you very much. Next up, councilmembers, if you have a report, please log in. Councilmember Gibbs. Thank you, Mayor. I move to place in the Environmental Quality and Public Service Committee, Public Works Committee, an evaluation of the efficiency of the vacuum leaf collection program and its fiscal impact. So moved. Do I hear a second? Second. All right. It's been moved and seconded to put into committee evaluation of the vacuum leaf collection. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? No. We have one no. Thank you very much. Does that conclude your report? Okay. Councilmembers, for the official record, we are going to go back, and the council approved the amendment to place the party plan into committee, but that was an amendment, so we'll go back and vote on the original motion, which is now to put it into committee, just for the record. And I thank Stacy for pointing that out. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. Now we are official. That passes. Okay. Councilmember Evans. Thank you, Mayor. I was very much for putting that item back in committee. In fact, I wish it hadn't been seconded, so it could have just died. But I am curious, and I guess it might have to be a direct question to Councilmember Gibbs, that these were issues that were brought up during that committee meeting, and I was here for, and I am curious, because I had my own conversation with the law department this morning, actually, and reiterated concerns that we received through e-mail, but that were also discussed that very day that did not seem to be of concern. So, you know, for the record, for just the real purpose, I am curious about what was the change of heart, because I do believe your first intention was to read it as soon as possible, so it would be in effect for what I had told over or whatever was to have it ready for basketball season and all that. So I did get an impression that it was being rushed, but I am just curious, you know, what the change was, because talking to the law department this morning, all the concerns that I initially had and that were voiced and that have been reiterated by the public today had been relayed to your office. I am just, again, I am glad it is back in committee, but, again, I think this was a part of not being fully thoughtful, which went back to my comment about Council Member Plowman's motion. So, yeah, I think we should just be more thoughtful, and that is a conversation we can have later if you would like to, but I believe all of these issues, at least some of them that perhaps should have raised concerns before, just simply were not heard, and it is not just you. It was the entire committee that voted unanimously to pass that out of committee. So I hope we will be more thoughtful, mindful, ask questions, and not get people's blood pressure raised so high when we truly can just have some real discussion about it. So I look forward to what those discussions are. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Mayor. I just have a few announcements about some activities happening in my district. Starting this Wednesday, I will have my conversation with your Council Member in community conversation at Good Foods Co-op at 6 p.m. So we're alternating every month between Good Foods and the Village Branch Library. So this month I'll be there, and I'll be answering questions, giving a little update about what's going on in the city and the district, and I hope to see lots of folks turn out for that. And then on Friday, there's going to be a grand opening of the Lexington Census Office, and that will be at 10 a.m. at 771 Corporate Drive. I'm on the Complete Count Committee, and we're working on trying to get people to turn out for the census to report. We have a lot of challenges, especially trying to reach our minority communities, but we're trying to encourage everyone, elected officials, so all my colleagues, to help your constituents, I guess, respond to the census. So come on out on Friday for that celebration. And then on Sunday, the Cardinal Valley Neighborhood Association is having an open house from 1 to 3 at Village Branch Library, and the idea is for it to be a time where people can come out and greet their neighbors and interact with each other in a more informal setting. So I hope people will turn out for that. And then also on Sunday is the Allendale Greenway Cleanup, and Friends of Wolf Run is hosting that. We're having some issues in Allendale, and so if people could come out between 1 and 4. And Ken Cook's words were, dress like a duck hunter without the gun. So be prepared to get dirty. And I think that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Mayor. And I just wanted to say thank you to so many people that organized so many wonderful Martin Luther King events this weekend. On Sunday night, I attended the Disciples for the Dream. It was their 30th year at Central Christian Church for having their service, their community service, and we had a Reverend Julian DeShazier who came in from Chicago. And we had the largest youth population ever at this service, and it was really unique because, obviously, Reverend DeShazier really reached out to and had a unique drawing from the youth community, which was really awesome because I think that's where we need to focus on with a lot of our issues in our community and showing them about respect and so forth. The other was to come down and do the march, and then the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday Program, which I know we were a part of, and I want to commend Council Member James Brown and Tiffany Tatum. They were a part of the group that planned this, and Reverend Delman L. Coates, who came from Maryland, and he spoke. And let's just say I had a weekend of invigoration and of wonderful where a lot of community members came together, and I just really appreciate how welcoming we are in this community to everybody, where we can have these kind of community meetings and services where we can all come together and share like thoughts and leave that place in a more respectful way so that we can take back to my constituency to show them respect. And I just really appreciate it, and thanks for the opportunities to make myself a better person over the weekend. So thank you. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Mayor. I just have two announcements. One, the Chinese Lunar New Year celebration is this Sunday, the 26th at 7 p.m. at the Opera House. It's always a great time, and it's a beautiful ceremony and lots of really cool acts, musical and artists. That's at 7 o'clock. And then over the last couple months, I don't know about your districts, we've had a number of car break-ins, especially breaking of the windows, and it's been very frustrating to a number of people who are trying to figure out how to better protect their own vehicles and also work together on their streets to be better. So we're hosting a public safety forum at Beaumont Library on February 3rd from 6 to 7 30. We're specifically going to have officers talk about how they use ring doorbell or other things that are cameras, how they can work together to better utilize those resources more effectively. So that's between 6 and 7 30, February 3rd, at Beaumont Library. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Mayor. I also want to echo yesterday's Martin Luther King. I want to thank Council Member Evans for inviting me to her table. And it was a great turnout, great speakers from all churches, and it was amazing. And I thank all the people who walked in it. Cold weather. It was amazing how many people came out. So I do want to thank you. It's a great day, and I appreciate everything. Second thing, I'm just going to go on. Maybe after hearing the speech today, the mayor, I appreciate that. I saw something up there, the salt barn. And I want to give out credit to my CAO, Sally Hamilton. I think he come up with a secret weapon. We haven't had any snow. And I'm telling you, we're sitting here in the middle of late January, and we went through the month of December. I think he come on to something there, and I owe you to thank you for doing that for us. Thank you so much. I hope you're not asking for another one next year. Oh, goodness. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Mayor. At risk of being petty, I'm disturbed at the implication that I've been not thoughtful enough about the process, about the disruptive premises ordinance. That went through the usual procedures. I did not rush it. I did say I wouldn't mind having it in place in March, which is still several months away. One of my colleagues suggested that we read it out immediately that day when it passed. I think it was back in November. I said not to do that, to hold off on it. This ordinance has been fully vetted by the law department. The law department has found no problem with this ordinance. The police are on board. UK is on board. It's got tremendous support. If other people didn't know about it and come out, I can't cover everything. But this went through the right process. I never hurried it, and I don't like the word. I'm not sure if thoughtless was used, but I think it was implied. Well, not thoughtful enough, which logically speaking can translate to thoughtless. I'll just leave it at that. I put a lot of thought in what I do, and I think colleagues ought to be a little bit more careful about how they frame things. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to remind Council that we have a committee of the whole scheduled at 4 o'clock. I think it won't start right at 4. My suggestion is we take a 10-minute break after we adjourn and then meet in the caucus room. So whatever the clock says, add 10 minutes to that, and then let's convene. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much. Council members, next up is the mayor's report. And before we get to that, I want to ‑‑ several people up here mentioned all the Martin Luther King, Jr. activities and how wonderful it was. I want to give special thanks to Chris Edwards and his team. Yesterday they were ‑‑ you know, they prepare and video everything so that the public can enjoy, the public who haven't been able to go down there. And they did all of the Martin Luther King events. They did the State of the City Address today. They set up. They broke down. They're kind of the quiet behind the scenes people who make this work for GTV, and I appreciate it very much, Chris. Thank you. And I know you include lots of employees who help you. Council, I want to introduce you to Lynn Kelso, who now that the chamber is cleared out is all by herself in the front. And she is a registered nurse who is in the College of Nursing. She teaches courses there. And she is in the Doctorate of Nursing Practice Program herself, earning her doctorate in nursing. And she is going to ‑‑ her focus is leadership. And she is going to be shadowing me this entire semester. So we have lots of hours for her to learn lots of things. And you will see her around quite a bit. So thank you very much. Today is her first day. So I know you've already learned a lot. Now, we have a mayor's report, which requires a motion. Oh, second. Council Member Masati moved approval, and Council Member Plowman seconded. Are there any questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Is there any public comment for issues not on the agenda? Is anyone signed up back there? No. Okay, thank you very much. That brings us to the end. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you very much.