# Urban County Council Work Session - September 16, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · September 16, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/598 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/598?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-09-16 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: March 2, 2026 - **Length**: 8,375 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council convened on September 16, 2008, at 3:00 PM with Mayor Newberry presiding. The Council addressed eight agenda items during the session, covering a range of municipal business including zoning matters, budget amendments, and new legislative items. The Council took action on 14 motions and votes throughout the meeting, approving several key items including requested rezonings and docket approval, budget amendments, and new business items. The meeting included both continuing business and presentations for informational purposes, along with the Mayor's report to update the Council on municipal affairs. Public participation was facilitated through two comment periods, with one citizen providing input on agenda-related issues. The meeting followed the standard format with opportunities for public engagement on both agenda items and general municipal concerns not specifically listed on the day's agenda. ## Attendance The following Council members were present at the September 16, 2008 meeting: **Present:** • Mayor Newberry • CM Ellinger • CM Gorton • CM Beard • CM Myers • CM DeCamp • CM Blevins • CM Blues • CM Stevens • CM Stinnett • CM Lane • CM Crosbie • CM James • CM Gray • CM Henson • CM Layton • CM Crosby **Absent:** • Jay McChord **Late:** • None A total of 17 Council members were present for the meeting, with one member absent. ## Votes and Decisions The Council conducted 14 votes during the September 16, 2008 meeting, with most items passing by voice vote with minimal opposition. **Docket and Administrative Items** The Council approved several items for placement on future dockets. DeCamp motioned to place item 15 on the September 18, 2008 docket without a public hearing, seconded by Stinnett, which passed by voice vote. Lane motioned to place a resolution authorizing a deed of easement on the September 18 docket, seconded by Myers, also passing by voice vote. Stinnett later motioned to place a matter regarding transferring land to Fayette County Public Schools on the September 18 docket, seconded by Gray, which passed. **Routine Business** Several routine administrative matters passed unanimously by voice vote: - Gorton motioned to approve the September 9, 2008 work session summary, seconded by Myers - Blevins motioned to approve budget amendments, seconded by Stinnett - DeCamp motioned to approve new business items, seconded by Gorton - Gorton motioned to set a confirmation hearing for October 2, 2008 for Board of Adjustment appointees, seconded by Myers **Committee Referrals** Two items were referred to committees: Blevins motioned to refer budget process improvements to the Budget & Finance Committee, seconded by Gorton. Blues motioned to refer the issue of offering 'Union Free' training courses by LFUCG to the Intergovernmental Committee, seconded by Gorton. Both passed by voice vote. **Items with Opposition** Two motions faced dissenting votes. Stevens' motion to prepare a resolution asking the Mayor to notify NAH in support of conducting a seizure medication study passed with James voting against. Beard's motion to execute a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Bluegrass Fraternal Order of Police passed despite opposition from Gorton and James. The meeting concluded with Henson's motion to enter closed session pursuant to KRS 61.810(1)(b) and (g) to discuss an economic development matter involving real property, seconded by Stinnett, which passed by voice vote. ## Budget and Financial Actions The Council approved three financial items totaling $19,197 during the September 16, 2008 meeting. **Emergency Housing Services Contract** The Council authorized an $8,000 agreement with Volunteers of America to provide financial support for emergency housing services (Resolution 498-08). This contract will help fund temporary housing assistance for residents in need. **Drug Trafficking Area Grant** The Lexington Division of Police received approval to accept a $5,000 grant from the Financial Commission for Appalachia High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program (Resolution 494-08). This federal funding will support local law enforcement efforts to combat drug trafficking in the region. **Firewise Program Grant** The Council approved acceptance of a $6,197 award from the Kentucky Division of Forestry for implementation of the Firewise Program (Resolution 497-08). This state grant will fund wildfire prevention and community education initiatives to help protect local neighborhoods from fire hazards. All three financial actions represent external funding sources that will provide services to Lexington residents without requiring additional city tax revenue. The emergency housing contract addresses immediate social service needs, while the two grants support public safety initiatives in drug enforcement and fire prevention. ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the Council during the public comment period. Preston Penley spoke to urge the Council to vote against a resolution regarding a development plan for Phoenix Park and the old courthouse. Penley expressed concerns about the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) application and its connection to the CenterPoint development project. He specifically requested that the Council reject the resolution under consideration. No transcript timestamps were available for the public comment portion of this meeting. ## Contested Items The September 16, 2008 Council meeting featured one contested item that drew community opposition during the public comment period. **TIF Application and CenterPoint Development** Preston Penley spoke during public comments to express opposition to a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) application that was associated with the CenterPoint development project. Penley urged the council members to vote against the resolution, though the specific details of his concerns were not elaborated in the available meeting materials. The TIF application represented a financing mechanism that would allow the city to use future property tax increases from the development area to fund current infrastructure improvements or other qualifying expenses related to the project. Community opposition to TIF applications often centers on concerns about public subsidies for private development, potential impacts on other city services, or questions about the necessity of the incentive. The outcome of the council's vote on this TIF resolution was not specified in the available meeting documentation, though Penley's public opposition indicates there was at least some community resistance to the proposal at the time of the meeting. ## Public Comment - Issues on Agenda The Council opened the floor for public comments on issues listed on the meeting agenda for September 16, 2008. This agenda item provides an opportunity for community members to address the Council regarding any matters scheduled for discussion or action during the meeting. No members of the public came forward to speak during this portion of the meeting. The Council proceeded to the next agenda item after confirming that no public comments would be made on agenda issues. This agenda item serves as a standard procedural element in Council meetings, ensuring that residents have the opportunity to provide input on matters before the Council takes action or engages in formal discussion. ## Requested Rezonings/Docket Approval During the September 16, 2008 Council meeting, several motions were made to place items on the docket for consideration at the upcoming council meeting. The discussion focused on procedural matters related to scheduling various resolutions and agreements for future review. Council members DeCamp, Lane, and Stevens participated in the discussion regarding the docket approval process. The items proposed for inclusion on the docket included various resolutions concerning easements and agreements that required council consideration. The council members worked through the administrative process of determining which items should be formally placed on the agenda for the next meeting. This procedural step ensures that all necessary resolutions and agreements receive proper review and consideration through the established council processes. The motion to approve the requested items for placement on the docket was ultimately approved by the council. This approval allows the specified resolutions regarding easements and agreements to move forward in the council's review process and be formally considered at the next scheduled meeting. The docket approval process represents a standard administrative function that enables the council to manage its agenda and ensure all necessary business items receive appropriate scheduling and review time. ## Approval of Summary The Council reviewed and approved the summary of their September 9, 2008 work session during this agenda item. Council members Gorton and Myers were the key speakers involved in the discussion of this procedural matter. The item involved the formal approval of meeting minutes or summary documentation from the previous work session held one week prior. This represents standard municipal government practice where councils must officially approve records of their previous meetings before proceeding with new business. The summary was approved by the Council without any recorded objections or extensive debate, indicating the documentation accurately reflected the proceedings of the September 9th work session. This approval allows the summary to become part of the official municipal record and ensures transparency in government proceedings for public access. The successful approval of the work session summary demonstrates the Council's commitment to maintaining accurate records of their deliberations and decisions, which is essential for municipal accountability and public oversight of government activities. ## Budget Amendments The Council considered budget amendments during the September 16, 2008 meeting. Council member Blevins made a motion to approve the proposed budget amendments, which was supported by the Council. The discussion involved Council members Blevins and Stinnett as key participants in the deliberations regarding the budget modifications. Following the motion by Blevins, the Council voted to approve the budget amendments. The resolution passed, allowing the proposed changes to the municipal budget to take effect. *Note: Specific details about the nature and amounts of the budget amendments were not available in the provided meeting materials.* ## New Business The Council addressed several new business items during the September 16, 2008 meeting. Council members DeCamp and Gorton were the primary speakers on these matters. The new business segment included consideration of various authorizations and agreements that required Council approval. While the specific details of individual items were not detailed in the available materials, the session covered multiple resolutions and administrative matters. Council members DeCamp and Gorton led the discussion on the new business items, presenting the various proposals and facilitating consideration of the matters before the Council. All new business items presented during this portion of the meeting were ultimately approved by the Council, allowing the various authorizations and agreements to move forward. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps and detailed discussion points were not available in the source materials for this agenda item.* ## Continuing Business/Presentations The Council received updates from two standing committees and heard a presentation on waste reduction efforts during this portion of the meeting. **Committee Updates** The Services Committee provided an update on their recent activities and ongoing initiatives. Committee member Ellinger delivered the report, though specific details of the committee's work were not elaborated upon in the available materials. The Storm Water Oversight Committee also presented their update to the Council. Gorton served as the spokesperson for this committee, reporting on their oversight activities related to the city's storm water management programs and compliance efforts. **Wastebuster Presentation** Penny McFadden delivered a presentation on Wastebuster, a program focused on waste reduction and environmental sustainability initiatives. McFadden outlined the program's objectives and current activities, though the specific details of the presentation content were not captured in the available documentation. **Outcome** All three presentations were informational in nature, with no formal action items or votes required from the Council. The updates served to keep Council members informed about ongoing committee work and community programs, maintaining transparency and communication between various city entities and the governing body. The committee reports and presentation provided Council members with current information on services oversight, storm water management activities, and waste reduction efforts within the community. These regular updates help ensure Council members stay informed about various municipal programs and can make better-informed decisions on related matters that may come before them in future meetings. ## Mayor's Report Mayor Newberry presented updates on several city matters during the September 16, 2008 Council meeting. The report covered ongoing municipal initiatives and upcoming community events. The Mayor provided information regarding a tract of land located on Leestown Road, though specific details about the property's status or proposed use were not elaborated upon in the available materials. Tim Bennett also participated in the discussion of this agenda item. Mayor Newberry announced the upcoming Neighborhood Summit, highlighting this community engagement initiative as part of the city's ongoing efforts to connect with residents and address local concerns. The Mayor's Report served as an informational presentation to keep the Council and public informed about current city activities and developments. No formal action was required or taken on the items discussed during this portion of the meeting. The report represents the Mayor's regular communication with the Council regarding administrative matters and community initiatives under consideration or development by the city. ## Public Comment - Issues Not on Agenda During the public comment period for issues not on the agenda, two citizens signed up to address the Council regarding matters related to Centre Point, the courthouse, and TIF (Tax Increment Financing) applications. Preston Penley was identified as one of the key speakers who participated in this public comment session. The comments focused on three main topics: • **Centre Point** - Citizens raised issues or concerns related to this development or area • **Courthouse** - Discussion included matters pertaining to the courthouse facility • **TIF Application** - Comments addressed Tax Increment Financing application processes or specific proposals This agenda item served an informational purpose, providing community members with an opportunity to bring forward concerns and topics not otherwise scheduled for formal Council consideration during the meeting. The public comment period allows citizens to address the Council directly on matters of local interest or concern that may require future attention or action. No formal action was taken by the Council during this public comment period, as is typical for this type of agenda item. The comments were received for the Council's information and potential future consideration. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Place item 15 on the docket for September 18, 2008 without a public hearing - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Place a resolution authorizing a deed of easement on the docket for September 18, 2008 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the September 9, 2008 work session summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve budget amendments - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve new business items - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Table the news rack ordinance - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Review an engineering issue - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Set a confirmation hearing for October 2, 2008 for Board of Adjustment appointees - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Refer a review of the list of items recommended to improve the budget process to the Budget & Finance Committee - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Refer the issue of offering 'Union Free' as a training course by LFUCG to the Intergovernmental Committee - **Motion** — passed (0-1): Prepare a resolution asking the Mayor to notify NAH in support of conducting a study of seizure medication - **Motion** — passed (0-2): Execute a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Bluegrass Fraternal Order of Police - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Place on the docket for September 18, 2008 the matter of transferring land to the Fayette County Public Schools - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.810(1) (b) and (g) to discuss an economic development matter involving real property --- ## Full transcript Beyond the Sea 기상캐스터 배혜지 기상캐스터 배혜지 기상캐스터 배혜지 기상캐스터 배혜지 기상캐스터 배혜지 기상캐스터 배혜지 기상캐스터 배혜지 기상캐스터 배혜지 기상캐스터 배혜지 기상캐스터 배혜지 기상캐스터 배혜지 기상캐스터 배혜지 기상캐스터 배혜지 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 jfgenterprises2008-20 to learn how and about collective bargaining when I first came in. So they really went through a process of learning how to negotiate professionally with a collective bargaining situation. And I think at that time the council members simply at that point said, these are the people that have studied this more, have gone in, and we haven't opened up this can of worms to the whole council. And so we simply, after the negotiations were over, that was it. It was signed by the administration. But one of the things that I think was important is that when this was first passed, that there was an educational process which was followed, and I think that was a very important part of why the administration simply did the negotiations without the approval of the council. Well, you know, to the degree the council wants to delegate to me the responsibility to negotiate it and sign it on behalf of Irving County government, I'm perfectly willing to do that. I just don't think we have an ordinance in place at present, as I understand it, to do that. And in the past, my sense is, and the Department of Law can correct me if I'm wrong, but my sense of it is the reading of the statute, the state statute, was that the mayor had the ability under the state statute to sign the agreement, and that was the end of it. After further analysis, I think there's some ambiguity about what exactly the state statute means. If you want to adopt an ordinance delegating that authority to the mayor, you know, suits me fine. I'll sign it now. But in the absence of a clear statute delegating without question the authority to the mayor, then I think a contract of this magnitude is appropriate to have council input on. And if you don't want it, you know, that's fine. I'll be glad to, you know, get an ordinance from you delegating to the mayor the responsibility of negotiating and signing the contract on behalf of LFUCG. That's not an issue. Well, have we ever asked for an opinion from the state on that? I haven't asked for an opinion, no. Not an attorney general's opinion, no. We haven't. Probably. Thank you, Mayor. I would like to add one caveat to what Councilmember DeCamp said, and that is that it is true that the previous administration had sent folks to travel to learn how to negotiate, but the other caveat would be is that they told us that it was illegal for us to enter into the negotiations and that it had to be done by them, and that's why the council didn't have a part in that. So I just wanted to add that to that discussion. As far as, Mayor, you just talked about us having input. Are you talking about input at this point? Are you talking about maybe next year moving forward we would have input during the process like we did with the consent decree? Right now I'm talking about the current situation. Okay. Future agreements, fire corrections and the like, you know, I don't have any problem giving you updates along the way or going into some detail about the negotiations. That did not happen this time around because we've been operating under the assumption the old rules apply. But last week when I ran it past law for review, the question came up. Okay. And I agree that you should have the ability to negotiate. It would be nice if we could have the closed sessions where we could be updated as to how things are going. Council Member Myers, if I might. Sure. Right there. And one of the things Council Member Gordon just mentioned, the difference in this case and, for instance, the consent decree is in the consent decree situation you had pending litigation. At the end of the day, when it came time for you to vote, you had to vote up or down, which is what you're doing here. As far as how the negotiations would work, if there were periodic updates, it's my understanding that was explored back in 05. And I don't know all the history of that, but apparently that was a part of what you just said I was not aware of. So I think that's something that we probably need to look, probably need to look into. I know one other councilman earlier this year asked me about updates and things. So anyway, and something that Council Member Crosby just mentioned, the correction statute was approved in 06, and I believe those negotiations started, just asking Mr. Allen about that. I don't know when in 2007 or whether it was 2006, but they would have been ongoing. And so there are two agreements that were signed last year. I just have one other question about the document that we were just given. It says 05 to proposed 08. Mr. Allen, I guess how are we to understand this document? Does this iterate what the 05 contract was and the changes that are made in the 08? That's the 05 that I was referring to in the document, Council Member, the 05 contract to the proposed 08 contract. This is a draft. This was a draft that I did this afternoon and obviously maybe should put some added verbiage in there, but it's just a comparison, and what I tried to do was to keep it as simple as possible without getting mired into the detail of minor changes, but just things that would be significant to either the bargaining unit or to LFUCG. So in order to understand these proposed changes, we'd have to have the previous contract, right? Which we could easily be made available to you. But what I tried to do is almost, for instance, like an Article I recognition. By putting the change in, I'm telling you that the previous contract had that group involved and now they're not. So that's what I attempted to do. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. It might be you. Oh, Council Member Blevins. Thank you, Mayor. Wait, just a second. I think Council Member Myers had one follow-up. I'm sorry, one follow-up. I think Commissioner Askew said that you might be giving us more information about this this afternoon. Are you going to do that here today before we vote on this or closed session or when exactly? I would be glad to do whatever you'd like me to do, Council Member. I'm referring to what Commissioner Askew said, that you were going to give us more information. Did you have something planned that you were going to go through this document? I do not have anything planned. This is the only thing that I've done as far as a synopsis. Okay. Thank you. We had requested that he run through this document so we'd understand and could ask questions. All right. If you will do that for us here in just a second, Council Member Blevins. I respect and even agree strongly with Council oversight on large contracts. I think that's the right thing to do for the community. It keeps a situation where we might not have a competent mayor doing something that we all would perhaps not agree with. So it's always a good thing, I think, on large contracts to have council oversight. I applaud you for doing this because I know you don't have to do it. That said, I was the one that asked earlier this year to be kept in the loop on the negotiations just for this reason, so that when it came to us, there wouldn't be three days to make the decision. This makes us effectively a rubber stamp. Even in the cover letter from Commissioner Askew, it says, keep in mind there's months and months of negotiations and any change will undo all that work. Well, of course, that puts us in a position where we effectively cannot change this contract. So it's really an up or down vote. That's not a position I really like being in, especially with an implied rush to get it done by Thursday. That's no way to do business. So I'm not sure how I'm going to vote on this in the future if we're going to do it this way, which I like. I would prefer to be involved in the negotiations, at least through closed session, so that we have a chance to have real input and not sort of last minute input. If we're not going to do that, that's fine. I'm glad to let the mayor sign them, but, you know, the contract is then yours and not ours. So that's what I wanted to say. Thanks. Council Member Layton. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, I feel that this is one of the major expenses for the Urban County Government. Our public safety is over 50% of our annual general fund budget, and payroll is a substantial part of it. And having said that, I support, I've always supported the public safety effort and adequately compensating our public safety employees. But at the same time, to not have any insight whatsoever into what the agreement is going to be, I think is not a very transparent process. And I don't think it bodes well also for our taxpayers who ultimately will pay the bill. So, you know, I would like to see the council have a vote on it. However, having said that, I don't believe that we should try to micromanage the mayor's office. I think this is the mayor's responsibility due to the negotiation. But I feel that, you know, being apprised of the terms and conditions before it's signed I think is appropriate. And I agree with the Council Member Blevins, you know, we have a very confident mayor now. And I think, you know, basically he's offering to give up part of his power as mayor to the council to ratify the contract. But I do think that it's in the best interest of our community. The other couple of points is that this is a three-year contract. And, you know, Mayor Newberry may be the mayor three years from now, but there is an election between now and then. You know, there could be another mayor here and some of the council members may not be back here. So whatever the contract that's done will be binding for 36 months. I think that's another reason that we ought to take a look at it. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Stennett. Logan, I've got one follow-up question for you real quick. What is the KRSA about council input and a council member being part of negotiations? Is that a legal thing for us to be able to do? Because we were told three years ago that it was not. I don't think it's addressed in the statute. I think that's the problem. And I think another part of the problem is whether you can discuss it in closed session. So your name's sure if we can even do that. I know Council Member Blevins alluded to it in Lane that we could be updated. I don't know. You always said something about going into closed session to discuss a contract. And I'm not outside of, you know, litigation exception or a matter dealing with specific personnel, which is an exception. You really can't do it. And here you've got a general contract. So I'd need to go back and talk to the folks that were involved at the time. But I do know that there was some discussion with the council at the time about updates and things like that. And it was decided that there really wasn't any way to do that. Some decision was made just to go ahead and let the mayor negotiate and sign these agreements without council approval. Now, I can get a little more information from Louisville about what they do. But it's my understanding that they negotiate the agreements, the mayor, the administration negotiates it, have their negotiators involved in it. It gets approved by the unions, and then it comes back and it's presented to the council for consideration. So I assume since it is presented to council for consideration, if it were disapproved by council, then would that be an indication to go back to the table and rebargain it? Or if it went and it did not pass a union vote, which in this case it did, the membership, if they present it to the membership and it was rejected, and I'm not familiar with all the rules, I assume they'd go right back and everybody would have to sit around the table again. Well, but at the same time, the reason I ask that is even if we disapprove it, the mayor could still sign it and move it on. So in essence, we really don't have an approval or disapproval authority here. Well, actually, I think it is my opinion that you do. And I think really in order to resolve this issue, we would need the state legislature to provide some clarity in the statutes pertaining to Louisville and to us, which don't mention council approval. They just say the mayor can execute an agreement, but the mayor executes all agreements on council approval. It also says that a publication of the agreement is unnecessary, which other documents you need to have publication. Now, if the legislature meant for the mayor to sign these agreements without any council input and effectively bind the council, I think they could say so. One thing that I think you should consider, it's my understanding in Louisville, I don't know if this is accurate, but I think it's not just public safety that can collectively bargain. CSEA has come to you and approached several folks about perhaps having collective bargaining for municipal employees. Let's assume for a minute that the legislature passed such a law and the same statutory language was used. What would be left for the council to decide in appropriations? Equipment, utilities, all salaries and benefits would be decided entirely by the mayor. And I think in order for the state legislature, which I think they have the authority to do, to tie the legislature's hands that way, the city legislature, I'm not satisfied that they've done it with this statutory scheme. Thank you, sir. Any further discussion? Council Member James. Mayor, I just would like to add a little bit to what others have said. I agree with most that's been said. I'm concerned about the two days, two days before we would be expected to vote on this. If for council members that have not gone through this type of agreement, contract, the language. It would be entirely up to you when you wanted to approve it. So if you don't want to do it in two days, you can do it on October 2nd, October 23rd or whenever. The existing contract will stay in place in the meantime. Yeah, I do. I do agree with what others have said that, you know, it would be an agreement between you and the entity if you decided to sign that. And I do appreciate the opportunity to give input. I just know that we need to give due diligence as a council. Thank you, Mayor. Well, again, I want everybody to understand I'm not trying to say you got to vote on it on Tuesday. That's up to you all. Thursday, rather. This is an issue came up Friday during the course of contract review. And so here we are. Do we bring it to you today? Do we blue sheet it? Do we forget about it? None of those are particularly attractive options, particularly when I think it is legitimate for the FOP to want to go ahead and get it nailed down. But the issues come up. And now that it has come up, how do we deal with it? Well, there's no particularly good option, but we wanted to go ahead and bring it to you today so you could be aware of it and deal with it as you see fit. Any further? Vice Mayor Gray. Just a suggestion. Well, first, I think everyone is sympathetic with the effort that's gone into these negotiations on the part of the administration, part of the FOP. And I think the last thing that any of us want to do, of course, is to be a constraint in moving this forward. And at the same time, we have heard the challenge represented by a lot of us on getting our arms around and doing, as Councilmember James said, the due diligence that we'd like to feel like is adequate. Perhaps between now and Thursday, if we could have a meeting, maybe, and those who want to dig into it a little bit more. I know everybody's busy. We all are. But that might be at least a way to get there. I might suggest that if we hear Mr. Allen out, he may answer a lot of the questions and we can schedule a meeting if that's still necessary. Yeah. OK, that's good too. All right. Well, Dr. Stevens, I think you and Mr. Allen may have had some conversation about how to proceed at this stage of the game. If not, maybe we can just kind of walk through the synopsis that he prepared. That's what I would ask him to do, yes. First of all, the contract is, just for a point of reference, is approximately 51, 52 articles. And you don't have all the articles here. Anything that was in the existing contract, I didn't put here. So that's why some of the articles are missing. The only articles I've listed are articles that had any kind of significant change. The first thing that I'd like to say is that the basis for our negotiations was the budget that was approved. So council approved a budget for us for this fiscal year. And that was the total dollars that we were working with. So that was the opening. That was the parameters that were established for us to begin with. So council did do, did tell us, you know, kind of like the general ground rules of how much money we had this year to work with. Article one is recognition. Minor piece, but it is important. The non-sworn personnel, including trainees and recruits, are now, and if they're, until they pass the probationary period, are not included in the bargaining unit. I think the easiest way, Mayor, if it's okay, is just to go through this quickly. And if someone has a question on an article, I'll be glad to elaborate on it. Article nine is assignments. This is important, was important to the police management team that they need to assign officers in temporary positions. And we were able to define the term temporary similar to the way we define it everywhere else in government as having a beginning date and an ending date. It also expands the chief's ability to determine what are highly sensitive positions, such as public information officer. The things that have, you know, are so sensitive that the chief has to be able to appoint those jobs versus opening up for general competition for promotion. Article ten, promotional vacancies. This is an important article. We're making advancement here based upon some ground rules that Chief Beatty established that he had a goal of getting all lieutenants at least to have a bachelor's degree. And that will now be required in the contract. The only stipulation is there's a small group of sergeants who have 126 hours who will be grandfathered for this next 2008 lieutenant's process. So that's really great news. We're moving to make a more educated department. There was also a minor stipulation in the old contract that the assessment center that we use for promotional process could not be within a 50-mile radius. That was for other reasons, but we were able to eliminate that and still meet the constrictions. The grievance procedure, large piece here. The membership and the administration have agreed that the lodge, which is the union, needs to own the grievance as well. So only the lodge may now file a grievance. Before, anyone in the FOP could grieve an event, and if the lodge didn't support it, that was okay. Then the grievance could just still follow the chain of command. Now the lodge has to support the grievance in the go forward. Conditions of employment, LFUCG has agreed not to use covert electronic surveillance equipment in the investigation of a member. A member is used as a bargaining unit member, with the exception, obviously, of any kind of formal administrative complaint or a criminal investigation. This was important to the FOP. Article 14, health and safety. This also was an important consideration for the FOP. That tasers will be issued to members assigned to a uniform position whose primary job description is in an enforcement capacity. So tasers are now part of the standard uniform issue. Article 18, military leaves. This was more administrative and required. It's just bringing things, the military leave up to statute, which requires 21 days now paid, and the ability to carry over any unused leave for a two-year period. Article 19, legal protection. LFUCG expanded the legal coverage to the members. It was almost, by exception in the previous contract, not listed as far as punitive damages, and now potential punitive damages against the member on a tort action, and now they will be covered, if it's within the scope of employment, obviously. Article 20, court pay. This expands the two-hour court pay to the members that are required to personally meet. Previous contract was just if you had to go to court, but a lot of our officers spend a lot of time doing work with attorneys as a result of a case. So we've expanded the court pay to include pay for members that are required to personally meet with attorneys or perform work directed by an attorney outside of regularly scheduled work hours if it's a duty-related matter. So that was it. Paid and unpaid leaves. There are no changes to the holiday schedule, though it was requested, and no change to the accrual rates. Yes, sir. I'd like to interrupt for just a minute. I think Councilmember Beard wants to make a motion here. Yes, I'm sorry, Mr. Allen, but going through this process without the ability to have a dialogue back and forth and discuss things in any kind of depth really doesn't help me anyway. I would like to move that we move this whole question to the October 2nd Council meeting docket. Let me see if I understand the motion. Do you want to move it there for a vote? For a vote, yes. So we would get a first reading Thursday and then second reading on the second for a vote? Yes. Okay. Is there a second? Second. I move the motion and second that we place this item on the docket for first reading on the 18th and second reading. I want to clarify before the second. You want to put what on the docket? The approval or rejection of voting up and down. Of the agreement. Of the agreement, yes. Okay, then I do second. And that's for a first reading for October 2nd? Last reading on October 2nd and no suspension of the rules Thursday night. We even put it on the first reading. The motion is to add this. Well, let's see. We have a motion on the floor right now from Dr. Stephens, as I recall, to place this item on the docket, correct? I started to make that motion, yes. I'm not sure that I completed it. All right. Well, we've got one. We'll say. I think he's making the same motion, except he's not sure that. I just want to be sure everybody's got some time to at least look through this and do some investigation. This is a good roadmap to go to the article that we might want to look at, but. I agree, but I don't know if you can make a motion today to not do a second reading on Thursday if 10 people on the council want to do it. That's true. All right. I think then what we have here is a motion to go ahead and put it on the docket for first reading on the 18th with the expectation, at least, that for the moment it would have a second reading on the second. Any discussion of that motion? All in favor then of placing that item on the docket, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. Okay. Motion carries. Dr. Stephens, I think you still have the floor for a council report. I am through. All right. Council Member Crosby. Okay. Well, thank you. Sticking with our public safety, I just want to thank Chief Hendricks and Assistant Chief Fowler and Commander Barnard of the East Sector. Last Thursday on 9-11, I had the opportunity to go out with some students from the Lexington Christian Academy, the East Campus location. The students for, I guess, about two or three weeks had been collecting candy bars to present to our firefighters and police officers, and they all wrote little handwritten thank yous to them for their service that they provide our community. And so it was a very special day to be able to go present gift baskets. We went to several fire stations and, like I mentioned, to the East Sector and presented these during roll call. So that was a very special thing to take part of. I also want to announce on September 29th the East Lake Neighborhood Association will be having their meeting at the Eagle Creek Library, and that will be at 7 p.m. Thank you. Does any other member wish to make a report? All right. We'll move on to the Mayor's report. I have three or four short items. One, several of you attended the Destination 2040 meeting that was held last Thursday, and I thank you for taking the time to do that. If you have any further questions, feel free to let Charlie Boland or me, one, know, and we'll be glad to push that along. Second, I don't see Miriam Blodgett here right at the moment, but I would tell you that we're planning on having our second neighborhood summit on October 25th in the morning, probably starting 830 or 9 o'clock. We'll let you know the exact time as we get closer. But if you would help communicate that to the neighborhood associations, we'll be sending out a notice shortly. But I wanted you to be aware so you could put that on your calendar. Also, if Commissioner Bennett could step to the microphone for just a moment. You may recall before the break I mentioned the fact that we had had some discussions with the school system about the use of the property at the federal prison property located on Leestown Road. The school system has now firmed up their plans just a little bit, and I'd like for Commissioner Bennett to bring up speed on that with the help of some folks from the school system. As you may recall, back in 2006, you authorized the government to apply for what at that point was to be some surplus federal prison property. Roughly a 40-acre tract, which at that time was envisioned to be a site for a new fire station as well as a new fire training center. Along the way, Fayette County Public Schools also submitted an application for the same property. We were asked by GSA, the General Services Administration, federal government, to work cooperatively with Fayette County Public Schools to come up with a mutual use for the property rather than having basically competing mutual exclusive uses. We've attempted to do that, and at this point where we are, Fayette County Public Schools is proposing to locate an agri-science program on the property. We are proposing to modify our application to apply for a 10-acre portion of that property for location of a new fire station. We have with us today Kerry Davis and Joe Norman from Fayette County Public Schools to give you some more information on the agri-science program that they propose to locate out there. I'll follow up and try to answer some questions you may have as far as the Urban County Government's proposed use of the property. Thank you for having us. Fayette County Public Schools is looking to expand the agricultural program at Eastside Technical Center. Currently, with the facilities we have, we're not able to expand the program in the way that the students need. We're looking at an equine program, veterinarian science, large and small animal part of that program. Also, in the future, plant and land science, environmental science extension of that program. Ms. Davis is our agriculture instructor. I'll let her talk to you more about the programs themselves. It's a tremendous opportunity for the students in Fayette County, being the agriculture industry that the bluegrass region really is, especially in the equine industry. We have tremendous support from the equine industry, the State Department of Agriculture, State Department of Education. Also, community support in this. I'll let Ms. Davis talk to you some about the program offerings and what we'll be doing. What we have now is a very strong horticulture program in place, built by the former ag teacher. But what we have in Fayette County is our students are vastly underserved in any areas of animal science education, so we've incorporated that into our curriculum. We sent out a survey to roughly 903 kids exactly in our system, in the high schools. We found that over 10% of them were extremely interested in coming to pursue equine science studies. Another 10% were extremely interested in coming to pursue small animal studies. We know that the interest is there, and we have started to increase our curriculum to incorporate those interests in veterinary science. And with this property, we can put that curriculum into practice, give the kids the hands-on experience and skills they need to get these jobs. They're sitting here in the middle of the horse capital of the world, but there's a disconnect between how do they get from where I am on any street to this industry, and also the small animal industry as well. We will keep the plant and land sciences, because that's very important to horticulture, especially in our urban area, between landscaping and floriculture. And our sustainable agriculture movement, which is ever-increasing in popularity, can be applied there. Environmental science is a major component, and further down the line, we have our ag biotechnology, food science, and ag mechanics curriculum to implement. We have strong community support from a lot of people that are willing to work with our kids and help them get where they need to be. Does anybody on the council have any questions about the program that's contemplated there? Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Welcome, and I appreciate your thinking about this, especially here in the horse capital of the world. I'm interested because this is, and I've spoken at length with Mary Browning. Is her new name right? Yes. Okay. I've spoken at length with her about this. As you know, this piece of property is in the rural service area, and there are no sewers. And so I'm particularly interested in what exact facilities you intend to build out there. Can you give us some detail on that? I realize that you may not be to the point where you have designs, but I would like to know what you intend in that regard. There will be stables for bored horses and another barn for large and small animals. Also, there will be classrooms for the students to gain instruction with. So how big will the school be, the classroom building? The plans right now are to be able to serve 200 to 250 students. And believe me, we have a strong desire to protect the land, the soil and water there, and that's like a major part of our curriculum as well. So it goes hand in hand. And the architects that we've had that have looked and drawn up our plans are green oriented, and they are using the land to this advantage, not to try to reshape the land to match what we need. So with the wastewater, a lot of gray water runoff, leach beds and things that we can use to make it, I guess, less invasive and to also protect and serve our needs. Do you, in thinking about the future, do you have, what are your thoughts on expansion? And if there's a need for more classrooms, have you thought out 20, 30 years down the road or? You'd have to refer that to Mary Browning on that, but we've thought about, you know, potential growth and things, but with that, yes. So there would be the possibility of expansion? I don't believe there will be a large amount of expansion. Like I said, we're looking at servicing 200 to 250 students at that site and with the staff that will need to do that and be able to use the rest of the farm as farmland to teach and keep it as green as possible. That's what our intentions are. I think that's a really good, positive thing. So have you had conversations about it? Will it be on septic tank then, the facility, since there's no sewers? That's not. Oh, you're not. You're the program folks. I think they had mentioned startup of some septic tanks. And then if it got so big, forced pumping or there were several terms I didn't understand. That's OK. That's OK. I think probably a conversation, another conversation with Mary and maybe our sewer folks because there aren't sewers there. I know the plans, what they're looking at is to be environmentally sensitive. We want to do that too because that will enhance the agriculture program and what we're trying to instruct with our students to be environmentally friendly. And we hope they'll stay in Fayette County after they have this training and education. So that would be good. Well, I appreciate your work on this. Thank you. Council Member Peart. Thank you, Mayor. This sounds like a great program. It really does. And we're always looking backwards a little bit to see how we can maybe take ourselves into a different world than we have right now. And, you know, agriculture, the importance of agriculture and the horse industry, too, for that matter. But just basic agriculture is something we're seeing mentioned, whether it be fuels and ethanol or whatever. I'd like to ask Commissioner Bennett, though, why are we being approached? Is there a process as relates to the request for the land? There is. We have had ongoing and recent conversations with both FEMA, which is the fire department's federal sponsoring agency, U.S. Department of Education, which is Fayette County Public Schools sponsoring agency, and GSA, which is the agency that ultimately would deed the property. We have tentative approval from all three of those agencies for this plan. The only thing we need to do on our end to make all the paperwork match up is to amend the application that we sent in in 2006 from the 40-acre original request to our current 10-acre request. And we'll need the council's approval to do that. So we're not passing on the 30 acres to Fayette County Public Schools and they have to go through a process themselves? They're going through a parallel process that we are. Those 30 acres will ultimately go to Fayette County Public Schools. We have to release those 30 acres. And that's a yes. I wonder if the Fayette County Public Schools would be at all interested in some type of a swap with Meadowbrook Golf Course. I couldn't speak on their behalf. I understand you probably couldn't, but I wanted to say it in front of my colleagues and for the television. Thank you. Any more questions? If there are no more questions and if you're comfortable with the project, I would ask that you move to put on the docket for Thursday night the authorization to amend the application from 40 acres to 10 acres. The law department has the application ready. We can distribute it to you if you like between now and Thursday, but I would request that you do that. GSA is kind of anxious to get the property transferred and out of federal control. So they've asked us to move as expeditiously as we can. Is there a motion? I have a motion by Council Member Stennett, seconded by Vice Mayor Gray to add that item to the docket for Thursday evening. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you very much. I see Ms. Blodgett has come in. If you could step to the podium for just a minute and talk briefly about the Neighborhood Summit so that those involved with neighborhood associations would be aware of the events on October 25th. Sure, I'd be happy to. I'm sorry I was out of the room at that moment that I was called. I apologize. Many Neighborhoods, One Lexington, that's the name of our or the theme of our Neighborhood Summit. Last year we held it on October 6th, I believe, and this year we decided we're looking for a Saturday, which as you all well know is not easy here in Lexington. There's so many wonderful events going on. The summit is in the morning from about 8 a.m. to 1, and we'll have it right here in the Government Center. Our goal is to have a very good meeting and try to do it in a very fiscally responsible way. And so we invite all of the neighborhood leaders and anyone interested to come and join us on October the 25th, Saturday morning. And, of course, you all as leaders of the community, we'd love to have you all be a part of it. Lori Henry in your office is my teammate on this project, so she'll keep you well informed along those lines. And we hope that in your neighborhood meetings in the next month or six weeks or so that you will mention this and invite those folks to come and join us. We're working on the program now. I sent an email out to all the commissioners and division directors asking for their ideas just last week and received some good ideas. Certainly would like your ideas, and any ideas from the neighborhoods. Certainly if there's something that they are interested in knowing that perhaps we could provide for them, we want to do that. So we're looking forward to that, and we'll be sending information out soon. So thank you. Looking forward to it. Do you have a definite start time? Well, last year we had registration starting around 8. We have coffee and kind of a mingle time. So the first session usually is around 8.45. We'll probably follow along those lines. We'll have an open session, you know, a general session rather, and then move into panels. You know, the main criticism we got last year was that we had so many good sessions that folks couldn't get to them all because they were running concurrently within two hours. We're going to try to fit three in this year if we can because that was the only criticism we got that I could see was that they wanted to go to all of the sessions and we just simply didn't have time. Thank you. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. You know, I certainly appreciate the efforts you all put together last year in hosting the summit, but some of the feedback we got back, and I hate to be the – I don't want to put any damper on this one. October 25th is a great date and all, but being the fall, have we looked at doing anything in the spring? Some of the feedback we got back was that's a busy time of year. We can't always come down there. What about January, February when neighborhoods are usually quieter, things aren't as hopping in that time of year? Have we looked at that? Or if we're going to continue with the 25th, which is fine, what about doing a second one maybe in March? Because I think the main issues are, you know, with the code enforcement and things like that as they gear up, it could be more beneficial or as beneficial. You know, it's open to discussion, certainly. I think almost any time you pick is going to be difficult. I know you all have tried to do events, and, you know, we have basketball in the winter, you know, and weather and all kinds of things, but certainly it doesn't matter. I don't think it's a real huge issue, but so many things start gearing up for the fall, I think, and that's kind of why we were doing it then. Well, we can certainly sample the folks who are there, and if you all continue to get some feedback from your neighborhoods and let us know, because there's no rule that says we can only do this one time a year. Absolutely. Thanks for raising it. Thank you. Okay. Anything further on that? Okay, the last thing I would mention is I think we have circulated to you a list of board and commission appointments that are coming up in the next quarter, and I just encourage you to pass along recommendations you might have on that front. That brings us down now to public comment on issues not on the agenda. Does anyone wish to address the council? I have two people who have signed up, Preston Penley and Eric Moore. So, Mr. Penley, you signed up first. Pardon me? Okay. So, Mr. Penley, you'll have your three minutes as well as Mr. Moore's three minutes, and if you would give us your address, we'll be underway. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My comments are on the second reading of the resolution for the development plan for Phoenix Park and the old courthouse. My name is Preston Penley. I'm a downtown resident, and I urge each of you to vote no on Thursday on the resolution for a development plan for Phoenix Park and the old courthouse. I have attended two TIFF delegation meetings as well as the September 9th work session. I echo many of the sentiments that I've heard from those who voted no on September 9th, including Mr. Blues, Mr. Gray, Mr. Blevins, and Ms. Gorton. Several of the discussed projects have worthy objectives. The streetscape was first talked about publicly, as I recall, after Lexington was awarded the Equestrian Games. The old courthouse is a beautiful historic landmark that deserves commitment and support, and I personally am a great supporter of the farmer's market. A vibrant farmer's market is a fantastic downtown event weekly throughout the year. All that I've learned about TIFF districts leads me to the understanding that TIFFs are not simply about public improvements. They support and enhance the private sector through public improvements when local funds are not available. While Lexington will not explicitly enter into a contract with a web company, I will not be convinced that CenterPoint is not involved. Can we seriously be expected to believe that CenterPoint is not involved in a pedway from a web-owned parking garage to the CenterPoint block? On September 9th, Councilman Myers reemphasized how unrelated were the TIFF district and CenterPoint. Minutes later, he asked Mr. Turner if the webs would pay the processing and review fees for the TIFF application. The process seems to be disjointed. Three of the endorsements on September 9th came from Councilmembers Myers, Crosby, and McCord. Mr. Myers and Ms. Crosby think that nothing can be lost from moving forward, and individual items on the list can be removed at any time. Mr. McCord said that our city is one of missed opportunities, and we should focus on success and not failure. First, as an endorsement, we have nothing to lose, so why not is incredibly weak. Last week, if state legislators asked what separates this TIFF application from others and what makes it special, those comments revealed just how unspectacular this application will be. The incremental value may originate from Lexington, but the Commonwealth will make the decision. If I spoke to my representative, I would say not to support this application. If it moves forward, it is not well positioned to be approved. Those legislators and staffers will evaluate the application conceptually and determine what tax revenues the entire plan will support. Yet Councilmembers continue to talk about these individual a la carte project pieces, revealing that for them this is a wish list whose only common thread is proximity to a demolished block. This concept stands on weak footing. I am saying that there is much to lose by moving forward. We're losing time by extending this process. This development plan sprang up only after the center point development was announced. Lexington does not have a review process for developing TIFFs, nor have we properly planned how to take full advantage of tax increment financing. If this ordinance were voted down on Thursday, the Council could put its heartfelt energy, intelligence, and resources on developing a system that best positions Lexington for a better opportunity. We can also lose face and leverage with the state if we submit this plan to the Commonwealth. As Councilmember Blevins said, this is not even a TIFF application. If it is surgically rejected, what type of footing does that leave the city for the next application? I agree with Councilmembers who said we are in favor of TIFF projects and pursuing opportunities. This, however, is not the one to pursue. Mr. McCord is not here. If he were, I'd be able to tell him that I'm not focusing on failure instead of success. The webs have said that center point will go on. As for the public improvements, all of these worthy projects can be funded locally if justified. I simply don't believe this slate of projects is worthy of a TIFF application. Last week and leading into this week, the design for the streetscape improvements was given the green light and funding was discussed. That process is moving forward. Lexington has not had a TIFF. That funding is not waiting in trust for us to claim it. There are a thousand ways that money could be used by the state. The burden is on us to prove the necessity of the project and the funding. Is this really the marquee project that will change the face of Lexington? With buried utilities, heating, air conditioning, and ventilation for the museum, a tiny space for a farmer's market that would conflict with public events that now occur at Cheapside Park, Pedways. I want Lexington's first TIFF project to be grander than that. I think the state will require something grander than that. Lexington won't be fundamentally changed by linear parks separating the county attorney from whatever coffee or sandwich place lands on the first floor of Center Point. I want something spectacular. I want an entertainment district that I can walk or bike to that improves on the one that we lost downtown. I want a TIFF that helps expand and create a whole new destination and dimension for downtown Lexington. That's a concept I can support. That would take a risk and think big and thinking about success and not failure. You have about 20 seconds, Mr. Penley. Thank you, sir. I think that project opportunity is at your doorstep in the formula distillery district. I know it's not a one versus the other, but I think more energy into one and voting no on Thursday is the way to proceed on Thursday for the resolution. Thank you very much. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to address the council? Seeing none, we're ready to consider a closed session matter. Council Member Henson. Mayor, I have a motion. I move that we go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.810.1B and G in order to discuss an economic development matter involving real property. An open discussion would likely affect the value of a specific piece of property to be acquired for public use and would jeopardize the siting, retention, expansion, and upgrading of a business. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Those in favor?