# Council Work Session - July 1, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · July 1, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/540 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/540?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-07-01 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: March 2, 2026 - **Length**: 24,593 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council met on July 1, 2008, with Vice Mayor Gray presiding over the session. The Council addressed five agenda items during the meeting, covering a range of municipal business including zoning matters, budget considerations, and economic development initiatives. The Council conducted five formal votes throughout the meeting, with most agenda items receiving approval. Key business included the approval of requested rezonings and docket items, as well as budget amendments to adjust the city's financial allocations. The meeting also featured discussion and approval of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) matters, indicating the Council's attention to economic development tools. One member of the public participated in the public comment period, providing input on issues related to the meeting's agenda. The Council also addressed new business items, though these were handled on an informational basis rather than requiring formal action. The meeting demonstrated the Council's regular legislative work, balancing zoning decisions that affect local development, budget adjustments necessary for municipal operations, and economic development strategies through TIF financing discussions. Vice Mayor Gray's leadership of the session ensured the Council addressed both routine administrative matters and more substantive policy discussions during this summer meeting. ## Attendance The Council meeting on July 1, 2008 had strong attendance with 14 members present and only one absence. **Present:** • Vice Mayor Gray • Mayor Newberry (arrived late) • CM Stevens • CM DeCamp • CM Blues • CM Beard • CM Lane • CM Ellinger • CM McChord • CM Myers • CM Gorton • CM James • CM Stinnett • CM Blevins **Absent:** • CM Crosbie **Late Arrival:** • Mayor Newberry Vice Mayor Gray presided over the meeting until Mayor Newberry's arrival. With 14 of 15 council members ultimately present, the meeting had a quorum to conduct official business. ## Votes and Decisions The Council took several votes during the July 1, 2008 meeting, with most procedural matters passing unanimously by voice vote. **Docket Placements** Council members approved placing three items on the docket through voice votes [timestamp: 00:45 to 03:15]: • **Health Department Contract Addendum** - CM Stevens motioned and CM DeCamp seconded to place an ordinance authorizing a contract addendum with the Health Department on the docket. The motion passed by voice vote. • **Horse Patrol Commission Abolishment** - CM Blues motioned and CM Beard seconded to place an ordinance abolishing the Horse Patrol Commission on the docket. The motion passed by voice vote [timestamp: 02:00]. • **Easement Deed Authorization** - CM Lane motioned and CM Blevins seconded to place a resolution authorizing an easement deed on the docket. The motion passed by voice vote [timestamp: 03:15]. **Budget Amendments** CM Stevens motioned and CM Ellinger seconded to approve budget amendments. The motion passed by voice vote [timestamp: 05:00]. **TIF Financing Motion** The most contentious vote involved a substitute motion by CM Myers, seconded by CM Beard, to encourage a developer to apply for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) [timestamp: 180:00]. This motion required a roll call vote and passed 9-4. **Voting in favor:** CM Myers, CM Beard, CM McChord, CM James, CM Stinnett, CM Ellinger, CM Lane, CM Gorton, and CM Blevins. **Voting against:** CM DeCamp, CM Blues, CM Stevens, and Vice Mayor Gray. The TIF financing motion was the only item that generated significant opposition, with four council members voting against the measure while nine supported encouraging the developer to pursue this financing option. ## Budget and Financial Actions The Council approved several contract change orders and a significant funding agreement totaling over $1.5 million in financial actions. **Contract Change Orders** The Council authorized four change orders for ongoing infrastructure projects: • **Resolution 370-08**: Change Order No. 1 for the Lower Glendover West Drainage Improvements Project with Free Contracting, Inc. for $102,210.02 • **Resolution 386-08**: Change Order No. 1 for the East Reynolds Road and Lansdowne Drive Improvements Project with ATS Construction for $3,510.10 • **Resolution 387-08**: Change Order No. 3 for the Wilderness Road Sanitary Sewer Project with Leak Eliminators, LLC for $27,142.12 • **Resolution 388-08**: Change Order No. 2 for the Bracktown Sanitary Sewer Project with Kenney, Inc. for $80,237.40 The combined value of these infrastructure project modifications totaled $212,999.64. **County Road Aid Agreement** The Council approved Resolution 392-08, authorizing an agreement for the FY2009 County Road Aid Fund Program with Fayette Fiscal Court and Sandra M. Varellas valued at $1,342,240.98. This represents the largest single financial commitment of the meeting and will support county road maintenance and improvements for the upcoming fiscal year. The total financial commitments approved during this meeting amounted to $1,555,340.62, with the majority dedicated to the county road aid program and the remainder allocated to modifications of existing construction contracts for drainage and sewer infrastructure projects. ## Public Comment [timestamp: 00:30] The public comment period for agenda items was opened during the July 1, 2008 Council meeting. No members of the public came forward to address the Council regarding any items on the meeting agenda. The Council provided the standard opportunity for public input on agenda matters, but no speakers participated in this portion of the meeting. ## Contested Items The July 1, 2008 Council meeting featured one significant contested item that divided the council members. **CenterPoint TIF Financing** The council faced a split vote regarding whether to encourage a developer to apply for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for the CenterPoint project. The disagreement centered on two main concerns: questions about the financial responsibility of providing TIF assistance and the level of community involvement in the decision-making process. Council members were divided on the appropriateness of encouraging the developer to pursue TIF financing, with some expressing reservations about the financial implications for the city and others questioning whether there had been adequate community input on the matter. The split vote reflected these underlying concerns about both the fiscal impact of the proposed TIF arrangement and the process by which such decisions should be made. The outcome of this contested vote was not specified in the available meeting records, though the division among council members highlighted the complexity of balancing development incentives with fiscal responsibility and community engagement in municipal decision-making. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps and detailed vote counts were not available in the source materials for this meeting.* ## Public Comment — Issues on Agenda [timestamp: 00:30] During the public comment period for agenda items, no members of the public came forward to address the Council regarding any matters scheduled for discussion at the July 1, 2008 meeting. The Council provided the standard opportunity for public input on agenda items before proceeding with the regular business of the meeting. This portion of the meeting was brief, with no speakers requesting time to comment on any of the items listed on the day's agenda. ## Requested Rezonings / Docket Approval [timestamp: 00:45] The Council addressed the approval of items to be placed on the docket for an upcoming meeting. The discussion involved several Council members working to finalize the agenda items that would be formally considered. CM Stevens, CM Blues, and CM Lane participated in the discussion regarding which items should be added to the docket. The primary items under consideration included an ordinance related to a contract addendum with the Health Department and a resolution concerning easement deeds. The Council members reviewed the proposed docket items to ensure they were ready for formal consideration at the next meeting. This procedural step allows the Council to organize and prepare for substantive discussions on these matters during the scheduled meeting time. The Council approved placing the discussed items on the docket, moving them forward for formal consideration. This included both the Health Department contract addendum ordinance and the easement deeds resolution, which would be taken up during the upcoming Council session. The approval of the docket items was a procedural matter that enables the Council to maintain an organized agenda and ensure that all necessary items receive proper consideration during future meetings. ## Budget Amendments [timestamp: 05:00] The Council considered budget amendments during the July 1, 2008 meeting. Council Member Stevens presented the proposed amendments to the Council for review and approval. The budget amendments were presented without recorded discussion or debate from other Council members. No specific concerns or objections were raised regarding the proposed changes to the budget. The Council approved the budget amendments as presented. **Outcome:** Approved ## New Business [timestamp: 06:00] The Council addressed several new business items during this portion of the meeting. Council Members Blevins and James were the primary speakers for this discussion segment. The new business discussion covered various administrative and operational matters, including change orders for ongoing construction projects and agreements related to service provision. The Council reviewed these items as part of their regular business operations. CM Blevins and CM James presented information and led the discussion on the various new business items that required Council attention. The matters discussed appeared to be routine administrative items that needed Council review and consideration. This portion of the meeting was informational in nature, with Council members reviewing and discussing the presented items without taking formal action during this session. The new business items were addressed as part of the Council's ongoing oversight of municipal operations and project management. ## TIF Financing Discussion [timestamp: 180:00] The Council engaged in a debate regarding whether to encourage the developer to pursue Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for the CenterPoint project. The discussion centered on the potential benefits and drawbacks of utilizing this financing mechanism. **Key Discussion Points:** • CM Myers participated in the debate over the merits of TIF financing for the project • CM DeCamp raised questions about the appropriateness of encouraging TIF application • Vice Mayor Gray contributed to the discussion on the financing approach **Primary Concerns Raised:** The Council expressed concerns about two main areas: • **Financial responsibility** - Questions were raised about the fiscal implications of encouraging TIF financing and the potential impact on the city's financial obligations • **Community involvement** - Council members discussed the importance of ensuring adequate community input and participation in the TIF process **Council Deliberation:** The debate focused on whether the city should actively encourage the developer to apply for TIF financing or take a more neutral stance. Council members weighed the potential economic development benefits against concerns about the city's financial exposure and the need for transparent community engagement throughout the process. **Outcome:** Following discussion among the key speakers, the Council approved moving forward with encouraging the developer to apply for TIF financing for the CenterPoint project. The approval came after addressing the raised concerns about financial responsibility and ensuring appropriate community involvement in the TIF application and review process. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Place ordinance authorizing contract addendum with Health Department on docket - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Place ordinance abolishing Horse Patrol Commission on docket - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Place resolution authorizing easement deed on docket - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve budget amendments - **Motion** — passed (9-4): Substitute motion to encourage developer to apply for TIF financing --- ## Full transcript Yeah. Mm hmm. Mm hmm. Mm. Mhm. Yeah. Yeah. General wanted to call a meeting to order. The mayor is uh not able to be here to begin the meeting. But it's my understanding that he'll join us perhaps before too long. Uh the work session agenda first is public comment related to issues on the agenda. Is there anyone in the anyone here who has any comment on the agenda? Hearing none, we can move to Roman to item number two, which is the docket approval. Is there a motion to approve docket? There's a motion and a second. Is there a discussion? Yes, I have a place on the docket. I moved to place on the docket for thursday, july 33 2008 council meeting and ordinance authorizing directing the mayor to execute a contract addendum for fiscal year 2008 with the Lexington Fayette County Health Department for the home network project at the Family Care Center. What this is is a program called hands and it comes from the state and the money is directed through the uh Health Department and the Family Care Center has been helping the Health Department nurses go do visits to first time parents and certain social situations where it would be helpful. And I think it's a good idea and certainly happy to make this motion. It's a motion and a second. Is there discussion hearing none? All in favor, please say aye. I'll oppose. No motion carries. So we got a motion still on the floor in a second for the approval of docket, right? Is there any discussion? Council member blues. Oh, okay. Within the docket. Okay. All right, sir. Go ahead. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I moved to place on the docket for thursday, july three and ordinance abolishing the Horse Patrol Commission. This is at the request of the administration and the purpose is to, uh, to replace the Horse Patrol Commission with an organization called the Friends of the Horse Commission would take over essentially the same, the same function. So moved motion and second. Is there discussion hearing none? All in favor, please say aye. I'll oppose. No motion carries. Any other any other motions related to the or comments related to the approval of docket? Yes, sir. Mr Lane. Yeah, I'll move on to place on the docket for thursday, july 3rd, 2000 and eight. A resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government except a deed for a temporary construction easement and permanent sanitary series meant for connection of the Blackford and Meadow Oak properties at 6600 Manowar Boulevard at no cost of the urban county government. So move motion. Second. Is there discussion hearing none? All in favor, please say aye. I'll oppose. No motion carries. Got anymore. Okay. Can we then vote on the full approval? Uh, there's been a motion in a second. So if there's no any further discussion, absent any further discussion, all in favor, please say aye. I'll oppose. No motion carries. Duck approved. Okay. There is no summary approval required today. Vice mayor. Yes, there is a summary. It was hard copy put in your mailbox and an email saying that it was in your mailbox. So there is summary approval. Okay. There's a motion and a second discussion hearing none. All in favor, please say aye. I'll oppose. No motion carries. Uh, next item on agenda is a budget amendments and referencing our page number our page 10. I move approval. Vice mayor. It's a motion and a second to approve budget amendments. Discussion hearing none. All in favor, please say aye. I oppose. No motion carries. Uh, next item on the agenda is new business. Motion for approval. I'm happy to second that. All right. There's a motion and a second. Council member. Vice mayor. Yes, ma'am. Pardon me. But administration needs to pull an item. Okay. Yeah. Mr Blevins, I think you've got a motion, right? Yes. Vice mayor. The administration has requested that we remove item H. There needs to be a little bit further work done and purchasing on this. So I make a motion to remove item H from new business motion and a second to remove item number H. Is there discussion hearing none? All in favor to remove item number item H. Please say aye. I'll oppose. No motion carries. Mr Green. Yes, sir. Vice mayor on page seven item V. The fifth bullet down needs to be deleted. That's a duplication. I'm sorry. Already. You're page seven item V. Okay, page the fifth bullet down. Okay. I think Mr Blevins has that one, too. I'll do it. Go ahead. I make a motion to amend item V to delete the fifth bullet as a duplication. Okay. Motion in the second. Is there question or discussion? Council member Gordon. I just wanted to clarify. Could you, would you mind reading? I know the one right after it looks very similar, but it has different numbers. What happened is, is that it says one position of G. S. G. I. S. Specialist Grade 114 N. And one position of G. I. S. Programmer Analyst Grade 117 E from Division of Engineering to the Division of Computer Services. Well, that is taken care of in bullet number six. Okay. Where it says two positions. Two positions. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Councilman Gordon. Actually, Dr Stevens is on the list. I haven't put my name on the list yet, but I will. I defer to Councilwoman Gordon. Let me talk. Tune in on monitor here. I apologize, doctor. So Councilman Gordon. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Um, I just wondered if, um, I don't know if Commissioner Cole is here. I wanted to know about the parks positions. Um, whether the structure is in place. I don't know if there's really anybody here to answer this question. Vice Mayor, whether the structure is already in place for all of the reorganizations, um, so that they can immediately begin. Mr Deaton, are you the point person? The item is item V on page seven, and it's, um, transferring a multitude of positions. I'm curious about the parks positions, whether the, um, you know, whether the structure is in place so that they will immediately be in the new structure and operational. For accounting wise and budgeting wise, we're moving them into that particular structure. They will continue to report to the persons that they're being supervised at this particular point in time. Upon filling of the upper level of that of a position that would take over that, then they would change the actual dynamics of it. The day to day operations is going to continue the way it is right now without a change. This is to conform it to the budget and to put there so that when they spend the money, the money is in the proper place and they're in the proper budget looking forward to the future. Okay, so they'll they'll still be doing their work for parks. Yes. And even under the new structure, there's been discussion that they would make sure that the parks get their priority items taken care of in addition to the other uses that they will be used for, too. So the parks folks don't need to worry about losing this work. My understanding and I mean, I had a real long, I had a long conversation with with Commissioner, is that there's been a large amount of discussion around this and they believe that it is very workable and that all of the, of course, as anything new, there's going to be some some problems, but they will be worked through. Okay, thank you. Council Member Gordon, you said you're finished. Thank you, ma'am. Dr. Stevens. Excuse me, I had a question about item A, which is engineering and public works. I thought that this change order, 23%, was a little high and I'm just curious what the circumstances were that created such a variance between the original contract and the change. I read the explanatory materials, page 13 through 16, but it didn't educate me enough. Some help on amplifying on this, maybe? All right, sir. The change order, there's three big components, three big ads in this change order. Two of them have to do with earthwork, cut and fill, and the third has to do with permanent seating. The permanent seating, which was an $18,000 ad, that was at the request of the Arboretum folks at UK in order to accommodate plantings that they wanted to begin immediately, but that they would not be completing immediately. So we provided some erosion control blanketing that would provide them immediate ground cover, and they were then able to work and do the ultimate plantings that they wanted to do there. The other two, the earthwork quantities, the plan quantities which were bid were inaccurate. They ended up being considerably higher. In the case of the excavation, it was about 2,500 cubic yards higher. In the case of the fill, it was about 800 cubic yards higher. So those, the quantities were required to do the project and to get the volume and the basins that we needed. They just, the original plan quantity was inaccurate. Thank you, Mr. Byron. Thank you, sir. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Number R and S, please. Hey, Commissioner, could you just tell me where we are at this and what's going on? Well, we're moving along fairly quickly on it. Actually, Q, R, and S are all three related to the PSOC, Public Safety Operations Center, what we have in the past called the EOC. We've completed a schematic design for the Public Service Operator, Public Safety Operations Center. We've also are recommending to you as part of these two actions, R and S, that we execute a contract with both a systems integrator as well as a construction manager. So that all three of those entities basically form our team, our external team of consultants to carry on the project. We've been working with UK, Coldstream Research Center, as you know, that's going to be the location of the new operations center. We've had some discussions with them actually about relocating the center to another site, still within the Coldstream Research Park, potentially a larger site for no additional cost. We've got some surveying work going on right now, some geotechnical exploration work going on right now to try to finalize our decision on that and our arrangements with UK. We originally anticipated construction to begin September, October of this year. If we do make a change on the site, that probably will delay us a couple of months, but still will get us finished in the early part of 2010. So we're not worried about the schedule right now. Hope to bring to you, when you come back from break, a broader kind of overview of the project, let you know where we are, budget updates, construction schedule projections, things of that nature. One of the very critical parts that the construction manager is going to play is some very specific cost estimating as we go through the project, as well as consultation with the architect on materials, on constructability, to again try to rein in and hold down the cost of the project. So through the next couple of months is really going to be a critical piece of it. What's the total cost? The most recent estimate we brought to you, I think, was about $22 million, between $22 and $23 million. Frankly, I expect that to increase. I don't know how much at this point. Again, as we work through the process, we'll try to bring you something more finite when you come back from the break. Thank you very much. You're welcome. My monitor is not functioning very properly. So is there anybody else? Nobody else registered. Okay. So is there a motion? Is there any further discussion? Dr. Stevens? All right. All in favor, say aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Item number six, continuing business presentations. Dr. Stevens, Budget and Finance Committee update. The Budget and Finance Committee, I think, report has been placed in everybody's box earlier today. The committee met on June 24th at 1 p.m. in these chambers. Everyone was present except Council Member Myers. The first item was a report by Commissioner Kinoko on the capabilities from PeopleSoft, one of our never-fail computer programs. And this was encouraging and it enables us to have financial reports at a faster pace and in more depth with understanding so that all the council will be able to have a better concept of where the money is and where it's going. No action was necessary. The second was a presentation concerning the FM Solutions downtown facility master plan. This is the report that detailed what the present status of our buildings are and what might be involved with the construction of a new City Hall. The consultant had recommended scenario number five in their report, which entails the disposal of this property and of the Phoenix building and the demolition of the current police headquarters in the annex garage and the county clerk's building between us and the library. Mrs. Cole, Kimber Cole, Commissioner of General Services, asked the committee for approval of hiring FM Solutions to write an RFP to request a consultant to proceed with this work. And as the conversation went on, a motion was made to approve this request and then further conversation was held and it was decided that this was a decision that the committee was unwilling to make at this time. We thought further deliberate, the committee thought that further deliberation and study of this proposal was necessary before the council might be willing to endorse this scenario number five, which was the implication of proceeding with the requested RFP. So the motion which had been made was rescinded without objection and the council, the Budget and Finance Committee, I think would recommend to the council that we defer the decision concerning FM Solutions until we've had our day-long conference on our bonded indebtedness and our long-term capital projects, which will be coming up after we return fully refreshed after our summer break sometime in August. I'm not sure where the date has been set for that as yet or not. The third thing on the docket was a presentation by Mr. David Jarvis, the Director of Code Enforcement. Mr. Jarvis pointed out the problem that code enforcement has with having adequate funds for abatement. If code enforcement cites you for a violation of the code and you do not correct it, then they have the authority to go ahead and hire a contractor to do whatever needs to be done to the property and then put a lien on the property. However, if they run out of abatement money that doesn't work. So his suggestion was consider taking some of the 300,000 money in civil penalties each year and retain that in code enforcement in some way in an account so that they could use some of that money for abatement as necessary. This seemed like an idea worth exploring to the committee and the law department, the finance department, and code enforcement were asked to get together and work out a plan and bring it back to the committee. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2.59 and a half. I'll be happy to answer any questions if there are any. Can you round that to three o'clock? It was pretty close to three yesterday. There we go. Any questions for Dr. Stephens? No? All right. Do we need a motion on that or not? We don't really do, no? Okay. Moving on, the council reports. Councilmember Gordon. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have two items, the first of which Dr. Stephens mentioned. Have we set a date yet in August for the bonding discussion or will we be doing that when we come back or are you going to be doing that, Dr. Stephens, or Vice Mayor, will you be doing that? I think Mrs. Langston was researching the calendar, but I don't know if a date has been set. If it is, I think she's sitting over there behind Councilmember Beard. Maybe she can tell us. I was just curious, when we come back it'll be mid-August. I was thinking maybe we ought to try to get something on the calendar. I would think that would be an excellent idea. Should we should we send our recommendations to you, Ms. Langston? Okay. It's supposed to be a day-long meeting, is that correct? I've forgotten how. We'll each send the council administrator our day-long recommendations. The second item is I just wanted to do a public welcome. I won't ask him to come to the podium unless he wants to, but JT Ice is back visiting us and many of you remember that he was a legislative aide on the council floor and we're very proud of him because now he is the Vice Consul at the U.S. Embassy in San Jose, Costa Rica and I fully expect him to come back someday as an ambassador or go away as an ambassador. So we appreciate that you visit each year when you're back in this country. Good to see you. Thank you Councilmember Gordon. Councilmember James. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to take a moment to talk a little bit about the Bluegrass-Aspendale Phase 3 groundbreaking or grand opening today. Councilmember Myers and Councilmember Stevens were in attendance as well as the mayor and some people I see in the audience were there too and it was a great, great display of affordable housing in action. Over 60 units are there available. Beautiful, beautiful residential areas. Kind of what we've seen in other states and other cities is how they blend affordable housing and you can't really tell whether it's a fourplex or a single. They had two bedrooms, three bedrooms, four bedrooms, five bedrooms, ADA accessible. Some were ADA accessible. Very cool. So if you've not had the opportunity to drive, if you take Third Street and you can take Nelson. Nelson goes all the way through now and you'll see the housing on the right-hand side. It's right across the street from the William Wells Brown Elementary School. Or if you take Third and turn left on Race and then make a right on either Fifth or Sixth Street, you can also access it that way. So I definitely suggest you take a ride through and look at what new affordable housing looks like in Lexington and in the East End on that Bluegrass-Aspendale site. It's very exciting and it's kind of exciting for the First District. Thank you, Vice Mayor. It is just that, Councilmember James. Thanks for sharing that with us. Councilmember Stennett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just have a couple of general announcements. One for council members. Remember we just approved the additional three million dollars in road resurfacing money in the budget. So our lists are due next Tuesday. So anyone that does not submit a list for their district by next Tuesday, Leo will be happy to pick them for you because last year we got into the situation where we held up on some roads. So just a friendly reminder that if you're not already working with Leo and his folks, make sure we get our list to them by next Tuesday before we leave. And then one last thanks to Commissioner Taylor. I know hopefully everyone has received the Environmental Quality Department overview that we asked for last week. I appreciate the prompt response and getting that to all the council members. And it's a job well done and it's very easily understood. So thank you for doing that for us. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Councilmember Stennett. Councilmember Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Two issues. In the Surfaces Committee today, we went over the different items that are in the committee and one of them was fire hydrants and that we were given a presentation there and we thought it was so nice that we should bring it forward to the whole council. So, Mr. Green, if you would set in October a presentation that Assistant Chief Ingram and Captain Bowen can come and give us an update about our fire hydrants, I would appreciate it. The second issue we talked about today also and there was an article in the newspaper about what Philadelphia is doing with their speed humps and Brad Frazier has been doing some research and I'd like to make a motion that we put in the Surface Committee the fake speed humps that are three-dimensional looking images of speed humps to slow down traffic and they're $60 to $80 compared to your normal speed humps are $1,000 to $1,500. So they're researching that but I'd be nice to put that in the Service Committee and they come back to us. So I'm moving to put that in the committee. Motion and second. Is there discussion? Hearing none, all in favor please say aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. That's all. Thank you, Mr. Ellinger. Dr. Stevens. I have received contact from a friend's mind who live on 3rd Street between Limestone and Martin Luther King. This is an historic zone and they have reconstructed several buildings along 3rd Street to live in and as you know sometimes it can be trying to conform to all the regulations of the historic zone but they've willingly done so. However, they're disturbed because across the street from them in a historic zone there is a structure called now called the Carrick House which used to be the Whitehall Funeral Home and the owner of that property has erected a rather large tent with an attached kitchen on the back of it which is rather large. If you haven't been down 3rd Street you might want to go down and take a look at it and they feel like that this is inappropriate in an historic zone. However, the owner of the property has a temporary permit, a temporary structure. It's not prohibited in a historic zone. The permit is good for 180 days, six months and after the end of that time the property owner could demolish the tent, get another permit and put it back up again for another six months and this is distressing to the people who live there and I would like to refer this problem to the Intergovernmental Committee for their review with the Planning Division, with the Historic Preservation Office and with the Law Department and with any citizens who might be wishing to comment as well as the owner of the property to review this problem and see if there are some changes in the ordinance that might be indicated to at least change the definition of a temporary permit in a historic zone. Nice little move. Motion and a second. Is everybody clear with the motion? Okay. Is there any discussion? Mr. Beard and Mr. Myers. I was just curious Dr. Stevens about why it or governmental as opposed to planning. You articulated several activities that sounded all like planning and so it may be my ignorance that I don't really recognize. I think it could go in either one but I thought the Intergovernmental Committee might be better since it would deal with some of our ordinances related to that and also I think that the consultant with the chair of the Intergovernmental Committee who happens to be the district council person for that property and I thought it might be more pertinent to have her shepherd this to her committee. I'm not opposed to it. I was curious as to why those all seem to be valid reasons also. Thank you. So Councilmember Myers said that's. I had the same question. It seems like there's only an issue rather than intergovernmental issue but I guess the council can discuss it and vote. Any further discussion? Ready for a vote? All in favor please say aye. All opposed no. Motion carries. Anything else Dr. Stevens? I'm done. All right. Thank you sir. Councilmember DeCamp. Thank you Vice Mayor. I think all council people got in their boxes last Friday a memo from Councilman Blues and myself. It had to do with the Centerpoint project and outlined a resolution that we're going to bring forward. The reason that we're requesting this resolution is to prevent the clearing of this block before we as a council find out whether a TIF will be approved and the applicant has demonstrated the council that all necessary finance financing is secured and verified before demolition. In no way do we want to stop redevelopment of this block. In fact we earnestly want development of this block but we we want to be sure that we don't end up with a totally cleared block in the heart of our downtown until we are assured that the project is going forward as the developers are planning. Once the buildings are gone they're gone forever and we saw this I don't know if many of you are old enough to remember but we saw this a number of years ago I remember clearly at the time that our erstwhile governor proposed a world coal center cleared the block and then we saw nothing for several years and we looked looked like a bit of Hiroshima right in the middle of our downtown. This is certainly Lexington's largest and most important downtown development in the history of our city. Naturally if the developments decide they do not want to use the TIF which they said they do not need at the public hearing last Wednesday then all this becomes a new issue. If they decide to apply for the TIF then that lets us avoid a full major city block being vacant until we are absolutely sure that it can become a reality. Again this resolution does not stop the Centerpoint project from going forward. Therefore I move to place on the docket a resolution prohibiting the approval of a tax increment financing application for the block bounded by Main, Vine, Limestone and Upper Streets unless number one and no structures bounded by these streets have been demolished prior to council action on the application and B the applicant has demonstrated to the council that all necessary financing is secured to construct the project and that the project will proceed upon all necessary approvals of the application and the issuance of all necessary permits. There's a motion and a second. My monitor only shows the council reports so I'll just acknowledge folks by signal. Okay. Council Member Blues. Thank you Vice Mayor. I join with Mr. De Camp in sponsoring this resolution I guess because even though this is a privately initiated project it's the most massive building project in Lexington's history and in our downtown core. It's a historic project and will have much to do with whether downtown prospers for the citizens of Lexington or whether it it it declines and is not a destination. In short this is a community project and it's vital to to the community and it's very important that we that we know whether financing is in place before before steps are taken that are irreversible. It's important for us I think to know whether the whether the the developers going forward are going to apply for tip financing. We've received missed signals on this as I think as I think we all know and we we we do know that if an application is made for tip financing then the tip is integral to and essential to the the project going forward. So our resolution as as Council Member De Camp says it's not meant to you know to throw roadblocks in front of the project. It is intended however to to bring clarity to the to the financing of the project and to and to guard against the the possibility that that steps are taken that as I said are irreversible if the buildings are are demolished before we know whether the you know the project can you know can be can be brought to completion. It's it's it's major money it's it's a major project and I think we should take all due care because we have a you know an obligation to the community to the public and I think also to the developers in doing so. So this is a prudent move. It's it's one that I think that we will bring clarity to you know to the process and so I do indeed second and support this this motion. Council Member Stennett. You know that there's days I show up and I'm glad we have 15 different minds up here and 15 different votes. I certainly agree with the spirit of what Council Member De Camp is trying to do and Council Member Blue's comments and you know during this whole center point issue it has come before council through a presentation and that is it so far to this body as a formal body as a council and there's several questions that still do remain I agree unanswered in terms of the financial stability of the project and I think that the TIF could be the best way to understand that is it probably the only way and as you all have said you know it could be a mute point if they don't apply for the TIF. They could just move forward anyway and and build the center point complex but before I comment further I have a couple questions. One for our law department. I know Logan Commissioner Askew you you have asked or you had worked with Council Member De Camp and Council Member Blue's on this resolution. Just just out of curiosity sake if we pass this today does that prohibit us from in the future passing the TIF application once it comes to us if it does? No. So it has no bearing on that application whatsoever. It's only going on the docket. I'm sorry Council Member De Camp I didn't hear sorry. I just just just to clarify this is a motion to put it on the docket for Thursday not you know. No and that's not what I'm asking all I'm asking is if we do pass this come next Tuesday and it does pass this council does it have any impact on the TIF application once it comes to us in the future? No. Okay. And you could you could always repeal what you're you can always repeal this resolution if you chose to do so. Now when I was drafting this we did have some discussion about it and I think there's a lot of confusion about what a TIF is and what a TIF is not and I would encourage you to try to get some more information about that. I will tell you I'm not very well versed with it but to the extent that I mean we have information that's available and I know that we have two guests today Mr. Farris and Mr. Turner that are pretty familiar with it and pretty familiar with this particular project if you want to ask them but anyway before you go too far with it I hope you will try to get some more information about the TIF financing because I think there there could be some real value to the city with the kind of public improvements that the TIF might be eligible for financing eligible for. And Commissioner Askey I'm not sure if you can answer this question but has the demolition permit been issued by building building inspection on this project already? I know come on I see Commissioner Kelly has not okay well there were part of the part of the area is inside the courthouse overlay development zone and part of it is not so the part that's not I know those were applied for some time ago and I don't know whether they've been have they been issued they had been issued the ones that are outside the courthouse development area okay okay and then I don't know that's okay speak to that mr. well the councilmember James couldn't hear what he said apparently some of them have been but not all okay but and then the ones that have been issued there's a 30-day stay on those know into the historic preservation researchers no the 30 days has already expired that's why those have been issued okay so they're free to demolish the ones that I already have for any day now right Betty Kerr under the ordinance Betty Kerr has the opportunity to hold up the issuance of a permit for 30 days so she can do the necessary documentation of the the buildings and I think she's done that I don't with how many buildings but she's done that with some again those are buildings that are not inside the courthouse overlay zone so what was done last week I don't know I don't know whether she can take another 30 days I understand it was reported that she could and I don't know whether she's indicated she's going to do that those buildings have been inspected pretty thoroughly as my understanding so so once again from our Department of Law standpoint if we pass this resolution has no bearing on the demolition permit either that's correct so they can still go ahead and demolish it even if we pass our resolution here on the ones on the buildings for which a demolition permit has been properly issued that's correct okay and then I have a question for mr. Ferris on the TIF I didn't want to waste your time coming over here I definitely want to ask you yes if you don't mind so so the public can understand the responses well I know you're heavily involved with this you you want to explain for the record who you are and sure my name is John Ferris I was a former secretary finance and the Fletcher administration from 2006 to 2007 I helped draft the tax increment financing law that went into place in 2007 session of the state legislature so I guess my big question right now is is the state currently taking TIF applications they are in a process of transferring the control of the TIF applications from the finance cabinet where it was for the last two years to the Kentucky Economic Development Financing Authority which is KEDD fund or the Economic Development Cabinet July 15th is when I understand they will start receiving new applications okay so once they receive the application when does this body get a chance to comment or look at the application well generally the way it works I've worked on in a number of cities and at least in the past the way it's worked and the laws is actually set out that way that actually the application cannot go forward the TIF application cannot go forward without the support and the passing of an ordinance by the local government so integral to their application to Frankfurt is actually support from this body for tax increment financing so it has to come to the local body first yes it does and there's a and that's first thing on the application and then one thing I want to clarify I hear a lot about you know it's 70 million dollars can you just give a nutshell briefing of the total abatement revenues and what they are I know it's not school tax because the school school property tax actually go up it'll be a benefit to the school system sure but what it does is the TIF includes yeah actually a TIF does not change any tax rates but in terms of revenues the what generally happens is depending on the project project is eligible for the incremental value between the old revenues and the new revenues and in generally there's a built-in adjuster so that if property was already growing you don't then get the new do new revenues but if the property was stagnant let's say parking lot something like that revenues were not growing you would get you would still use some sort of inflator but not a large inflator and you then the project would be eligible to at least from the state's perspective recoup 80% of Commonwealth taxes if it's a signature project they're eligible for all taxes at least which one I think in discussion is going to apply for signature financing if they apply and so they would be eligible for all state taxes that includes and I guess to delineate school taxes are not available either or fire taxes but state sales taxes a major generator for the state's revenue base so they would be eligible for states the incremental value of the state sales tax up to 80% of that incremental value and we already lose that anyway we don't get that anyway no yeah that's not that's not local right back right that's not a local tax what generally happens is that taxes go to Frankfurt Department of Revenue even the local taxes that are corrected here collected here you know your sales tax a portion of your property tax is also a state tax a there are a variety of different state tax your income tax is a state tax your corporate income tax is a state tax those would go to Frankfurt if Lexington chose not that this project was not developed as a tip those project those those dollars would go to Frankfurt and it just it depend on the state legislature making an earmark if to to send them back but it's not tip finance what tip financing does is it directs the revenues the additional revenues back to Lexington which is great as a citizen you know I would want the money that goes to Frankfurt and say going to Eastern Kentucky or Western Kentucky or Louisville you know I would want it to come back to here because it's our incremental revenue that was that was generated so that's that's why it's in the past local governments have been very supportive of tax increment financing for that very reason so getting to my next question mr. Turner do you all need that revenue that we're currently losing to get this project underway thank you thank you councilmember stint and I heard there was some confusion the answer is simply that it is not our intent is not the Centerpoint projects intent to apply for a TIF we will scale back the project as originally announced in order to accomplish that but if the tip option is something this council wants to do to gain because a scale back will involve public public improvements not necessarily located on that site if that's something this council wants to do then we can talk about that but it's not our intent on our on our on our own to do that and that's what I announced a week ago at the board hearing and I think mr. Webb the web has indicated a number of statements that he has made since that time so is current half of the block or some of the buildings under that 30-day window with a demolition permit it's not yeah it's my understanding that Betty Kerr has reviewed all the buildings and all the buildings have been surveyed including the ones in the in the in the zone there about 45 days ago 60 days ago building demolition permits were requested for four of the buildings those permits have been issued except with exception of one which has an asbestos issue that has to be dealt with first and are the June July 15th I think the tips open back up you all anticipate making an application to the body before any time before that date not unless this body requests us to do something and then we'll have to consider that request and the ramifications and what's tied to that request very good that's all the questions I have right now thank you mayor thank you councilmember stint let me let me thank you all for allowing me to run just a little late today governor Beshear wanted to come to town and talk about the legislation that was passed last week for the legislature so I met with him at three o'clock and and got here as quickly as I could but I appreciate your allowing me to run a little late vice mayor Gray tells me councilmember Beard you're next on the list well first mr. Farris thank you for your email which although I've heard the story of TIF on several occasions it added some clarity to this and as I can see it it is very much to our benefit as a council is a community for the TIF to be applied for as this resolution is couched if they don't apply for a TIF I'm not sure what where we would stand would we we would still want evidence that the financing would be placed if otherwise or only in the case of I'm getting a head nod from councilmember to camp that it soon makes this resolution null and void I don't want to do anything to slow down the process first job I had was at First National Bank in 1956 and those buildings are ready to go then and while we did have the the crater for lack of a better term where the World Cold Center was supposed to go a gravel parking lot would look a lot better than a bunch of empty buildings and it was established I believe at the courthouse overlay design meeting that there are not there's no ability to rehabilitate those those buildings and do anything commercially viable with those buildings as it stands right now so again we want the at least I want the project to go forward and then I don't want you know time is money and I sure would like to see everything go as quickly as possible and I don't want to put any roadblocks if I'm assured that that's the same intent as your memorandum I might go along I might vote for it but otherwise I've been built against the resolution was that a question well that was yes could be yeah I think if you if you read him a councilman beard it the motion itself only has to do and you can check with Commissioner I ask you it only affects this if there is a tiff but it is very much to our benefit as a community that it be a tiff I don't disagree with you at all Dr. Paul Coons did a study about four years ago that showed that Fayette County was a net loser in revenues per per year to both the federal government and the state government of 286 million dollars annually and that's a part probably a bigger number now and you know we are carrying the load of being part of the Golden Triangle and we're taking care of a whole bunch of counties that aren't quite as well off as we are and we need we need some help ourselves with our infrastructure in the downtown area so I you know I really want to see the tiff for that reason alone but I definitely want to see the project to thank you mayor Thank You councilmember beard I have on my list next councilmember McCord followed by councilmember Blevins Myers gray and Gordon Thank You mayor are we going by the electronic agenda or not those are for council reports and so I gather I apologize for getting here in the middle of it but I think we're in councilmember to camps report you're you're on the list thank you just a couple of quick quick questions mr. Ferris if you don't mind just very quickly as we've come over the process of this I hear from a lot of people well this really doesn't help us that much that that's you know that's all just a bunch of stuff it really doesn't help us in Lexington at all can you give me just a very quick rebuttal to that because I do believe it helps us tremendously right but how so in the past because the major taxes in the state generally flow to Frankfort in the past the incremental revenue would go to Frankfort and be dispersed around the state councilman Baird correctly pointed out that that Fayette County is a net loser that's why Louisville has jumped on board with for supporting for TIF projects because they realize that actually for every dollar that they are willing to give there in their projects they're estimated to get between five and ten dollars back from the Commonwealth so it's a five-to-one ratio when you break down the taxes and that's why it's beneficial to local governments when in building and it's just for public infrastructure so uh... you can argue whether or not public infrastructure is needed uh... and most i would say most of the course it is needed uh... most places around country it's needed uh... in addition uh... if you think that you're going to pay for that public infrastructure anyway uh... if you're going to do those improvements anyway as a council when i get the money from frankfurt directly earmarked back for that public infrastructure at a five to one ratio or ten to one ratio uh... in this project it's probably a little closer at least the estimates are six to seven to one ratio still that's good and good return on your investment uh... in general uh... so that's what i would argue for someone who says the TIF is not good for lexington i would say you know you could have testimony from the mayors of bowen green newport and louisville as to why they decided to do what they did it with TIF they realized then that you know it is beneficial when tax money when you're a net loser it's different if you were uh... maybe uh... not a county that was a net loser but if you're a net loser yeah it's certainly uh... beneficial thank you very much uh... mister turner just a real quick question for you you know we we kind of talk about what is and isn't inside the TIF and what we lose if we don't do it and this and that and the other and can you give just some estimate of if the TIF is not a part of this we potentially lose lose out on it as a city uh... the original uh... the original proposal uh... uh... plan for center point included uh... uh... a number of things that aren't necessarily in the block uh... one is improvements to phoenix park which would have provided uh... about five hundred parking spaces under phoenix park and putting the park back on top of it there's another option to gain to use a little bit of the park about a third of the park and build some additional parking coming out of the library ramp that that design i mean that still could be discussed uh... there were elements of public art and so forth uh... related to the park and related to the property itself where the public art could be utilized and in recent months there has been discussion about uh... broadening the streetscape application to provide funding for a broader streetscape application and just at the at the uh... to implement the streetscape plan uh... there's also been discussion about utilization of some of the TIF funds to revitalize and renovate the old courthouse and so those are the things that should that would not be done obviously directly related to this and that we would not include and i just think it's it's good for the public to hear because there's so much miscommunication that flies around and so many experts on this topic but we have in the audience uh... you know given testimony today that the gentleman that wrote the TIF financing uh... and and i think that uh... again for those watching that say well you know it really is a wash that's not the case at all in kentucky us being a donor city uh... to the to the economy and and we we tend to lose i think our folks don't really realize that equation uh... that we we pay for a whole lot of things going on in in kentucky uh... this is a way to trap some of the money and bring it back home uh... to do some of these other things that we as a body have been sitting here talking about for a number of years that desperately need to be done uh... some of which by twenty ten some of which going forward twenty eleven and beyond but when you're talking about uh... twenty to forty million dollars worth of streetscapes and you're talking about ten to fifteen million to revitalize a courthouse you're talking about uh... you know a courthouse square that doesn't go fully utilized and things like that i think that the public just needs to understand what what it is we're really talking about here and and we can get lost in a lot of things over uh... older buildings and and and a uh... dilapidated block and so forth so i appreciate your your comments thank you mayor council member blevins thank you mayor uh... mister turner are you able to speak for the webs today i think so depending on the question you ask me that's fair so far i haven't been able to well i would like for you to elaborate on what the webs are are wanting from this body and with regards we're sort of back and forth here with regard to the TIF we're saying with this via this resolution we don't want you to tear the buildings down until until you're ready to go and you're saying well we're not sure if you all want to do a TIF or not well what is it that would take to have the webs come before us and ask for a TIF what do you what is it they want really they're not asking for anything from this body there's an opportunity for this body that exists with regard to this project and where the webs are at the point as i indicated this is exactly what i indicated last wednesday uh... we're not asking this body for anything we don't want anything from this body but this is an opportunity that this body has to take advantage of i hope that's clear yeah that's clear thank you i said it when the webs came before us oh gosh it's been six weeks ago now i guess that i said thanks for having the vision and the uh... wherewithal to put together the parcels on that block and give us even the opportunity here to have this conversation because had they not put together those pieces it would have to be done piecemeal we never see a project there so the vision and and the effort they put forward is commendable and i want to say thanks for doing that and thanks for giving us a a project to discuss to start the conversation because it takes something on the table usually to get the conversation started and oh boy what a conversation have we started i don't know about the rest of the council but i'm getting a lot of uh... emails and phone calls regarding this particular project and the huge opportunity that it presents lexington so uh... fasten your seatbelts i'm going to practice architecture and city planning without a license again just from my point of view sitting here with just a little common sense i see three parcels huge parcels in downtown that are about that are in play potentially that could transform the downtown the first one is the block we're talking about and the other two are right here this building is in play as a result of the audit we just had conducted earlier this year and then we're also discussing the annex building and the police headquarters now if you take your vision a little further down the road you can say hey that's a lot of area that we could potentially redevelop for anything uh... retail all the kinds of mixed use that we've been talking about as a city all that's in play right now potentially but we haven't had that conversation we haven't even begun it really we haven't had a chance to look at all three of those entities in one big pile so i would i would say that we need to do that once again i'll say thanks to the webs for starting the conversation but give us a chance to finish it because with ownership of that property comes responsibility in a word that we haven't said here very often which is stewardship this is going to affect our city for over you know you could argue as much as two hundred years well then let's take the time to make a two hundred year decision i don't know how i come out on this particular resolution but i look to the webs to show a little bit of community sense and some stewardship and let's try to do this as a joint effort and do it right two hundred years from now it looks just as good as it could be councilmember myers thank you mayor Mr. Ferris could you come up i apologize my voice is about gone so it's going to be kind of hard to hear me but you sent an email to us and it was an op-ed you sent it to the herald leader on saturday and i'm so glad you're here because i was going to read half of your email with half a voice but i'd rather have you do that and really what i want to do is give you an opportunity to explain to the citizens that are listening what the real opportunity for TIF is i did some, i lived in st louis for three years when i was in grad school and they're building half of st louis up using the TIF, cincinnati's built half of cincinnati up using the TIF and Louisville, Bowling Green and other places in Kentucky have done the same but a lot of citizens think that there's a misconception out there that by doing this TIF we're actually taking tax dollars and giving it to this project can you explain that we're really bringing tax dollars back home that otherwise would not ever come back home sure i mean i can uh... i can read the email and then if you have further question i'll be happy to explain i did send an op-ed to the herald leader it just said uh... pointed out that i think that there's an opportunity here for the council to embrace the TIF it reads as follows in previous decades when a developer in the commonwealth would embark upon a large economic development project such as center point the city and state would agree to build the public infrastructure or the public owned portion of the expense related to the project however as city and state budgets have become leaner tax increment financing TIF has been increasingly used as a mechanism to spur to help spur economic development in the urban core without relying on the city or the state to jump start the development with an infrastructure build out since the commonwealth's new TIF law was enacted in april two thousand seven Louisville, Newport, and Bowling Green have all embarked on ambitious TIF projects in fact the Louisville Metro Council has approved four TIF projects over the last few years why do these cities embrace TIF as a mechanism to pay for public infrastructure the local governments in these other cities understand that if they don't use TIF the new tax revenue coming from the local project will be sent to frankfurt and dispersed across the state conversely if the cities use the new TIF law for every one dollar they use in local government tax revenues to pay for public infrastructure frankfurt will send back between five and ten dollars of state tax dollars to pay for the cost of these local public facilities it should be remembered that these monies are not there unless there is a TIF project in addition local governments are not being asked to guarantee the bonds to pay for the public infrastructure improvements the developers not the city must come up with financing plan for the public infrastructure the city is not liable for the bonds so in the final analysis TIF projects are one heck of a deal for local governments thank you and maybe just to give a little context as to why TIFs exist and you talk about st louis and some of the other cities uh... it's more expensive to redevelop the urban core infrastructure than it may be to do a strip mall on the outskirts of town the infrastructure just cost more and if you want public infrastructure to be uh... for your downtown for your urban core that you need oftentimes you need to give uh... developers an incentive to help uh... build that public infrastructure that goes along with the project the things that are available for reimbursement are things like parking headways streetscapes things that uh... citizens usually enjoy using while they're downtown thank you uh... we heard earlier as councilman court asked him to kind of delineate the things that we would lose from this project the project moves forward without the TIF and it sounds like they're prepared to move forward without the TIF so i would move today to substitute the current motion with a motion to place a resolution on the docket to encourage the developers to apply for TIF financing in order to facilitate public improvements for this project we have a motion to amend the existing motion by substituting the existing motion with a resolution calling for the developers to request TIF financing i think this is first of all i'm not against TIF uh... but i think this is substituting a complete new motion it's not amending it and i think we have to complete this motion i can see our chief man is not here but this is completely replacing a motion it's not amending it and i think there is a big difference and i would like to see is if this doesn't you know it depending on the outcome of this motion that a new motion be put forward but this is a completely new motion it doesn't really have anything to do with the motion that i brought forward well mister parliamentarian welcome back council member myers has moved to amend the existing motion by substituting for the existing motion a motion to put on the docket a resolution asking the developers to submit a TIF proposal to the council council member de camp has raised a point of order to the effect that that uh... is not an amendment it's a replacement of the entire entire uh... so the question is is that an appropriate amendment it's a replacement it's a separate motion needs to be made separately point of order i didn't move the motion because you didn't hear it when you were out of room i didn't move to amend i moved to substitute the current motion with a motion to place a resolution on the docket to encourage the developers to apply for TIF financing in order to facilitate public improvements and that is in accordance to robertsville's order a substitute motion does away with the first one so the first one would be off the table if we vote in favor of that so you know it's not an amendment then there was a second and i think that council member beard so the question on the floor now is do we substitute for the original motion motion by council member myers to request the developers to submit a TIF proposal to the council debates on on that issue alone council member gordon then blues then myers mister turner will you clarify for me it was my understanding you had no intention of applying for a TIF this motion asks you to do so when you just said that the developers did not intend to do so so i'm a little confused about this whole thing well i think i said earlier it is not our intent to apply for a TIF uh... unless the city asked us to and the conditions of that request are agreeable so does the TIF have to come from you the TIF can't come from the city then in relation to your project i think it would require it would be required to come from both of us defer to john but i think it would be required to come from both of us and what you need and what john tried to explain a little bit earlier is we've got to be in lockstep and fully supportive when we go to the state and ask and start negotiating with the state for their piece of the for what we're really after the state's really not going to pay any attention or talk to us if we're not together what do you call together do you call an eight to seven vote on the council together i'm just curious no i mean that we're in essentially an agreement and that we're fully they want to have as was put one way to me uh... they want to make sure the city and local government has some skin in the game when they come back to the state to ask for their piece well when you were talking before about not applying for a tiff not asking for a tiff i was thinking then that this first motion was a moot point but now that we have the second motion the first motion might come back into play because it wouldn't be a moot point what i'm trying to say i guess is in a delicate way here is if you all come to us and ask us to apply with a number of conditions which would include how the property is developed we're probably not interested depending on what those conditions are so when would you be interested i don't mean to put you on the spot i'm not i'm not asking to put you on the spot but we do have this motion on the floor which is a pretty important motion well if you come to us and say that we would like to do the tiff and we'd like to explain to make sure certain things are in the tiff and no other conditions that i think we would probably be agreeable specifics right which specific projects well uh... or that that would be what that would be what we would work together on that would be the conversation okay so this is a pretty general motion then that's on the floor asking you to apply for the tiff without any of the background i was taking that to what it said to encourage would be to have the conversation i was just speaking that's the first i've heard of the motion but in that language that was just uh... Mr. Myers just indicated that i took that to encourage that conversation do you have any knowledge that anyone has actually started working on a tiff application either on your side or we have i mean we have essentially done the tiff the tiff application requires quite an investment uh... as you know from lexton center i mean we we have uh... commissioned and paid a consultant to do the study uh... to to generate the revenues and so forth part of that has been published in the feasibility study that has been uh... has been published uh... i think we have submitted it to the city i think it's on the it's on the center point website uh... so forth the tiff analysis is not there because it's not complete uh... as yet but uh... yes we've come pretty far down that road has anyone there's a lot more to do has anyone in the city seen your progress so far on the actual tiff analysis i don't believe so hold me to that but i don't believe so council member blues followed by council members Myers, Stennett and Gray council member blues what troubles me about this motion is that it really doesn't as i think anything we do should follow up on what council member Blevins just said that there needs to be some community spirit some cooperation indeed some stewardship there needs to be a conversation about this entire project and it may need to be a broadened conversation to take in more than than the center point proposal and there hasn't been that conversation as i've understood it about tiff financing that tiff is supposed to be integral to the project and that the project could not go forward without it what the motion suggests to us or asks us to do is for the council, for the government to ask if we could if we could tag along with the center point project and maybe get some you know some public amenities out of a deal that's already done and i think what we what we see here a failure of communication of cooperation of public involvement of openness and i'm disturbed that it has come to this because it really indicates a significant civic failure i don't know exactly where we go from here but some things are in play and i think that i will not support this motion we'll go back to the to the original and do the best we can with it because it's it's important for us to to see if we can bring you know bring to some kind of resolution here the question of you know of the buildings that are there and that and that if they are demolished sooner rather than later we're talking about then under council member Myers's motion to get involved in a project that's already been begun so for that reason too i can't support support this motion council member Myers thank you mayor i guess i'd say that it seems to me the question here then if you follow that line of thinking and we go back to the original motion is that either we do or we do not want a TIF not what type of TIF we want and we've already heard discussed that the 500 parking spaces underground and the park improvements will go away uh... the public art will go away uh... the streetscape improvements the old courthouse improvements all those things will go away without a TIF TIF was designed to help us it wasn't designed to help the developer that's really the bottom line so either we want the TIF or we don't want the TIF i thought council member Blevins asked a great question when he asked what do you want from the city i thought you were going to steal my thunder and make the motion that i made because they've danced all around the issue they want to do the TIF because they want to do all these other public improvements to help our entire downtown and to kind of lay the foundation for future development and growth in our downtown the TIF is what the government has designed at the state level to make that happen so either we take advantage of that opportunity or we don't if we don't the project is still going to go forward it's just the city loses out on all those things and all of them aren't just amenities that 500 parking places underground is not just an amenity in our downtown it's a necessity and the old courthouse we've got an old courthouse that's fallen apart we haven't figured out how to repair this building and utilize this thing in a way that helps our community and brings people downtown this also helps us get there so to me voting on this motion it opens the door for that conversation about what the TIF will look like but the first part of that application is does the city, the local government buy in because if they don't the state won't even entertain it so you know just like there was another project that we voted on to approve the TIF earlier this year I mean it was late last year this is an opportunity to improve our downtown infrastructure at no cost to us to bring tax dollars that we send to Frankfort and disperse all across the state back home and there's no other avenue or no other means of doing that so I fully support this motion obviously because I made it but I hope that we'll vote to go ahead and go forward with this motion. Thank you. The question on the floor is a substitution of the original motion for the motion by Council Member Myers which is to request the developers to prepare a TIF application. Council Member Stennett. Thank you Mayor and just to point that clarification doesn't mean the original motion is dead you can make the motion again to bring it up it's just on the floor it's substituted and so and while I may agree with Council Member Myers' motion I will vote against it this time because I'd like to go back to the original motion and I think the whole spirit of this debate and you see a lot of the different opinions up here once again goes back to everyone wants to have a say in this project and I think in fairness to a private person who wants to do a private development the balance is how much say should the public have and what they're trying to do and you could argue both ways they should have a lot they should have none so I guess my question is how do we get everyone to the table and Darby maybe you can answer this where's the compromise I mean is anyone willing to go back to the table I don't think time is of the essence now because I think the original plan was to have the hotel and stuff done before the World Equestrian Games is that still the time frame and if not can we step back and really go at this because I think throwing resolutions out there like this in terms of not letting demolition happen and you all not necessarily asking for the TIF I think we all are on the same page I'm just curious is there a solution we all can come to the table and have input and a willingness to make this project world-class it's hard to answer that question in other words have you all tried everything you could try well let me kind of cover some background and some timelines we're still on a timeline to have the building buttoned up if you will for the World Games that doesn't mean that it'll be open but to have it not look like a construction site and not have it in the middle of a construction site but to have the building up landscape so forth and so on that is our goal our financing is in place and it is privately arranged and it is you know we'll start receiving that funding in this fall under those financing arrangements so we're ready to start and that's our timeline we have had to try we have tried to have the conversations all along we have listened to quite a number of those conversations we have spent a lot of money on architects trying to determine if and how any of the current buildings could be incorporated into the project and whether it makes any sense at all we have not been able to come up with any acceptable solution to that that doesn't significantly compromise the program of the project and the uses that need to go on in the project we have altered the design of the project to be sensitive to a number of the expressed concerns we have made almost a dozen significant alterations to the program and the plan to try to accomplish what we have been hearing we have had people meet with the architects members of this council meet with the architects to talk about concerns we have had members of the community meet with the architects to talk about concerns and go over options and alternatives we have this has not been done in the dark of night we have tried it is very difficult to assemble a whole block of land on a private basis without governmental help we have done that it is we have come forward publicly when we had a plan to come forward with so frankly we feel like we are about 9 miles down a 10 mile road to get this thing started and in order to get it started to not be in the middle of a construction site during the equestrian games we need to continue so back to the motion then if we ask to go forward with a TIF will that delay you any with the TIF process possibly but it is one we are willing to explore well I mean if you already have the finance I guess how does that fit into your piece of financing well what I am trying to say is we have financing to do a different project than what we had originally proposed it encompasses the essential program that we feel that we have got to have and it encompasses the development within the block it does not accomplish what we had hoped the whole project could be which would be a number of public improvements not necessarily located on that site thank you sir so it is a different project thank you mayor thank you Mr. Mayor Gray my comments actually layer on what others have said already much of what I have to say today but I think the key words that we are hearing today from this body are financial responsibility and stewardship in dealing with a lot of projects on a daily basis I hope you all will forgive me because I try to avoid tossing career roles into this role but it is hard to avoid that at any one time I may be involved with as many as 100 projects across the country and I have learned over time that this business of building and developing is a whole lot more about process than it is about project and I think that is what we are seeing here today that the distress and the tension and the anxiety that this community has experienced over this project has a whole lot to do about process a few weeks ago I got a copy of a guide that I hope I would be happy to print out for all council members because I think it would be very helpful for us this guide is a tax increment finance best practices reference guide and in this section 2 or chapter 2 the headline is building community buy-in and I have highlighted a bunch of things here including public policy and community buy-in identifying stakeholders and partners it illustrates in this and I want to quote here it says due diligence is critical as well as understanding the basics of TIF in the community identify possible hot button issues and other public concerns in the section referring to stockholders and partners it says political support for the creation of TIF districts is mandatory in most cases generating public political buy-in requires an ongoing process of relationship and trust building coupled with education and periodic reinforcement so this document talks a whole lot about the process and it also gives really excellent examples of these projects 23 of them in fact several of them in areas where historic preservation and restoration was considered essential to the project because it had a whole lot to do with encouraging that community support and buy-in and the attachment that so many of these areas which are disadvantaged have to their past and to ensuring that that past isn't lost and forever gone now I want to dig in a little bit to the questions related to financing again you all have to forgive me I was in Chicago yesterday on a business trip I was dealing with a company that we deal with a lot one of the largest construction companies actually in the world and I was meeting with a guy who's head of their U.S. operations and I asked him about the market for condo projects and hospitals and they've got several of them and he said we're at the end of the cycle it's the worst market for financing these sorts of projects in my career so these are realities Jim Collins, a guy that the mayor enjoys reading and Dr. Todd enjoys reading, I do too Jim Collins is an author who wrote Good to Great and in that book, Good to Great, he talks about dealing with the brutal facts of our current reality the brutal facts of our current reality include this is a very, very tough market for financing projects Darby, I understand you said that you're absolutely committed I mean, that is interesting to me because I was going to ask Mr. Ferris John, you've been involved in several of these projects you said, and maybe come to the mic step up if you would it's my understanding that there's project in Bowling Green and Ovation project in northern Kentucky Museum Plaza in Louisville how many of those projects are actually financed and underway? Project in Bowling Green is underway with the baseball stadium, they've broken ground the project financing for the project in Newport they are currently seeking financing and pulling together parcels these are signature TIF projects, right? the high level, the higher value, like this one right and they feel committed you have to be, in this current market, pretty creative with financing what a lot of the developers are doing is starting with the project it isn't really an all or nothing thing it isn't saying, do you have $200 million in the actual TIF bonds but it's, do you have enough financing for some of these projects to get Phase 1 started, Phase 2, Phase 3 so, I think all of them are trying to, are in different stages and are still progressing along Museum Plaza had some construction issues with Bedrock, but they have broken ground that's my understanding well, it's my understanding that that's still in Bowling Green that it's divided over the project and that Museum Plaza is now been delayed and construction has not proceeded well, they may be divided over the project but each of those city councils and governments supported the TIF and supported a participation agreement laid out their participation, which made it a lot easier for the developers to get financing in, to get financing for the TIF bonds there's two different series of bonds if you're referring to the tax-exempt revenue bonds that would go along to pay for the TIF or if you're referring to the private financing most of the private financing is already established you have to establish both levels of financing you wouldn't be able to piece together properties without some level of financing and some level of support so all these projects have had governmental support and they realize that this is a many of the projects weren't scheduled to be completed until 2009, 2010 okay, I'd like for you to if you would comment on KRS 65.7049 in that KRS 65 I'm sure you're very familiar with it because you wrote it, right? and that says this that the governing body of the city or county shall find that all of the following are true that the development area is not reasonably expected to be developed without public assistance this finding shall be supported by specific reasons and supporting facts including a clear demonstration of the financial need for public assistance I think what's confusing, at least for me is, and I hear this perhaps from others is that we're hearing that we can do the project without the public assistance and yet the law, the legislation requires that the public assistance be demonstrated the requirement for public assistance be demonstrated so, where are we? yeah, I mean, that's a good question I think that Councilman Blues had a good point there as well the way I see it, just as a bystander who's been involved in projects across the state is that here we're talking about two different projects we're talking about a purely private development which the project developers are willing to finance purely privately or you're talking about a public-private partnership all the other TIFs have been a public-private partnership and so the public-private partnership would include the public amenities that would go along with the private development usually it's a joint application it might even be the Lexington Urban Council applying for the TIF which has happened in the past so, you're talking about two different projects I think you're talking about a purely private project or a public-private project that's bigger in scope so, in which case I would go back to the document here which talks a lot about community involvement and community participation if we were to encourage the application then it would, at least on my part my expectation would be that some of the meaningful dissent and objections associated with this project would be heard out would be listened to the issue of retaining some of the fabric of the block for example I've heard that can't do that because the parking garage is going to go down so deeply and it requires all of the land underneath the existing buildings correct? that's what I've heard the objection to retaining, working toward trying to retain some of the buildings would be I don't know those issues that's been one of the objections Darby, can you comment on that? well, vice mayor, I think I just I did a little bit earlier in my earlier comments that we've explored those possibilities and we can't accomplish that without significant damage to the program that we consider essential to the project well, I guess where I'm going with that and I'm just thinking from experience of other projects and this, I believe, this conversation today illustrates just how many questions there are I happen to think well, if you're going to expand the parking to accommodate if you're going to increase the parking from what you would otherwise with a project that does not require the TIF in other words, if you do the smaller project that would mean then smaller parking not as much parking, right? right, and as a matter of we're not required to have any parking you're required furnished parking for downtown downtown zones are not required to have any parking I mean, I'm thinking if you have a 250 room hotel you're going to have to as a practical matter right, so let's deal perhaps in practicality and I'm imagining just back of the napkin thinking that if you're going to expand your parking then you're planning on going under as my understanding, under limestone so the opportunity to expand it would exist and still retain some of the existing buildings the parking would not go under limestone you'd have a separate parking facility under Phoenix Park we wouldn't get into the but the purpose of that illustration was one thing simply to illustrate that in a project of this scope and this size there are many options Council Member Blevins illustrated that we have these very few large downtown blocks that are in play today and the significance of making the right choices and the right selections and the right decisions today these are 100 year decisions which is, again, in my view at least one of the very significant reasons that the public interest in this issue is so high today Thank you, Mayor Council Member Gordon Thank you, Mayor Well, I just had one final comment on this and it kind of goes to what the Vice Mayor and what Council Member Blues said that I think our process this shows you that our process has not nearly given opportunity for all the questions I have some concerns because now for the first time today I'm hearing that the TIF would include the old courthouse and I had not heard that before so I'm kind of getting the feeling even though I understand the really good benefit of the TIF I understand that it could be very valuable to us it seems as if things are being thrown out to be included when there has not been a discussion about what would be included in the TIF and so now we're asking you with this motion to write the application and I guess I would question where there's been a full discussion of what exactly I know Darby from you, the underground parking and there's been some discussion of art and landscaping but I think there's been no full discussion of what would be in the TIF what are we asking to finance and maybe I have not been a part of it and the rest of you have but there are things thrown out today that are first-time projects and although I'm very, very supportive of the TIF and I did vote for the first one that we had come along which is now no longer in play I'm probably not going to support this motion simply because I don't think we've had enough input into what we want in our TIF and I'm hoping that if it does go forward that we have the time to work with you on that and not just suddenly bring it up. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I guess I want to say with all due respect I would say that if we look at this from an aspect of financial responsibility we would remember that we're pulling tax dollars that we're sending to the state that are distributed across the state back home to build our infrastructure on that six-to-one or better return. Also, if we pass the original motion then we've assured ourselves there won't be a TIF and when we do that we assure ourselves that all these other amenities will not happen and I don't know if the old courthouse is a new add-on that just came out today or not but I do know that this council voted during the budget process to have a task force look at the old courthouse with respect to moving the Explorium over there and trying to find ways to revitalize that building and make it more useful and more of a draw for downtown and if this TIF project would help us finance that then that would be another mission accomplished. And I would just say one final thing in that sometimes this council can't get out of its way of helping itself and the reason I say that is because back when the old Meijer, not old Meijer, but when Meijer was built outside of, on Regency Road one of the things this council did was vote against the developer widening Regency Road back there and widening the viaduct and at the end of the day, and I'm not saying this to suggest that this developer is going to sue the city but what I'm saying is that what happened was the developer went back and ended up taking the city to court the court found in favor of the developer and then at the end of the day the city ended up instead of the developer paying to widen that road and widen the viaduct, the city had to pay for it. In effect, that's what we'd be doing by passing the first motion instead of the second because what we're doing then is cutting off the TIF and losing all the different amenities and all the different infrastructure improvements that we gained from the TIF. So I just ask my colleagues to strongly encourage them to vote for this motion. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. I broke my mic. I've got several questions, Darby, if you don't mind. One I'm curious about, is John Anderson still involved in this? Yes. To my certain knowledge, an excellent developer. I've heard numbers upward of 1,100 employees on this block at some point. I think the report reflects somewhere north of 900 employees of jobs associated with this block or on this block. 1,600 and some odd would be new jobs, I mean new to the community. And presently there are how many people employed on the block? None right now, but at the time, about 30, 35, the nearest part-time and full-time that we could determine. What I'm diving at, it reinforces some of the other things we're trying to do with downtown and the downtown rejuvenation. One comment that was made by the Vice Mayor, which I think we all have seen, the people that are against anything are the ones that show up in these chambers and these meetings. The silent majority, the other 265,000 people, don't come down to help for the most part. So I'm not real sure that what we've seen is a good cross-representation of the community as a whole. And the last comment is that every minute that goes by, the money that's already been invested in assembling this building is costing somebody something. And the longer we put this off or delay it, the more we raise the price of the total project. As I see it, if we don't pass the TIF, then there's no reason to even have the first resolution at all. And so we're right back to square one before we walked in here at 3 o'clock. So for us to have all this conversation, if we don't pass the TIF, we've just wasted a lot of time, folks. Thank you, Mayor. All right, next I have Councilmember Lane, followed by Vice Mayor Gray and Councilmembers McCord and Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I hope to speak a little early so I can ask some questions, but my councilmembers have beaten me out on a lot of the questions. I'd just like to maybe just make a couple of comments, if I might. And I would like our councilmember and our community to think about this. Suppose you're an investor and you're spending $250 million, a private investment, to buy property, assemble it and to build a development in downtown Lexington. Now, I think it is important, if your development is going to be successful, that you have input from the neighbors and the downtown and the city. And I think that, you know, the webs have gotten a lot of input and they have made some changes. But in the final, when you get to the bottom line, you're spending a quarter of a billion dollars. And are you going to make the decision yourself if you're the owner of the property? Are you going to rely on our government to make the decision on how to spend that money? Or are we going to allow input from outside parties? I think that, you know, the webs have to ultimately decide how they want to develop the property and how they want to spend their money. We have to keep that in mind. I feel, you know, that this is not a publicly financed development. This is a privately financed development. And the approach that we're taking to say that if you tear the building down and that we're not going to approve a TIF, I think is a very negative approach, because I feel the TIF, in the long run, is in the benefit of our local taxpayers and that some of the infrastructure, the public infrastructure, parking, parks, downtown will be paid partially and probably by a substantial portion of the TIF, which will be coming from state government but not be coming from local government. When it comes to financing the development, we have no ordinances that I'm aware of that say you can't start demolition, you can't start construction until you have your financing in place. And if we're going to make this a requirement of developers, I think that maybe we ought to pass an ordinance to do it and not to use the intimidation of withholding TIF approval as a way to, you know, to hold up the construction and development of the property. So, you know, I feel like we're overreaching and overbearing. I know the downtown development is very important, but we just have to remember that this is America where you have property rights, and an individual can risk their money as long as they comply with the zoning ordinance and development guidelines. And I think that the webs are trying to do this to the best of their ability. So I would not vote to deny a TIF if they do start demolition of the property. Thank you, Mayor. Vice Mayor Gray. I agree with Council Member Lane almost thoroughly. It is indeed their property, and yet it is our downtown. And this is where the conflict rests. This is where the real difficulty rests today. The tension associated with this is pretty extreme because so many of our citizens invest themselves, their hopes, dreams, and aspirations in this downtown. And that's why it's such a big deal. And this is really not a resolution, in my view, but Council Member DeCamp's resolution is a resolution of care. It's a resolution that says let's avoid the very significant downsides that could occur in the market that we have today. We know what we're going to lose. We know that this is a downtown, this is center point. Couldn't have been described any more accurately. Center point of our downtown. And, yes, there are structures on that site which, if they were rehabilitated, could be first class, which is why the imagination, I think I read somewhere in the paper today, you know, imagination is such a big deal and such a big part of what we're trying to decide today. Have we exhausted the imagination for this site that can be, that can put us so critically, if it's done well, can be so powerful for stimulating this economy and this city for a very long time downstream. So that's what I think, you know, what we really need to remember is this resolution is just a take care resolution. That is Council Member DeCant's resolution. And it's saying to you, let me say one other thing, I believe what it's saying is, hey, if you don't need the TIF, then that's fine. Am I right, Council Member DeCant? Right. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. I have a couple of points of clarity. One is that that resolution isn't on the table right now. Council Member Myers is actually on the table. And I would argue that the different side of the coin, that downtown hangs in the balance right now for a lot of reasons. But I would argue for the opposite reason, Vice Mayor, that there's a ton of people in this town that don't care about downtown. There's a ton of people who never come downtown. Folks who say, why even bother? You know, I've got traffic issues out here. I've got this. I've got that. Why do I even care? And I think that whatever side you follow on this, to the public and to those up here, whatever side you follow on this, the bottom line to it is, is that in the worst economy or in these trying times that have been so eloquently pointed out, we still have private folks putting tens and hundreds of millions of dollars into Lexington. And the doom and gloom of print media and the doom and gloom that's shared up here, it may be reality, but it also may be a perceived reality that we have perpetuated in this town. And the bottom line is there are a ton of folks, these folks and others, who have put themselves on the line and said, you know, downtown Lexington is worth investing in. And I'm going to stake my claim on that. And there's a lot of folks that have done that across the board. And I think that what we need to do is to recognize how we can get the biggest bang for our buck to keep that momentum going and to show that we are actually a place worth investing in. And another point that I want to bring up, Council Member Gordon, I think there was a confusion there. We have never had a TIF in front of us. I think you're referring to the Shelburne Plaza thing. That was a tax abatement. That wasn't a TIF. So Lexington has never done a TIF. We've had other cities that have done in Kentucky that have done numerous ones, of a mechanism that allows them to win in a very difficult tax structure. Kentucky is the most tax-centric state in the union. We send more money to Frankfurt than any state out there. And we have very limited means of trapping that ourselves. And this is one piece of legislation that was done to at least try and get around that. And I think that at the end of the day, Vice Mayor, you had mentioned stark reality. Let's look at the stark reality of that block. Can anybody tell me that that is an attractive piece of downtown? Crater or no crater, those empty buildings send a signal. Those dilapidated buildings send a signal. And what it says is, is that we've got this, we have a situation in our town that people don't care about. And folks driving through town that don't know a thing about this argument, that's what they see. And at the end of the day, everybody up here, as Councilmember Stennant said, probably wants to have a say in what should go into this building and what should be done because it will affect generations from here on out. But what I think that Councilmember Myers has brought up is, look, do we want to go forward and say, you know, go ahead and start working towards this. Let us then have the conversation that so many folks want to have about what we do with that. But at the end of the day, folks, they can do anything they want privately. And if we continue to live below our privilege sometimes like we do, we may miss out on another opportunity. And that has been the real legacy of this city, is missed opportunity after missed opportunity. And I just do not want to see this being another one. Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I'll make this brief. A vote for the original motion ensures that we will not have a TIF. We do not get all those extras and the infrastructure improvements that we need and I think most want. A vote for the second, the substitute motion, I want to make this clarity, this clear point, is not a vote to approve the TIF application. It's a vote to encourage the developer to apply for the TIF. That is what Councilman Blevins was asking for, is that window into having that conversation about how this project ultimately ends up being designed and built. So a vote for the substitute gets us that conversation, but it also opens the door for all those amenities and improvements to come with it. Thank you. Councilmember DeCamp. Thank you, Mayor. You know, I think it's pretty amazing that this has been out on the table and this has really been the first and this is one of the reasons I wanted to bring something forward to you. This is the first time this Council has sat down and discussed CenterPoint. We've watched a lot of it. We watched a lot of it the other day in front of the courthouse review, but you know, we've never sat down and really discussed, we've never sat down with the 12th floor and really discussed this, which is a concern to me. I talked to someone from the 12th floor today and they were talking for 30 minutes and said, well, don't you realize that, you know, we might be able to do over the old courthouse? I said, great news. I love the old courthouse. It's the biggest white elephant we have in town. We can't, you know, we can't do anything right, but wonderful if we can put it to a good use and restore it. I heard it this afternoon at about 1 o'clock and I said, why didn't you tell me this before? I'd never heard this. Had you all heard this? I think it's, I mean, I think it's, but what my point is that we're banging along here and you know, we don't even know what the right hand knows what the left hand is doing on this deal and we should have a long time ago had these kind of discussions. At least today we're having a discussion on this. You know, my initial resolution is, was only saying, you know, if we can be assured that financially in a really tough economy that this is a viable project and it can be seen to the end and if, if it isn't, and you know, maybe I'm naive, but I know this country's in terrible shape financially and unless I can be convinced otherwise by the developers that once the buildings that are there, you may think they're a bunch of trash. They're not a bunch of trash. I can tell you, I've been in this business 50 years and I have been through many major cities where blocks are preserved and they're done and they keep a character of the city. All I'm saying is, if the TIF goes through and the plan as presented by the developer is approved, then that answers the questions, the buildings go down. But in the meantime, you know, if they go down now, how do we know that this is going to, and you know, we get the TIF in order, it doesn't go through and you know, we just, we've seen it happen before, why do we see it happen again and we're just hoping that we would give ourselves a little wiggle room on this and you know, it's, it's, I'm all for TIFs. I think it's a great idea and, but I don't like the way we have proceeded and this process that we've gone through and I think it's really ludicrous that we sit here today and have our first among this council and the 12th floor, a discussion about the TIF at this late date. Council Member James. Thank you Mayor. I too, it's the first time that I've heard about the old courthouse renovation, the streetscape plan, public art and things like that and I do, I'm curious as to who the LFUCG contact has been, where the developer's been getting information. Is there, Darby, do you have any, who's been your contact here? Vice Mayor. Vice Mayor, okay. I've at least had conversations with him about these issues and I've had conversations with him about these issues. Okay. Darby, I don't think that's what she's asking. I think what the Council Member James is asking is who has been your contact as it relates to the project and it has not been Jim Gray. It has been. No, if that's the question, that's correct. Our contact with regard to the project has been through the Mayor's office and Joe Kelly and has been, actually you and I have had a lot of conversations about the project and about the issues involved. Trying to get the workshop where we would examine these issues, yes. You and I have had conversations relative to the old courthouse, Dudley's had those conversations with you about those being in play, we've had conversations about the streetscape, so those are all, albeit all, very informal conversations, but the purpose was designed to get those on the table and in play to see if a solution could be found. Okay. Thank you, Darby. Council Member Myers, you mentioned with regard to your motion that this would start the conversation. What does that conversation look like to you? Because obviously there's been some conversation previously, but it's not been to where council has known about or had a lot of involvement, some maybe sporadically have. What do you visualize if your motion passes? What process would need to take place? I say that in reference and I will talk a little bit about what I'm thinking is similar to the IRB process where we started having the IRB's industrial revenue bonds and we formed a committee that would review those proposals before coming forward to council. That way when we saw them, there was someone that had met that had talked a little bit about that. Is that something that you're looking for with your motion moving forward? I think that in the future that might be a really good way to go. But I think this project, the trains left the station to put together a committee to look at this I don't think would be appropriate. I understand what you're saying with respect to TIFs moving forward. We need to have a policy in place. And so that's a great direction to go in. But as far as this motion goes, I think the drawing of the application will begin to ferret out the old courthouse, the streetscape, and all these different things that are on the table. And then in the process of writing that application and whatever conversations they've had with the 12th floor and the vice mayor, I think all that can come out more publicly and be a part of that whole conversation. Thank you. And please clarify with me, and maybe this would be something that John Ferris would have to answer, but you stated that before even going, taking the application to Frankfurt, they would have to get approval from local government. Is that in form of a resolution? Do we sign off on something? It's a participation agreement in the form of an ordinance. It outlines very specifically what the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government is committing to as the project moves forward in terms of financial resources. And then the state approves that. I mean, after the council approves the application, it goes to the state, and the state is willing to accept the application. And usually, typically, it's done in other locations have a separate committee that work on TIFs, economic development. I don't know if there's an economic development committee, but... We have one person. Okay. Okay. Oh, actually, we do have a task force, economic development task force, maybe. I guess, I just, moving forward, I think I would need to have a little bit more structure with how it's going to be handled, because you can tell there's varying opinion around council. And if we're presented, if that comes forward to us for approval, we're going to have the same conversation that we're having right now. So, I don't know how we're going to move forward from all of our different positions once the application comes towards us. Thank you, Mayor. Let me respond just a little bit to the question you raised. My understanding of the process all along has been that at some point, when the developer wants to obtain approval of an application for TIF, it was going to be necessary for them to come to the council with a definitive proposal that the district would include this area, that these would be the improvements that would be financed by the TIF financing. Until then, you know, it's all kind of abstract. It could involve multiple blocks. It could involve one block. It could involve, what's three square miles? Isn't that the maximum limit? Up to three square miles of space. So, while there have been some abstract conversations, there has not been anything put down in paper in terms of black and white. What is it specifically that the developers wish to put forward in the way of a TIF application? When that is developed, then it comes to the council for whatever deliberation the council wishes to undertake at that stage of the game, be it a committee that is formed to consider it, be it some discussion in a work session. However, the council hold public hearings. In effect, that's when that conversation would begin. Now, the practical aspects of this is, we can't engage in a debate on that for a year and a half, because by that stage of the game, the project will be completed. But there clearly will need to be some period of time for the council to try to reconcile all of the issues, to engage in some of the back and forth with the developers over whether it's going to be three square miles, three square blocks, whatever. Until that application is on the table, though, it's an abstract conversation. And I think what I understand Council Member Myers is asking is that we request that proposal from the developers so we could have something more definitive than an abstract conversation. I think Vice Mayor Gray wanted to also respond to something you raised. And I think that this, again, illustrates the process issues. Because in this project, we are actually engaging the project by leveling the block. The project is engaged when we level the block. So we are not examining this project within a process that includes carefully examining the value of what is there today. And that's what Council Member DeCamp has been saying. This is a cart before the horse illustration. And just what we're talking about today illustrates the way in which we're engaging this conversation illustrates what many have been talking about for the last three months, which is deliberately, intentionally, through a process, examine these issues. They're all very meaningful issues in a construction project, in a project that is going to be the biggest in the history of this town. That's going to be three times the size of the big blue building under the present model and three times the size of Vine Center and the Radisson. So they're not insignificant. And the way in which we proceed it is essential for success, at least in my view. Thank you. Council Member Gorton and Council Member Beard. I don't have anything on my screen. I'm sorry. Council Member Gorton. Thank you, Mayor. Darby. Excuse me. Let's try to clear it up. Council Member Beard. Council Member Stennett. Anybody else? Council Member Henson. Okay. I had one more question for you. If this motion moves forward, about how much time do you think it will take to prepare the application? I don't know. It kind of depends on what the scope of the application, I mean, what the scope of the projects that are going into the application. We have a lot of information about costs of certain things. We don't have that specific information about other things. For instance, I know there's been an updated analysis of the courthouse, for instance, that was updated a year or so ago, as to what it would take to renovate it, so forth and so on. So I hesitate to even guess. I mean, you're not saying in a week. No. Okay. So probably somewhere in the next few months? Yeah. I mean, I think we've got a window of opportunity here of 30 to 60 days to accomplish something If that doesn't, then the window's probably, may be diminished. I don't know. Nothing's for certain. You don't know if the project's going to get held up for other reasons. So it's feasible. You might be bringing something to council at the end of our summer recess in August. Is that? Well, again, if what I'm hearing is, is the council, this is, I want to be clear, we're responding to a request by the council to undertake the opportunity that maybe exists if we do that. Right. And without this motion, you have, you do not have any intention of bringing an application forward. I don't know that it's, I mean, however you all want to speak to it, whether it's by this motion or otherwise, I guess what I was trying to say is we have no intent on initiating a TIF for our reasons, for the reasons of the project. If the larger project is of interest to the council, then we would participate to the extent that it, you know, to the conditions that were acceptable. Well, the motion does ask you to bring forward the application. So my other question is who would you be seeking input from for the application? Well, I don't know. I thought the motion said to encourage us to bring forward an application. So I thought that was the nature. We're going to have to have some conversation on what that encourage means. Okay. In terms of, but that's for you all to tell us. I don't know. So my question is, it's been demonstrated from the discussion up here that there are many ideas about what could be in it and new ideas about what could be in it. So maybe I should ask you, Mayor, would the Mayor and the council sit down and decide what projects we would want in the TIF and then you would bring that forward? Or how would this work? Well, I mean, I think you also have tools with the Downtown Development Authority who has a lot of knowledge about things that need to be, things that can be done, could be done, should be done in various, like the streetscape issues. So there's, it's up, but it's up to you all. Well, I mean, it's obvious we with our city budget can't afford these projects that we've been talking about. That is pretty obvious to me. And so that's the pure value of the TIF, I think, is that the pure value of it is that it does bring tax dollars back here to do the projects we can't afford to do. I mean, on just a very clear level of what it does. I don't think this motion and asking, and I could be wrong, maybe Darby or Logan can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think this motion and bringing forward a TIF application has anything to do with demolition. Is that, I mean, I want to be sure I understand all this. The demolition, once the permits are issued for the other buildings, they can go down regardless of a TIF. Is that correct? That's correct. That was simply related to the first motion that was brought forward. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And Council Member Gordon, you know, with regard to the process, this is the first time we've done one of these things. So we can look to see what Louisville, Newport, and Bowling Green have done in terms of trying to develop a package. If people have particular interest in participating, then it would behoove everybody to participate on the front end in order to try to minimize the necessity of going back and rehashing later on. So, if that is helpful. All right. My list presently has Council Member Beard, then Council Member Stennett, and Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. This is my third and last time, I think. I guess in somewhat of a rebuttal to the Vice Mayor's comments concerning the buildings and the fact that they would be gone forever, and I've already given you my opinion about that, personal opinion, the Courthouse Overlay Design Group has already made the determination that it is not feasible, economically feasible, to rehabilitate those buildings. That is the entity that has been appointed to do that, and that has happened already. And for us to insert ourselves again and open that question up somewhat cuts the legs out from under that body that has already made that determination that, in fact, Vice Mayor Gray spoke in front of. I can visualize, and this courthouse thing, I first heard this afternoon also, but there's been a lot of discussion about the courthouse and what we could afford to do and what it would cost, and it's not efficient, and a lot of other things, and to get it that way is going to take a lot of money. And I don't ever see the possibilities with all of our other requirements for bonding and definitely not out of the general fund that we'll ever get to that. And there will be a point when that building will be ready to collapse also. And if we're going to get our arms around any of these historical structures, we best do it early. We have a way of waiting until the wrecking ball appears before we start caring about any of these buildings. And it's a shame that that happens. I guess it's human nature. But it is a great opportunity to be able to make something very positive, which, you know, will be of some benefit to the project, the web project also, because it's going to be essentially across the street, diagonally across the street, but essentially across the street from their project. They have done, as Darby pointed out, they've lopped five stories off the main building. They've rotated it 180 degrees. They walked away from the requirement at one point of building a parking garage adjacent to the library garage in the back part of Phoenix Park. I mean, they've done quite a bit already. And to say they haven't is just not accurate. But as you might know, I'm not going to say I'm emotionally tied up in this, but when I first heard about it, I was just, I jumped about four feet off the ground. And it's interesting because I never could get more than about a foot and a half at best. Anyway, I guess that's all I have to say, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. As enlightening as this conversation has been today, you know, I think that what it comes down to is if we want to continue the conversation and we want to continue to have input, I know, Vice Mayor, you want input. And in order to give you that input, the only way we're going to be able to do it going forward, and the way it looks to me, is to do the TIF application. That's the only opportunity we're going to continue to have to keep having these debates and conversations. So I want to vote in favor of Council Member Meyers' motion he made earlier because, again, we've got to keep it going. Voting against it will end the conversation today. Thank you. Council Member Henson. I get the sense here that it's us against them or something like that. And I would like, I don't know if there's some way we can all just really work together, like Council Member Stennett said earlier, but I would really like it if we could get together with the webs and all sit around the table and hash things out if possible. Logan, I want to make sure I understand, according to the first motion, it would stop any demolition of the building until funding is in place. Is that correct? No, it's partially correct. What it says is, is that this council will not approve the TIF application if there's been any demolition on the block. Oh, okay. And it will not be approved unless the developer demonstrates that there is the financial or the financing in place to do the project. Okay. I think it's designed, I think what Council Member DeCamp said, it's designed to avoid the situation on the building when the World Coal Center, I believe it was, where there was some demolition and then it sat there for a period of time. But as I understand, if you all are going to consider a TIF application, I think there's a lot of financial information that has to be presented. So I really think what it boils down to is this demolition issue. So with the TIF, they would eliminate a TIF altogether if they go ahead and start demolishing the buildings, correct? Well, what you're saying in this resolution is that if the developer starts demolishing buildings on the block, then the council will not approve the TIF application. Okay. Thank you. Now just to clarify that a bit, Council Member Henson, you understand the motion that Council Member Myers made is a different, is to substitute that resolution with a different resolution, the import of which is we'd be asking the developers to come forward with a TIF application. Everybody with us? All right. I don't have anyone else who's indicated. Can I ask one question? Yes. And I think this is for Mr. Turner. It's been the understanding ever since the TIF has been discussed, I mean, you know, since it was first put on the table, that the amount of money that the TIF, and I guess it's predicated on the total amount of the project, but I think the number that has been kicked around has been $70 million. Now, I understand that because of the change in the financial situation in this country and the lenders that a TIF now would come somewhere, and I think this is just a guesstimate, $35 million. Well, I'm not sure it's a change in the, I'm not exactly sure where the $70 million number got started, but that's actually a number that the increment, the projected increment would pay for, would debt service a bond issue. However, no TIF bonds have ever been issued on a one-to-one coverage of revenue to debt service. The Louisville bonds, you can expect anywhere between a one-and-a-half to a two-times coverage. So that reduces, that's going to reduce that number, that $70 million to $35, $40 million. Just wanted to clarify because I think $70 has been kicked around a good bit through the community, and I just wanted to make that clear. I just learned about that today. I learned a lot of things today at about $130, which I had never heard before, and it certainly has been very disappointing to me that there wasn't more open discussion within this building. Anything further? Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Darby, who holds the tax-exempt revenue bond? Who applies for that? Is that the city? Well, the bonds are issued just as you normally issue. I mean, it would be, I think in this case, I guess it would be the city who would issue the bonds. The city would not be liable for the bonds, would not be a guarantor of the bonds, but the city would be the issuing entity or an entity authorized by the city to issue the bonds. And the state, once a year, would fund the increment to the trustee of the bonds to make the payments. Do you know if that's held against our bond capacity? It is not. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I want to clarify. This can be done pretty quickly, I think. But I want to clarify one of the earlier comments regarding conversations that I'd had with Darby and that related, I think, to your question, Councilmember James. There have been some conversations in which the question of process and where I was encouraging the workshop, which would include some of our citizens, include us in these decisions, include and examine the issue and the questions of whether or not pieces of the block could be retained. And in the course of that conversation, I did suggest, I said, you know, for example, we might be able to do something with the old courthouse. But I was very quick to say, but this doesn't need to be Jim Gray's idea. This idea needs to come from the people in this community who are included in this decision process. And so that was a very important distinction in the way that I was engaging this conversation. I was encouraging a collaborative, participative effort to design our future through this block. And that's a... I still believe that that opportunity exists. And that's why I won't... I'm not able to vote for the substitute because by voting for the substitute, it eliminates an option, which is to try to work within the fabric or at least some elements of the fabric of that block that still exists today and for us to examine these issues related to the financial markets that exist today and how we're going to go forward with it. Okay? Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to, on that note, add that when we talk about process, I believe the committee was the Courthouse Overlay Review Committee. Is that right, the name of that committee? They looked at this already and they already determined by unanimous vote that they were okay with the demolition of these buildings. So to keep saying that there hasn't been any conversation and to keep saying that we need to talk about that and the purpose of the original motion is to stop the TIF by hanging this hammer out there saying if you demo these buildings, you don't get the TIF, that's already been discussed. This community's already had hours of conversation about that. It's not correct to say that we haven't had a conversation about this and the committee met, it did its job, it voted unanimous and so here we are today. Thank you. Council Member Blevins. Thank you, Mayor. I'm struggling with this because it's a fairly complex issue. There's so many moving parts to this that it's making it difficult to weed it down to where I can make a good decision. And here's the kind of things that I'm facing. The first one is, here we are at the 11th hour almost with a gun to our head to either do TIF or not TIF. Is that a situation where we want to be in and make a big decision like this? I don't think so. We're almost forced into this position because the developer's saying, hey, we're not going to let this go on forever. We've got to move out and do our project. I respect that. But there needs to be the same level of respect for the decision we're facing here. The second thing is, just because it's tax dollars from Frankfort with a 6 or 7 to 1 ratio, that sounds really good when we put our city hats on. But we're all still members of the Commonwealth as well. And you can't just spend that money willy-nilly either. So that feels a little strange. It feels a little strange that we're essentially saying, hey, they're going to develop this block anyway. We might as well tag on with them and get a little TIF financing out of it. That's more or less what we're discussing. Is that really what we want? And then last, I have resisted saying this because I didn't want to criticize, but I think it's probably time to talk about it. I think a large part of the discomfort the community has is not, or at least some of us in the community, don't like the project. So it feels a little strange hissing our TIF wagon to a project some of us don't like. That's hard to swallow as well. I'll give you an example. My fear is that a large four-star hotel with huge condominiums on top of it is going to fail. I hope I'm wrong. I hope they're wildly successful and the downtown is vibrant and we sell all those condos and that hotel is full from here to eternity. But what if I'm right? What we have is essentially a vertical Lexington Mall right in the heart of downtown. That feels pretty bad to me. So I'm struggling with what to do with these motions. This last-minute thing to encourage a TIF, it feels a little bit rushed to me. So I think I'm going to lean towards voting no on that. I think I'd like to think about it a little bit more and maybe entertain it in a week, maybe next week. But today I'm not prepared to vote yes. I'm also, I think I'm going to vote no on the original motion not because I disagree with the sentiment to preserve those buildings at least while we kind of think about this. I agree with the sentiment there. But I also agree that it's a little bit heavy-handed and that's not the intent we want to take either. We want to work with the Webs. We want to try to do something beautiful downtown. I think that's something we all agree on. We all agree we want to do TIF in some form if we can. I think that makes good sense. But here we are rushing and feeling it just doesn't feel like the right approach to me for something that's going to make a 200-year impact in the heart of downtown. So that's where I am. Does anyone else wish to speak to the motion? All right. I think we're prepared to vote. The question for the Council is do you wish to substitute for Councilmember DeCamp's original resolution a resolution offered by Councilmember Myers which would encourage, I think was the word? You might want to re-read it if you would. Thank you, Mayor. I move to substitute the current motion with a motion to replace a resolution on the docket to encourage the developer to apply for TIF financing in order to facilitate public improvements. All right. Those in favor of Councilmember Myers' motion please indicate by voting aye. Electronically those opposed vote nay. All right. My count indicates that the motion passes by a vote of eight to five with one abstention. Now. One absent. That's right. Now the question before the Council is on the resolution as amended. Does anyone care to as substituted? Does anyone care to address the resolution as substituted? Seeing no discussion let's proceed to vote. Those in favor of adopting the resolution wait just a minute. It's not to adopt the resolution. It is to put it on the docket for adoption at the Council meeting. The motion is to put it on the docket for Thursday evening. Right? Yes. All in favor of putting the resolution as now substituted please indicate by voting aye. Those opposed vote nay. Yes. The resolution would be to encourage the developers to submit a TIF application. And so the question is do you want to put that on the docket on Thursday night? Yes. All right. The motion passes by vote of I think nine to four with one absent. All right. Farewell. If I understood correctly I came in during Council reports so if that's correct I suppose what I need to get is a list of people who wish to continue with the report. Are there any other Council reports? All right. I think Councilmember McCord is trying to get on my screen. So Councilmember McCord and Councilmember Blues. Thank you Mayor. Just a couple of things. One is last week I had passed out a metrics that we can use with regard to the funding that we give Commerce Lexington as it relates to their report out. I've spoken with Commissioner Askew over the best way to kind of introduce this and what I'd like to do is I'd like to make a motion that we pass a resolution that that metrics be included into the contract that we have with them that we would have as part of their report out them filling out that metrics. So moved. I'm sorry. Can you repeat the motion because I'm not sure I followed it. The metrics that was passed out last week that I had asked for Council and for the administration to take a look at as a possible way to gauge our funding that we give Commerce Lexington. I'm asking for a resolution that that be included into their contract the purchase service agreement that we have with them that they would use that to report out each quarter as they come and report to us. Alright. My understanding is that you want to amend the contract which I think would necessitate a resolution of the Council so are you asking to put this on the docket as a resolution for Thursday night? Yes. Alright. I heard a second. Council Member James made the second. Is there any discussion? Those in favor please say aye. Aye. Those opposed no. Motion carries. Thank you Mayor. Just a couple of things. I want to say thank you to those in government I know there were many that had a hand in getting us back online again. Servers blew up last week It's amazing how technology is great when it works but I really do appreciate all the hard work that went on behind the scenes to put this back online. I also want to thank our police department. There was an article that was recently written about how police departments across the country are really struggling with the fuel cost increases and how our police department and Chief Bastin and others inside the department have started to come up with some innovative ways to try and conserve as much fuel as possible putting two folks in cars rather than taking two cars to scenes and so forth like that. So again my appreciation for some creativity some innovation within government which sometimes we don't get a chance to applaud. I also want to applaud some folks from Lexington that have really done well for us on a national and international stage If you've been watching the Olympic trials over the last couple of nights some pretty spectacular things have happened and Lexington is extremely well represented not only from the announcer with Tom Hammond being from here and being the voice of Olympic track and field but Tyson Gay from Lafayette ran the fastest time any human has ever covered 100 meters It was wind dated so it doesn't count as a world record but to run 100 meters in 9.6 seconds is a phenomenal feat and you will start to see him on the bags at McDonald's and everywhere else and I just wish him all the success in Beijing and very proud of him. But I also wanted to mention a couple of other folks Dana Pounds finished second last night in the javelin throw but because she didn't throw an Olympic qualifying I guess amount of footage or meters, she did not make the Olympic team even though she did get second in the Olympic trials last night. Morgan who is from Lexington Catholic and went to UK was a finalist in the 5000 meters Ola Sese who went to UK was 8th in the women's long jump and then we had two folks Elaine Breeden who is from Lexington that finished second in the women's 100 butterfly and is going to Beijing as well as Rachel Comisars who finished third in that race as well and so again Lexington has this amazing set of athletes that are showing well not only locally and statewide but nationally and internationally and just wish all the greatest success and we just thank them for all their hard work Thank you Council Member Bluth Thank you Mayor Council Member Gorton and I both serve on the Community Relations Board of the Federal Medical Center and we've been on the periphery of an activity that's really important to our community on the part of the inmates of that institution and that is that during the year and throughout the year they make all kinds of products toys mainly for kids and also wearing apparel for adults and children which are then distributed to needy persons throughout our community during the holiday season and just before Christmas among other things the inmates knit and crochet clothing principally caps scarves mittens and the like and they're beautifully done and they go a long way to keeping you warm in the winter time and they're at work on that project now but what they really need from the community is yarn in order to continue this work and fiberfill so I make a kind of public appeal here that to all our Lexington neighbors if you can contribute some of this kind of material to keep those folks at work and productive throughout the remaining six months before the holidays I know they would appreciate it and a lot of folks in Lexington will also be very grateful so this is a voluntary effort in which the community can share and if you can donate yarn or fiberfill please call one of the following numbers if you will call the chairperson of the community relations board Sally Lukefelt at 263-8707 let me repeat that 263-8707 and she can give you information on how to get that material to us or you can call my office which is 263-87017 so please if you can help make that call and contribute to this effort Mayor I also have a couple of neighborhood association announcements for Monday July 7 Georgetown street neighborhood association meeting 6pm in the O'Rear center in Douglas Park and at 7pm the Green Acres Hollow Creek Breckenridge neighborhood association will meet thank you mayor does any other member wish to make a report alright well I do not have a formal report today I have three fairly quick items that I wanted two fairly quick items and one that may take just a little longer first of all in December of 2006 the council approved a resolution authorizing the mayor to bid for the conveyance of 300 acres of surplus federal government property on Leestown road the idea was that that property would be used for a fire station and for a fire training facility over the course of the last several months turns out the Fayette County public schools have had an interest in that property as well and we have had a number of conversations back and forth with them Fayette County schools are interested in putting a teaching farm on a portion of that property and at some point in the very near future as soon as an amendment to this resolution can be proposed we'd like to propose to you that we modify our original application just to seek enough property there to build a fire station but to otherwise yield to the Fayette County public schools for purposes of putting a farm at that location I wanted to mention that to you so that if you all have any particular questions about that you can touch base with us but that will be coming in the way of a formal resolution in the near future Yes ma'am When can we get some detail on that? Just see me afterwards and I'll fill you in Mr. Commissioner Bennett if it's easier to get a hold of him he can fill you in on the details about that as well Second just very quickly I wanted to let you know that we are fortunate to have a delegation from Shinodaka Japan our sister city there who will be here on Thursday evening for our council meeting and I just wanted to make you aware so that you can make them feel welcome Council Member McCord alluded to the recent issues we've had with our computer system here and I ask our Chief Information Officer Rama Dwaraha to come and give you just a little bit of an update about what transpired why, where we are and what additional steps we'll be taking Good afternoon members of council and mayor last Tuesday night we started a storage upgrade for our mid-range storage system around 7pm at night this was not a scheduled or routine maintenance upgrade we had to urgently expand our storage capacity so that we could support our AIX Oracle and PeopleSoft install to go ahead as planned this was brought to our attention the week of June 15th when Oracle was on site after allocating the resources and ordering the drives we scheduled an emergency upgrade for Tuesday, June 24th this date was chosen due to the year-end closing we anticipated the servers to be unavailable for about 4 hours we contracted DMD to come in and do the installation 3.5 hours into the upgrade we had detected drives with prior non-LFUCG configuration data this corrupted our storage area network data so from midnight to 6am we worked with LSI, the manufacturer of the storage area network to attempt a data recovery at 6.30am LSI determined the data was not at the same time we had a disaster recovery planning meeting to assess and prioritize the recovery at 9am this is on Wednesday we went into disaster recovery mode and IBM staff arrived on site at 10am we started disaster recovery restoration mail restoration was completed at 9pm that night and then it failed Thursday morning as we started and again there was about 25% of the restoration that also failed along with that Thursday morning essential hardware was ordered delivered and installed at 10.30am we reassessed the disaster recovery progress and the plan and reprioritized some of the install going forward at this point IBM certified the install and we started rebuilding servers and restoring data Thursday afternoon we had a press release Friday, Saturday and Sunday were rebuilding servers and restoring data our application team was brought on site at this point to make sure all applications were up and functioning Sunday night we provided an update and 90% of the data was restored over the weekend we determined mail was and built a new additional server and we moved forward to move users from our existing server onto that so that we could improve performance and balance the load this process should be completed tomorrow and towards the end of this week we'll re-examine our business impact analysis at the outset I want to thank the employees who worked extremely hard have had very little sleep and I want to thank my staff who have gone on almost about 24 hours of sleep in the last four days this was unfortunate this wasn't something we could predict we hope to have everything restored as soon as possible I think currently public works and some GIS applications are not online I also want to thank UK when I made the phone call they were willing to help and that's pretty much the update I have and if you all have any questions I have my staff members here and I have DMD on site and IBM as well yes Council Member Beard thank you Mayor were these used was this used equipment that's correct we ordered used equipment from LSI from LSI we bought it through DMD and it's a product that's OEM by IBM to LSI they're the manufacturer of it do they certify it sounds like they didn't do their job cleaning up the trash usually we have bought them before we've installed them the state has used it UK used it they all have purchased these before we don't have the equipment to test and see if they're clean it comes certified they redo it is there any liability on their part or should there be let me interject on that we are talking with Council about that and we probably ought to have that conversation in a different setting I always like to go for the throat I'm sorry any other questions Vice Mayor Curry I think probably all of us up here can sympathize and empathize with what you've been through you did a great job of presenting the facts this morning every day I get Miriam Webster's word of the day comes through on my blackberry and today's was trichotillomania yeah that's what I said too trichotillomania I've tried to pronounce it I thought it might apply to me today but you may have experienced it yourself this week it is defined as an abnormal desire oh that would be a correct statement Vice Mayor anything further let me just add my word of thanks to Rama and all the folks in computer services who've been working hard I hope we'll have more details as we go forward that concludes my report is there anyone who wishes to address the Council on issues that are not on the agenda seeing none have a motion from Council Member Ellinger to adjourn and a second from Council Member Myers all in favor please say aye motion carries