When love came and told me I shouldn't sleep Bothered and bewildered am I Lost my heart but what of it He is cold I agree He can laugh but I love it Although the laugh's on me I'll sing to him, each spring to him And long for the day when I'll cling to him Bewitched, bothered and bewildered am I Bewitched, bothered and bewildered Am I You work and work for years and years You're always on the go You never take a minute off Too busy making dough Someday you say you'll have your fun When you're a millionaire Imagine all the fun you'll have In your old rocking chair Enjoy yourself It's later than you think Enjoy yourself While you're still in the pink The years go by As quickly as a wink Enjoy yourself, enjoy yourself It's later than you think You're gonna take that ocean trip No matter come what may You've got your reservations made But you just can't get away Next year for sure you'll see the world You'll really get around But how far can you travel When you're six feet underground Your heart of hearts, your dream of dreams Your ravishing brunette She's left you and she's now become Somebody else's pet Lay down that gun Don't try my friend To reach the great beyond You'll have more fun by reaching for A redhead or a blind Enjoy yourself It's later than you think Enjoy yourself While you're still in the pink The years go by As quickly as a wink Enjoy yourself, enjoy yourself It's later than you think You never go to nightclubs And you just don't care to dance You don't have time for silly things Like moonlight and romance You only think of dollar bills Tied neatly in a stack But when you kiss a dollar bill It doesn't kiss you back Enjoy yourself It's later than you think Enjoy yourself While you're still in the pink The years go by As quickly as a wink Enjoy yourself, enjoy yourself It's later than you think Would you like to ride In my beautiful balloon Would you like to ride In my beautiful balloon We will float among the stars Together you and I For we can fly The meeting to order, we have a couple of different things We need to do today in addition to the work session We have a special council meeting And so we'll proceed with that agenda first Madam Clerk, if you'd call the roll please Dr. Stephens Present Mr. Stennett Here ma'am Mr. Beard Present Mr. Blevins Here Mr. Blues Here Ms. Crosby Here Mr. DeCamp Here Mr. Ellinger Here Ms. Gorton Here Mr. Gray Here Mr. Ward Here And Mr. Myers Here Thank you very much. We have a quorum so we can proceed Madam Clerk, will you give first reading to the ordinances entitled to first reading? Ordinance number one, an ordinance levying ad valorem taxes for municipal purposes For the fiscal year July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009 On the assessed value of all taxable property within the taxing jurisdictions of the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government All taxes on each $100 of assessed valuation as of the January 1, 2008 assessment date As follows General Services District .0800 on real property including real property of public service companies .0990 on personal property including personal property of public service companies Non-commercial aircraft and non-commercial watercraft .1500 on insurance capital .0150 on tobacco and storage And .0450 on agricultural products and storage Full urban or partial urban services districts based on urban services available on real property Including real property of public service companies .1590 for refuse collection .0210 for street lights .0094 for street cleaning .0920 on insurance capital .0150 on tobacco and storage .0450 on agricultural products and storage And levying an ad valorem tax for municipal purposes At the rate of .0880 on each $100 of assessed value on all motor vehicles and watercraft Within the taxing jurisdiction of the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government As of the January 1, 2009 assessment date Number two An ordinance levying ad valorem taxes for purposes of support of the Soil and Water Conservation District For the fiscal year July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009 On the assessed value of all taxable real property within the taxing jurisdiction of the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government Including real property of public service companies at the rate of .0004 on each $100 of assessed valuation As of the January 1, 2008 assessment date Number three An ordinance pursuant to a request received from the Lexington-Fayette County Health Department Levying an ad valorem tax for purposes of support of the Lexington-Fayette County Health Department For the fiscal year July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009 On the assessed value of all taxable real and personal property within the taxing jurisdiction of the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government Including real and personal property of public service companies, non-commercial aircraft and non-commercial watercraft and inventory in transit And excluding insurance capital, tobacco and storage, and agricultural products in storage At the rate of .028 on each $100 of assessed value as of the January 1, 2008 assessment date And levying an ad valorem tax for purposes of support Of the Lexington-Fayette County Health Department at the rate of .028 on each $100 of assessed value On all motor vehicles and watercraft within the taxing jurisdiction of the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government As of the January 1, 2009 assessment date Number four An ordinance levying ad valorem taxes for purposes of support of the Agricultural Extension Office For the fiscal year July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009 On the assessed value of all taxable real and personal property within the taxing jurisdiction of the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government All taxes on each $100 of assessed valuation as of the January 1, 2008 assessment date As follows .0031 on all taxable real property including real property of public service companies .0034 on taxable personal property including personal property of public service companies Non-commercial aircraft and non-commercial watercraft and excluding inventory and transit Insurance capital, tobacco and storage and agricultural products and storage And levying an ad valorem tax for purposes of support of the Agricultural Extension Office At the rate of .0032 on each $100 of assessed value on all motor vehicles and watercraft Within the taxing jurisdiction of the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government As of the January 1, 2009 assessment date Thank you very much. That concludes the reading of the ordinances entitled to first reading And that concludes the business of the special meeting Is there anyone that wishes to comment on those four ordinances that received their first reading? Seeing none, a motion to adjourn. I move we adjourn I have a motion by Councilmember Stephens and a second by Councilmember Gordon that we adjourn All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries That concludes the special meeting. We're now ready for the work session And the first item on the work session agenda is public comment on issues that are on the agenda for today And I have a couple of, it appears as though Laurie Daugherty wishes to address the Council And I see that Mr. Maher is yielding your time to Ms. Daugherty, so you'll have six minutes, Ms. Daugherty Thank you My name is Laurie Daugherty, and I'm an attorney with a background in commercial real estate finance and development Sometimes a planning authority identifies an area in great need of revitalization In such cases, Council would first establish a TIF district and development plan And identify a wish list of projects, all as an incentive to attract private development to an area It is not driven by any specific project. Due diligence on individual projects comes later as private developers enter the picture Other times, a developer starts the process. It needs public financing to pay for public infrastructure elements of its project and asks for TIF In these cases, it makes good sense for the urban county government to do its due diligence up front Does the project fit with and enhance the overall goal for downtown development? Is it viable? No is an acceptable answer, especially when in the best interests of citizens Be reasonably certain the private project is going to work before committing to a TIF district Any other approach is risky and potentially wasteful Here's an example. The parking garage under Phoenix Park Have parking studies been completed to quantify the need and justify the expense? Is it truly public, or will citizens driving downtown find they cannot park in the garage Because the spaces are reserved for hotel guests, condo owners and their guests, and other tenants of Centerpoint If that is the case, then it's not a public garage. It won't solve a downtown parking shortage Public funds should not be used for private gain I know you are familiar with Section 7049 Do you have enough information to be confident that Lexington will receive a positive return on investment? How can you know if you haven't analyzed financials and conducted due diligence? Are you really going to let Big Brother and Frankfort State Department of Revenue take you to task? I urge this council to establish a process for the evaluation of TIF requests It's sound public policy Put into place general principles implementing tax increment financing as a public finance option So that when a project comes up, everyone Urban county leaders and employees, developers and the public Everyone is on board with how it will be handled Here's such a policy right here Such a policy bolsters public confidence It eliminates appearances of impropriety, dealmaking or currying favor It creates consistent investment guidelines for equitable implementation from project to project It puts the urban county government in control Lays out the expectations up front What developers must provide, such as detailed information on the financial feasibility All developers play by the same rules Developers who stonewall don't get financing It covers things like who will pay for the review of proposed projects What if 10 requests are made in a year at a review cost of $50,000 each? Should that come out of general funds? TIFs last for 20 years, at least 20 years TIF is as much long-term fiscal management It's an allocation of future revenues As it is urban planning Such long-term arrangements should be entered into only after Thorough due diligence and assessment of risks of the private project TIF is only as successful as the projects it supports I urge you to do two things First, establish a policy for handling TIF requests Then, secondly, follow that policy Conduct a thorough analysis of CenterPoint before passing any ordinance Investigate the red flags Be smart, not sloppy Test the depth of the water before diving off the dock It's prudent and responsible governance Thank you Thank you. The second person I have is Mr. Cobb Do you wish to speak on issues on the work session agenda today? All right Then we're ready to move ahead with docket approval I think the docket has been circulated Is there a motion? Council Member Stephens Mayor, I have a motion to place on the docket for the council meeting on Thursday, September 11, 2008 A resolution authorized and directed the mayor to execute a purchase of service agreement with Blue and Company LLC For a comprehensive financial audit of the Division of Family Services Health Care Clinic At the Family Care Center at a cost not to exceed $47,500 Second I have a motion and second to Seconded by Council Member Gordon to approve Excuse me, to add to the docket A motion or resolution approving a purchase of service agreement with Blue and Company Is there any discussion? Those in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye Aye Opposed, no Mayor also move approval of the docket as distributed And Council Member Stephens has moved approval of the docket Council Member Blues has seconded Any further discussion? Not a second Okay All right, we Thank you, Council Member Gordon Now, Council Member Blues, you have one day and then Council Member Myers Thank you, Mayor I move to place on the docket for the September 11, 2008 meeting A resolution approving a form lease of horses from the Friends of the Lexington Mounted Police, Incorporated And authorizing the execution of such leases with the Friends of the Lexington Mounted Police, Inc. On an as-needed basis, so moved Thank you Council Member Beard has seconded that motion to amend the docket Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye Opposed, no Motion carries Council Member Myers Thank you, Mayor I move to place on the docket for September 11, 2008 council meeting A resolution authorizing the execution of an agreement with W.S. Farish, the Carnegie Center, Incorporated And the Board of Trustees of Lexington Public Library for funding of the Carnegie Center At a cost not to exceed $36,000, so moved Second I have a motion by Council Member Myers and a second by Council Member DeCamp To add an item to the docket dealing with the Carnegie Center Any discussion? Pardon me? I do have a point of discussion Okay Thank you, Mayor Mr. Kelly, could you come up for a second? We've passed out two letters, I think, to everybody in the council here So everybody gets kind of an understanding of why we need to walk this on today But I wanted to clarify one thing that The agreement that we're putting on the docket On page 3, number 6 says plan of self-sufficiency And it requires that before this plan can go into Can be acted upon The Carnegie Center has to submit to us and to Mr. Farish and to the library board A copy of their plan for self-sufficiency And I just wanted to ensure that not only does that happen But that all the council members get a copy of that We'll be happy to do that, yes sir Okay, and if I could say one more thing This agreement calls for a three-year agreement Mr. Farish and the library board are going to supply Or fund the Carnegie Center for three years At a reduction of $10,000 per year The government is going to provide $36,000 this year We can't contractually enter into an amount for the following two years But I do want on the record that The self-sufficiency plan is in place to wean us all off of funding for the Carnegie Center So everybody understands that the second and third year of this agreement The expectation will not be for the government to spend as much as they are this year I understand I just kind of wanted to read that into the record Sure Thank you Thank you Any further discussion of that proposed amendment to the docket? Council Member Beard Council Member Myers, is there not a requirement What if they can't meet this weaning requirement that we have? Is there still not a requirement for that building to be utilized for educational purposes? I'll ask Mr. Kelly, I'll refer to Mr. Kelly on that I am not absolutely familiar with all the details But it is my understanding that there is an obligation That requires that some educational activity be conducted in that building But I don't know that it says to the extent of specifically what kind of activity And Commissioner Cole was not here today And she's the person who's been dealing with this issue most closely I just was concerned we're painting ourselves in the corner And then they have to backpedal If the monies are withdrawn by Mr. Farrish and the library board We may have to fund it more than we've been funding it Rather than less than we've been funding it If they can't wean themselves off Well actually the agreement does say that if any of the three parties do not fund Then the other two are not obligated to fund Well we're obligated to have educational activities up there That override this is my understanding anyway Well I guess the question is as Mr. Kelly said Whether or not we're required to have that same level in that building I don't know about the same level But the building's still going to be sitting there And has to be maintained and heated And all the other expenses that go with it And we're going to have to have some type of activity Let me chime in just a little bit on this And Commissioner Askew may have some insight About the terms of the deed up there It was a little bit of an abnormal transaction 15 or 20 years ago As I recall In which we undertook some obligations To maintain some effort to have literacy programs There at the old library I think what this agreement is trying to do Is move us towards a situation where we're not going to be Year after year after year continuing to pump money Into the Carnegie Center If that does not happen as projected Then I suppose it would be up to the council To make a decision at that point Whether it wished to do anything further at the Carnegie Center Or whether it wanted to assume full responsibility for funding it So I think the agreement that's here Is designed to try to give us Make some progress towards self-sufficiency If that doesn't happen then the council would have a decision It could make at that point Commissioner Askew, do you remember the details on the lease? Mayor I do not, but what we can do Council Member Beard is have a report to you Either later today or tomorrow I applaud the weaning concept I'm just afraid that The other side of the coin may crop up And we're going to look like We're going to be scuffling it around This is a classic case of Councils not being able to bind future councils But it looks like one did some years ago Well I guess the conclusion I've drawn is If this doesn't materialize We won't be any worse off then than we are now That's probably true, except for inflation Except for inflation True If I could add, Mayor, one more point to that And that is that That's the purpose for the agreement The self-sufficiency agreement is to help To look at that and the outside agency oversight committee Can help monitor that agreement each year To see if they're working towards that And making the progress they need to make And then adjustments could be made If they have to be made after the three-year agreement is over I'm glad I'm a member of that committee, Mr. Chairman The motion on the floor is to amend the docket By adding the agreement with the Carnegie Center To the docket Is there any further discussion? Those in favor of amending the docket Please let it be known by saying aye Aye Opposed, no Motion carries Any further motions? I think we're now ready to vote on the principal motion Which is to approve the docket The docket is now amended Any further discussion? Those in favor of them, please vote aye Aye Opposed, no Motion carries That takes us down to the summary approval Item three on the agenda Move approval, Mayor Council Member Blevins moved to approve the summary Council Member Stephens has seconded Council Member Gordon Thank you, Mayor I just had one slight change on page eight The second sentence says the issue of constructive wetlands And I think it should be constructed They might be constructive when they're finished But they're technically constructed wetlands So that would need to be changed Did you get that? Any other changes? There's no objection We'll consider that an amendment to the motion To approve the summary Those in favor of approving the summary as modified Please let it be known by saying aye Opposed, no Motion carries Budget amendments Council Member Ellinger Thank you, Mayor The budget amendment request Let's begin on page 11 of your work session package Needs to be amended to add budget journal 26695 This budget journal for the Division of Fire and Emergency Services Provides funding for a ladder truck and two EMS units It is necessary to be included for the first reading Thursday, September 11th In order to comply with a price contract deadline that expires this month So moved I have a motion by Council Member Ellinger To add that item to the budget amendment Do I hear a second? Council Member Blevins seconded Any discussion? Council Member Wayne Thank you, sir I just had a question Is this already budgeted And we're just prioritizing the budget on this Or is it a capital budget item? What I received it says To provide funds for one ladder truck and two EMS ECU units by increasing funds from the fire department Commissioner Bennett, I think Can shed a little light on the situation This is a part of Division of Fire's FY09 capital budget It was also part of the reimbursement resolution That you have recently approved That Commissioner Coe submitted This is just an effort to get in While some prices are still favorable As Chief Hendricks reminded me We'll save about $100,000 on these vehicles By taking advantage of the current prices What's the total cost for that equipment, please, sir? It looks like $1,170,000 Any further discussion on that item? Council Member Byers Commissioner, could you come forward just a second? Have you looked at using a reverse auction On any of this equipment, particularly the ladder truck? Not to my knowledge These were handled through Purchasing's normal procurement process I don't know that they did look at that I thought that they said earlier last year That they were starting to look at reverse auctions And I thought they did a reverse auction On one piece of equipment I don't think they used it on these though Because these are fairly specialized pieces of equipment And there are typically very few bidders But I can't speak for what they looked at And how they evaluated it Can anyone else speak to that, Mr. Kelly? Because this is actually the type of equipment That works really well for reverse auctions I'm sorry I didn't know if you had anything to add to that But this is typically one of the pieces of equipment The type of equipment that works well for reverse auctions I didn't know if you had anything I don't about this specific one I do know that we had that conversation And that was something that the council Had encouraged us to try to utilize So I'll be happy to talk to Brian And the folks in purchasing And see if that was a consideration In this particular purchase And let you know Okay, Commissioner Bennett If you could check with Mr. Markham In purchasing, maybe now And see if we can find an answer to that question Okay, I'd be glad to During the course of the meeting That would be one way to deal with it Thank you, Mayor Thank you, Mr. Mayor All right, we have a motion on the floor To approve that budget amendment Is there any further discussion? Those in favor, please let it be known by saying aye Aye Opposed, no Motion carries I need a motion to approve All the remaining budget amendments Is there one? I have a motion by Council Member McCord A second by Council Member Myers Any discussion? Council Member James Thank you, Mayor My, the item number J I've sent some emails to Council Members Acting Commissioner Webb And others regarding this item We've talked extensively We've talked extensively In the Budget and Finance Committee I believe No, Planning Committee About Streetscape Excuse me Are you talking about a budget amendment Or are you talking about new business items? A new business item Are we on budget amendments? We're still on budget amendments Okay, jumping ahead That's all right Motion on the floor Is to approve the budget amendments Is there any discussion? Those in favor of approving the budget amendments Please indicate by saying aye Aye Opposed, no Motion carries Now we're ready for the new business items And I think I wanted Mr. Kelly to address one item So if you could speak to that Thank you, Mayor And I think it's the same item That you want to address, Councilperson We did ask Or we did put it on the agenda For your consideration To get on the docket for Thursday night A request to Allow us to utilize 1.4 million dollars of the UDAG Settlement dollars To begin the Design For construction plans For the streetscape project And the reason that we did that Fully understanding that There was a desire to Review the UDAG processes And the dollars and the projects At the committee level And not wanting to To Disrespect that process But I had talked with virtually I think about everyone on the council At some point or other Starting back as early as February That this would be a source of funds That would be available and could be used For this particular project To get the design started And Since there are other UDAG projects That have been funded And are in progress And it appears there may be some dollars Remaining from those projects that could be Utilized as well for Whatever projects would be appropriate And The desire to move the streetscape project Forward in a In a timely manner It's been in planning for several months There's been multiple Presentations and reports I think the council is To their credit Very familiar with the project And what it involves And the process and the timelines That have been suggested And so In order for us to get started We need some money To begin the Design process And that's why we went ahead And put it on the agenda To start the process And And To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To to To to To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To  To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To don't profess to know exactly what that mix of uses would be in there today, but if you're thinking about where a new government facility could be, that's a possible consideration. I'm not here to preach for that, not here to to say that you should think about it. I'm simply saying that's new thinking since the time that FM Solutions did the plan. That site's not under control. The city doesn't own it. Private parties do. We don't know what the cost of it is, but it's a reality that it is part of the overall vision for your downtown. This is another thing that's somewhat new in the downtown streetscape master plan. There's a recommendation to establish a series of open spaces that bridge across the large parking field behind Lexington Center and begin to connect that gateway at Main and Newtown into the Entertainment District down by Triangle Park and Lexington Center. And it's suggesting that, again, new building masses, a new urban district as it were, is a continuation of the Distillery District and begins to make a bridge between what is right now a big area of parking and the downtown. So is that the place in that area for a government center? Probably not. That's probably more appropriate as a mixed-use residential office and retail use, but again it's an update that may influence everyone's thinking about what would happen in the future. It's interesting when you consider how closely tied the idea of the linear park is to the discussion that you're having about the new government facility, the new government center. Scenario 5, which is an FM Solutions report and recommendation, shows a recommendation for the annex garage being developed as the new headquarters facility for government functions. And if you weren't thinking about how Vine Street and Water Street could be changed over time, you wouldn't have a recognition that there could be something really dramatic happening there along Vine Street. The linear park vision shows, the sketch that you're seeing here, shows the transformation and it doesn't, the sketch doesn't say what kinds of uses ought to be in those buildings. It doesn't suggest that they have to be government office. It doesn't suggest that they would be any particular type of use, but it's assumed that as the downtown master plan and the guiding principles of the streetscape plan suggest, that it ought to create a more vibrant downtown environment. A government center can certainly do that if it's planned appropriately. There are two sketches that we did very early on in our work with the streetscape plan. First one here shows what we knew at the time to be a possible site for the government center. It's the annex garage building. And at the time we were saying develop a linear park and as you develop that linear park, engage that park space with active uses. And the purple tones show restaurant retail as one possible scenario being developed in association with a government center, where you could activate the ground floor of that government center with new retail and restaurant that spills out onto a public park and plaza. Scenario 5, as it's presented in the FM Solutions Plan, doesn't accommodate retail, but in talking with many of you and in talking with Kimra and Joe and others, there's no reason that the next round of planning couldn't consider how that would be done. So there's an opportunity there to say yeah that's really a possibility depending upon how we make that work. Should the retail be down here or should it be on Main Street? Don't know the answer, but I think I think I know which way to lean. Another consideration was okay well what if the government center wasn't there? What if it was where the transit center was? Or what if that's not the government center? What if that's simply Class A office or residential uses above that space? What can we do with the development of new facilities to make downtown function better and to have a higher quality environment? What this sketch shows is you could use you could take MLK and in the way that you articulate building massing and in the way that you utilize public open space, you can create a much stronger sense of connection into downtown along MLK. You can create a better connection up into the College Town District at UK. This shows how pedestrian plaza and rooftop park space as it were can can create a stronger sense of connection into the neighborhood. That same principle and concept could be applied if it were on the other side of Vine Street. Whereas today if you drive Martin Luther King and you head towards UK's campus, you've got the option of turning into a parking garage. It's not the most exciting entrance experience in the world, but if you were to redevelop that building, no matter what it is, there's an opportunity to have that building front on to MLK versus MLK being treated like it's it's merely a service ramp. So certainly in any scenario where you redevelop that property, that was something that you would want to think about. This is just an elaboration of what I was just saying and I guess it's it's obvious that you could make Main Street a better street if you had retail and dining occurring along that stretch. Here's the existing of the building we're in today, the Government Center, MLK, and then what is today parking garage and blank wall. Frankly, this could all become active, vibrant storefront space. Again, whether it's a government facility or any other use, that's an opportunity. What is here labeled as the color is suggesting that that might be retail mixed-use, that could very well become the front door to the Government Center. That could be lobby and reception and drop-off and that could occur on down by Water Street at the current level it's at today or it could occur at the elevation of MLK and what a transformation to MLK that would be. So again, as the consulting team, whoever they are, moves forward on the planning and design of the facility, these are all the kinds of things that you would want them to think about. There's a there's a note up there about linking to the open spaces. I talked about at the beginning when I looked at had you look at the ground floor leasing map, the ground floor use map, there's obviously a very strong collection of public open spaces along Limestone. This, sorry, this is suggesting that, you know, you've got a piece of open space here at Phoenix Park and that there's really this opportunity to create a bridge between those two spaces. Does that happen along Water Street? Does it happen along Vine? Do you think about what, how the Phoenix building is transformed over time? No matter what happens, there's an opportunity to transform the image and identity of that building. If it's sold and it becomes something that the private sector deals with, you certainly want to encourage a ground floor use that's more engaging, that creates more activity at the street level. You could also do that if it were a government center or part of the government center campus, I should say. There's a bunch of other projects, obviously, that are happening. We want to recognize that, you know, the town gown work that's happening at UK is going to have an impact on downtown. Does it have an influence on the decision as to where to locate the government center? Maybe, maybe not. Would, as has been in the paper recently, the possibility of building an expanded Rupp Arena near Lexington Center have an influence on that? Maybe, maybe not. But if you believe, as frankly I do, that having the government center in the core of downtown, in a district that it's familiar with, is a reasonable expectation, then it's easy to think about it being redeveloped in that location. There's nothing in the downtown master plan, there's nothing in the streetscape master plan that suggests a strong reason for you to locate the government center in those two locations that I just discussed. The only other space within the downtown, there's there's the possibility, I suppose, at the intersection of Main and Midland. I think that was considered in the study. And again, that study being very well reasoned, there were probably good reasons for why that didn't rise to the surface. We normally limit our presentations to about 15 minutes and we're a good bit past that now, so if you could kind of begin to wrap it up so we'll have time for questions. Will do. Okay, well very quickly, many of you have traveled with Commerce Lexington. You've seen some of the communities where these government centers are located. I won't go into them in great detail. Talked about Madison, Wisconsin. Hamilton, Ohio has pulled this out because it's a smaller community. It has a new government center, it's less than five years old. It has restaurant and retail on the ground floor of the lobby. Canton, Ohio. This is a project that we were involved with. This is a streetscape that was done to incentivize retail development and an office development in the downtown core. Here's their government center in this area. There's clearly a way to create a more vibrant streetscape environment, a more vibrant street corridor and have both government facilities and retail and restaurant taking place. Common themes are there are a lot of cities that have recognized that there's a strong reason to have a government campus provided that that campus has a sense of vitality to it and a life beyond five o'clock in the afternoon. There's a reason to think about a campus style of development and there's a reason to want to keep your employment base, your government office workers in the downtown. As you move forward, you want to be thinking about these relevant issues. You want your consultants to be thinking and planning for these on your behalf. Continuity with the downtown vision. A leasing strategy because government maybe won't do as good a job of applying a leasing strategy as the private sector will. You want to maybe revisit some of the assumptions that were made in light of some of the real-world considerations you'll have when you hone in on a particular site. And we're aware that you're also really interested in knowing how the parking is going to work out and does there need to be a one-to- one ratio between employees and available parking. I won't go into that right now simply because of time. We're suggesting that you update the goals and guiding principles that the FM Solutions Plan articulates. As a matter of fact, their report says that you should update them from time to time. So that time is just happening a little sooner than we considered. I think the big idea is as your consultant team moves forward at the next stage, have them look at ground floor retail as an option. Have them consider how these new facilities could be a catalyst for improvement of open space and how those facilities could catalyze private sector development of adjacent properties. It would be logical in our minds to form a ad hoc group of experts. It doesn't need to be something that is that, frankly, find people you trust. You've trusted us to make this presentation today so other people that you trust to establish criteria that would be applied within an RFP. We're suggesting that those criteria include a phase or a step in that RFP that calls for expanded feasibility planning as a precursor to detailed design where you refine the preferred site concept or concepts that you have an open house and you have some public engagement to show the public what you're considering as you normally do when you do these these kinds of projects and that you, after you receive public comment, go back and confirm the strategic direction that you want to take and then you take it back to Council and Council has their say. With that, I really don't have anything more to add and be happy to take any questions. Thank you, Mr. Behnken. I think you've given us a little better perspective of this issue that we have to deal with and we have been dealing with it now for several months and rather than taking it back to the to the Budget and Finance Committee, I would like to move that the request for proposal be written by the FM Solutions to include determination of guiding principles, location as well and location as well as architectural review of possible buildings. Is there a second? I have a motion and second that we add to the docket, I guess, a resolution authorizing the retention of FM Solutions to prepare the RFP addressing the issues you just identified? Yes, to expand it beyond just a consideration of the single location but also consider other locations as well as incorporating some of the principles that Mr. Behnken was outlining for us as far as design and so forth. All right. Any discussion? Council Member McCord. Thank you and I think that I support this motion. I think that what we all have to realize again is that we're sitting in a time where we can we have a unique opportunity to redraw downtown and and all these things are these projects are not happening in a vacuum they all are related they all end up being dominoes for one another and I appreciate Cleet you kind of orchestrating and showing us what all is going on and just a couple of things I want to point out and then I'd like to add to this motion if we could that you know we are we are doing a lot of these things already we are not just sitting and talking we're seeing a lot of these things happen as we speak and the reality is this book this building we're in is hemorrhaging about fifty five thousand dollars a month and costing taxpayers a tremendous amount of money and inefficiency we also need to recognize that as we go forward and as the consulting team goes forward that government clustering of buildings can be death to a downtown and that there has to be real sensitivity to how many government buildings whether they be courthouses or libraries or government centers all sit together even if they have first floor retail so that we definitely need to understand what will happen after five o'clock in these in these buildings the other thing is that we need to understand that low bill low bidding absolutely gets us so many times and really hurts the taxpayer and in this situation I would just encourage the consultants to really look at in crafting this RFP quality of work not just cost because if you're going to spend taxpayer money on something this significant they can drive a downtown that could potentially turn this downtown into an economic engine or be part of that now we better do it right and do it do it well and that also the expertise doesn't lie just within this building in fact I would argue that the expertise for this is more outside this building than inside and what I would ask vice mayor that as a part of this motion I would ask that a task force or delegation whatever we want to term it would be formed that while we are crafting this RFP that this group could meet to to sit down and really walk with the consultants or to pick the consultants I think that there needs to be a group made up of council administration of an architect and developers urban planners and I would just ask that that would be made part of this this motion that a task force or a delegation would be put together by the vice mayor inside and outside of government that as the RFP is being crafted that we would have that discussion that would be open to the public and we could really walk with the consultants or pick the consultants and walk with the consultants so that all of council could be made aware as we go so moved are you suggesting that this be part of the selection or drafting the RFP are you suggesting that this would come after the RFP is circulated and we deal with the people who respond I think it's a parallel path or at least that's that's how I saw it that is the RFP is being constructed that this group is put together to to walk with whomever is chosen as the consultant but it vice mayor let me in deference to you in this situation how would this work best having a group is it better to put this group together to help craft the RFP or is it better to to do them as parallel paths well I think it's a I think it's a good idea and I think we can you know as you've suggested it J councilman record I've I've been processing and imagining it I think you know some flexibility in the in the RFP well let me put it this way I think that the the role of a group that you just described would be valuable for input in this writing of the RFP really just to confirm in my view these recommended next steps that cleat just described and then and then later in that selection process and moving forward the you know more deliberate engagement more consistent engagement would be expected but we can start I mean I think the idea is start formation of it soon is what you're saying yeah absolutely and I think the administration has done a good job of articulating that you know now is not the time to necessarily wait but you do need to make educated decisions you need to have a public input and so as we go I agree with dr. Stevens that your RFP needs to leave open the exact location but you can certainly craft aren't that RFP for the consultant but it with that I would like to put this team together so that we can do it right this first time did I hear a motion that we create a task force as an amendment to dr. Stevens resolution I'll be happy to second it's okay so the motion on the floor right now is to amend council member Stevens resolution by adding language which would request the vice mayor to designate a task force to work with the consultant in the preparation of the RFP and subsequent processes all right any discussion seeing none those in favor I'm sorry all right is this discussion on this issue all right councilmember Blevins I just want to clarify dr. Stevens you're asking for the administration to take the original proposal that came to budget and finance and expand it in the ways you described a few minutes ago and then we're gonna have that on the docket Thursday I was trying to get the mechanics down what you're doing yes I offered this motion today because I think we've talked about this for a couple months this time to take action and that's what I would visualize and we're going to use FM solutions to create the RFP yes now there's been discussion as to whether FM solutions mayor may not be the best suited firm for that view in our private conversations you've indicated that it might be a better choice of you change your mind in that regard or yes I did I think that this we're just writing an RFP and if they include these considerations in it and the variabilities I think that will do the job it's selecting the consultant eventually I think it's the key thing but let me clarify the process here just a little bit because I think there may be some confusion what I anticipate is if this resolution were to ultimately be approved is that FM solutions would come back to us with an RFP draft for the location and design of a public building the government center whatever it may be called we would then have an opportunity to review that RFP to make sure that it does what we want it to do in light of the feedback we have gotten from cleat today and whatever other feedback we may have then at some point the RFP would go out on the street then we would receive responses to that from various architects engineering firms whomever may be qualified and that's when we would then hire somebody to actually start the design process the location process and all all right councilmember McCoy point of clarification dr. Stevens with with what he had said is that is it I understand it's your point that you want to kind of leave it open where the actual location is that the RFP language is written but we don't specify annex garage or something like that is that that's correct I think that should be one consideration that's asked for in the RFP is pick a location okay thank you councilmember Myers Thank You Mary I just reiterate what councilman McCord said that low bid does not always get you the quality that you want need or expect in the building design or construction and also I would ask that this task force consider looking at design build as an option as it meets thank you all right motion on the floor right now is to amend councilmember Stevens motion by adding language to the effect that the vice mayor would appoint a task force to work with the consultant all those in favor any further discussion mayor I have a question councilmember James would this task force only be in the preliminary the discussion and then putting together the RFP or would they also be the selection committee as well once those RFPs came went out and the proposal was received they would not necessarily be the selection committee on the RFP but they would be working throughout the process at least the way I understand what we're talking about here is it would go beyond merely the drafting of the RFP and the work with the architect or whomever it is that is the successful better I think I agree with what the mayor is saying and and there are there are really some very effective models in the in the workplace today in the in the for doing just this where the a sidebar group if you will of those who are have interest constituent interests are working together with those who are responsible for implementation and so I would imagine that as we contemplate and put the task force together and what I'd want to do is clearly consult with all of you all plus for certain with the mayor and with those administration that were charged with it so we get a a working group that can be effective and there will probably be some migration on that in and out over time as we've said this is a this is not an overnight project it's going to take some time so flexibility in this but some with some clear specific outline roles and responsibilities is what I think you know our first task really ought to be any further discussion on the amendment and those in favor of amending councilmember Stephens motion by adding the inclusion of language that would permit the vice mayor to create a task force to work with the consultant let it be known by saying aye those no motion that that amendment carries we're now ready to discuss councilmember Stephens motion as amended which would call for an amendment to the docket to include a resolution to retain FM solutions to prepare an RFP for determining the location and design of new government center with a task force being appointed by the vice mayor to work with the consultants any discussion on that those in favor of them please let it be known by saying aye those no motion carries and we'll amend the docket accordingly cleat thank you very much for your time today thank you cleat and that completes our report finally thank you the next item on the agenda is a presentation from UK and I don't have the name of our presenter here come if you'll step forward and introduce yourself I would appreciate it thank you good afternoon I'm Roger Humphreys with the University of Kentucky I'm in the Department of Emergency Medicine and I'm here today to talk about an opportunity for a research study which would involve the Lexington fire EMS it comes as part of the neurologic emergencies treatment trial this is a large network grant funded by the National Institutes of Health and it involves academic centers across the country the purpose of the net is to find new innovative and successful treatments for the neurologic emergencies that we deal with every day and that that our society suffers these would include brain injury traumatic brain injury spinal cord injury stroke and seizures or status epileptic us and so I'm going to spend just a little bit of time talking about one of the trials that we would hope to conduct in Lexington I'm bringing it before you today because it involves Lexington fire EMS personnel and it will it will require your approval if it's to happen in Lexington first I'd like to go I need to talk a little bit about seizures in general so that we can under all understand what the purpose of the trial is but seizures of course are also called convulsions and patients that have seizures are known to have the disorder of epilepsy when a patient has a seizure most the time the seizure stops without any specific treatment it doesn't require medications you just requires protecting the patient and in a few minutes it stops and that's the way most seizures go but occasionally there are serious seizures or life-threatening seizures that aren't stopping without some other treatment and those are the kind of seizures that we are talking we'll talk about in this study today but these seizures can be dangerous they can cause brain damage or even death and patients that have seizures that aren't stopping that diagnosis is called status epileptic us when we talk about who can get seizures like this well anybody that has a seizure disorder whether they're young an infant or an elderly person if that seizure doesn't stop that can be dangerous the treatment these days is a valium type medicine it's used by paramedics and physicians in both adults and children and those medications that class that we use first is called benzodiazepines we don't know what the best way to give that these these medications are though typically we try to insert an IV small catheter into a small vein and try to give the medications in the bloodstream but we don't know if there's a better way to do that and there's this is that's the purpose of this study because it's life-threatening paramedics are taught to treat this as an emergency condition and to get it stopped as soon as they make that diagnosis or as soon as they can after they make that diagnosis again the standard treatment or valium type medications now when a paramedic is trying to start an IV in a patient that has its convulsing it can be dangerous to the paramedic because they might stick themselves it's dangerous to the patient because it's not easy to get the IV in and then when you consider a child a child has smaller veins and it's and if they're in a seizure it's even more difficult in that situation so we're considering a different route which is called the intramuscular route which means that a shot would be given in the muscle and and we think that that can be as good or better at stopping the seizure since you can get the medications in as soon as you get the shot done which might only take a few seconds the purpose of this study is to find out which treatment is better the intramuscular route versus the intravenous route the medications we're using are for this study are common medications that we use every day in the emergency department in the hospital for those of you that that have had any procedures done so any kind of endoscopy or have had general surgery you're likely to have had the medication listed first midazolam or also known as versed this is a commonly used medication it it can also be used for seizures the mechanism it would be given would be through an injector but for those of you that have know about allergies and EpiPen would be the way that this would be given is it an automatic injector into the thigh and and give the medications that way that that route would be compared with the intravenous route in this study neither the patient nor the paramedic would know which drug is given this would that's the only way to do the study and have it to be scientifically valid because this this is an emergency condition and it happens and must be treated quickly there is no time to do what we would normally do in any type of research study which is obtained full informed consent so this study is performed under what's called exception from informed consent for emergency research the study at this point has been reviewed by the UK IRB or investigative review board that's a body that's made up of physicians administrators people from the community and and they have given approval for me to go to the next phase of this trial which is the community consultation and public disclosure phase this meeting today is part of that that community consultation phase that's where I those of us involved in the study explain it to the public and take feedback that we will record and get back to our IRB about what we've learned from the public about their opinion on the study the way we'll know what which treatment is better is the outcome of did the seizure stop before the patient got to the ER this study will take 800 patients to find the answer to this question this study won't be just done in Lexington if it's approved here it'll be done across the country and I'll show you a map of that in just a minute as I mentioned we won't be able to get the patient's consent before the trial before they're enrolled in the trial but we do follow guidelines which means that we get consent at the earliest available time meaning when they wake up in the ER or when their family members are in the ER with the patient Lexington fire is critical to this study it cannot happen without the approval of Lexington fire EMS in Lexington there's some novel things about this study that could become the standard for any of the studies that would be done in the pre-hospital arena the people that wrote this study understand that a paramedic has to direct their attention to the patient they can't be doing a lot of study logs or wasting a lot of time writing down things so they'll be a data recorder similar to what's on an airplane so as soon as the box is open and medications are contained within that box it has a voice data recorder and the paramedic would say IV started I am shot given seizure stop and so on so they don't have to direct their attention away from the patient paramedics will undergo significant training if this study is approved in Lexington and that would mean training on the appropriate procedures for protection of patients when they're in a study as well as the specifics about this study and the drugs that are involved this is a map showing the neurologic emergencies treatment trial hub academic medical centers there are 17 centers across the country University of Kentucky is among them the coordinating center is the University of Michigan so this study will be conducted across the country in cities many of which are much larger than in Lexington and it's at this stage people are going to to their city councils and they're in the same way that I am to explain this study and get approval the study is and conducted under the exception from informed consent criteria as I mentioned people can learn more about this study through our website which is active at this point sitemaker.umich.edu forward slash UK why or by calling to two five seven six seven oh three now there'll be patients that won't want to be involved in this kind of study and those patients can can wear a bracelet that says rampart declined this trial is called rampart because it's rapid anticonvulsant medication prior to arrival try me probably we're giving the medications before the patient gets to the hospital and for patients that want to decline they would wear a bracelet and then the paramedics would have a protocol so if they arrived on scene and the patient met the criteria to be enrolled if they saw the bracelet was there they would not enroll the patient they'll be trained to look for the bracelet we need to know how you feel about this study everyone we talked with about the study will ask them to fill out a survey form and we have those for you today and at your convenience if you would be so kind to submit those back to us we have a self-addressed stamped envelope but we want to get feedback we'll take that feedback to our IRB and they'll decide whether the study gets approved or not you'll decide whether or not Lexington fire can be involved in this study I would say that when we're considering emergency research there there are other things that have come through this path and it's and it made important changes in the way we we practice and and I was looking here earlier and I see that you have an AED now there was a study called the pad trial the public access defibrillator trial now that study was done in the same mechanism that I'm talking about today there's no way to get consent when a patient has cardiac arrest but that study showed that there was a twofold increase in survival if if that device was available at near the place that a patient had a cardiac arrest we're trying to find improved treatments for neurologic emergencies if we know which which route is the better route to give then we will we will do better for our patients both of these drugs are already approved and a medical director such as as dr. Richardson for Lexington could write a protocol right now that would be within standard of care saying I would like midazolam used in this way or I would like at a van used in this way and both of those would be completely acceptable what we're asking in this study is to figure out which way is best so with that I'll stop and entertain any questions I well actually I would like to mention that through our consultation we've learned that the epilepsy foundation is a national foundation that has great resources for patients with seizures and there's they have a website epilepsy foundation org and so there's for patients in our area they have a local support group and there's a Kentucky chapter so they have great resources to help patients with seizures so thank you very much for your time I appreciate it today thank you very much dr. Humphreys let me let me start with one question that you probably addressed and I didn't catch is the option here to provide patients with two different treatments both of which are medically efficacious yes the I'm sorry I didn't explain that very well a patient will get both a shot and an IV one of the things that they get will be placebo and one will be active drug that works for seizures so but the paramedics and the patients and the doctors even in the ER won't know which which one they got it's a blinded study but every patient will get a medication that is that will purpose of which is to stop seizures does that answer your question sir it starts but I want to understand this because I think this is a pretty important distinction every patient will have both an IV and an intermuscular injection one or the other will be a medically efficacious one will be active and one will be placebo but okay we won't know which is which all right any any questions dr. Steve I've had the opportunity to visit with dr. Humphreys on two occasions and go over this study with him and also I guess more than two because you also presented to the EMAB that's right and we did have a study a few years ago in which we were studying the use of a blood substitute in traumatic shock and approved such a study which was carried out and the results were study was terminated because the results were conflicting and this study however I think will be much better than that one because the patient's going to get a recognized treatment with the IV or with the intramuscular injection now the drug that he talks about for the intramuscular injection is Versed which some of many of us have probably had at one time or another it's a safe drug that's been used widely for many different procedures so I don't think the patients are at any great risk and if you've ever tried to start an IV on a convulsing two-year-old you understand the problem and if it's and there is now evidence as dr. Humphreys point out if you seize for longer than five minutes you may have permanent brain damage so an effective treatment as quick as possible is necessary so I wholeheartedly support this I think we should do so other questions yeah I'm sorry councilmember beard all right dr. Humphreys or maybe a series of questions when you were describing the bracelet the opt-out bracelet yes sir what if it's the first convulsion the well patients our goal is to one of our obligations with public disclosure so we'll have to run print media ads and other media to notify the public of this study if they're of the notion that they do not want to participate in any research no matter what then they would probably call us and ask for a bracelet we are trying to use to go to the focus groups that of the patients that have seizures and know they have seizures but you're right there are a certain percentage of patients that will have a seizure for the first time and and and have never considered that they would ever have a seizure so wouldn't know to opt out of this study per se but those those patients if they met our protocol they would be enrolled okay the second question is is one more effective in stopping a seizure more quickly than another well we're not they haven't been compared in trials you know side by side with both of them being given IV and this would be the first trial where one is compared as a shot in the muscle and one is IV they they both have anti-epileptic properties and and I've used both of them in the ER for patients that that had seizures that weren't stopping I'm leading up to the point of some type of liability we may have if in fact the the patient themselves goes longer than the five minutes and is that brain damaged or whatever and and the assumption or the parents or whomever it is end up saying the city because of the fact that one or the other should have been it will always be you know they'll they'll find a reason to sue so it'll always be one or the other yeah I'm aware of that risk in medicine the both the good part about this drug is this trial is that neither one of these drugs are new both these drugs have a have a long history of use we just don't know which one is better now it would be within standard of care for a medical director as I said to write a protocol and use the first one I mentioned or the second one I mentioned but nobody knows nobody knows with certainty which route is better it may turn out that it takes so long to get an IV you know if it takes an average of 10 minutes to get an IV in a seizing child and it may be turn out much better to give the IM shot now there'll be protocols so if they can't get an IV they'll have other options and there can be other medications given after a certain amount of time if the seizure continues but that's a risk that we take every day if seizures continue and there's a bad outcome even even now if you gave both to an individual would that be a possibility there won't be that won't be a possible not as far as the studies concerned I'm talking about you can't get the IV and and then are you get the IV and does it doesn't stop then you go back to the I am well they'll have the way the protocols written is that if you've given the first round and it's not stopping after a certain number of minutes then they can get another medication if they can't get an IV in the patient then the protocol is that they can do what's called an intraosseous line where the line actually goes into the bone and that's part of the protocol right now that they the paramedics operate under that sounds like a lot of fun thank you councilmember James thank you mayor my question has to do with the medication itself the medications versed and at a van do either of those have generic forms I believe they're not sure I know how to answer your question are they available in a generic form so is there something that's just like works just like versed but it's a generic version of it I'm only aware of one form of it but there may be different manufacturers of it but I'm not sure about and that was that leads to my question is if if we support this and if our and if our guys are supporting this are we supporting one pharmaceutical company over another are we in any type of violation as far as competing I don't believe so both these drugs drugs are are off patent they're so old they're off patent I don't think anybody's going to I don't I don't think that it's it's going to be an issue that that I think both these drugs are very are relatively cheap and and I don't think it's an issue but I don't know exactly the manufacturers the manufacturer will come from the this is an NIH study and it'll come from one particular place and we won't have any choice of that okay thank you mayor councilmember Crosby you may have just answered my question I was I was going to clarify who was funding the study yes I'm sorry if that wasn't clear that this is a National Institute of Health funded study it will also go through FDA approval before it can be conducted and and and that is happening right now there's paperwork at the FDA reviewing the study as well but it has been already been funded by the NIH okay thank you and then you mentioned the extensive training with the firefighters who exactly will be training them the lead paramedic is from the University of Cincinnati her name is Kay von der Schmidt and she is she is doing a train-the-trainer type system where she will come to Lexington and train a core group of paramedic leaders and myself and then we will do the training with the paramedics in Lexington so not all it will just be a core group no all the paramedics would get training but there will be a core group of trainers that will will do four hours of didactic training okay thank you councilmember Gordon Thank You mayor thank you very much for being here today I did have an opportunity to talk with dr. Humphreys about this study and I'm I really am very supportive I think it's a number one it's a wonderful thing that the University of Kentucky was selected to be a part of this number two in answer to councilmember beard if you I'll put in a plug for the Citizen Fire Academy you can learn how to do the interosseous injection if you go through the Citizen Fire Academy and I felt very comfortable I feel very comfortable that this is something that could lead to a protocol that will help patients and the other thing that I wanted to ask councilmember beard asked about signing up ahead of time a person doesn't need to have epilepsy to opt out one is that correct anyone can opt out ahead of time and so those folks who are somewhat skittish or don't want to be part of a study can opt out ahead and you had explained that there will be massive information coming forward so that people will have an opportunity to do that and so I just wanted to thank you I'm very supportive I think this could lead to better protocol for our patients in Fayette County who are being transported by our EMS unit so thank you very much thank you anything further thank you dr. Humphries we appreciate you coming back thanks for the information item C is an update on the consent decree and I've asked Charlie Martin to give us a brief rundown on where things stand you thank you mayor I'm gonna try to be brief because I understand you have additional business and I believe you have a zone change schedule for six o'clock so I'll try to go through this very quickly I was asked to come and provide an update from the consent decree real quickly the the legal status as many of you know is that the consent decree was rejected by the judge and that the US EPA has filed a motion for reconsideration and even though the legal time frames are somewhat uncertain right now I wanted to make it clear to everybody is that we are moving forward as we had agreed to as far as regarding implementing the consent decree so that's really the most important part from that slide is that we were proceeding as things with the deadlines that were in place already some of the capital construction projects are underway I won't read this to you but just to indicate that there's about 15 million dollars worth of capital construction going on on those first two projects making very good progress the South Elkhorn force main which is probably another 11 to 13 million dollars should be bid out this month South Elkhorn pump station for those of you who saw the press conference we were recipients of a grant award that was secured by Congressman Chandler that's going to help us with that project as well we're on schedule as far as where we are with design of each one of those as you know another part of the remedial measures associated with the sanitary part of it included a lot of evaluation and study and the main thing I want you to get from this slide is those two check marks both of those plans were due six months from effective date and because we don't have an effective date they're already in so where even if effective date was tomorrow we would be six months ahead as far as being able to submit those plans they are both in Atlanta now for their review the last bullet on there is a really important thing that's getting ready to go on right now and it's really the crux of what I wanted to talk about on the sanitary end of it I've already had a little bit of conversation with Miss Crosby and Mr. Myers and Mr. Lane this will apply to you in particular as well is it will be getting beginning sanitary sewer assessment fieldwork later this month first reading for a contract with stand tech is up for Thursday so that's where we're why we're headed for the end of September what they'll be doing is they'll be working in the Heartlands Century Hills East Lake and Andover areas and essentially this will work will spread out throughout the urban service area through the duration of this early study for the first 48 months beginning from March 14th of this year the fieldwork will include cleaning smoke testing flow measurement the smoke testing and flow measurement are particular items of interest for folks because it alarms people we're blowing smoke down into the sanitary sewer system and it's coming out at various places we were on Fenwick Court today with Fox 56 and it was a it was quite a festive thing with smoke blowing all across the neighborhood but they're going to turn that into a PSA or public service announcement for us which will help get the word out for folks the flow measurement it goes on at night in a lot of cases but we go out during a rain event and go out and measure flow in the middle of the night the thought is is that if you find large flows at three o'clock in the morning when everybody's in bed that tells you where your problems are at generally where we're going to be working at is going to be in the around the reservoir area right here is is the reservoir right there's Jacobson Park this intersection right here is Richmond Road and Man o' War so just to orient yourself this is what we call the East Hickman Sewer Shed and this is the area that we're starting in right now I'll skip over several these slides more quickly because as I said before those particular council members and any others that want to drill down into this deeper we can't at any time but we're going to be starting in the Heartland area and and the reason why is we've got several pump stations out there that are recurring SSO's or recurring sanitary sewer overflows and so we're really focused on those three pump stations out there we'll move further up quickly towards the Richmond Road area in the Century Hills area one of the things that we're working on right now is frequently asked questions and some additional maps with the hope of being able to do a mailing to the the neighborhood presidents in those particular areas so they can be informed of this as well you'll see some of the affected neighborhoods that are there and that miss Crosby mr. Myers that would be in your district we move further up closer to Richmond Road and we're essentially doing the same thing overall we plan on inspecting over 11,000 manholes smoke testing 140 miles of pipeline and inspecting and cleaning another 35 miles of pipeline so this is a fairly involved effort as we work in the affected neighborhoods around the Ellerslie and Huntington Woods area and then lastly we move up into what we call the upper trunk area what is the top of the hill in these areas we're only focusing on what we call the trunk sewers the ones that are shown in red those are 12 inches in diameter or larger because most of these neighborhoods are newer and so the thought is is that the pipe is in better shape than some of those other neighborhoods that I showed earlier because of their age this flow testing or flow measurement that we're going to be do is obviously going to tell us whether or not the theory is correct but in particular of interest is all these pipes that are around the reservoir because that's fairly low ground saturated areas where we suspect if there are pipe breaches that we're getting water into the system during those rain events I show this slide not as an advertisement just for so people will know stand tech and Hydro Max will be our consultants that are working on this and so for those of you are viewing at home if you see trucks like this that are out in front of your house or maybe working in your backyard Hydro Max is who you should be seeing if you're not certain ask them for IDs if you're even less certain contact Lex call and they'll get you hooked up with the right person who can come out and and assure that the people who say that they're doing what they're doing are doing switching gears very quickly here to the stormwater program we have remedial measures that are associated with that as well and one of the biggies was construction site inspection we were required to train our folks in construction site inspections related to erosion control we had to do that by June 30th this year and so we trained over 40 employees within the Division of Water Quality in the Division of Engineering more than what we actually have on the street right now or need to have on the street but I wanted to make sure we had sufficient depth or bed strength to be able to backfill as necessary the inspection responsibilities regarding new development which is the crux of active construction sites in Fayette County we've shared that with the Division of Engineering and Water Quality we had a an obligation of inspecting 90% of active construction sites beginning the first month after effective date we haven't had effective date but as of the first month in August of 2008 we met that and exceeded that 90% so out the gate we've got a presence out there in the street inspecting active construction sites obviously a lot of work that still needs to be done in the quality range but but a very very good progress a lot of people stepping up that are doing a really good job in this area likewise we have other obligations in the stormwater program the database development we've developed we have three databases we have to develop one is essentially in the can the other two are slated to be done by November of 2008 I state these as interim databases because we are still looking at developing a project charter for a more global asset based type of asset management database type of thing that will lead us into the future because of the short deadlines in the consent decree there wasn't time to be able to develop something of that scope where we're using interim databases in the meantime lastly we had to do prevention pollution prevention plans for all of our waste facilities the landfills treatment plants and we got those things done as well upcoming challenges I'll lump these two things together the ordinance review and revision and the enforcement protocol that's one of our biggest challenges in doing inspections is consistency and understanding of what the requirements are so there's still a lot of work that needs to be done in that area the stormwater management fee there's been a group of us that have been identifying some of the preliminary information that needs to be collected and decisions that need to be made before we come forth to the council with a proposal regarding that likewise the capacity assurance program the the modeling and flow monitoring we're doing right now is is setting the stage for that capacity assurance program but we still need to establish a credits program the other things that are along the lines of that public communication and education that is a fairly significant obligation particularly in the stormwater program as I mentioned earlier we're doing the SSA I mean the public service announcements we've got a lot of coordination work to do but there's a lot of really good things happening in that area and then lastly the supplemental environmental projects because of the the judge's ruling we're a little uncertain about the federal steps right now because they are linked to the civil penalty but we're still eyeing those state supplemental environmental projects as potential low hanging fruit because they waived their their penalty and so we intend on having some dialogue with the state about that there's the number one fly that I want you to think about or to remember with the exception of those federal steps that we are proceeding with everything To date, we have met all deadlines, haven't missed one, and we're ahead of the game in many of them. Over the last six months, we've obligated ourselves to $25 million in capital projects and studies and more to come. So, next week, we'll be six months into this and we're making good progress. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Charlie. Are there any questions for Charlie? Seeing none, we'll let you off the hook. Thank you very much. The next item on the agenda is a matter of council reports and the council may recall at our last work session, we tabled until today a matter that Dr. Stephens had brought forward. And in as much as that was scheduled to be taken off the table, it was tabled until today, I'll turn the floor over to Council Member Myers who made that motion. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. And if I could take a minute to just speak a little bit as to why I tabled that before we get started. What I want to do is clarify that the reason that I tabled this motion was because when the motion first came up for the other resolution, what I would rather have seen is that we went ahead and started the application process. And the reason I say that is because when I made the motion to put together the delegation to meet with the developers, it was for the sole purpose of determining a TIF boundary, a list of projects for possible TIF inclusion, and then voting that up or down. In the meantime, there's been a lot of different conversation back and forth in the print media and in televised media about the TIF and what it really is. And I'd like to take a chance, a minute, just to bring Jim back up and ask him a couple of questions because I was quoted in a paper yesterday and I want to clear up some things. Does entering into a TIF agreement in any way provide a tax break for the developer or CenterPoint project? Not in this case, no, it does not. Okay. Does any of the revenue from the TIF go directly or indirectly to the developer or the CenterPoint project? It doesn't flow to the developer at all. And the revenues as they're, the local revenues as they're collected are held by the city and then held, used for the purposes you determine. The state revenues also will flow from the state to the city in that, because the incentive agreement is between the city and the state. And so that's how the revenues will flow. Now, if there's particular parts of the project, you know, that is going to be utilized that might be for a project, then yes, it would be a benefit. The projects we've identified though here are not directly related to the actual CenterPoint development. Okay. And it's been said that if we do the TIF application or agreement, that LFECG is entered into a partnership with the developer or CenterPoint. But that's not the case, is that correct? Not in this case, no. You don't have, this is a little bit more unique. Oftentimes you have a specific development agreement and that the, there is more of a specific partnership in that circumstance. Again, the projects we've identified are more public infrastructure projects, public projects within the TIF district versus specifically projects for the CenterPoint area. Okay. So the partnership. Hope I'm answering your questions. I don't want to talk around this issue. Right. Let me clarify a little bit more. The partnership that LFECG would be entering into if we in fact do a TIF agreement is with the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Is that not correct? That is correct. And the, there's two different parts of a TIF situation. One is the local participation and pledging of local revenues to support the TIF district. That's created by the local participation agreement that the Urban County Council would approve. And that really relates to your revenues and what you're willing to pledge. If you have a project like this one that qualifies for state participation, then you would file an application to the state to request the state to participate in that. And if they approve that, that they will approve what's called an incentive agreement. That incentive agreement is between the city as the applicant and the state. And then assuming that the terms of the agreement are met, the state will then send revenues back to the Urban County Council to use to support the TIF projects as approved. Okay. So our agreement is with the Commonwealth of Kentucky. That is correct. With respect to state tax dollars and then our local tax dollars. That is correct. There is no partnership with the developer or CenterPoint. There is no development agreement. There's no contract in place. That's correct. Okay. Because I was misquoted in the paper yesterday. I want to make sure that that's clear. Commissioner, I ask you, could I ask you a question, please? You were asked the question as to what would happen if this development failed, whether it didn't get built or it got built but then went bankrupt or whatever. Any concept of failing as a development. And you were asked what would happen if that were to happen. Could you elaborate on the answer that you gave to the council when that question was asked? Well, I'll defer to Jim on that because he helped develop those answers. Okay. First of all, as I mentioned before, when you create the TIF district, you are not committing the council at that particular time. Just the creation of the district. What we're doing right now is working in conceptual terms in our situations. After the TIF district is created and then you get the approvals, if in this case we would need the state approvals to be in place, then you really begin to make some obligations as you begin to implement the process at that particular time. After the approval of the incentive agreement by the state, you technically have at least a minimum of two years and actually up to four years to activate your TIF agreement to move that particular issue forward. The activation, as indicated, the commencement date is the date you create the TIF district. The activation date is the date you begin to determine the, and pledge the revenues, the period of time the revenues collection begins to support the TIF situation. The, if you, say you got into the situation and went ahead and issued bonds or something and then center point did not pan out as indicated. First of all, unless the council agrees to a more significant pledge of credit from the Urban County Council to support the TIF bonds, the bonds themselves are not an obligation of the Urban County Council in that circumstance. So it is conceivable, and I won't, it is conceivable that you could issue bonds for the project and then the project doesn't generate enough revenue to support the TIF and then in that situation the bondholders would be at risk. But that is a risk that they would have to assume in this particular situation. In addition, that's one aspect. The other aspect about this is that because you have some time to activate your TIF district after it's approved, you at that point have time to seriously evaluate the financial strength of the project. You can, from an underwriting standpoint, you would probably have an independent study done to verify the TIF revenues even beyond what the Johnson report will indicate. There's a number of things that would go into the underwriting process before you would even decide to issue bonds. At that point, you'd also make the determination of, if we talked about these list of projects, at that point, you would look at the actual revenues that you can rely upon to support the debt and then you would make a decision at that time, what can you realistically support? This is what we'd like to do on this side. What can you realistically support? And you could issue debt at that particular time if you chose to go that route. We also indicated the fact that there's not even a requirement for you to issue debt. It may be that you just fund projects with the income as it's generated on an annual basis. Now, that's a less effective way of doing it because you defer out fairly far getting some of these projects done and there may be some issues with state approval using that approach. But there's a number of things you can do. Creating the TIF district does not obligate you. You're only really obligated on something when you actually go forward to do the implementation. When you start construction, when you start issuing debt, when you're doing things like that. And in this particular situation, you know, that's what we were trying to, at that particular time, you would need to answer some of the very critical questions as to, you know, and make a decision. How viable is the economic development part of the project to support that debt? That's going to be a very important decision before you would make a decision to issue debt. So, to recap, there's no tax break for the developer or the project. There is no money coming from LFECG or the state to the developer or the project. And that those dollars would come to LFECG to manage to do whatever TIF projects or TIF aspects of this project that we want it done. That's correct. Now, the other aspect about it, I didn't really answer on what happens if you start the project, you move forward, then the development fails or the developer doesn't fully perform. In that circumstance, whether you could bring another developer in to finish the project or try to do something to try to deal with that circumstance, that would probably require state approval. But that would be a possibility. It wouldn't be certainly a guarantee in that circumstance. But there are some other ways you can do to reduce not the financial risk of the city, but at least the financial risk of the bondholders. And that, again, is because there's no agreement between us and the developer of Centerpoint so that if they decided to sell the property and another developer came in and did a completely different project, we'd have to go back and get state approval. But we're not beholden to this development because we don't have an agreement with them to start with. Yeah. And let me explain that a little bit. Sometimes when these developments go forward, you actually have a contract. You have a development agreement between the council and the developer. And you don't have that in this particular situation so that there's nothing, for instance, say you created the TIF district and then decided not to do anything or you repealed it after it was done once you really looked at the financing in more details. There's no contractual obligation that you have that would prevent you from stopping the project. And the difference, for instance, give you an example, if I can give you the Bowling Green project. It was a little different. In that circumstance, the city, the county, and the developer, and actually even Western Kentucky University, were a party to a development agreement. You know, in that circumstance, if the city and county obligated themselves to create the TIF district, they obligated themselves to pledge these revenues. So they really weren't able to say after the fact, well, we're really not going to do what we agreed to do because the developer could enforce that against them. So there is a little different circumstance between this and some of those other type of projects. So right now, you have no contractual obligation with the developer to do anything. Okay. Thank you very much. I guess the next thing I would like to say is that when I made the motion to put together the delegation, my vision for that was that the delegation would meet with the developers of the project. They would hammer out a TIF district border and a list of projects. And as Jim has said before, that it makes more sense to put a broad spectrum of projects in there because we don't have to complete those. But if we put a limited number and then try to go back and add two later, we've got to go back to the state for approval on that. Yeah, that is a point. If you limit yourself at the front end, then you're going, all it means is that you are not going to be able to take advantage of the anticipated state revenues in the event they approve the project. Because they're going to limit you on what you have in your application and what you say you want to do. And they're not going to let you do more unless you say you're going to do more. Okay, thank you. Could I have Mr. Turner come up? There's been a little bit of a change and maybe an announcement that you wanted to make regarding the project. Well, thank you, Councilman Myers. I'll take this opportunity, I think, to maybe bring this body, the Council and the Mayor, up to speed on kind of some current events and where the project is. We have signed an investment agreement with our investors. A major U.S. law firm has agreed to act as trustee for those investors as to the funds that come into the project. We expect the first tranche of those funds within the next 30 to 60 days. J.W. Marriott has signed on as the hotel. They have participated in the design process. The reduction in the office space that has occupied some of the press in the last week or so, from 85,000 to 50,000 square feet of office space in the project is as a result of the Marriott, J.W. Marriott, the hotel, wanting to capture 30,000, that additional 30,000 square feet for small conference rooms in the project. So it's a transfer. It's not a reduction of square feet of the project. It's a transfer of 30,000 square feet of the 85,000 square feet of office space to hotel space, meeting space, which results in 50,000 square feet of office space. Bovis Construction Company has been selected as the contractor. I know the vice mayor is very familiar with Bovis. It's one of the world's largest construction companies. They have been participating in the design process as well with the architects and the hotel. And we expect to sign a contract for construction with Bovis within the next 30 to 45 days. We expect at this point for footers to be coming out of the ground, the foundation to be coming out of the ground in December. And so that's where we are and that's the timetable and kind of you're up to speed except as to identity. Okay, thank you. Finally, I'd like to say that, again, the reason for setting up the delegation was to put together the TIF district boundary, a list of projects that we would look at down the road to do as a TIF, and then to vote this thing up or down. The reason I tabled the motion that Dr. Stevens brought forward was because that resolution didn't do that. And what I asked Logan to do, Commissioner Askew to do after that meeting was to go ahead and prepare the application and the three attachments that have to go along with the application. Could you give us an update, Mr. Commissioner Logan, on where we're at in that process? I sent an email to everybody, I believe it was Friday. And what I did is I was getting comments from some of you about different things you'd like to see. And in discussing this matter with Mr. Parsons, we concluded that because really all the public hearing is about is the development plan, and because that is the biggest piece of work that has to be done in order to get this ordinance ready to be adopted by the council, that we would advance a resolution that would simply indicate to us that you're ready to go forward in the preparation of that development plan, which Mr. Parsons is going to spearhead. And it would include the delegation's unanimous recommendations concerning the boundaries of the TIF district, and also the projects that the TIF task force selected. So that's where we are. And once the development plan goes through that public hearing process, as Mr. Parsons has indicated before, you have an opportunity to modify that. But ultimately that development plan will be a part of the ordinance that you will approve that has to be done before the application that can actually be submitted to the state. So what we're suggesting is that you simply indicate in this resolution that you instruct us to move forward with the preparation of the development plan to include the recommendations of the TIF delegation. And I've also included in there going ahead and scheduling the public hearing. And Jim may want to address that a little bit, but that was something that I inserted because we know that we're going to have to have at least one public hearing. And we know by statute that you cannot act on the ordinance to adopt it until 30 days have passed from that public hearing to consider the development plan. Now I'm going to let Jim speak to how long it's going to take to get the development plan ready. But as far as this resolution goes, if you all decided that you did not want to schedule the public hearing now, that's not a problem. I think the idea behind the original efforts by Dr. Stephens, who had requested the resolution initially at the end of the last TIF delegation meeting on Centerpoint was to get the sense of the council that yes, we're in general agreement with the district. We're in general agreement with the project list. Therefore, let's move forward with the development plan because there's a fair bit of work that has to go into putting that together. And really what this resolution does is it simply expresses that, again, that yes, go forward with the development plan. And hopefully we'll, if you're comfortable, go ahead and once Jim tells you how long it'll take to have the development plan prepared, go ahead and set the public hearing so the public will know when they will have an opportunity to comment on the plan. Okay? Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Parsons, could you speak to how long it'll take you to get the development plan ready? The actual writing of the plan will not take that long of a period of time. Really the issue is working with staff and to getting the information that goes into the plan because the revenues that have been produced by in the one study included only the Centerpoint project. Those would have, we'd have to identify all the parcels. Now fortunately, most of those are publicly owned. So there won't be a lot of work. But assuming that we can get the information from staff or whoever that needs to go into the plan, that can be written pretty quickly. I, you know, probably by sometime the first week in October, it should be ready to go. Assuming, assuming again that the information's available because I gave you the whole list of information that goes into that. And a lot of it's just putting the information together. There's nothing, no real secret to it. The statute says exactly what has to be in the plan. Okay, thank you. So the goal of that whole process would, and I also want to say for the record that the delegation and task force are the same thing. There was some conversation about what it was actually called, a task force or a delegation, but that's one and the same for the purpose of this discussion. What I'd like to do now is go ahead and make a motion to substitute Dr. Stephens' original resolution for the resolution that Commissioner Askew just spoke about. The council has received that resolution on Friday. There has been one change to it and there was a typo in section number two that says that pursuant to KRS 65.7051, there's a typo in that number. So this is the only change in this document from what all the council members received on Friday in their email. And again, the goal was to have the council, whoever else in the community wanted to be involved with the developer in that delegation to come back with this information and then vote up or down whether or not we're going to move forward. So that being said, I move to remove from the table the discussion of the resolution retained to the TIF delegation recommendations and the TIF process that was tabled at the September 2nd, 2008 work session. I further move to substitute a new resolution for the one previously considered. So moved. I have a motion by Council Member Myers and a second by Council Member Beard. Is there any discussion on the motion? Are we ready to vote? Those then, Commissioner, I ask you. Mayor, it probably would be helpful if we could, if the council is prepared to go ahead and schedule a public hearing based on what Mr. Parsons just said, we could go ahead and do that in this resolution. If you preferred not to do that, I guess we could wait till Thursday, but it's whatever the council prefers, or we can take it out altogether. It's... Yeah. Could I suggest that we conduct a public hearing in conjunction with a council meeting one night? And I don't know what the schedule is in October. October 2nd. Friday, I mean Thursday. No, we could do it Thursday. We could. We just don't have the information. We could do it Thursday. October 2nd and the 23rd are the two council meetings in October, I understand. As it stands right now, we have a motion on the floor to approve this resolution. Unless I hear Council Member Gordon. I'm sorry, Mayor. Could you clarify? I thought the motion was to take the other one off the table and substitute this one, and not to approve it. Is that? You're correct. That's correct, thank you. You're correct. Okay. Any further discussion on the motion? And those in favor of substituting the resolution that's been circulated today for the resolution that was introduced at the last work session, please let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Now, we're ready to discuss the adoption. Actually, we're ready to discuss the potential inclusion of this resolution on the docket for Thursday evening. Everybody with me? Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on the docket, I don't know what to title it, a resolution directing and authorizing the preparation of a development plan for the Phoenix Park slash Courthouse development area, which includes all recommendations of delegations, all recommendations of the delegation established pursuant to resolution number 434-2008, and schedule a public hearing thereon October blank 2008. So moved. All right, I think we're already there as a consequence of the last motion. Oh, because we substituted. That's right, we now have it on the floor. All right, so the discussion now is on the substitute resolution that you received today. Do you wish to place that on the docket for the September 11th council meeting? Mayor, what was that last motion? Was that to take what we have accepted, the substitute which has been brought forward, it's a motion now whether we put it on the docket, this new one on the docket? That's correct. And that has been seconded? It was seconded, that was the motion that was on the floor at the last council meeting, our last work session. We took it from the table today. We have amended it by substituting this one. So now the motion on the floor for everybody's consideration is whether to put this resolution on the council docket on September 11th. Okay, and it's been seconded, so it was last meeting, right? Yes. We got that. Now, are we ready to vote to add it to the docket? All right, well, if you, anybody wish to discuss it? Now, I was under the impression the folks who have their names listed here were signing up for council reports. All right, so if you wish to speak to this particular motion, just raise your hand. I'll try to keep a list as best I can along the way. And we'll start with Vice Mayor Gray. Got it, Mayor? Got it. Okay, thank you, Mayor. In the interest of efficiency and with your forbearance, my remarks are prepared. So I'll work through them. First, I'd like to acknowledge all the citizens that have cared about this issue for the last six months. Citizen input's been significant. It's been determined and it's been passionate. Although it occurred a little late after decisions had been made and the steamroller and the wrecking balls had essentially been engaged. My comments would like first, I'd like first to put my comments in context and review what we've been through in the last six months. On March 4th, there was an announcement after months of speculation, a building, a very large building, significantly nothing else in the rendering of that building, but that building. No city around it, no other buildings, no downtown, just center point. A pretty good indicator of what to expect. Our citizens who were first concerned expressed their concerns in civilized and respectful ways. They invited the city and the developers into a partnership or at least a conversation. At every turn, they were rejected, dismissed. Citizen input as to the scale of the project, the removal and destruction of history and heritage, key language in the council resolution we created for the TIF delegation was dismissed. We were told it's too messy. We don't want your input. It's our property. We will do with it as we please. That was the message. And we don't need the TIF. We have all equity financing. Now that may change a little bit today. I don't know. Is it still all equity? I don't know. But we were told we don't need the TIF. We are ready to go, ready to build on a fast track. There are two levels on which I cannot support this project. First, it defies all models, all contemporary models of responsible urban planning. It creates a massive fortress against our citizens, against pedestrians, against the very themes and concepts upon which half a million dollars and years of citizen input was engaged to develop a downtown master plan. It creates a parking garage as an underground vault, a catacomb. When above ground parking garages a block away are going unused at night, closed after six o'clock. The single most telling defiance of responsible urban planning is the continued inclusion of pedways. When all over the country, pedways have been dismissed as archaic throwbacks to the 80s, a time when pedestrians were removed from the streets instead of encouraged into them, which takes me to my second level of objection. When the urban planning model doesn't work, the financial models don't work. The business case cannot be made. A colossal building dropped onto our downtown at this scale is the equivalent of Renaissance Center that was built in Detroit in the late 1970s. Instead of resurrecting Detroit's Central Business District, as was its intention, it encouraged its decline. And it still stands today, an inwardly and internally focused, sterilized and sanitized building, and it struggled for 40 years, a fortress against the city, unwelcoming to its own citizens. It's difficult and it's awkward to address failure in a public setting, but this is a decision that will mark our city for generations. And it is often the unwelcome duty of elected representatives to address what's uncomfortable and awkward. If we don't remember our history, we're condemned to repeat it. All it takes for us is reading the newspapers from 25 years ago to see the mistakes that were made then, mistakes we're still living with today in our downtown, failed projects, failed projects that almost broke the back of the downtown then, like Festival Market. Minimal due diligence would ask the question, what is the developer's track record for projects here and elsewhere? If past performance is an indicator of future performance, what is the likelihood of this project's success? Because all the public improvement projects we're discussing in the TIFF are based on the likelihood of CenterPoint's success as a revenue-generating enterprise, its credit worthiness is an essential issue. Its revenues would drive our shopping list. So ask yourself, what's the market for $450-square-foot condominiums in Lexington? For $300-a-night hotel rooms? For underground parking? For retail space that's based on a tired, obsolete model? If the project itself doesn't fit a responsible urban model, if it doesn't pass the financial test, it doesn't pass the smell test. Now, even though we've learned a lot in the TIFF delegation and admittedly negotiated from a jumbotron and a parking garage to a long shopping list, the ornaments are still worthless without the Christmas tree. It's CenterPoint that's at the centerpiece of the TIFF application. CenterPoint is the application we are carrying forth. So its merits are what must carry the day. Its merits are what will represent our city's application to the state TIFF board. In closing, I'd like to say that I, of course, respect all the members of the council that will likely support the project and the mayor. We've worked together before and we'll work together in the future. This project is not only about Lexington's downtown and its future, but it's about how our government and our council operate and how we involve our citizens. Regardless of your sentiments on the project, I would ask that we demand information on this process. Earlier, Ms. Dougherty mentioned that we will be paying for the analysis that the state performs on the project. I don't know that that's something that's been introduced before, but in the January change and adjustment to the legislation, part of that legislation included the requirement that the applicant sponsor the financial investment for another analysis that the state will create to validate, confirm, or deny the application. And Ms. Dougherty suggested about $50,000. I would say that's a minimum number. We just need to be aware of that. Now, until today, Mr. Turner announced that there is some confirmation of funding. I don't know what that represents exactly. What we were told before was it's all equity, all cash. What I know is that in today's market, I'm in this business, I deal with hospitality industry, and in today's market, all equity financing is extraordinary and usual. I have not seen it. At this point, it was said to me yesterday, there is zero credit available in the hospitality markets. So if we're moving this process forward, I think the public deserves to know these answers. We suffered in the 1980s with the downtown development that failed, that actually cowed to the powerful development interests and a local government that failed to ask tough questions. If we don't demand this information today, we're using the same rubber stamp that was used in the 1980s. What is the business viability? Hotel condos. Sunday's New York Times business section had a story about the hotel condo market, a developer in Miami and Chicago. And this is what it said about this developer who now faces a billion dollars in lost investment. He got caught in a bad concept, which is the hotel condo concept. It's a failed concept. With a failed concept, he was swept along. It was a bitter lesson, and he's trying to learn how to deal with all that financial distress. Finally, shouldn't we study our history and review what went wrong with downtown development in the 1980s and what role was played by the developers of this project then? The same developers who are asking us to simply trust them today. If these questions aren't answered in this process, then the wrecking ball has not only smashed an entire block, it's taken a swing at every citizen and taxpayer in this community. So I will vote against the TIF for this project, and I will look forward to other more responsible ones which will benefit our city and our citizens. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Blevins. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'd like to go on record saying I agree with everything he just said. My focus on my comments will be on the TIF itself as opposed to the center point aspect of the project. I'm pleased that we're gonna take a pause in our process and evaluate where we are and whether or not we wanna go forward because as it's been pointed out by Ms. Daugherty, who, by the way, I would like to claim as a 10th district constituent, someone as articulated and bright as she is, I'll claim her tonight. Ms. Daugherty's pointed out that we're gonna incur a serious time commitment and a cost commitment to move forward on this, so it's wise of us to pause and decide whether or not we wanna do that. So my comments will be directed toward the TIF. I believe that this TIF proposal should end here today. I believe that the application, when it reaches the state, will be rejected surgically and quickly. First and foremost, because the developer themselves have said that they don't need it, and there's a clear clause in state law that says that the TRI project will only be successful if the TIF is brought with it. So I believe we are set up for failure when we get to the state level, and I'd just prefer to cut our losses now. Secondly, the public projects included in our TIF proposal are all what I would call nice-to-have projects and not have-to-have projects. For example, I find it interesting that our recent bonding discussions amongst the council, not one of these was given serious considerations as a thing we've gotta have, such that we would be willing to put our own local money toward it. So I would say that these are not projects we really need in the foreseeable future. They're things that we'd like to have, but not critical to the success of the city. The truth is, we saw an opportunity for some free money, state money, and we thought, wow, we gotta find a way to get ahold of that money and spend it. So we thought up some projects, and we tied a bow around them, and we declared it to be a TIF. That's not how you do it, and it's not a good TIF. I'd like for you to think about it this way. If the state legislature were to, of its own volition, designate the money to build those projects for us, what would be the reaction of the community? I believe we'd all go, well, okay, thanks for the money, but there's about 100 other things we'd rather have first, like lower tuition at our universities, a completed Clay's Mill Road. I can think of hundreds, and I'm sure you can, too. These are not projects that we have to have in this city. So if the legislature did it, I can hear our local commentator, Drew Curtis, for those of you all that read FARC.com, he would say something to this effect. Having solved all the other problems in the state and in Lexington, the legislature's taken up the important and critical problem of Pedways in Lexington. I just, I cannot get behind that. I can't get behind it. The possibility of this free money is very alluring and very seductive. So I wanna talk about money. Let's talk about that money. It's not free money. It's our tax dollars that we've already paid into the state government that we're trying to get back to do local work. I respect that sentiment, don't get me wrong, but don't think of it as if it's free money. It's already come out of your pockets, and now we're trying to decide when and where to spend it. Again, I wanna go back to the state legislature. If they propose to do these projects, we'd all scratch our heads and wonder why. I wanna remind us that we are also stewards of state money as well as local money, and to make these decisions today, we need to decide whether these are the exact projects we wanna spend that pot of money on. And I would argue, no, not yet. We have too many other things that are way ahead of this. And just how much money are we talking about? It's very alluring and seductive, this big pot of money. Well, it turns out, according to the estimates we have today, which are unvetted and given to us by the developers, so we were gonna have to do our own due diligence at some point to even know whether this is accurate. Well, let's say they're accurate. It amounts to about $5 million a year over time for 20 or 30 years. Well, let's do a little math on that. That's less than 1% of our entire budget. So we're gonna make a huge deal here for less than 1% of our money coming back here from the state. Not much money, I would think. If these projects are that crucial to the city, we could find less than 1% of the budget to go attack those problems. Better yet, let's take that 5 million a year and divide it by the 260,000 citizens. That amounts to about $20 a year per person. My hometown will never be for sale. But if it was, I guarantee you it'd be more than $20 a hit. So think about that. So I'll close and just say this. This proposal's not a good TIF. I don't even think it is a TIF. It's not viable. It's gonna get rejected by the state. I think we're gonna waste our time if we take one more step on it. I'm not against doing some sort of TIF here, but this is not the way to do it. I think we ought to quit while we're ahead. That's all I have, thank you, Mayor. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. Like my colleague, Council Member Blevins, I, too, agree with Vice Mayor Gray and with what has been said thus far. I was struck a little earlier in the conversations between Council Member Meyers and Mr. Parsons by the emphasis on the fact that if we go ahead, we can stop at any point. We can get out of this at this stage or a subsequent stage or a further on stage, which signals to me a general feeling of hesitation, of doubt, of uncertainty that I have felt about this process from the very beginning. For me, it goes back to the fact that this has not been in any serious sense. A conversation with, a dialogue with, and certainly nothing like a partnership with the developers of the main project, which is CenterPoint. From the beginning of our considerations for a TIF, we've been sort of encouraged to tag along to somehow attach to a project that doesn't need a TIF, that can stand on its own integrity. And we've been invited to put together a district, which we did, with some very attractive features in it. But we've also been advised that unless that that package of features, courthouse, the possibility of a farmer's market, some streetscape improvements, unless that included an underground parking garage directly connected to CenterPoint, we wouldn't have much of a chance. My thinking on this is that we're in a process which is designed to enhance and to give credibility to a CenterPoint project, which doesn't need a TIF, which stands alone, and in my judgment, is antithetical to the very purpose of a TIF, which is to revitalize public space. And in this case, to bring our citizens downtown for entertainment, for dining, for shopping. This project is designed essentially to provide an interior space for visitors to our city. I'm sure we'd be happy to have them, but it does nothing for our citizens, for our community, for our downtown, and it will not do anything to revitalize it. And so like my colleagues who have spoken previously, I too will not support sending this process forward. I think that we've had ample opportunity to see where we stand in relationship to the main project, and I think we're in a very, very dubious position. Thank you, Mayor. I have Council Member McCord next, followed by Council Member DeCamp, and those are the only two I have at this point. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. And I think what the public needs to see is the seriousness of this body, that regardless of how a vote comes down, that this group cares very deeply for this city, and may see things differently on this vote. But one thing that the citizens need to be assured of is that no one up here has taken this decision lightly, that no one is just flipping this or who hasn't done due diligence themselves. And as a suburban Council Member who is personally and financially invested into downtown, personally, who cares very deeply for this city, who is 40 years old and has spent every year of my life in this town, who cares very deeply for this city, I think that one thing that we hear is the passionate plea of what we've heard today from certain Council Members and certain people in the audience. And I care very deeply what you had to say and respect it very deeply. But what you also have to realize is that there is another set of folks who don't come down here and talk, who come to us in the grocery store, who come to us and say, we do want this, we do find this to be a good idea, we do hope this goes through, we do believe that this TIF is a good idea along with this project. So recognize there are people in this community who don't necessarily come to that mic or who send scathing emails or who write editorials in our local paper that have one side of this, that there are people on both sides of this on the Council and in the community. The other thing is that Council Member Blevins had mentioned about state money and then he kind of clarified. And I wanna hammer that point home. This is not state money, this is Lexington money. And what the citizens of Lexington have to understand is that local governments are limited in their ability to trap and keep money local. I enjoy all the emails that we've gotten since a local radio show said we were gonna raise property taxes, right? We were lit up. In fact, they were encouraged to jam up our email boxes to tell people what they think. Now, what's interesting about that is is that these are some of the same people who are vehemently opposed to this and for good reasons. But recognize that if you don't want taxes raised and you want certain services done or to a certain degree, it poses a very unique problem for us in that there's only so many things that we can actually do up here to make that happen. This is one of those things. And like Council Member Blevins said, boy, I would love it if the state said we could lower tuition or we could fix Clay's Mill Road. But that's not what TIF money does. What TIF money does is it works on projects in a contiguous area to a project. So let's keep the discussion there. The one thing I can tell you about living in Lexington for 40 years and knowing this city over the last 20 years is that I have seen this be the land of missed opportunity time and time again. We can go back to, and we've done a very good job up here of hammering home mistakes from the past of things that people say, boy, we should have done it different. But let me just tell you something. As somebody who was 18 years old when Festival Market went in and you couldn't move people in downtown Lexington for that first few six months, a year, whatever it was, they would come and just sit at Triangle Park because there wasn't much else to do. Let me just tell you right now that for 20 years, we've done really nothing. We sat on our hands in this town. Leadership, public and private has sat on their hands and we've been successful despite ourselves. But at the end of the day, make no mistake that the decisions of our time have fallen on this council and this administration and they are tough decisions. And folks out there watching and folks reading the newspaper, you need to recognize that this council and this administration has been tasked with sorting through and looking at this. But given our track record, as the vice mayor mentioned, and he's pointing out to a certain group of people, given our track record, let's take a look a little bit closer at the public and private leadership and its track record of what has been done and not done in this town. You see, I sit up here because I have a four and a half year old daughter that I want to give the opportunity to to stay in Lexington when she's ready to choose where she's gonna go. And if she chooses to stay in Lexington, I want her to be able to compete globally. And we have to do things right now and make decisions very quickly, unfortunately, that will determine those things. And so this is one of those decisions. The last thing I'll say, and I'm very glad Council Member Myers, you're calling for a vote because everybody's gonna just see where this is and we're not gonna drag this thing out on and on and on. And I hope every Council Member votes and there's no more gamesmanship. It's a vote whether you want to move forward with this or not. But I will say this, we have heard a whole lot said from these mics and this mic about failure. And I want to ask everybody watching right now, all that talk of failure, do you ever wonder why Kentucky and Lexington is where it is on certain types of rankings? When you put failure out there as the place that we're going to achieve no matter what, do you ever wonder why we score where we score and we can't seem to get to where we need to go? My question is, what if it goes right? What if it goes right? What if you're wrong? See, what's happened is you've cast it as, this is the only thing, it's gonna go wrong no matter what. And there is that risk. And it's a huge, huge risk. Make no mistake. But my question is, what if it goes right? And I'm just challenging this community after this discussion, long after this discussion, get involved and start looking at a brighter future, start looking at what we can do and stop saying what can't be done. Because as a lifelong Lexingtonian and as a member of this council, I am fed up of that talk. I am glad Council Member Myers, you are calling for the vote and I second that motion. Council Member DeCamp, followed by Council Member Beard, Mayers and Crosby. Thank you, Mayor. I was interested when Jim Parsons was up there, we talked about the TIF contract between the state and the LFUCG. What wasn't mentioned is how much the developer benefits from having a TIF approved for this project. I don't object to this at all, but it was interesting that was not mentioned at that time. After really much thought, and I'm glad that it's been brought out, that I think all the council people here today, no matter what side they're on, have given this a great deal of thought. But after a great deal of thought, I do not support at this time, advancing any TIF mechanism in relation to the Centerpoint project. I welcome possible TIF benefits to our city, but to have a credible process, I believe there are some areas that need to be cleared up before we proceed. One of the issues design, I've recently heard from some sources that what we see may not be what we get. We have heard that the office space plan may be largely reduced, but I assume will affect the final plan, even if that space is used by the hotel, which we heard about today. My other concern has to do with financing of Centerpoint. We've been told that the 200 million plus is all in place, no loans are needed, and no TIF is needed. If that be the case, let us have some information about this financing. Today we heard this has been done, but we haven't seen that information, and whether it's the full amount that is needed to complete Centerpoint. I believe this is only fair so that we can be assured that at a later date, we won't be asked for any credit enhancement, which could create liability for our city. Therefore, I'll not support this resolution at this time. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. I hardly know where to start to tell you the truth. You know, there are things, I worked on the task force, along with, I guess, six others from the council, and some visitors from time to time from the council. All we're doing today is making a decision that we're gonna take a vacation. And this is an analogy, for those of you who may not recognize it. We're gonna take a vacation. We're not buying a ticket, we're not packing a bag, and we're not going to the airport and getting on an airplane. All we're doing is deciding that we're going to take a vacation. All we're doing today is deciding we want to do all the things that you all want to do as far as due diligence is concerned, development plans, all the steps that we have to go through that we won't need to get started if we're going to do this, for that matter, it isn't gonna hurt us if we don't decide to do it. But we need to get started if we do decide to do it, because we have some time constraints where that could throw monkey wrenches into the whole situation as far as the TIF is concerned. And I would like to ask Mr. Parsons if he would kind of explain what might happen to us in Frankfurt if we don't get going. As we talked about a couple times before, you have the issue of when the base revenues would be determined and things like that. I think the other aspect about it, and I have mentioned this to you before, the further that the Centerpoint project goes forward before you make a decision to do your TIF, it's less and less likely you're going to get any type of approval. Because they've got to be tied together. And if one goes forward clearly without the other, then it's just, I don't see any hope of approval at the state level. So I don't know if that answered your question, but there is time constraints. I think that's fine. I guess my take is we've got to play the game and we can't be afraid of getting stung by a rejection by Frankfurt. And if we get an acceptance by Frankfurt, maybe that's somewhat of an endorsement, because they're gonna do their due diligence also on this situation. And that should reinforce our decision and allow us to go forward. If they turn us down, we're turned down, end of story, and we're through. But I don't see any sense of us going ahead and throwing a rope over a limb and going ahead and hang ourselves today. I would rather go ahead and find out where we stand, take each step in its time, and then we'll see if we can have a TIF or not. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Myers and then Council Member Crosby. Those are the only folks I have. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Parsons, could you come up to the microphone for a second? Could you, the issue was raised as to who would pay for the second analysis the state would require once they get the application. Can you speak to that? The statute says the applicant, a lot of times when these projects go forward, the developer pays that cost and things. That hasn't been worked out. There's no question when the application is filed with the state, and then the state, after they give tentative preliminary approval, then they will hire a consultant to do that, and someone has to pay that cost, whether it be the urban county government, the developer, someone will have to pay that cost. Okay, thank you. Can I step out on a limb as Mr. Turner? I'm gonna step way out on a limb, and I don't know if you can answer this question or not. You know what it's gonna be, though. Would your client be willing to cover that cost just to get that off the table? I can't answer that question here for you today. We'd obviously have to understand what that obligation was and consider it. We have been here. We have tried not to interject the issue of CenterPoint into this, and we've tried to step back from the table a little bit in terms of our participation, and so we have not even gotten into discussions of those types of issues. Okay. We'd certainly, we'd be willing to discuss it. Okay, will you do that? Okay, thank you. I guess next I would say is that, just in kind of touching base on some of the things that were mentioned up here. Yes, sir? Let me add one thing to that, and I apologize for interrupting, and I know Jim could say this too. All of the, assuming the TIF goes forward, all of those costs associated with that are recoverable. So the risk is that the TIF does not go forward for some reason. Okay, so then if the TIF goes forward, then we can recover that money as part of the TIF. Thank you. Different things were raised today with respect to, for example, our bond meeting, and what projects we would bond, and whether or not the projects in the TIF list of projects that we might do would be things that we would actually bond. And in that conversation, there was a conversation about the old courthouse. And in that discussion, there's a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done to the old courthouse, and part of that is sort of on an emergency basis with the HVAC system and how it may not hold up. And one of the comments was made was that if that system goes down, the city does not have the money to repair that system, even on an emergency basis. And so what might happen is the building might just get closed down until we find the money to fix the system. So. When we say that these projects aren't projects that we wouldn't do or don't need to be done, that's not completely the case. My argument would be when you look at the TIF and what the TIF is about, today we heard a lot about the developer, past history, all this other stuff. It actually has nothing to do with this conversation whatsoever. We are not here to discuss whether or not CenterPoint should move forward. CenterPoint is going to move forward, I guess assuming that they get their financing. We're not asked to vote on that and we also don't have the ability to stop that. What we do have the ability to do is vote for the TIF projects that would come as a result of the CenterPoint project. So a lot of the reasons why people said they were going to vote against this really have nothing to do with what we're voting on today. Another thing that I would say is that I am remiss in understanding how we could put together a delegation and people could sit on that delegation from around this horseshoe for six, seven weeks and meet about the things that they're supposed to meet about, which is going back to the TIF district and a list of projects. We also know that the list of projects aren't things that have to be done. It's a list of projects that can be done. I don't understand how someone can sit on that group, vote unanimous to bring that list of recommendations forward and that boundary forward and then sit here today and say they're against TIF. So in closing I would say that when the city of St. Louis first started doing TIF projects, they had the same discussions going on about whether or not tax money should be used to do these sort of niceties in terms of public improvements or whether or not that money could be used better in some other regard. But as Councilman McCord said, the TIF is to do exactly what the TIF does. The state legislature passed this into law and gave cities like ours the ability to recapture some of our tax dollars at home to do projects that help out our own community. So really what it was about for St. Louis was having the vision to look forward to see at the end of the day what is the end result for each individual TIF project that they do and what does that do to enhance the citizens quality of life, economic development opportunities in the future, etc. etc. That is what we're here to vote on today. I'm glad that we're coming to a vote on TIF. It doesn't have anything to do with the CenterPoint project. The issues raised about the discussion as to whether or not we can pull out at any time, I raised those points to clarify some misinformation that was put out there that we're entering into a partnership with the developer with CenterPoint. I wanted people to be clear at home and others listening in here that we are not entering into a partnership with a developer at CenterPoint. We're entering into a partnership with the Commonwealth of Kentucky. I don't have any fear about whether or not the project moves forward or not. What I do want to do though is to show that this city and this council has the vision to move forward with this project and be able to capture the quality of life improvements that it brings to our city. And with that, I close. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Mayor. We've heard some very eloquent comments today and I just want to, I think I'll probably just read some questions that I had submitted yesterday and also just read the answers I received and some of it is a little repetitive but I think it's going to probably explain later my comments on whether or not I believe the benefits outweigh the risk as to what we are voting on today in support of my vote. And yesterday I emailed whether or not if the council votes to apply for the TIF and the application is accepted, is the city obligated to carry it forward? What if we later determine that this type of project might not be in the best interest of Lexington? With regards to the list of TIF related public improvement projects that the council has recently received, can this list change or will it be set based on our vote tomorrow? The response I received was the resolution tomorrow is simply a resolution of support to move the project forward. The list of projects can change in the ordinance creating the TIF district and later during actual project implementation when a more detailed financial plan is developed. For instance, once the LFECG is ready to move forward, it will need to be determined the amount of projects that can actually be funded. Projects can be cut or amended at that time. In addition, if the council creates the TIF district and receives state approval and later determines that it does not want to move forward, it can repeal the TIF ordinance and not undertake the project's plan. As mentioned, we don't have agreement with the developer. I won't go into that. In most TIF projects, there's an agreement between the developer and city. In the case of CenterPoint, there will be no such agreement. Skipping along, I'm going to go down. We are making no commitment to fund the public improvement projects. If we decided to guarantee a portion of this cost, this would require separate council action. From a legal standpoint, there is no downside to proceeding with the CenterPoint TIF application. We have no contractual obligation to do anything and we can amend or repeal the ordinance. If the TIF application is not advanced, the downside is the loss of state tax revenue from the increased taxes to make the public improvement projects on the approved list. These projects would otherwise have to be funded with local tax dollars. Again, I go back to do the benefits outweigh the risks. Today we are just basically voting on whether or not we're going to establish a tax financing district and designate public improvement, public improvements proposed to be funded by tax increment financing. We've talked quite a bit about this list of things and whether or not can be changed and I would have to agree with Councilmember Myers. We've had council members who've sat on this committee or delegation for several weeks now. They've come up with this list. This is the list that's been presented to us and yet it's the same people who don't like the list that's being shown to us, which I'm not quite sure why there weren't changes made before it got to us if they didn't like the list. We can change this list. I would have to agree also with Councilmember McCord. This is an opportunity for us to show some vision. If it doesn't work out, we are not committed. We have an opportunity here. The benefit certainly outweighs the risk. We have an out. We are just pushing to move this forward. We still have an out here. If we cannot come to an agreement on our list of projects or whatever, we still have an out. Today we are voting to move forward and if we cannot come to an agreement, we still have an out. I believe that the benefit today outweighs the risks and we can show some vision. We have a great opportunity and I will vote to support this today. Thank you. Thank you. Just a couple of things. I know several of you are here for a hearing at 6 o'clock and we will start that just as soon as we complete the work session. We've been at this for about three hours now and I anticipate we'll be wrapping up before too much longer. Second, I wanted to make the Council aware that I've been advised there is one member of the public that wishes to speak on this. That's not in order at this particular juncture, but I wanted to make the Council aware of that and if the Council wishes to hear from that individual, I'll be glad to recognize or you can yield time. Council Member Ellinger. Mr. Parsons, please. Could you just give, and we've been here a long time, just tell us what we're doing today by ratifying this resolution or not. Were we in the ballgame then? You're in the beginning of the ballgame at this point because this really, you know, I think the resolution was just intended just to really start moving forward with the development plan. After that period of time, of course, the development plan has to be prepared. There's a public hearing on the development plan and within 30 days after that you create the ordinance and there's a local participation agreement so that you're right at the beginning of this as far as the starting of the process to do this particular project. This is a signature project so it's over 200 million dollars, correct? That is correct. Do you, does that, so when we send it to Frankfort, do they have to have the TIF, we have to be on with the TIF for them to be able to do the project? Yeah, the city, the state will not receive your application until all the local approvals are in place and that doesn't mean you have to do the project. It really means that you've created the TIF district, you've created, you've adopted the development plan and you have a local participation agreement and you submit the application. So you create the local district first and then you submit on to the state for approval. Do they look and see if the project wouldn't go on if it's not for the TIF? Oh, they're gonna look at the, look at those issues, yes, and there's gonna have to be a cost-benefit analysis. They'll determine, again, what we're looking at is the project is not just Centerpoint, the project is the entire TIF area and the improvements we're talking about. That's certainly gonna be a factor. But the bulk of them, the cost and investment is going to be the Centerpoint, is it not? That is correct. Because it's got to be over 200 million dollars, right? You would add the Centerpoint and the, I'm sorry, go ahead. Well, it's got to be over 200 million dollars so that would be the bulk of it. That's correct. I guess at this point, Mr. Turner, I'd like to ask you, will this project go on without the TIF? Well, you're talking about two different things. The project, the courthouse or the Phoenix Park courthouse design project will not. Will the Centerpoint project and the block go on? Yes. So, I'm kind of confused when we send this as a signature project and it has to be 200 million dollars, then we do it and we send that to Frankfurt. Is it not tied together that they both, without it, it wouldn't go on? Then that would be the reason why the TIF would be important. The Phoenix Park courthouse area, our design area, is what goes to Frankfurt. All the money that will be spent in that area is what comprises the 200, what's compiled to meet the 200 million dollar test. A significant portion of that is Centerpoint, but if you, you've got 16 million dollars involved in the courthouse. You've got, I think, six million or seven million dollars involved. I don't have these numbers in front of me, but seven million dollars involved in the Phoenix parking garage. You've got significant dollars, millions of dollars involved in the Streetscape plan, implementation of the Streetscape plan for which you all just earlier today voted to go forward with an RFP. So, you've got those totals, if I recall on that list, it's about 50 or 60 million dollars in addition to Centerpoint on that list of projects. So, that's the project. But your question to the project going on without TIF, that will, it will go on without us. Centerpoint will go on without us. The Phoenix Park courthouse will not. I guess when I look at this, I might ask you another question, when I look at this and we start getting city involved and then we're going to be looking at tax dollars coming involved, I think it becomes outside of a private, now it becomes a private public partnership, is and I know a lot of people are concerned about the financing. Is there a reason why we're not told who the finances are showing anything about that? Well, I think I've explained that here a number of times, but the investors and it is all equity. Those equity investors come in, we've reached an agreement with them as to how their equity comes in. A trustee has been selected and agreed to serve to coordinate that equity investment. They do not wish to be identified. And frankly, what happened when the JW Marriott was identified, they got frankly harassed. They had emails, they had telephone calls, they had citizens from this community saying don't do it, we don't want you here. Now that's incredible to me and that's part of what the public's picking up out here. That's part of what the business community, not necessarily in this community, but elsewhere is picking up. At what part in the process and we're at again, Mr. Parson, you might answer this, at what point in the process do we need to have that information that when we go forward? I would say the critical information is when the city is going to take some action that puts you at some type of risk. Whether you're going to issue construction, you know, start the bids on the construction project. When you're issuing bonds, even though you won't be at risk on the bonds per se from a debt situation, you're going to need from an underwriting standpoint, whoever underwrites these bonds, whether it's I think your fiscal agent Morgan Keegan and things, they're going to need information about the CenterPoint project before, you know, as an underwriting situation to determine how viable is that project and things. It isn't needed now, but, you know, because you're not really assuming any risk at this point, but at some point you're going to need the information before you would move forward in implementation. And when will we get that? How far? I'm still... Well, at this point you won't even do implementation until after you receive state approval. But in order to get state approval, will they have to have that information? The state will probably require... I will tell you this. None of the projects last year, all five projects that were approved, had financing in place. And the closest one to that would be Museum Center. But there were five signature TIFs approved last year. Not one had financing approved. So, because what happens is, again, this is a conceptual process. The state, you're submitting your application, your plan to the state, you're asking... and locals. And then basically a condition, though, of moving forward after the fact is that all these things come together. And again, you know, I would say the critical aspect for the Urban County Council would be that you would, before you would take some affirmative action that would put something at risk, and I'm talking about financial or real risks like that, then that's when you would need that information. That's all going to be part of the underwriting test. Even, for instance, the study. I would imagine what Morgan-Keegan is going to advise you is, say all the approvals are in place. You get your local approvals, you got your state approval. Even at that point, once you go to issue debt, especially in this market, there's probably going to have to be an independent TIF study done to verify the numbers again, just to protect the bondholders who are buying these. Because these, by nature, are not quite as secure of debt as a GEO pledge or something from the city. So there's a lot of due diligence that you're going to have to be done before you would do that. I'm not downplaying that. I think understanding the financial aspects of the project is critical, and I think it's important for the city to understand it. I'm just saying it doesn't necessarily have to be done now, because right now you're at the conceptual stage and a framework stage and not at the stage when you're really assuming any risk on behalf of the city. I guess that's my last question. What risk are we assuming down the road with the bonds? Because it's not the city, it's the bondholders. Is that correct? That would be holding? That's correct. The risk, you do not have a financial risk in those bonds that the city will be issuing, because you would probably just be, all you'd be doing is pledging the revenues as they're generated. And in that circumstances, the sale of those bonds would be part of the underwriting. What standards have to be done? What's going to be supported? What's going to be supported? Is there going to be a letter of credit, for instance, at the front end? There's going to be a lot of issues that are going to have to be decided at that particular time to issue those bonds. How can they be more secure? Because you have the TIFF pledge that is all the city is making at this particular point. I guess one of the issues, and we talked about this, it's a very tight market right now and people are really selling bonds and it's really that credit. And you're pledging, Mr. Darby, Mr. Turner, that Shurals is a cash equity deal, is that correct? That's correct. So you don't have to go out and get the credit, you've already got that? We've got that. That's what I think I've represented for the Centerpoint block itself. Now one thing that I think Jim has told you before too, relative to the timing and the bond market, you don't have to sell the bonds four months from now, six months from now, you could do it a year from now, two years from now. Once you have the approval, you've got a window of opportunity. You've got two years? Yeah. When are you going to build the parking garage? I'm sorry, I just want it out of order. I'll ask that question. When are you going to build the parking garage? Which parking garage? The one that's underneath the... It's the first thing to get built. It's got to support the rest of the... We're not asking for any money from you, from the TIFF to do that garage. The parking garage under the Centerpoint in the block is not part of any TIFF project. I think that's what you were referring to, wasn't it? That's all the questions I have right now. I think you might want to follow something up. Yeah, just from a practical standpoint, I'm not trying to say you should or shouldn't do this. I'm trying to here to advise the council, answer your questions, and relative to that, from a practical standpoint, assuming that their financing is in place, the biggest problem of financing a signature project is reaching a 200 million dollars in a timely manner. And if you have a building, one large building, that's going to be able to do that with one major project, it's going to be easier to finance than, from a TIFF standpoint, than if you have a phased project that might take several years to reach the 200 million dollar level. So in that regard, by the time the... I was trying to point out on the risk standpoint from the city, is that at the time you make the decision to issue debt or take some risk, you probably are going to have a lot more information, you know, as to the center point, it's construction, it's moving forward, a lot more than some of these other TIFF projects have, simply because of the nature of the project. Well, and I will conclude by saying I am in support of TIFFs. I think they do a lot for a community. I do have some reservations here about this, but I think we are on the front end. And at this point, we do not have any financial obligations from the city. Is that my understanding? I think the only obligation you really have is the cost of preparing the development plan and the possible, the application costs of the state. The cost of going through that particular process. And that's about $50,000, is that my understanding? I think the study $50,000 is a good number for that, based upon the fact, I think you'll I was familiar with the tourism tax credit that was a number of projects went forward, Newport and the levee, the aquarium, some of those. I think the $50,000 is a pretty good number to assume for that particular cost. And when would that cost come to us? What normally happens is the, under the new regulations that were adopted in July, is that the state will give you a preliminary approval, then they will basically get a consultant to give them a price for the study, then they'll give you notice back of the cost. And so that's when you would pay the cost, when the Economic Development Cabinet gives you back notice of what the cost is going to be. And actually those, that can be recovered through the TIF? Yes, it can. Thank you very much. I have Councilmember Beard, Henson, Gordon, McCord, and Lane. All right, Councilmember Beard. Thank you, Mayor. One thing which I forgot to mention last time through, it involves the Phoenix parking garage, underground parking garage, which is in the, in the TIF. The comment was made that it was being built to be utilized by Centerpoint and or their condo owners, hotel guests, and such. It's going to be owned by our parking authority. We will be in total control of what those parking spaces are utilized for. If, in fact, we get to the point where we're going to do a government center, parking is going to be at a premium around here anyway. And I'm sure that that would be close enough that we probably would gobble it all up ourselves for people who are coming to government center and for employees and such. Beyond that, well I'll just stop there. Thank you. Councilmember Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I, I want everyone to understand I'm certainly not against Centerpoint. I'm not against TIF. I think it makes perfect sense to take advantage of getting some state tax dollars that we wouldn't normally get. But in this case, I guess I have a problem with the development and it is my understanding from what I have learned about TIF from being on the delegation, the task force, is you would, the project has to have a need for the TIF funding. And in this case, I don't think, I think that yes, we would not get the improvements to our city without the TIF money. But the way I understand it, the project itself must need the TIF dollars. So I certainly wouldn't support this, not for Centerpoint, but I do think that Centerpoint will bring some good assets to our city. It's going to bring jobs and and certainly tax dollars. But I just, from the very beginning, I think that this project has just been really, really cloudy. I just don't feel good about it and I agree with Don Blevins completely. Thank you. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Not to beat a dead horse, Mr. Turner, but you did, I did attend the meeting, I'm not on the delegation, but you did say that the TIF is not needed for the Centerpoint project, did you not? I'm sorry? In one of the delegation meetings, you did say, if I recall, that the TIF is not needed for the Centerpoint project. That's correct. I think I said it again here. Right. And I know that you pointed out that if, you know, projects like the Phoenix Park Courthouse space couldn't be done without it, but that's not a part of your project and that is on the list that can be changed at any time. I mean, I'm just, if I understand this correctly. Well, again, I caution the worst of word, the use of the word project means two things. Right. Your project can't be done without the TIF. Right. Which includes Centerpoint. Our project is a much lesser project than your project and it can be done. Well, our project is not Centerpoint. Your project is the larger, is the larger area. Yes. With everything but Centerpoint. Yes. It includes Centerpoint. Yes. You know, it's like saying, well, you could do the streetscape. You all can do the street. You can do pieces and parts of the project yourselves. The TIF's not necessarily necessary for it. You could. You could do the streetscape this year. You could turn and do the courthouse without doing any of the rest of it, but you can't do it all. And the list can change. We've all heard that. The list can change. Thank you. I wanted to ask Mr. Askew a question. In this resolution, you have the resolution in front of you. You might remember it by heart. Have you memorized it? Okay. I will grab it. I'm looking at the second whereas. Okay. At the quotations, the delegation is to quote, it is quote, to meet with appropriate developers to negotiate the tax increment financing elements of a project. What do you believe is included in that? Is that simply the list of projects? Well, that quote comes directly out of Resolution 434 that the council, 2008, that the council adopted. And it said it appointed this delegation and charged it with that task. And I know at the last meeting there was some question about, well, did we get a report? Did we not? What was the delegation, you know? And so I was just trying to be clear that that's what the, that's what you charged the delegation with, and that's what the delegation did. As you recall, the resolution was not specific as to any particular developer. It was designed to deal with any developer that wanted to propose any kind of a TIF project. And so that's why it's kind of a generic language. But in this particular case, what happened was, is the delegation did meet, I believe, seven times on this particular project. Now there have been some other meetings dealing with the distillery district, but on this particular project, and they did discuss the boundaries, and they did discuss the projects. And those were the lists that you've seen previously. That was what the task, excuse me, the delegation recommended to the full council. So those two elements were basically what this included. That is what the delegation has reported back to the council as a recommendation to go ahead and adopt that district with those projects at this time. That was my understanding. Now, several people, there's seven of you that were on the delegation along with the mayor, but that was my, I do recall a vote, and I do remember it was unanimous the last day when the map and the projects were approved. But, and then there was a discussion about, I think it was Dr. Stevens that recommended we do the resolution simply to say, you know, we're ready to move forward with a development plan. And that's really all this does, as Mr. Parsons has indicated. You're just saying take the next step on the development plan. As you know, I've had a number of emails with you and Mr. Parsons about the tax increments and the special taxing districts. And I'm still, and those include the Public Library, Lextran, and the Health Department. And along the way, it's my understanding the delegation didn't discuss those, but they have been removed from the increment financing. And I guess I'm wondering, when would that portion be discussed? Or would it? I mean, I know that someone made a decision to take those out. A decision has not been made. Effectively, it's a recommendation to the to the Council not to include those because those special district revenues are, if you really look at the total number over the 30-year life of the TIF, the special district revenues are estimated to be about five million dollars. And when we looked at that particular situation and talking to the Morgan Keegan, your financial advisor, you know, you could finance this particular project without the necessity of those special districts. Therefore, it was going to be our recommendation to take that, not to include those. And so if, you know, so that's the situation. It hasn't been decided. If Council, for instance, wants to move forward and put those back in and include those, then we would just, we would calculate those revenues along with that. Where that would be ultimately decided is that when we prepare the development plan, unless we hear differently at this point, we would just not include those revenues in as being part of the Pledge of Revenues. So that was your decision? It wasn't my decision. It was decided. It was a discussion with staff, relevant staff. Not my staff. Represented the, with the City, or with the Council, with the Administration Office. Maybe Mr. Askew's staff. I'm just trying to figure out the process that went on here to make that decision. I think the issue here is that I think Mr. Kelly was involved. There was just a discussion about the timing involved relative to that. Even if, for instance, you included those revenues. Say you decided to put those in and do that. You really don't have any direct control over some of the special taxing districts. They would have to approve that anyway, even if you decided to go forward. Sometimes because some of the special districts are not as used to development. They're not used to being asked to do these things. It confuses them sometimes quite frankly. And most of the time when these TIFs go forward, special districts are not included. I think that the feeling was, and it's our recommendation at that point, that because the timing that might be involved, trying to get the special districts on board, to try to get them to agree to pledge revenues, it would be better since their revenues are not a major part of the revenue stream not to include. I'm not advocating for including them. In fact, I favor excluding them. I'm just trying to get at the process that went on to take them out. And I did want to ask you, and Mr. Askew, because you mentioned five million dollars, but the email I have where we talked about this over email says that the special districts could decrease the tax increment five to fifteen million. Now is that not over the 30-year period? Fifteen million, if you, I would need to take a look at that. I think what you see is there's a total of twenty one million dollars in property taxes that would reduce the increment of local taxes by about five million, so the actual increment would be fifteen. The total increment? Total increment available. And this was a rough calculation that I did today when I got some of the emails. It looked like to me when I computed the, when the study was prepared by Johnson, they included the special district rates in there to get the total local tax rate. You know, when I calculated that based upon the 2007 rates they did, that was about twenty five point three percent of the total local rate. So computing that against the local increment that was shown in the study indicated about five million dollars of local, of special district taxes over the 30-year period, which would leave about fifteen million dollars of local real estate taxes that could be still pledged toward the increment. So that's where that fifteen million dollar number came. That would be the twenty one million dollar number in the, in the study less the five or so million dollars than the special district rate. Okay, thank you very much. And I just had a couple of brief comments since we're at 630 already, but I think that in the future the TIF process can be very beneficial to our community. I, I do, I did listen very carefully to your 10th district constituent, Mr. Blevins, and a couple of the things that I really keyed in on is the policy in place for all TIFs. I think it's critical for us to get to that and also what you talked about, Ms. Doherty, about public confidence, I think is really important as we go forward with any of this. So thank you for all your hard work. Council Member McCord. I'm going to yield my, I'm going to trade with Council Member Lane. He was on there before. I'll go after him. Thank you, Council Member McCord. Well, unfortunately my speechwriter was out of town last week. I didn't get to prepare a written speech, but I would like to say just a couple of things sort of off the cuff here. You know, I've been living in Lexington a long time, and before I lived here, I worked for a company that was based in Lexington. I traveled here frequently, and the, the block downtown that the web companies are going to rebuild, in my judgment, has been a blight on our downtown, and I think we have to look at this issue a little bit differently. The property's been a blight maybe for 40 years, and finally, somebody in our community has stepped up and said, we want to assemble a property, and they did an assemblage and bought all the different properties together to put in a new development. And even though, you know, I may not agree, you know, perfectly with what they want to build, or Jim Gray may not agree with it, you know, we do live in America. This is a free country, and you know, the webs have, you know, a similar property. They have the right to develop the property, and I think that they've complied with all the ordinances and codes that we have in our community. So, I think this project is going forward, and you know, maybe I don't agree with the pedways either, because that may be a good point, but in the bottom, the bottom line is, is that the TIF program is available to our community, and I think would be very short-sighted of our council, because the webs are going to build a project, whether we do the TIF or not, to let this opportunity go by, where we basically get state to help us do renovation in our downtown area. And for example, the courthouse, which, you know, it's got, I don't know how many years old it is, but the heating and air conditioning system is about to go out. The estimate to renovate it is like 16 million dollars, and so, you know, what are we going to, what are we going to do with our courthouse? We're going to spend the money, or we can qualify it for a TIF, and get the state to help us just redo the courthouse. And I think talking about, thinking out of the box, you know, why couldn't we take the courthouse and maybe convert it to maybe a restaurant, a nightclub, and some other venues in there, and have courthouse square, you know, right downtown, like, you know, 4th Street Live down in Louisville. I think we've got to think of some creative ideas to reuse some of our properties. So, you know, having said that, you know, I can't see any way that I couldn't support the TIF program. And as I understand the program, and I wish that our experts over there, if I say something that's wrong, please correct me. As I understand it, you know, the money goes into an escrow account as it's earned by the increased taxes that we generate in our community. And we don't have to borrow money. We can leave the money in that account and pay cash for anything that we buy, rather than finance anything. And if the project that the Webb's developed is very successful, the cash flows are coming in, they're high, then we would have sort of a track record of revenue on an annualized basis. Then we could go borrow more money based on a track record. So I think if we do this smart and, you know, conservatively and be careful how we do the TIF program, I don't think there's any risk to our taxpayers whatsoever. And I think our downtown really could stand some upgrading and improvement. And, you know, candidly, the other day I drove by the block that's been demolished, and I thought it looked better than the, you know, decrepit buildings in the parking lot that's been there, you know, for the last 10 years. And as I recall it, since I've been here in Lexington, which has been long enough, I want to admit. So those are my comments. And I want to encourage my council members to support this, because we're merely putting the application in, and we'll have a lot of time down the road to decide how to spend the money, what to prioritize, how to invest in the TIF improvements, and how to spend the money, whether it's in cash or bonding. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member McCord. I call the question. That's the last person I had to speak, and if there's no objection, we'll proceed to vote. There's no objection, so you'll have three minutes, Mr. Millard. Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of Council, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. I am President and CEO of the Lexington History Museum, and I just want to very briefly dispel three rumors that have been, or ideas that have been spun this afternoon in this room. And one is that the TIF projects are limited to pedways and parking garages, which they're not. It includes the second myth, which is renovating the old courthouse. It hasn't been the old courthouse now for five years. It is a new Lexington History Museum, and has been operating under that name since, as a matter of fact, our fifth anniversary is next month. Three, that somehow these projects are not vitally important to this community. Museums are so important that you cannot name a great city in this world that does not have a museum dedicated to its history, so that its citizens and visitors to the community can understand what makes Lexington, Kentucky unique throughout the world. Museums are so important that the United States Congress, this Thursday, is conducting public hearings on the importance of museums to the quality of life in the communities, and their contribution to the strong families. As far as our own museum is concerned, in the last year that ended, June 30th, we had 11,285 visitors come through our doors. Since we opened our Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Exhibit last February, we've had an increase of 24% in total visitors versus a year ago. This summer, for the first time, we stayed open seven days a week to, Councilmember Beard, allow people to go on vacation near our home to save on gas prices. We've had a 57% increase in visitors this summer over a year ago. Fully a third of those are families with children that we actively market to with our proprietary Playdate with History, engaging children who, at one time, would drag their parents out of the museum after 15 minutes. Now it's the parents, after an hour or more, who are dragging their children out of the museum. So we are successful, but this building needs renovation. Yes, it's a $16 million total price tag, but that's to do it all at once, and it doesn't have to be done all at once. $3.5 million solves the HVAC problem, which, until last week, we were going to have to close this winter unless we had heat in the building. Last winter, we did not have heat for 30 days, and we stayed open. This summer, we did not have air conditioning for almost 30 days. We stayed open because we find ways to get things done. With a staff of two and a half people, in six months, we mounted six major exhibits. We are doing phenomenal things in that building, and we're just asking for your faith. Now, whether TIFF is the right way to do it, I don't know. Wiser minds on Council and in Frankfurt will tell us that. But this museum is important to our community, and we need to find the way, if we are going to become the great city we think we are. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much. You mentioned earlier that there may be other people in the audience. Were you going to see if there was anyone? Mr. Millard was the only one I knew of. Mr. Mars, you yielded your time earlier today to Ms. Doherty. It's up to the Council. I mean, I'll give you three minutes. I know you want to go home. I do too. So I just want to quickly say I don't think that it's about TIFF or not TIFF. I think we're all for TIFF. I think nobody is for capturing money, keeping revenues here. I think the issue in government's job is about building Lexington. And government job fundamentally is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. And so as an example of that, I would use the other TIFF project coming down the road, the downtown distillery district. And that entire process has been very different. And you can just look at the two different projects and see which one might be better for Lexington's overall development for the long haul. And using those two as a contextual contrast to see, not that we don't want Centerpoint, not that we don't want TIFF, not that we don't want a nice farmers market and parking garage, but how can we make this process work for the best of our Lexington for the long haul? I don't think that we're, nobody's against TIFF. I think that people that are voting against it are against this particular process for this particular district and how it's not functioned well. I think it's not serving Lexington's overall growth by continuing down this path as opposed to the distillery district's path, which is just now, we're just now embarking upon. So I think we're talking about small things when it's a more of a fundamental issue of building Lexington overall. Thank you. Thank you. I think we're now prepared to vote. Madam Clerk, if you could set the machines for us so that we can vote electronically. Question before the council is whether to place the resolution that was substituted earlier on the docket for the September 11th council meeting. So those in favor, I hope we'll be able to vote electronically. Those in favor, please vote aye. Those opposed, please vote nay. It appears the motion carries by vote of 8 to 7. We're now ready to move on with other council reports. Council Member Myers, you still have the floor. Thank you, Mayor. I moved that the Division of Planning present to the Planning Committee concerning their request for changes to state law governing special districts and penalties for violations of zoning ordinance. This is an issue that we heard about today in the, from Net Sheeting. So moved. Is there a second? I have a second. Council Member McCord, the motion is to request the Division of Planning to report to the Planning Committee about violations of planning ordinances as a matter of state law. Yes. Any discussion? Those in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. That's the end of my report. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. In the absence of time left, I just have one quick item I want to present to the council. It's a multi-way stop that's been approved by Traffic Engineering for the intersection of Starshoot Parkway and Pink Pigeon Parkway, which recently, as you know, was completed and opened. So I move this to place on the docket for Thursday, September 23rd. Second. A multi-way stop. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second to add that item to the docket on Thursday, the 11th. Any discussion? Those in favor, please vote aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I was asked to announce that on September 26th McConnell Springs will have its fall fling and it will be from 530 to 9 p.m. and if the public has questions they can call 278-4615 and then I just quickly wanted to thank all 822 dogs who came out for the dog paddle on Saturday. 822. Thank you. Mayor had to step out for a minute, so Council Member DeCamp. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have two quick issues. As you know, we forwarded an amendment on parking on front yards to have a first reading this Thursday. I'm sure, believe it or not, most of that happens in the 3rd District and I've heard from most of the neighborhoods it's been a 10 to 1 who are against this ordinance of to continue parking in the front yards. These are the people that I represent and they, many of them, wanted to speak on this so it's been arranged that right before the first hearing on Thursday night it'll be close, close to seven o'clock because there aren't a second readings on ordinances. So anyone who is for or against and want to speak up in front of the Council, they're to come to the Council meeting this Thursday night, the 11th. Be sure and be here by 7 because it will be, it's the sixth item on the first reading so it'll come up pretty quickly. So anybody who wants to speak to that one way or the other publicly can come on this Thursday. The second item is there's been much discussion especially with KKG making the recommendations for downtown about our present sign ordinance that it needs to be reviewed and upgraded or at least looked at and therefore I make a motion that we put the sign ordinance into the Services Committee for review. I have a motion by Councilmember DeCamp, second by Councilmember Myers to put the sign ordinance into the Services Committee for review. Any discussion? Those in favor please vote aye. Opposed no. Motion carries. Councilmember McCord. Thank you Mayor. Very quickly I just want to congratulate Councilmember Gordon and all the friends of the dog park as we got a chance to go over to Woodland to see all 800 plus dogs and but I wanted to say that I'm thrilled that very shortly in the next few weeks the dog park, the friends of the dog park and all their hard work is going to place a fenced-in paddock or is finalizing a fenced-in paddock in Wellington Park in my district and have been looking forward to that for about two years and I know this is the first of two dog parks but there's so many folks that do a phenomenal job and I just wanted to thank you and thank them publicly for what they do and for adding to the Ninth District to our parks. Thank you Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Blues. Thank you Mayor. Some quick announcements. First of all the Northside Library grand opening is at 11 o'clock on on Friday. I encourage everybody to turn out for that. It's going to be a great event for for the city and for for the Russell Cave Corridor. I hope we have a big crowd and an enthusiastic welcome for that new new building. A couple of Neighborhood Association meetings coming up. The Highlands Neighborhood Association will meet in the Highlands Park Community Center 7 p.m. Thursday, September 11th. On Monday, September 15th, Windburn Neighborhood Association will hold their regular monthly meeting 630 p.m. in the ML King Park Community Center. And finally Mayor, I'd like to wish Fred Mills well. As you know Fred's the manager of the of the Kentucky Theater. He's scheduled on to go heart surgery tomorrow morning so we wish him a successful operation and a quick recovery and hope to see him back soon at the theater where we'll welcome him back. Thank you Mayor. That's my report. Councilmember Beard. Thank you Mayor. I'd like to move approval of the Neighborhood Development Fund list for this week. I have a motion and a second by Councilmember Lane. Any discussion? Those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Any other Councilmember wish to report? We do have a Mayor's report. It was modified yesterday to remove the court-appointed Special Advocate Board appointments. I think there's some question about whether or not we appoint those or those are appointments from within the organization. Otherwise, I wanted to submit the modified report for your approval. Is there a motion? Councilmember Ellinger. Well, I'll make a motion for that but I want to speak to a Council report. I didn't get to push the I'm sorry. I said I didn't get to push the button. Oh, I'm sorry. Council report. I apologize. That's okay. Go right ahead. Well, did you want to finish what you're saying there? That's all right. Mayor, we heard, I guess by representing by the newspaper, that there was a 2.7 million dollar surplus and then I think also Keena, there's been, where do we stand on the on the surplus from FY08? The books were closed in August and I think she reported to the Budget and Finance Committee at that time that there was an increase in the surplus over the 1.4 million that was projected in June to a total of 2.7. Those unaudited financials are currently being subjected to an audit. We should, we hope to have that within the next couple of months. Okay, should we put that into the the Budget and Finance to follow up with that with the, where we have with the service? I'll make a motion for that. The motion is to refer the matter of the budget surplus to the Budget and Finance Committee. Yes, sir. All right. Happy to receive it. Any discussion? Those in favor, please vote aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Floor is now open for approval of the Mayor's Report. I move approval. I have a motion that Council Member Crosby and a second by Council Member Blues. Thank you. To approve the Mayor's Report. Any discussion? Council Member Jaynes. I do have a question. There was one, let me find it here, sorry, on the Board of Adjustment. Last name is Brown. Is this person, do you know if the person is already on the Board of Adjustment? Can a person be appointed, if they're already on, to fill the position of another, to fill the vacant position of another? Well my understanding, there I guess 25 to 40 names in here. My recollection about his situation was his term had expired and in that particular instance, all the other members of the Board asked that he be reappointed for purposes of finishing out, I think, an unexpired term of another individual. Okay, so Brown's had it, okay. Yes, Jay. I'll need to double-check this, but my recollection is that he was a Board member, his term expired, he went off the Board and the Board now wants him back on. We received a letter from them which is why we brought forward the recommendation to you. Okay. Does it say appoint or reappoint? I can confirm that. I happen to be the attorney for the Board of Adjustment and Peter Brown was on the Board. In fact, he served as chair of the Board for some time and his term did expire and I know that the Board members had asked that he be reappointed. Okay, so it should be reappoint. Yes. It should be reappoint. Well, there was a lapse of time, so I don't think it's a reappointment when he went off the Board and he did not serve for a while, so I think it would be probably a new appointment since it wasn't continuous. Okay, thank you. That makes sense. Yes, it does. Thanks. Any other questions? And those in favor of approving the Mayor's report, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. That's all I have. The last item on the agenda is public comment. Does anyone wish to address the Council on Matters not on the agenda? Mr. Cobb, if you'll step to the podium, you'll have three minutes. Obama. Thank you, Mayor. First, give an honor to God for my life, my health, my strength. Peace and love to the Council. I'm proud to be a man tonight. I'm proud to be a black man tonight. I ask myself, how long can a society live when men are not proud to be men? I ask myself, how long can Lexington survive when black men are not proud to be men? Black men. I'm using the term black because I can identify with that. I'm not gonna fuss, I'm not gonna direct anything toward no specific person, but we need to be proud of who we are tonight. Grateful to be who I am. I'm just a lowly shoe-shiner, but God is with me. And if he's with me, he's more than the world against me. Some of our leaders of our organizations and of our community have failed to see the value of being proud. Not proud in a sense where you can't speak to nobody or you think you're better than somebody, but proud to be who you are for what others have done before you. Now, Lexington is very proud of its tradition. I heard the man talking about the museum. It used to be the African-American Museum, I do believe. And with the change five years ago, that thing out in the front that said it's the whooping post for African-Americans, that should have been changed as well. But still, nevertheless, I'm still proud for my African-American slave families that built Lexington. That Lexington is standing right today for some of their efforts. Some of the policies that y'all talking about doing, building downtown, it's obvious that y'all don't even want to include us down there. But you know what? God does. And I'm afraid what he says goes. What profit a man if he gain the world and lose his soul? What is it gonna profit Lexington if we build Centerpoint and we don't have a soul to enjoy and appreciate it? I'm here to tell you, I am the Centerpoint of Lexington. I done walked around Lexington. I done walked backwards. I done walked forward. With the help of God, I'm gonna stay in Lexington. As long as he says I can stay here, I can stay here. As long as he say I can shine, I can shine. It don't matter if y'all want to support me because he's supporting me. I challenge the council. I challenge Lexington. As y'all look forward to building something big, do something small and open up your heart and love your fellow man. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Cobb. Does anyone else wish to address the council? I'm Jan Eisenhower. I'm the director of the Carnegie Center. Earlier in the afternoon, I received a telephone call from a board member who said that Carnegie Center's name had come up in the meeting with reference to our funding. She suggested that I come over. I'm here. If you had any questions that I can answer. I'm sorry if I'm here in confusion, but I'm just was responding to a telephone call from a board member. I believe we do have some potential support for our funding and an agreement that we are negotiating with the library and a private donor. If there are questions that I can answer about anything, I'm here and available to do that. Thank you. Anyone have questions for Ms. Eisenhower? All right. Thank you very much for coming. Anyone else? Do I hear a motion we adjourn? I so move. I have a motion by Council Member McCord, seconded by Council Member Stevens. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries. We'll reconvene in five minutes.