It's knowing that your door is always open and your path is free to walk... That makes me tend to leave my sleeping bag rolled up and stashed behind your couch. And it's knowing I'm not shackled by forgotten words and bonds, and the ink stains that are dried upon some line... That keeps you in the back roads by the rivers of my memory. It keeps you ever gentle on my mind. It's not clinging to the rocks and ivy planted on their columns now that bind me... Or something that somebody said because they thought we fit together walking. It's just knowing that the world will not be cursing or forgiving when I walk along some railroad track and find... That you're moving on the back roads by the rivers of my memory, and for hours you're just gentle on my mind. Though the wheat fields and the clothes lines and the junk yards and the highways come between us... And some other woman's crying to her mother 'cause she turned and I was gone... I still might run in silence, tears of joy might stain my face, and the summer sun might burn me till I'm blind. But not to where I cannot see you walking on the back roads by the rivers flowing gentle on my mind. I dip my cup of soup back from a gurgling, crackling cauldron in some train yard. My beard a rough knotted... I see none, so we will move ahead to docket approval. We have a couple of ordinances, um, numbers six and seven- Is your brother out there? ... which, uh, are under the first reading ordinances- ... that need some attention. Uh, Council Member Blues? Mayor, regarding number six, I move to put, uh, put that zone change on the, uh, on the agenda without a public hearing. So moved. Second. Was that Council Member Blevins that seconded? All right, we have a motion and a second to put Item 6 on the agenda without a public hearing. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. Uh, Number Seven. Mayor? Council Member Blues. Regarding, uh, regarding Number Seven, there has been a request for a public, public hearing, so I move that we schedule a special meeting of the council for the purpose of a public hearing at 6:00 PM January 13. So moved. We have a motion by Council Member Blues and a second by Council Member Crosby to schedule Number Seven for a public hearing on January 15th at 6:00 PM. 13th. 13th, I'm sorry. January 13th. Is there any discussion? All in favor of the motion then please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries unanimously. Is there a motion to approve the docket as now amended? So moved. Second. We have a motion by Council Member Blues and a second by Council Member Myers to approve the docket with the changes we just made to Ordinances Six and Seven. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no? Motion carries. Uh, Mayor? Council Member Lane? Yeah, on the item relating to the Phoenix Park Courthouse District, I'd like to recuse myself on that. I'm sorry? On the, uh, on the, uh, Phoenix Park Courthouse District, I'd like to recuse myself on that portion. All right. Mr. Lane has recused on the item relating to the Phoenix Park, um, Courthouse TIF. Anything further? We have a summary to be approved, the November 11th summary. Is there a motion? Excuse me, Mayor, I misspoke there. I wanted to recuse myself from the Distillery District. The Distillery District. Up in Phoenix, uh... Very well. Clerk will note-- note the recusal. Anything further? All right, we're ready to consider the summary for, of November 11th. Is there a motion to approve it? I move approval of the summary from November 11th. Council Member Stevens has moved the approval of the summary for the November 11th meeting. Council Member Ellinger has seconded. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries unanimously. Uh, item four on the agenda are budget amendments. Is there a motion? I move approval of the budget amendments. Second. I have a motion by Dr. Stevens, second by Council Member Blevins to approve the budget amendments. Any discussion? Council Member James. Um, Mayor, Council Members, I just wanted to let you know, uh, there have been some, uh, questions regarding journal 28474, and you do have an email from my office, um, assistant, and also someone from Parks and Rec regarding, um, some particular questions that I'd heard other council members and that I myself had regarding this issue. So, um, if you check your emails, you should have those responses. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Any further discussion of the budget amendments? Those in favor of approving those, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Uh, we're ready for the items of new business, and I think Mr. Eskew wanted to address one issue on the items of new business before we proceed. Thank you, Mayor. Item N is set out, these are the two TIF ordinances, the Phoenix Park Courthouse TIF ordinance, and the Lexington Distillery District TIF ordinance are two separate ordinances and will be docketed as such, so they will have to be acted on independently. They're for work session, I have prepared one blue sheet memo referencing both, and that's how it got on the work session docket today, but those are two separate ordinances that will be considered, need to be considered separately by the council. With that bit of information, is there a motion with regard to- So moved. ... to approve the, the new business items? Is there a second? Second. We have a second from Council Member Stevens to approve the items of new business. Any discussion? Yes. Um, Mr. Stennet first. Okay, Council Member Stennet. Thank you, Mayor. On item M, that is the proposed stormwater fee, um, several of us have been on council awhile and- and understand the significance of this issue. Um, there's been a couple task forces in the past that have really taken a stab at looking at this and the best way to implement it here, here in Fayette County, and I appreciate the- the mayor and administration bringing forward something to- to chew on, so to speak, so that we can start addressing this issue. And in light of that, I would like to, at this time, make a motion to move, uh, item number M, um, to a task force that the vice-mayor would appoint, um, a- at his discretion, of course, to address this issue a- and do so within, um, the next 60 days, before the end of January, so that we can have something to the table, uh, before the April 1st deadline to continue the work. So moved. And second. Have a motion and second to refer item M to a task force to be appointed by the vice-mayor to report back within 60 days. Is there any, uh, dis- yeah, and let's say I had a second from Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. And one last item, under, uh, today's presentations, I- I know I see all of our stormwater folks here, and- and I see Charlie here ready to go on the presentation. I would ask that we could postpone that presentation until the work of the task force at a later date come back 'cause some of the detail of that presentation is probably not in there today that we'd like to see, and it may change before the next 60 days. So, if we can do that, I don't know if- if Charlie wants to comment or Commissioner Taylor if we could wait on that presentation, or if you'd like to go ahead today? But I would like if we could postpone it. Second. It really doesn't make a great deal of difference. There may be some people who would be interested in seeing the details of the, uh, the presentation on GTV3. Um, but if you pre- if the majority would prefer to postpone it, that's certainly okay. Council Member Stennet. I would support having a presentation today, b- for reasons of informing the public about this, and they can communicate with the task force and other units of the government as time goes by, that's why I'm, would like to hear it. Council Member, um, Jordan. Uh, if in fact the task force recommends changes, then we would need to have a new presentation. Is that your thinking, Council Member Stennet? Yes, ma'am. Because I would favor seeing a full presentation when we have the final package. I would too, just not to add to confusion to the issue. I mean, I- I understand we could talk about the- the problem today, I mean, we want to address that issue and- and why we need a fee, but to go into the details of the fee today may be premature. Any further comments? Is there a motion to amend today's docket, I guess, is, uh, the agenda rather? Um, 'cause as it stands now, we'll, we'll roll on with it, but if a majority prefers to not hear it today, that's fine. Well, I, I move to postpone it. Have a motion, second, to postpone the presentation. Any, uh, more discussion on that issue? Those in favor of, uh, postponing the presentation, please raise your hand. Those opposed? Okay. We'll postpone it. Um, any other items, Mr. Stennet? No, sir. Thank you. Council Member Stevens? Uh, I've been wiped out. I wanna talk about ... My comments related to the storm water. Okay. All right. I'm washed away. Council Member DeCamp. Uh, thank you. It's just been proven that the two lame ducks have nothing, ha, no power whatsoever. Thank you. Uh- I guess the only thing a lame duck can do is kinda paddle around on the pond. That's right. No, I had a question, uh, Mayor, about, um, item F on, uh, the year-round, uh, closing of Chief Cide. Pardon me? I'm sorry. Uh, I have a question about, um, item F on the, uh, year-round closing of Chief Cide. I guess, Charlie? Um, you know, we, we did, uh, pass an ordinance to, um, do a trial, uh, on closing it during, I think, up until November. Uh, and I didn't see anywhere in your letter, I mean, it's, it's a whole different ball game if we close it. It looks like we're gonna be closing it permanently. Um, are we gonna go through the procedure of, of, of what we do when we close the street permanently or are all the, the people, uh, that, uh, would be affected by the close of the street been notified that this is gonna become permanent and not just a temporary closing of Chief Cide? Because I think it is important. Um, I mean, I didn't see in your letter, Charlie, that people had been, uh, uh, canvassed a- again to see if there is, um, that, that people really want this street closed. And I can understand why it is. I'm not opposed to it, I just wanna be sure that all the people who have businesses there that are involved are aware now that we're gonna vote on, uh, closing it permanently. Just to characterize it correctly, this wouldn't be a street closure or right of way closure, it's a restriction on automobile traffic. We're, we're not gonna undo any of the right of way, uh, all of the easements and so forth that are in place that are there. Uh, the request actually emanated with the people who front on the street, the merchants, the property owners. And as we went through the trial in the remainder of the year, um, we, uh, talked to many of the, the, uh, merchants, to the people who participate in the events. We've gone back to our divisions and the utility companies to see if that restriction of automobile traffic posed any problem a- and, uh, the answer to that was no. And it was thought that in order to not undo a condition that people had become used to, traffic condition, that we would, uh, just go ahead and make that a year-round automobile restriction. Um, the, uh, uh, intent of that, the long-range intent of that is to keep it that way anyway, to keep that a festival area. So having done that bit of review, uh, we did go through that process when we first looked at the trial restrictions to see if there would be any opposition. Uh, this, this was, uh, a means of follow-up just b- with the merchants, with the, uh, property owners, the people who participated, utility companies, and the government divisions who said it has not been a problem. So we are trying simply to amend the earlier action, which was a temporary restriction, to make it a year-round restriction. But no right of way would actually be closed. We could open that street up at any time that we needed to. Okay. I just wanna be sure that all the people who own property in that area or do business in that area have been notified that, um, you know, we're doing this a little differently now. Yes. I mean, um, th- this is, this is really more of a permanent closure, um, if we pass this and I just wanna be sure that everybody's been notified. I, I know they were notified that it was gonna be closed, uh, temporarily. I just wanna be sure that everyone knows that, that we're, we're going along this route now. There was a unanimous request at the very beginning from that very group of people that it be done permanently. Okay. And it was our idea to do it only as a trial. We're now coming back and saying, "Let's go ahead and make the automobile restriction permanent." So- Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Any, uh, further discussion? Council Member Blevins. Mayor, for the purposes of clarity, I'd like to make a motion to split item N into two pieces. Uh, item N will become Phoenix Park Courthouse District and I'll propose that item O become the Lexington Distillery District so that we can have a discussion about each one. So moved. Second. I have a motion and second, uh, by Council Member Gordon to, uh, split item N into two items, N and O. N would be the Courthouse Phoenix Park TIF, O would be the Distillery District TIF. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Thank you, Mayor. That's all I had. Um, Council Member Beard. Uh, wh- wh- while we're on the subject of, uh, those two items, I, I believe, uh, our consultant on this whole TIF situation is present this evening or this afternoon actually, and, um, I would like to invite him up to the, the microphone to explain what stage we're at in this process- And, uh, what the timeliness of it is and, and, uh, all the a- attendant, uh, uh, complexities that we have. Mr. Parsons. Good afternoon. And it's good to be back here today. Um, the, actually the stage you're in right now, of course, in October we had the public hearing on the two development plans. Uh, subsequent of that, you have a 30-day period, uh, where you cannot adopt the ordinance. So, we're in that right now. We're in the adoption process. You can do first reading today. I mean, not today, but first reading, but the adoption of the ordinances must ch- occur 30 days after the public hearing. And so, we're on schedule there. I have provided you an ordinance, the local participation agreement relative to that, and, uh, the local participation in the ordinance is, basically creates the TIFF district. The ordinance has certain findings in it relative to creation of the TIFF district. It also approves the development plan that you had the public hearing on for each district. And in addition to that, it approves a local participation agreement, uh, relative to that, to each particular project. Your local participation agreement's a little bit unusual because you're having a contract with yourself in a sense because under the, uh, local participation agreement, you're designating the Department of Finance and Administration as the agency and department responsible for the implementation of the ordinance. And that's gonna, that would also then be y- you have a contractual relationship there, but it is with yourself. Oftentimes, you have other units of government, other, other taxing jurisdictions as part of that. But in your situation, you don't have another pledge. It's only, the only pledge you're making from local revenues are the direct revenues of the Le- collecting urban fit county government are relative to that. So, that shouldn't be confusing, but that's, that is the process we have to go through, uh, relative to that. But after the ordinance, assuming you adopt the ordinance and which adopts the local participation agreement and the development plan, then at the same time you then it, then you are able to apply to the state, uh, uh, tax d- department of tax incentives with the economic development cabinet to review each application. And they'll be handled independently. Uh, in fact, the individual, the applications are filed under two different areas. The, uh, d- the Phoenix Park Courthouse development plan will be filed as a, a signature project because it's over $200 million and meets those criteria. The Phoenix, the distillery project would be a blighted mixed-use TIFF, which will be the first one filed in Kentucky, uh, in that circumstance. And there's different standards relative to that particular application. Uh, similar, but they are different. And if you looked at the two different ordinances, the eligible costs are different there. So, you will see some differences in the two ordinances, uh, because certain things are not eligible to be reimbursed with state funds under the distillery project that are eligible as a s- as a signature project under the Phoenix Park Courthouse project. Um, some of the more specifics on them is that both, uh, documents specifically provide no guarantee or no pledge of your, the full faith and credit of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to the develop- to the projects. So, that's real clear. In fact, that's the one section, all caps, all bold in that one section is pretty clear relative to that. And actually, the particular, both local participation agreements provide that the pledge of revenues from the urban county government are dependent upon the approval of the state participation. So, if the state doesn't participate, then your pledge does not, uh, is, does not come into fruition unless you decide to change it after you know what the state action is going to be. Okay, I, I j- just want to... Excuse me. I, I just wanted the public to be able to be on board with where we were in the, in the sequence of things 'cause it is a little complex. It's complex for all of us, I'm sure. Uh, we, we deal with it a- almost every day it seems like. I had a work session today with the city staff and the two deve- developers on this just to determine, you know, how we're going to move forward with the application and what... The intent is to as soon as, as the final action of council occurs, uh, which we anticipate would be in December, assuming you meet your regular schedule, then, uh, then we would be filing the application with state. Thank you. Uh, uh, if anyone else has any questions, th- this is not my ball game by any means. Uh, uh, jump in, but, uh, otherwise, uh, Mr. Parsons, thank you very much. Thank you. All right. I can't recall whether we have a motion to approve the new business items pending now or not. We do. All right. Very well. We're now then ready to vote on the new business items unless someone has, uh, other discussion as now amended. All in favor of approving the new business items as amended, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Oppose no? Motion carries. All right. If you want to vote separately on, um, M and N, or on N and O, uh, we can do that. Is there any objection to a separate vote? Seeing none, we'll, uh, proceed in that fashion. All in favor of items A through, um, L, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Oppose no. That motion carries unanimously. Item M has been postponed. We're now ready to vote on items N and O. Item N is the Phoenix Park Courthouse, uh, TIFF district. All in favor of approving that item of new business, now please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Actually, let's do a show of hands here. All in favor, please raise your hand. Count nine, yes. All opposed? Six. All right. That, uh, item is approved. Uh, we're now ready to vote on item O. All in favor of approving item O, please indicate by raising your hand. Opposed? Motion carries and we're noting your recu-recusal, Council Member Lane, on that issue. All right. Farewell. Um... We're now ready for the Intergovernmental Committee update. Council Member James. Yes. Uh, I'll give that update as, uh, Chairperson, uh, James was ill that day, and as Vice-Chair, I, I chaired that meeting. Uh, the meeting was held on November 11th. Uh, the major item on the agenda, uh, that afternoon was on temporary structures. There had been a post-text amendment change for the present ordinance on temporary structures, um, and there was a long discussion, uh, concerning this. Um, I, Dewey Crow, uh, Director of Billing Inspection, uh, reviewed all permits issued within the last three years of persons who could be affected by the proposed changes. There were a total of 135. Um, there was a handout and Jessica Kase spoke on behalf of seven persons in support of the proposed amendment to this issue. Um, Councilman Crosby asked Ms. Kase if she represented the neighborhood or just the underwritten persons on the handout. And this is, uh, Kase said that there were just those on the handout. Uh, uh, Councilman Stennett, uh, asked about other temporary structures, and, uh, Ms. Kase stated that they were using the Carrick House as their example since the structure called attention to this issue. Um, there were a number of speakers. Uh, several citizens spoke in opposition of the pros- the proposed, uh, text amendment. Uh, those included were, uh, the Lexington Legends, Paul Miller Ford, um, M- Murphy & Martin Attorneys at Law, uh, um, and the Clean Sweep Carwash, and, uh, the Marathon Food Mart on Mar- on North Martin Luther King. Um... There, um, were several questions asked concerning the present procedures followed as they applied, uh, to our temporary structures, specifically, uh, to the Carrick House as it now exists. Um, as there was no motion made, uh, concerning this proposed text change, um, I therefore stated that, uh, I would make a recommendation to Council Member James to see that, uh, if a fair ordinance, uh, proposed ordinance could come about based on the testimony presented and whether a sub-committee would be appointed. And I'm sure that, uh, she will address that at the next meeting. Um, the second item, uh, was the Citizen's Advocate Office. Uh, the proposal was made by Council Member Beard, um, seconded by Council Member Blevins to, uh, uh, allow time to review the information on this issue that was in the packet and discuss it at the next inter-governmental meeting. Uh, the third item was the proposed new compensation system. Uh, Commissioner Cole was there to give us an update. Uh, she stated they were not ready to get to the s- the specifics of the new system, uh, at that point, so, um, she stated that it was unrealistic to believe that there would be money available for this new system at the beginning of the next fiscal year. Um, she will get back to the council with a revised schedule after the implementation of the PeopleSoft is completed. Um, with their, uh, we pro- uh, the boards and commissions reporting was postponed to the next inter-governmental committee meeting. Uh, as there was no other business, a motion was made to adjourn and we were adjourned at 2:09. Thank you, Council Member Decamp. Are there any questions? All right. We'll move along. It's my pleasure to welcome to the podium, Rocky Burke, who's the General Manager of LexTran, so that, uh, we can get an update on what's happening at LexTran. Get them, uh, ready to go. Thank you, Mayor Newberry, members of council. I just, uh, wanted to come before you all today and give you a, uh, kind of the state of LexTran. It's been, uh, several months since I've, uh, been on board as a general manager, I guess, since back in March, and, uh, several, uh, good things have happened, uh, in the last seven or eight months, so I just kinda wanted to share some of the, the things with you that's, uh, that's going on at LexTran, so... First thing I like to mention is just, uh, you know, of course, the things probably most important to everybody is ridership. Um, in, uh, October, we finally reached the milestone of, uh, over six million, uh, passenger trips for the, for the fiscal year. Um, that's, uh, more than tripled or more than doubled than the last three years. Uh, so that's, uh, you know, a- again, a real success. I think, uh, you know, I'd be a little naive if I wasn't, uh, to, to believe that ridership wasn't increased because of high price of gasoline, that sort of thing. So, you know, this past four, five months have been record ridership numbers. Uh, but we put a lot of new service out there, so, uh, some new park and ride service, um, added a lot of routes and those kinds of things, so obviously more people are, are riding. Uh, another project I wanted to just, uh, talk with you a little bit about, uh, is the downtown trolleys or, uh, downtown circulator. Um, this has gotten a lot of publicity in the last, uh, several months. Uh, the plan is to buy four trolleys, uh, for downtown area. Uh, we just recently received a $1.2 million, uh, CMOT grant. Uh, right now, we're, we're looking for additional funding sources to pay the local match. Uh, trying to finalize the service designs, and just briefly what we're looking at doing is running a, you know, a, a route at lunchtime from, for example, 11:30 to 1:30 in the afternoon, uh, uh, running it from Thoroughbred Park to Triangle Park, east-west corridor. And then, uh, in the evenings, uh, come back out and do a north-south corridor between, uh, UK and, and Transylvania. And then possibly one east-west corridor as well. So it's, it's an effort to try to get the, um, people that wanna go to lunch, uh, tourists in the area that are shopping downtown, and then get the students from UK and Transylvania to come into the downtown area. So, uh, that's the service, uh, design piece of it. Uh, we're looking at what type of vehicles are we going to buy. There are several manufacturers out there. Of course, timing is of the essence. We certainly wanna have these vehicles here and ready for the 2010, uh, World Equestrian Games, but anything sooner than that would be, uh, would be great. Uh, you know, if we could have 'em here for the Spring Keeneland Meet or something like that, that'd be wonderful. So we're working those issues right now. Uh, briefly touch on regional commuter service. Uh, one of the things the mayor and I talked about when I first came on board was trying to create some, some regional service between us and Versailles, Winchester, Nicholasville, and Georgetown. Uh, we reached out to all those communities. Uh, matter of fact, they came to, to me on a couple of occasions to look at service, especially when the gas prices were $4 a gallon. Uh, right now, just a little bit, update you, um, we first went to Winchester. Uh, they have since, uh, partnered with, uh, one of the rural providers in, uh, in their county, that being Foothills Transit, and they are running a small shuttle service between Winchester and here. Uh, the folks out in, uh, in Georgetown recently, uh, notified us that, uh, because of, uh, their revenues being down, they were not going to pursue this any further. Right now, uh, we're still negotiating with the folks in Versailles, Woodford County, about possible service. Uh, they were supposed to take the, uh, the cost of the service back to their fiscal court and those kinds of things, but haven't heard back yet. They did a survey and they had almost 600 survey, uh, surveys turned in, so there's a lot of interest out there. And then, uh, finally and over in Nicholas- uh, Nicholasville, uh, uh, Judge Cassidy is, uh, you know, they're interested, but simply don't have any money at this point in time. Uh, the other, uh, note I've got up there is, uh, actually, uh, something that's kinda neat, uh, Bluegrass Ultra Service is another one of these small rural providers. They're actually, uh, kind of partnering with us, and they're running a service between Danville and Lexington starting on December 1st. They'll be using our transit center to drop people off. So the good part about that is, when they, when they get off the bus at the transit center, they'll, they'll have to use LexTrans. So they'll, you know, buy passes and, and get on our buses. So that's a good thing. Um, moving on, uh, Park & Ride is kind of one of my little pet projects. Uh, you know, it's in an effort to try to attract the choice riders, as we call them. Uh, we, uh, have been looking at different locations around town where people can park their cars and, uh, jump on the bus and limited-stop service, uh, coming into the transit center. The first one we did was Nicholasville Road and Man-O-War. We've partnered with Walmart. We're probably having 20, 25 people, uh, in the morning and afternoon riding the bus. So ridership's not great, but it's, uh, a lot better than some people I think thought it would be. So it's, continues to grow. Uh, we also have got one out at the Coldstream, uh, uh, complex on the Newtown, uh, Road. Um, in addition, we've been working closely with the MPO to see if we couldn't find some locations, uh, that the state might own or the feds might own out around the freeways 64, I-75 interchange. We'll do that, so we're still negotiating with those folks. And probably the Richmond Road corridor is our number one priority right now. So we're trying to find a location there. Uh, touch briefly on a, uh, what we're doing with these. We just, uh, awarded a contract to, uh, RLS and Associates to do a comprehensive operational analysis of LexTrans. This was done five years ago about the same time the tax levy passed. Essentially what this is, it's a, it's a roadmap for us for the next five years. So, uh, they just were awarded the contract and we should have a, a final product out in the spring. But essentially what the consultants will do, will come in, they'll interview, uh, all the major stakeholders in the city. Uh, all you folks, uh, my board of directors, uh, you know, the chamber of commerce, uh, anybody that, you know, major employers and that sort of thing, they'll do all sorts of onboard surveys, uh, telephone surveys and, and just trying to get a feel for, you know, what people want from LexTrans for the next five years and looking at our route structures. How efficient are they? What can we do to improve things? And some new service. The, uh, downtown transit center will be a big focus this year. It's overcrowded and, and the pulsing system that we have is, is kinda outgrown its, its usefulness. So we're looking at ways to, to, uh, run the bus service a lot, maybe possibly some more, uh, crosstown service and those kinds of things. So, um, we're real excited about the, the outcome of the, the COA. Uh, next item, uh, paratransit service contract. Uh, I think you probably know, uh, this, uh, service right now is currently operated by, uh, American Red Cross, and it's called the Wheels Program. They've run this program for us for many, many, many years. Uh, the five-year contract that they were under, uh, expires in November. So we've got a new RFP on the street. Um, uh, bids are due in, I believe, next week. So we'll evaluate the bids and award a new contract to someone in March of '09. Um, there are some changes with this that, uh, you know, have gotten some, uh, publicity I guess, if you will. Um, we recently had an audit by the Federal Transit Administration that essentially told us we had to, to change the way we do some business with regard to the paratransit service contract. ... essentially, the big items are we have to create an eligibility office for people to come in and submit their documentation that says they need paratransit service. So, we'll be doing that. And then the other part of this is, uh, there's an issue with, uh, paratransit service, you're supposed to provide service to those folks who need the, need this type of service. Has to be compatible with, comparable to the fixed route service, which means that you provide service to people that live within three quarters of a mile of a fixed route, or, and- and the hours are the same. And essentially, right now, the way Red Cross operates the business is that anybody that lives in the county can have service at any time of the day, and that sort of thing. So, uh, we've got some decisions to make as to how we handle the three-quarter mile issue, whether we continue to do that, but charge a premium fare for that, as the FTA has suggested that we do, or provide the minimum service, which is only to those who live within three-quarters of a mile. So, any rate, uh, we've asked the people that are going to pro- be proposing on the contract to pro- to propose based upon both scenarios, so that we've got all our bases covered there. Um, quickly moving on. Uh, renovation update. If you've all driven by the, uh, facility on Louden, you can see that, uh, things are changing around there. We just finished, uh, phase one of, uh, of a three-phase project to do some major renovations. We just opened up the, the wash house, which is new bus wash facility, a new fueling island. Uh, phase two of this, which we're, uh, starting right, well, we'll be starting soon hopefully, is taking the old Greyhound facility that sits behind the Louden complex, it's the corner of Louden and Limestone, and that becomes the administration operations facility. Um, right now, it's, uh, you know, we're looking at, at funding. You know, it's about a... Well, we planned on it being about a 6.5 million project, and they're saying it could be as many, much as 10, so we're trying to figure out, is that really the case? And if it is, what can we do to get it back within budget? And, and those kinds of things. So, any rate, uh, uh, the Louden Avenue project is phase two, and what we'll do, uh, is bring all the people back from... We have an office downtown as well, move every- move everybody back together, and, um, have everybody in one location. And then where we're currently located will be phase three. We'll move out, up to the, the new building, and, and where we're at will become the maintenance complex, and build three or four new bus bays and- and do that sort of thing. So, right now plans are under review, like I said, uh, the, so we can begin the- the secon- second and third phases project. Uh, the other thing, on that new wash house, if you s- if you've been by, you can see the, uh, we've got a new art mural on the, uh, the building. It's about 95% complete. The artists have, have completed, uh, uh, again, about 95% of it. They've gone back to their home in Nashville, and they're gonna finish, uh, uh, putting the, uh, the, uh, actual pictures that will go inside the windshield of the bus, if you will. They'll paint that on some, some metal, and come back and affix that to it. So, uh, that was a real neat project. We had, uh, a couple of neighborhood associations came by and helped us, and then we had Family Day for all the LexTrain employees to, to help paint. So, it was a, a real fun project. So, folks got a lot of ownership in our, in our mural. Uh, turning to some of the amenities that we have, um, this is kind of one of my little, another one of my pet projects, bus shelters and benches. Um, when I showed up, we didn't have, uh, many shelters around the city, but we currently have 48 in place. Um, we've just, uh, finished the approval process for five more, and of course, I included, uh, uh, some money in our budget this year f- to, to buy additional, uh, benches. And one of the other things we have, uh, are shelters, but- and we have no benches around the city, so, uh, we're going to, you're gonna start seeing benches show up around. You know, one of our... Kind of rule of thumb is if a board- location has 25 or more boardings, we try to put a shelter up, and something less than that, we'll put, uh, put benches up. So, we're really working hard to do that. In addition to that, we, uh, embarked on a information campaign. At each of the shelters, uh, you'll be able to, uh, to, when you go there to catch the bus, you'll be able to see all the, the rules for riding the bus. You'll be able to see the system-wide map, so you can see where you want to go, know what routes to catch. And of course, at that specific location, you'll see the time points and the schedule for that route, where it goes, and what time to expect the bus. So, that's some new stuff we're doing. Um, just quickly, uh, with regard to shelters, we're also, uh, really engaged with the, um, Arts in Motion project here in town. The, uh, Bottle Stop project is underway. That's where they've taken the ALA, uh, bottles, and uh, we got a really neat, uh, uh, stop out on the Versailles Road. A second one's being planned, it's called the Bluegrass, uh, Shelter. And it will be someplace in the Newtown Pike corridor. So, there's lots of people participating in this, and of course, uh, you know, we're providing some funding for each of these, and, and pouring the pads, and all that sort of thing. So, pretty excited about the public art. Um, something else that we recently did, uh, you know, we're always looking at ways to, you know, cut our expenses and sort of things, so we, we recently redid the, uh, the, uh, maps and ride guides for the system. We used to produce a really thick, uh, ride guide that, that had all the routes in it, and of course, we change routes fairly often, so every time we would change a route, we'd have to reproduce the whole book. So, we decided we prevented... We now print out the individual route maps, and then we have a nice foldout map that shows the entire system, so it's, uh, it's a cost-savings measure for us. Typically, people would get the ride guide and figure out where they wanted to go, and, and toss the ride guide in the trash can. So, just another way to save some money. Uh, pass sales, you know, this is, uh, you know, something that, uh, we really work hard to do. Uh, for example, you know, a 30-day pass, uh, uh, a month pass is $30, and, uh, we sell lots and lots of passes, so. And at one time, the only locations we had to sell passes were, you know, at- at our offices at Louden and, and downtown. We partnered up with, uh, Kroger. They're selling our, our monthly passes for us now. We also kind of got with the 21st century, we're using credit cards now. You can use your credit card to buy a pass. Used to be with cash only. And, uh... I guess probably the next phase of this thing, we'll actually be able to sell them online, which people are asking for. So we'll be able to do that. Um, still working the Fair Deal programs with some of the major employers around town. Had a neat thing going with University of Kentucky, uh, if they traded in their parking pass, uh, they would buy 'em a bus pass, and they could do all this stuff through payroll deduction. Uh, Urban County Government, uh, the flex benefits option that they have, you can actually use part of the flex benefits now to buy a bus pass. So, just continuing to figure out ways to sell passes. So that was it in a nutshell what we're doing with LexTran. I know you're all busy, but, uh, any questions? Any questions, Council members? The mayor had to step out. Council Member Henson. You knew I was gonna speak. Oh, oh, oh, oh- Yes, ma'am. . ...okay. Yeah. There are people on the list, but if you all will forgive me. Oh. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Then Council Member James, then Stennet. I met with Rocky, and I just wanted to voice my concern especially about the paratransit. Overall, I think LexTrans does a great job 'cause I've been putting people to work for, I've told you, 20-plus years, um, and I'd say a large majority of those people utilize public transportation. But many of those people need paratransit, and I am just... I'm envisioning a person that uses Wheels living within a mile of a bus route stuck at home with, you know, and it's just gonna shut down their life. They can't go to church. They can't go shopping, whatever. Um, but I'm most in particular worried about them getting to work, and bec- you know, they're taxpayers. They deserve as much attention as new bus shelters or anything else, but, um, I know we talked about the premium fare rate, and, and I don't think it would be unreasonable because I know Wheels fares have not gone up for... I can't remember the last time they've gone up. So, um, I don't think it would be unreasonable to raise those rates, but I was just curious about the premium fare- Right. ... and if you had calculated what that might be. At this point, we haven't looked at what the fare might be raised to. It's $1.60 right now, but, uh, but certainly, that is one of the options that we can consider it. You know, the FTA, when they did the audit, they essentially said, "You can do either/or. You can either comply with the minimum requirements of the FTA, uh, the ADA Act, or if you want to continue to provide this service to everybody, then, you know, treat them a little bit differently and charge a premium fare." So- Yes. ... that's obviously what we're gonna do. But they also put a cap on what that premium fare can be, correct? I think it can be up to double the rate of a, of a, uh, irregular fare. Right. So it can go up to $2. Okay. Um, but just so you understand, I am totally against restricting individuals with disabilities in any way or, you know, more than they already are. Yes, ma'am. I understand. Thank you. Council Member James. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Um, thank you, Rocky, for always being there and, and talking with us. We talk quite a bit about the LexTran, um, issues, um, and, um, disabilities, uh, Commission for Citizens with Disabilities related to transportation, so I appreciate your ear and yours and Dave's and Jared's. Um, I am curious about the status of the board's, um, response to that three-quarter mile for the paratransit. I know, I think you all have had a work session since you and I have talked last, and- Right. ... I'm just curious about the board's position as it stands now. What, what we're still doing is actually gathering information from, uh, from Wheels. Uh, we're trying to figure out what the, what the financial impact would be, um. In addition to that, we, we've been having somewhat of difficulty of finding how many actual riders live outside the three-quarter mile that use it fairly often. For example, we have about 13,000, I think, registered clients that use Wheels. Of that, about 3,000 actually ride frequently, and then we've figured that we think there's about 165 people that live outside that three-quarter-mile quarter that would be affected by that. And this would be one of the discussions we're gonna have again in December. Mm-hmm. Uh, and as I said, one of the things that we, w- w- we made an addendum to the RFP that was on the street so that at least we'd have accurate pricing data from the people that are proposing if we chose to provide the service to those outside that three-quarter mile. So the board hasn't taken a position just yet. Okay. They're still, eh, I mean, they have, they can consider those two options essentially is what they have to- Okay. Is there... If the data can't be compiled from the information, um, from Wheels or the lack of information from Wheels, is there any way that we can have a map somehow displayed, I don't, maybe through our urban county government website or the LexTrans website, that identifies where outside of that three-quarter mile would be? And that way, anybody watching today or anybody that watches or comes to the LexTrans meetings can actually use that as a reference. If they can identify that they're outside of it, they can contact your office directly or contact the board. The, uh, as we've been working through this, we've been working with the MPO, and Joey David from... He's a transportation planner, has been working really close with Red Cross, and we've actually been able to do what you just suggested. Okay. That's how we, we've gotten it down that we think this 167. We're just making sure the data is reliable, but, but I think we've, we've figured this out. Red Cross has a very sophisticated, uh, route match scheduling system that should allow us to simply overlay the fixed route- ... system that we have and anybody that's... has an address, you know, a valid address, would be able to pinpoint exactly where they live and compute the three-quarter mile. So, that's something we're doing right now. We're just trying to make sure that that 167 is a good number. Okay. And the Lextran meetings, um, they are open to the public and you, you take public comment? Yes, we do, ma'am. Mm-hmm. So if anyone has a particular concern about the three-quarter mile, they could come forward to, what meeting would be... What's the meeting date and time? Uh, matter of fact, uh, we have a meeting tomorrow night at 6:30, in here. Okay. Here at the council chambers? Ma'am. Okay, great. Mm-hmm. Um, and several, probably months ago, we talked about the shelter process and how's that working for you? Is it going better as far as permitting for the shelters? Nope. It, it's going really, really well. Uh, you know, uh, uh, we work closely with the... with the city, um, uh, various city departments. Uh, you know, I would guess that wh- when we put a, a request in for a shelter, within 30 days it's completely approved and, and ready to go so that's not an issue for us anymore at all. Like I said, I guess in the last, you know, eight months, we've probably put up, uh, 20 shelters. Okay. So it's really, really going well. Okay. And I know that Art in Motion is working to get some art shelters around. And, um, when we talked last, you mentioned that possibly the shelters that will be on order, um, will have the ability to display art. Do you kn-... Is that confirmed? And how can we get that process rolling to where we could potentially use some of the Lextran shelters as art shelters as well? Yeah. The way these, uh, shelters are built, that we buy the, the panels that, um, you know, s- surround the shelter, uh, they're easily to, to, to be replaced with, with the, uh... For example, Andrea, um, or Andrea. Yvette Hurt and, uh, Jim Clark and I have talked some about this, that once they have some art available to put on these shelters, uh, depending on the, the size of it, uh, it's easy to replace these mesh screens that are on there and put up some sort of plexiglass where the, where the, uh, artwork could actually fit into these things. So, we just haven't gotten to all the detail yet, but, but once we have some art, we're, we're ready to go with it because- Okay. ... the side panels are easily to be replaced. Okay. So, um, Jim Clark and Yvette Hurt are the contact folks for that? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have, Vice Mayor. Council Member Stennet and then Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Vice Mayor Rocky. Thank you for coming today. We, we- Yes, sir. ... always appreciate getting an update. L- let's talk about the numbers. Um, s- since you came on board, o- obviously most of your budget is funded through the property tax. How is your budget going this year? Uh, I know here at LFUCG, we're having a tough time m- meeting some of our obligations. Your budget is obviously tied to a, a much different source of income. And also can you talk about any efficiencies that you've been able to implement since you came on board to save, save money? Um, obviously with this huge increase in ridership, uh, we didn't necessarily expect that, so our revenues are up significantly, by 24% over where- So we can lower taxes. That's great. Good news. So, that's, uh, that's going real well. Uh, and of course on the reverse of that, our expenses are significantly down. Uh, well, I shouldn't say significantly down. What, what we did, we, we budgeted, I think... Fu- fuel is what's really affected our budget a lot. We, we figured fuel was going to be about four, $4 and a quarter a gallon is what we budgeted. Well, obviously it's a lot less than that now. It's, you know, we're paying somewhere l-... close to $2 a gallon. So we got this huge savings in, in fuel so far. So, I think we're about, oh, $400,000, uh, below where we thought we'd be. So, it's, it's... Our budget looks good. It really does. Um, as far as, uh, what we're trying to do from a, from a savings standpoint, um, we talked about some of the smaller things, just the, uh, for example, the ride guides that we talked about- Right. ... trying to, trying to do that. Um, some of the, uh, again, fuel savings things that we've done. You know, we used to idle the buses a lot, getting ready for pullout. Uh, so we cut down on that bus sitting in the yard idling, waiting for, for, for our pullouts, you know. So, uh, that saved us a lot on fuel. Um, you know, we just have taken a hard look at, uh, you know, all the parts and things that we're buying and trying to be more efficient. Uh, our purchasing department is putting more and more things on, uh, on national contracts. The corporation that I work for Veolia, uh, they've come out with, uh, with a lot of programs that we're allowed to buy off of now that gives us, you know, some really nice incentives to buy parts, you know, off national contracts and things like that. So, uh, you know, with the increased ridership that we've had, our revenues are up. Of course, you know, with the, the, uh, tax revenue, we don't know exactly what that's going to be this year, but, um, uh, then of course the, the federal money that we get is pretty much the same every year. So our tax revenue and, and, um, the federal money is a- about the norm. H- how's the transition from the, uh, buses going for the new buses? Didn't we purchase some buses with federal dollars that we needed? We did. We purchased 10 buses. That was right before I got here, I guess, and those are the, uh, the nice big Gillig buses that we have. Uh, no problems with them whatsoever. You know, it was a, it was a great buy. They're very, very reliable. And, uh, with that, you know, we were able to put out lots and lots of extra service. Uh, so, and I... Since 19... or 2003 to now, I... The... Our service hours have increased about 94%, believe it or not. 94? 94%. 94. And that's because of more frequent service and new routes that we put out there. I think we started with, uh, with like 80 some bus operators in ni-... 2003 and we've got 175 employees now in the system. So. What, what about your staffing levels out there? Are you... Are... Ha-... Didn't you d- decrease staffing here recently? We have not decreased staff. You know, we, uh, you know, just, uh, uh, uh... Of course, the bus operators, we have a, a fairly significant turnover with bus operators and that sort of thing. So what we've tried to do is increase the staffing level for bus operators to cut down on overtime. So if anything, we've added staff. Well, I'm talking about on the administration side, not the actual labor for the-- for the buses themselves. Uh, no, y-- we have not added any new positions. Uh, I take that back. We did add a new purchasing assistant that's helping us with our contracts. Um, but no other new positions that I can think of. And I think the call we all get here on council is that we always see empty buses. We always see what's -- Why is that? I know, you know I've had the conversation, but you know, 80% of your cost of every bus is labor. That's the driver. And the other 20 makes up the oper-- the maintenance and operation. Yes, sir. Does that still hold true? Yes, sir. Do you want to reiterate that? I think there's a lot of people that have that misconception out there. Yes, that, you know, the old empty bus syndrome, I think you probably hear that any transit system you go to around the country. It's just one of those things that, you know, I always ask people, "Please, uh, join me at the Transit Center and watch, uh, watch the 20-- 20 minutes after the hour and-- and 10 minutes till and see all the people that are getting on the buses." You know, it may be that the bus is full and, you know, uh, at the fourth or fifth stop they all get off. And then you'll see it go for several stops before anybody gets on, but, you know, through this, uh, last eight months I've been here, I just, uh, uh, the number of people ride the bus is unbelievable. And bus operators come in and talk to me all the time about, "I had a standing-room-only crowd today, you know, on the bus," so. Good. It's getting better. One last question on the paratransit. Uh, are we not required to always have a bus there within 30 minutes by federal guidelines? If someone does, in a wheelchair pull up and that bus is not wheelchair accessible, that another bus within 30 minutes or somebody has to come get them? Uh, you know, I'm not sure. That, that, that could be the case. Wha- wha- what I do know is one of the things we've been dealing with is, um, when someone calls in, they're required to pick somebody up within an hour. Okay. That's the ADA requirement. So, uh, but- Can you let me know that answer? If somebody physically just- I will. All right. ... pulls up to a stop and is sitting there waiting, does your driver automatically pick up? If he can't pick them up, call somebody, or- or- Well, uh, I'll find out exactly what the rule is, but I do know that is a practice of ours, that when someone's there if, if for example, the lift won't work or the ramp won't work, a supervisor is immediately dispatched to that situation to, to pick up the person and get them where they need to go, but, but I'll find out what the actual policy is and, and shoot that to you. Very good. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Council member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Rocky, thank you so much for your good presentation. And I, uh, I really appreciate your and the board's, uh, and I know some of the board members are here, proactive work on these issues. I know you're not sitting around waiting to figure something out. Um, I appreciate that you have talked with lots of the council members frequently. And I think that's, that has had a huge impact. Um, two comments on your presentation. Uh, thank you for talking with our HR folks and our benefits folks to work in the, the LexTran pass as something that our employees can take out of their pool. Yes, ma'am. And pay for. I think that's a, a good move. And then when you talked about the Park & Rides, you said that the Nicholasville Road Man O' War had only 25 riders, but when you think that's 25 vehicles off the road, more than likely, that's a good impact. And I think that's what we're looking for with every one of those. Right. Even if they only have 25 riders, think of the vehicles that we're adding up that are getting off the road. So, I appreciate it very much. Thanks for all your good work and the board's good work. Thank you. Council Member Stevens. Uh, thank you. The Art in Motion, uh, group came to the Quarters Committee today to present us their plans and hopes for bus shelters on Newtown Pike between New Circle- Yes, sir. ... and Main Street. And, uh, the Quarters Committee did vote to subsidize their next project partially, not completely, on Newtown Pike and we've been happy to work with them up to now. And, and we did fund the bottle stop, uh, one that's in front of the Barrows Old Ferrets building on Perseus Road. Yes, sir. But, uh, we plan to work, we'll probably work with them in the future, though our funds are limited and we're hoping that they will be able to raise their own money. Yes, sir. And we appreciate your, I think, 38 or $3500. Is it something like that? About 3500 we're contributing this next one. Yes, sir. Right. And then there's the pad. And that's the cost of a shelter as you put it up, plus the concrete pad. That's correct, sir. But, uh, they're very grateful for what you've done to work with them. Thank you. Council Member James. I, I just have one last thing, Mayor, and I wanted to mention this to Rocky. I think, um, I've been communicating with Dave, uh, Dave about this, but, um, the folks from the chamber that are going up and looking at, um, Madison, Wisconsin, which is where our next chamber trip is, um, when I met with them and talked with them about, you know, what's cool about Madison and what could we emulate and what do we need to learn from. And, um, one thing they noticed were the choice riders, um, on their buses. And, you know, people with briefcases and wearing suits and, um, folks that look like some of the people in this room. And, um, I came to LexTran and said, "Let's find out what they're doing in Madison," because I know we've been talking about ch- choice ridership. And, um, Dave responded, "Looks like the same program." Um, looks like, you know, we've got the same benefits. Looks like the, you know, 30 minute, um, the 30 minute, um, travel time or- Headway. Mm-hmm. Yes. Um, and kind of the buses look the same and not anything real significantly different. Um, so I hope that as we think about... ... you know, being green, that we do remember that riding buses, um, is a really easy way to be green. If you can't put solar panels on your house or, um, if you like taking 20-minute showers or whatever you want to do, um, riding the bus is a really good way, and we need to be sure that we're including riding the bus when we think about green initiatives. And especially where it's funny how we go to other cities and notice something that is exactly the same program we have here, but we're just not taking advantage of it here in the city. So I do encourage everybody to at least ride the bus once and, um, get a feel for it. And, and maybe we can all do it together as council members and take a, take a day or a week, um, to choose to ride the bus and see how we can get around and see what improvements we can encourage, um, from where we sit to make the system better. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much. Anything else for Mr. Burke? Thank you. Thank you, sir. Appreciate your time. We're now ready for council reports, and the first one I show is Councilmember Gorton. Thank you very much, Mayor. I just had one item, and that is to remind council members that at the request of council members, we have an update workshop scheduled at 5:00 PM today on the Newtown Pike extension, and it will be in the fifth floor conference room. Thank you. Councilmember Blevins. Thank you, Mayor. I move approval of NDF for this week. Second. Have a motion by Councilmember Blevins and a second by Councilmember Gorton to approve the NDF. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries unanimously. That's all I had, Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember James. Thank you, Mayor. On, um... I need to confirm this, but on Tuesday, November 25th, um, we are going to be hosting, um, we meaning the standing committee committee, um, um, has asked for a COW meeting to discuss some changes and kind of a report out of what our standing committee has come up with. The standing committee has been looking at our four standing committees and what improvements we can make from some identified issues with those. So we will be prepared on Tuesday the 25th at 9:30, um, to do that, to give that presentation to all council members. So we hope that you will be present. There had been a scheduled meeting, and Councilmember Blevins, I'm, I'm supposing that that has been canceled or rescheduled, the other meeting that was scheduled for that time, which was, had to do with the budget. Is that correct? There is w- work in progress to make that happen. I'll defer to Councilmember Myers, who I believe is trying to make those arrangements. Councilmember Myers, are we good to go on the 25th for the COW? 'Cause it still shows on the schedule that the, um, budget process is still on the calendar, so I just want to confirm that we are good to go for the COW on Tuesday. I think the plan was that you were going to make a motion to bring that out of standing committee. Okay. And put it into Committee of the Whole, and in your motion, ask the vice mayor to establish that Committee of the Whole. Okay. I do make that motion, then. I apologize that, um, misprocedure there. I make a motion to bring, um, the standing committee committee- Report out. ... report out, um, to the, to be presented to the COW meeting. Second. Yes. Everybody clear on the motion? Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Vice Mayor, are we good to go on the COW then for that day? Yeah, I think that Councilmember Blevins, m- my idea was that we were, or I was thinking that we were going to get the confirmation that it was okay first. Is it, that's okay? It is okay, and I've made arrangements with Commissioner Code to bump that meeting one week to the following Tuesday, and we'll get a, a, someone will get a note out to all of us. Okay. Th- the calendar changes that need to occur. Thank you. And we, and we have, if I could interrupt, we did check the calendar, so that's good to go on the 2nd or 4th, whatever it is. It's to be the 2nd. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. That's all I have. Councilmember Stevens. Uh, the next Budget and Finance Committee meeting, which is scheduled at 1:00 PM a week from today, will deal mostly with the report of the task force on equine that was presented to us a, a month or so ago and referred to the Budget and Finance Committee. And we plan to have s- some of the people who, and of course we'll be able to spend a little more time on it than 15 minutes, which we d- did in the work session. And some of the people who were presented, who were on the task force will present different elements of the recommendations that came forward and background information, as well as some of the recommendations will be up for discussion about how we can implement this to improve the economic development of the equine industry in central Kentucky. Of course, particularly Fayette County, though we may invite some people from our adjacent counties. The second thing I wanted to report is we had an exciting meeting last night at Tates Creek, um, Immanuel Baptist Church, and that we had a public meeting regarding the possibility of, uh, installing sidewalks on Tates Creek Pike from Lake Sho- on Lakewood down to New Circle Road. ... and, uh, I estimate, and I'm not sure exactly how many, but someplace between 150 and 200 people were there. We filled up the summit room, which is a great big room in that Baptist Church. And, uh, we had, um, m- many people who came, but didn't speak, but we did have 32 people who came to the microphone and expressed their views. And of those 32 people, 10 opposed the installation of sidewalks and 22 supported the installation of sidewalks, which was more than I thought would happen. Uh, because usually only the protesters show up at a public meeting. However, I think the article that Michelle Koo wrote in the paper, um, fairly presented the pros and cons of the arguments and people came. I think many of them stimulated by that information in the paper. So we're grateful to her for doing that article, which I thought was of course good, since it turned out to have a good result. The protesters and opponents were, or objectors, were pretty much the same people who objected, uh, the last 10 years every time we brought up this topic. And, uh, those are people that live on the western side of Tates Creek primarily, though there were some from other places, and, uh, who objected the last time. Some of the supporters were people who don't necessarily live on Tates Creek, but who use the roads, who would use the sidewalk if it were in place. The, uh, Carter's committee reviewed this again today, and we were privileged to have three of the people that live on Tates Creek come to our meeting today. And, uh, we gave them an opportunity to speak, which I was hoping to be five minutes, but it turned out to be about 20, I think, time that we were through. But the Carter's committee, uh, has, uh, endorsed this, and I'm gonna bring a resolution to the council a week from today, which will, and hopefully, you know, distributed before then so that we can move forward with this project and, uh, answer some of the questions they had. People were concerned about the trees, the, uh, utility poles, some, uh, infrastructure that's in the ground in front of their house in the public right of way. And, uh, some, uh, don't, uh, I'm not sure why people don't really want the sidewalk, but, uh, of course, uh, I- I think it's a good idea because I think any major thoroughfares or any streets should have sidewalks, but particularly ones like Tates Creek, in which there would be a heavy usage, I believe, if it were done. So we'll bring this to you next week, and you'll have a chance to look it over and see what you think. Thanks. And Council Member Gordon has a question, I believe. David. Yeah. Will your, um, resolution include any provision that we do look at the trees, the public safety, and the, uh, utility issues that were brought up? Yes, that would be the purpose of the resolution. And what the Carter's committee endorsed was that we take the next step in this process and examine those questions that the protesters brought and, uh, see what the answers to those are. I think, I think that's a very good idea, because if we can answer some of those direct questions, it'll help us move forward. Right. So thank you. We have about a 10 to 12 foot right of way, we think, though we're not sure exactly how much. That needs to be determined, uh, the exac- with some exactitude. Uh, we also, I forgot to mention that representatives of the transportation cabinet came last night and were called on to answer one question. One lady was afraid that if we used the right of way to build a sidewalk, then the right of way would be extended another 12 feet and we'd take 12 more feet of their land. Of course, that wouldn't be the case. Uh, there's a lot of misinformation about this thing. Also, a representative from the governor's office, Jeff Dunn, was there, and has been in support of this. So we hope it'll happen. Thanks. And Council Member Beard, did you have a question as well? Uh, n- n- no. I actually have a quest- uh, my question to Dr. Stevens, I guess. Um, as concerns to the, um, the present estimate that we have to build these sidewalks, um, I personally would like to see, as I mentioned last evening, um, that'd be a little crisper and, uh, more accurate as to what it's going to cost, for instance, for the, uh, utility moves and things of that sort. Um, t- those generally don't come very cheaply, and, um, uh, our budget is not, uh, uh, open-ended, and I would be interested in knowing, uh, uh, maybe something a bit more, uh, definitive about exactly what, uh, what the costs are and- and where the costs are, how they, uh, um, they break out from, uh, one side of Tates Creek to the other, and, uh, or, uh, maybe in segments. Something of that sort, which I'm sure our- our engineering people can- can provide. Uh, they do it all the time, so that would be part, something I would like to see. Well, I would agree that, uh, we need to t- determine the feasibility of what money we have and see what it can do, and that would be one of the things that needs to be done. We have a preliminary budget, which would- ... uh, the engineers think th-- would do the project, but we don't know for sure. Right. Thank you. Any further questions for Council Member Stevens? Mm-hmm. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. And Dr. Stevens, the -- you talked about the, um, Art in Motion bus shelter. Yes. Um, and you said that, uh, Corridors Committee partially fund it. Is that based on some additional funding they're going to receive somewhere else? Are they using this for matching funds? Do you know? Uh, matching funds? I don't know about any matching funds, but our gra- our, uh, allocation was offered in the spirit of matching funds. Okay. Uh, Mr. Blevins, uh, can answer that too a little bit. Yeah, I -- w- their total cost for the shelter was in the neighborhood of $20,000. 3,500 came from LexTran plus the concrete pad- Mm-hmm. ... in kind, I guess. Le- the remainder, if I remember correctly, was 16,480. The Corridors Committee elected to allocate $10,000 from a TE grant we have in the Newtown Pike corridor to help go towards the shelter. The idea being, uh, that, that Art in Motion had told us previously that they intended to raise private funds for future shelters. We had agreed to fund the entire amount for the first shelter on Versailles Road. We felt -- I, I won't speak for the entire committee, but my f- feeling was it would be nice to have one more of these shelters to kinda get that program up and going, but we do wanna encourage them to start living on their own assets. Mm-hmm. So we partially fund it and, and $10,000 was the number that the committee settled on. What's the total of the TE grant that Corridors has access to? Uh, that particular grant was -- Dr. Stevens will have to answer -- 200 and some odd thousand, but it has to do a lot of other things besides bus shelters. Okay. Like what other kinda things have to happen? 260,000 for the Transportation Enhancement Grant. Oh, okay. Some of that goes to pay the contractor, some of it goes for trees, some goes for shrubs, some goes for... The contractor's recommended we put up some poles with banners on 'em and other things like that so that, uh, uh... We didn't want to take away from some of those things either. Sure. Are those all budgeted? You have, like, those all lined itemed out, how much will be expended on each of those? Uh, he, they, they were separated into categories, yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. All right. Anything further for Council Member Stevens? Council Member Beard. O- o- one other thing. As I believe one of the speakers last evening, Dr. Stevens, um, Holly Arnold, um, who lives deeper into the Fifth District and which, um, I, I believe she uses, uh, the arboretum, or goes to the arboretum, quite a bit, brought up the subject of the intersection of, um, of Tates Creek and Alumni as being challenging for ped- pedestrians. Um, th- it's really off the subject somewhat of the sidewalks per se, but still if we're trying to, uh, um, e- expedite the, uh, the ease and safety of, uh, of people moving, uh, pedestrian-wise and, uh, and getting to the arboretum without having to drive, um, m- might we, uh, uh, at least recommend to the Corridors Committee, that being part of the corridor, uh, that they, uh, the traffic people look at that, traffic engineering look at that and see if there's anything that can be done to, to make that a little safer crossing for people? I think that's a good idea and maybe you want to ref- or rather the Corridors is not gonna meet again until, uh, Chairman Blevins calls them into session- W- we could do it in the Services maybe. ... on the second Tuesday of next year. And, uh, you might wanna refer that just directly to the Services Committee. Right. Well, I would, I, I would like to move that, that, that, that question of that intersection, uh, for pedestrian use be, uh, moved into Services Committee. And I would be happy to second that. Have a motion to refer the, that particular intersection to the Services Committee, I believe you said. Any discussion? I call on, uh, Council Member, uh, Blues. Council Member Beard, couldn't this be taken directly to traffic engineering for a, you know, for a, for a study of the intersection and, and, and some, uh, and some recommendations and then, uh, depending on what those are, then it might come appropriately to the Services Committee? Uh, that would be fine. We can, uh, we, we can do it that way. Ei- either way, I just think, uh, uh, it becomes part and parcel whether it, it, whether it is or not, it becomes part and parcel of this whole, uh, uh, sidewalk, uh, issue and, uh, and, and implementing, uh, and, and also for that matter, the, uh, discussion of the, uh, the Legacy Trail as it crosses the university and goes through the arboretum, uh, because there's some, uh, some discussion about m- moving that traffic, foot traffic, uh, down along the cor- the fringes of the arboretum, almost to Tates Creek so that they can pick up the sidewalks on the other side of Alumni and go, um, back west again. That was one of the, uh, the options, uh, th- that was discussed i- in a- an-, another meeting concerning the arboretum penetration. Uh, anyway, uh, I'd be glad to do that, uh, uh, and we can do that offline with those folks and get them started hopefully and, uh, and, you know, none of this is gonna happen immediately anyway I'm sure, but, but, uh, but the next few months we can, uh, we can get that done and then find out what the answer to that is. So, I, I, are you gonna withdraw your motion? Yes, I am withdrawing my motion. Thank you. Very well. And Commissioner Webb, if you could perhaps get with, uh, Council Member Beard and arrange for Traffic Engineering to take a look at that intersection, that would be great. Thank you very much. All right. Anything- Before that. Okay. Does anyone else have questions for Council Member Stevens? Council Member Henson. Mayor, I, um, I just had a couple of, or few announcements. Holiday, um, Hills and Valley Heights is having a neighborhood association meeting tonight at 7:00 at the Valley Park Community Shelter and on Thursday at noon Cardinal Crossing Apartment Managers and Owners Association will meet, and they ask that you bring a lunch. And, um, the Labyrinths in Port Royal is completed. Many of you, um, authorized for some neighborhood development funds on, um, Roanoke Road in the Port Royal Neighborhood Association, so it's, um, it's very nice and unique, and I would just recommend that you stop by there and, and take a look at it. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Mayor. Um, in, um, preparation for today's meeting that I thought we were gonna be having discussions recording, regarding the stormwater fee, I had, uh, done a lot of research actually, um, to be prepared to speak on that today. And, um, something that came to light was I had, uh, asked some questions regarding a fee that we had already implemented, um, and that's the sanitary sewer fee. And with respect to the sanitary sewer fee increase that we began collections on in May of this year, I requested an accounting of where we stood year to date. I was interested in knowing how much we had collected since the increase was implemented, how much we had spent, and how much had been allocated to personnel. In response, I received answers from Bill O'Mara, Mary Fister, and Charlie Martin. I was advised that $18,245,918.56 had been collected from May to October of 2008. It was already represented that $22,328,586 had been spent since that time. If I'd su- subtract that amount spent by the number collected, that means that we're $4,082,667.46 in the hole as of today. Let me first say that I find it incredible that if these numbers are accurate and that I have received accurate information from those I requested it from, I find it hard to imagine that we have spent almost $23 million in six months. More importantly, I find it incredible that we have over a $4 million deficit. In respect to my questions relating to personnel, I was told that of the $23 million spent, over 5 million was spent on salary, wages, and benefits. As an explanation for this 5 million that was spent, I've been advised that we have hired only one engineer since July. There were apparently interviews being held for a second engineer last week who has not been hired. That is the only hire that has been made for this position, and yet our personnel expenditures are $5 million? I guess my question is, if this money hasn't been spent and just been budgeted, that goes back to my original why we should have a sunset clause. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Uh, thank you, Mayor. Uh, as the Council may recall last week, I mentioned I was gonna put on a resolution establishing a procedure for approval of collective bargaining agreements, and so I'm gonna bring that forward, uh, today. And I just wanted to add a couple of bits of information to what I said last week. Uh, first off, I, I think it's important that you recognize this is not an issue of the City Council versus our public safety, but this issue relates to the Council carrying out its duties under the city's charter as mandated under Kentucky statute. And I, I wanted to put up the duties of the Council and the first couple of sentences, you know, are fairly important here. It says, "All legislative powers of the merged government are vested in the Council, and the Council shall have the power to act legislatively with respect to all matters which are within the powers of the merged government. The term legislative power is to be construed broadly and shall include the power to receive the budgets of," excuse me, "to review the budgets of and appropriate money to the merged government and such independent agencies as provided for in this charter." Uh, and as I said, the, the fact that the Council has not been reviewing or approving the collective bargaining agreements I feel is a dereliction of our duty. We do represent the taxpayers. We are elected by the taxpayers to spend the taxpayers' dollars. And I feel that the fact that we are not reviewing and approving these matters are, uh, uh, not in the best interest of our government or our taxpayers. I'd also like to put a, a chart, and th- this is just a representative chart here. This is the current fire, uh, union contract for the, uh, period, uh, fiscal year '09, '10, and '11. Now, I would point out that, uh, this is a three-year contract. The mayor and every council member will run for reelection in 2010, so the approval of the year 2011 is being done by perhaps people who aren't even gonna be on the Council, who won't be mayor at that time. Uh, a- and if you also look at the amount, you'll see that it's $40 million in 2009, 42,400,000 in 2010, and 44,500,000. ... in 2011. This is a commitment of over $120 million that is being approved, uh, without the review and consent of the council. I, I feel like this is a serious issue that, you know, we, we must address. Uh, it's our primary duty as a council member to review and approve these types of expenditures. Uh, I would also mention that, uh, in t- fiscal year 2007, the total expenditure for public safety was $138.5 million, which is more than half of the, uh, general fund expenditures. So that having been said, um, you know, I would like to, um, make a motion to, um, pass resolution establishing the procedure for approval of collective bargaining agreements by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council, and a copy of that resolution was provided to all council members by the legal department, I believe, uh, nine or 10 days ago, and a copy has been presented to you this afternoon at the council meeting. So moved. Thank you. I second. I have a motion and a second to add the resolution that's been circulated to the docket for the next council meeting. Correct. Any discussion? Council Member Beard? Thank you, Mayor. Um, C- Council Member Lane, a- as I believe I said last week, um, I wholeheartedly agree that the council should have involvement. Where I have a slight problem is Section 1C, which mentions the Urban County Council should consider the proposed collective bargaining agreement with consideration, which consideration may include the questioning of negotiators, uh, for the government and the collective bargaining unit. Does that put us in the middle of a second round of negotiations? Is th- there's an implication there that it might or could, and that worries me a little bit. Uh, well, l- let me, uh, address that. I'm, I'm not locked in on that language, and we can certainly modify that. But the way the procedure works now is that the representatives of the union, uh, bargaining unit and the mayor's, uh, office negotiate an agreement. The agreement is then goes to the members of the bargaining unit, and they vote on that. And so, once they've approved it, they submit it back to the mayor's office. And at that time, I would like, I think, that it would be appropriate to submit it to the council and, you know, a representative to bring it to us. I do not feel that the council should get into details in the negotiations. That's not really where we're at. But we should review the total long-term impact on our budget, uh, because this is a significant, a significant amount of money, as I said. It's not within the annual budget that we approve. This goes out for three years. Uh, so I'm, I would be open to some type of a modification because I totally agree with you, it's not our intent to micromanage the negotiations. I think the executive branch of government needs to do that. But I do feel that once it is completed, we could look, look at it, and we could say it's all or nothing. I don't think we should get into nitpicking. And if there's, we have an issue because it's blowing our budget, or the increases are too high, or whatever the issue may be, we could tell the mayor, and they could go back and make the changes. Well, I, I feel more comfortable if we could polish that up somehow because I, I think even though our intentions as we sit here today, uh, might be, uh, uh, uh, positive as far as how we handle ourselves, sometimes, uh, in the, uh, the, the heat of discussion, uh, w- we, uh, w- we change our minds somewhat at times. Right. Uh, so if we could, could do that, uh, I would appreciate it. Okay. Well, I'm open to that. And perhaps our commissioner of laws here, you might have some wording idea with regard to that change. Council Member Blues. I think they were ahead of me. All right. Uh, Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor, thank you, um, Council Member Blues. I, I guess, my question to Council Member Lane is just for some clarification. What happens if council rejects? Well, if the council should reject, it would be just the same as if, as if the bargaining unit given a no vote, the bargaining team would go back to the table and try to work out whatever issue might be there. Because if, um, y- you know, it's like, I think the vote was, uh, 500 to 80 or something. I, I got some number like that on the bargaining, recent bargaining vote. Well, if it was reversed and 500 of the members did not want to approve the agreement, I'm certain that the bargaining group would come back and meet with the mayor and renegotiate. I think that would be the same principle here. I, I just, um, I'm, I'm questioning that a bit. I'm a little uncomfortable with it because if council rejects it, yet due diligence has been done for, through, during the process, I don't know exactly what we can say if we're not involved in a negotiation that would change any of the conversation that's happened before it comes to us. So I'm a little bit confused on that. All right. Well, let me give you an example. Suppose that this, uh, agreement came in, and then the third year of the agreement, the pay raise was 14.88%, and it came before council. Well, we might say, you know, that's a big, uh, increase for that third year of the contract. And so we might send it back to the mayor and say, "Could you try to work on that particular aspect of it?" That's how I would see you would approach something like that. It has to be a major thing. I, you know, I don't wanna get into the details. But keeping in mind we are the council, we are elected to represent the people, and the constituents have, you know, put us into this position. And if we do not have the right to review and approve all the contracts, then we're not doing our job. I mean, that's, to me, it's pretty straightforward. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Gordon. Thank you. Um, I have some questions that are similar to Council Member James. Um- When -- when you first, um, talked about this, you said that your intention was not for the council to become involved in negotiations, or I'm paraphrasing that. However, the fact of the matter is, if what you just said takes place, then we are inserting ourselves into the negotiation process if we reject part of it and ask the mayor to go back. So I, I think we can't have it both ways. Either we're part of the process or we're not. Right, well, I mean, a- another possibility that, you know, the mayor ha- could appoint a council member to sit on the, uh, negotiating committee, and we'd have a representative on the committee that could be involved in it. That would be, certainly be appropriate if the mayor wanted to do that. Um, but here again, you know, every expenditure should be approved by council. And- And we do that. I'm sorry, I didn't, I thought you were gonna say- No, uh, that's all right. If you, go ahead, you can say something. Well, I was just gonna say, we do that every year with the budget. Right. So I don't exactly understand- Right. ... how it would be different. We receive the- Well, the difference is- ... collective bargaining agreement- Right. The difference is, is this- ... extended. ... is a three-year contract. Right. And we're only approving the budget for one year, so basically those other two years are proven or not within the budget. But, but we also see the report every year, so I'm trying to understand when, when you first started, you said we would wanna see it and review it, and we do see it every time it's negotiated. I mean, every year it's been done, we've seen it. So I'm, I'm just trying to understand how it is we could keep ourselves from becoming entangled in the process if we follow this. And, and, uh, I have to say, I, uh, you know, when this came up a few years ago, and the firefighters and police did receive permission to- Right. ... bargain, one of the reasons they went, and I, and if I'm wrong, I'm sure some of 'em will stand up and tell me, one of the reasons they went was because every single year, their salaries became a political football, and politicians up here were involved. And that, I believe, is what drove, you know, drove us to become a collective bargaining city, is because a lot of folks wanted it out of the political process. So I, I do have a great concern about that part of it, to say, how could we prevent that from happening if the council officially reviews it? Because then the discussion starts and the, you know, the motions to change it start, or the motions to ask the mayor to go back. So then we're in, we're into the process. Well, what, what if we do, if we have a mayor who's incompetent and enters into an agreement for three years without our, you know, signing the agreement? I, I, I mean, there, I, I just, granted, it's not a perfect process. I think somebody said, you know, "Politics and legislation is like making sausage." You know, we can't guarantee there's never gonna be a hiccup, but on the other hand, we should be able to guarantee to the taxpayers that we're representing them here in council and when over 50% of our money goes to public safety and we're not reviewing these contracts, we're not voting on them, I don't think we're doing our job. I, I mean, I, I think it's a, a very serious issue. And, and I'm bringing this up, I mean, I have nothing to gain by bringing this up. I just feel strongly that if we're gonna be elected to represent the people, we need to do our job and, you know, not sit here and, um, not do anything. I mean, why do we need a council if we're gonna let the mayor sign all the contracts and we're not gonna review and approve 'em? Uh, we don't even need a council. We can just turn it over and let the mayor run the whole city by himself. You know, we're not doing our job. I mean, this is bottom line. We've gotta review this and approve it and vote on it and spend the money. Are, are you making that in the form of a motion, Mr.? I've already, I, I've already, unless you're gonna be in charge. Now, let, let me elaborate on this just a little bit. Um, I support this resolution or some variation of it, as I think everybody knows. Um, the model we have looked at that seems to work very well is the one in Louisville. The contract is put to the council on an up or down vote basis. You don't go in and say, "I wanna change lines 43 on page six." Um, now to a degree, yeah, that does inject the council into the negotiation process, but I think that is to an appropriate degree for the reasons that, that Council Member Lane has outlined. Uh, right now, with the stroke of a pen, I could make a lot of friends in, in fire and police and corrections, and I don't think that's a good situation for us to be in as a city. There needs to be some role for the council. Having said that, I don't think council members ought to be sitting at the bargaining table talking about uniform allowances and the disciplinary process and all the other issues that are involved in the contract. But at the end of the day, I do think it is very appropriate for the council to have a chance to review it and make sure that the best interests of the city are represented or reflected in that, that document. And if they're not, vote it down and compel both sides to go back to the bargaining table with a view towards trying to resolve whatever the issue may be. I think that's a sensible approach for us to take and, um, I think it, it has worked pretty effectively in Louisville, and, um, I appreciate your, your bringing it back up. Uh, let's see, Council Member Blues and then Council Member Blevins. Thank you, Mayor. Um- I I agree with Council Member Beard that-- that we don't want to be involved in the, uh, you know, in the-- in the negotiations and- and, uh, and- um, and- and I- I hear his concern about, uh, about, uh, section one item C, and- and also Council Member Gordon's. But I think that as you read this, uh, as you read this proposed resolution of... It's- it's pretty straightforward step-by-step and- and that, uh, item C doesn't- doesn't say more than that the council may question the negotiators. It- it- it- it gives no more authority than- than that, and at the same time, it- it does, uh, if the- if- if there is a question and answer- answer process, and if it does happen that the- that the council, uh, rejects the agreement in total, uh, that would provide a part of the rationale for such- for such rejection, and provide some sense of direction for the- for the- for the future negotiations. So , it does seem to me that there's, uh, uh, that this ordinance is clear, it sets out... uh, it sets out the rules. Uh, Council Member Lane is right, it's not... You- you can't... It's- it's a sort of balancing act here. We- we- we don't want to be involved in the- in the nuts and bolts of the negotiations, and yet we're- we're involved to the extent that we- that we question, and- and advise, and consent or not consent. So I think this is really a- a- a, uh, a- a workable document, and that we should go forward with it as written and u- unless, uh, the Commissioner of- of Law sees any other sort of w- wiggle room here, I think that we ought to adopt the, uh, the ordinances as set forth. W- w- w- would you care to comment on that? Council Member Blues, I wasn't sure the wiggle room where? In the... In that- Well, in... With reference to with reference to, uh, to paragraph C. Um... Right. I- I suggested that it- it allows questioning, but it doesn't permit further- further involvement. Right. When I was asked to prepare this resolution, uh, the question was posed to me by the council members, "Would it be possible to ask the negotiators to, for the city to be available for questions?" And I said, "I don't see why not." Then the question came up, "Well, would the representatives from the collective bargaining unit appear?" And I thought, "Well, I feel sure they would." So that's what it is. Just ask, I mean, if there were some detailed questions about provisions of the contract that you wanted clarification on, they would be there to answer those questions. That's what that provision is designed to do. But if you wanted to change it, I mean, that would be up to the council. Well, as I said, I- I see no need to change it, and thank you. Council Member Blevins, then Crosby, then Beard, then Decamp, and Lane. Thank you, Mayor. I too support this resolution. I think it's a- a good idea. Uh, I just wanted to clarify a few things as, at least as I understand it. The first one would be that, uh, we are not gonna be voting on individual aspects of any contract. This isn't truly an up or down vote as the mayor's characterized it. I would welcome language to that effect if we need it in the ordinance, or the resolution I mean, but that's the intent, is a true up or down vote. Much the same, exactly the same as the bargaining units themselves have to do. Uh, I would add that in the intent of section 1C was to allow us to question both sides of the negotiation teams, so that we can get information from both sides. That's the only intent of 1C, it's no more than that, to allow us to ask questions. And then lastly, to Council Member Gordon's point about the budget, it is tempting to think of us as approving the contract each year at the budget, but in fact, we are not. The only time you can approve the contract is the original contract date. Once we approve it, I would have- I would argue it'd be legally very difficult to renege on a contract, say, two years into a contract and a particular budget cycle. We couldn't do it then. So by approving it at, you know, one point, three years later you can't change your minds via the budget cycle. So the really, the only realistic time to approve or disapprove this contract is right at the contract signing. That's why I- I also support this resolution. Count- count... Council Member Lane. Is, uh, paragraph D, you know, says either accept or reject the same. In other words, that's an up or down type vote. That's what is in, currently in the ordinance. Council Member Crosby. Um, thank you, Mayor. Um, I- I do not support this resolution. I believe that the KRS statute, um, states that... I don't have it in front of me, that- that you are the designee on behalf of the Irpin County government. I believe it's also in their contract. And in that, um, it would- it would then trump our local city ordinance, and, um, with that being said, I believe that if you're gonna have 15 people looking at a collective bargaining contract, I just believe that's a recipe for disaster. I think as far as Council Member Lane's comments regarding, um, looking at, uh, obligating future councils two and three years down the road, we also approve bonds five and 10 years down the road that we have to pay on, committing future councils. So, um, I think that that argument- ... is -- we commit future councils all the time with budgetary implications. Um, as far as the, the, the budget, going back to the budget implications, we also, I believe during the process, if I'm not mistaken, we have people who make projections, um, I w- I would think our commissioner can make projections based on past history. It's done all the time on what our future costs are gonna be within police, fire, um, corrections. And that they are able to tell one year out, two year, two years out, three years out, what the budgetary implications are gonna be. And during the negotiating process, those, those realms are, are what you negotiate within for budget implications. We have, through our budget process, the ability to vote at that point for whether or not we're gonna approve our budget. That's where our vote comes in, during the budget process. And I just think that when you get 15 people in on a collective bargaining process is, again, a recipe for disaster. Um, as far as the mayor signing all the contracts, we don't let him sign all the contracts. And I think if we're going to look at, um, every single contract, I don't think we should look at, at, at, at our, um, our collective bargaining in a vacuum. I say we look at every contract that's signed. I, I know there's problems with our, um, whole system. And I've been told by various people who do business with our urban county government, if we wanna be like Louisville, we don't do our procurement process like Louisville does. And maybe we need to look at our entire system right now, and look at the entire system, and put it into committee. That might be one of our options that we, we look at, because we don't do it like Louisville. We, we do not do it like Louisville. So, um, maybe we need to take a look at our whole procurement process and every contract that goes through urban county government. If we wanna be like Louisville, maybe we n- we need to truly look at our procurement process. Um, I also think that because, well, and back to the economic, there's also non-economic issues as, with, um, collective bargaining. We're ta- we're focusing a lot on the economic, but there's also a lot of non-economic issues with these contracts. Days off work, um, their seniority, their, the way they're able to interview for their promotions. Um, days off, I think I may have already said this, but the days off work. So, we're also taking into consideration those things, which I think 15 different people looking at that is just, um, crazy. Um, since this was a walk-on, I also think it's unfair that they were not able to comment on this. And I notice that one of their attorneys is here. And I, I will, at this time, ask, uh, the fire attorney, I don't even know his name, but I'll ask him if he has anything that he would like to add, or comment, to the mic please. My name is Irwin Cutler. I'm an attorney from Louisville, Kentucky, and I represent the Lous- the Lexington Professional Firefighters Local 526. I appreciate the opportunity, and, uh, uh, thank the council members and the mayor for the opportunity to, uh, address you all. Uh, several points I would like to make, and I'll be as brief as I possibly can. And also like to respond to some of the comments that have been made by, uh, some of the council members here, uh, this afternoon. Uh, but I'd like to, uh, discuss really, is, what is the proper role of the council in collective bargaining negotiations, and in this particular situations, under the statute? And I understand certainly that, uh, you know, certain council members feel that, you know, they have to do their job, uh, that this is part of doing your job. What I would like to address is just what is the job of the members of this council? And, uh, what, uh, is it that we need to look to, to see what the role and the authority and the job of this council is? Because we want the council to do its job just as much as anybody else. But we need to define exactly what that job is. The government, urban county government, is a creation of the legislature. The General Assembly has created this government, and has set out the parameters, the rules, uh, that govern this government. And whatever this council wants to do, whatever the mayor wants to do, uh, that has to be within the rules that are set down by the General Assembly. And I understand that, uh, as several council meetings ago, Representative Stein addressed the council and talked about the legislative intent of this statute, which authorizes collective bargaining for police officers and firefighters in the urban county government. And, you know, I'm not going to, you know, repeat what she said. I also understand that, uh, Mark Miller, uh, who is the attorney for the, um, uh, FOP lodge, and also, I'm proud to say, my law partner, addressed this, uh, council, uh, in a similar way. And at the conclusion of my remarks, I'd like to hand up, uh, to the council, a, uh, letter prepared by Mr. Miller, which lays out the legislative history and describes, really puts in writing, what he had said when he was here some time ago. Now, the intent of the statute, as they described it, is that it is the office of the mayor, the executive branch, which negotiates the contracts, and is responsible for signing and executing those contracts. And that is set out, I know, you see here's a lawyer talking about statutes, and I know it's gonna get boring, but let me, I'll, I'll give you that caveat in advance. But the statute that deals with this- ... in KRS67A.6908 is really very explicit, and it provides three things. One, that when a, an agreement is reached, and I think we all agree that the agreement is to be negotiated by the executive branch, by the mayor or his representatives. When that agreement is reached and signed by the mayor, or his or her representative, then it is effective. That's all that's required. It doesn't require council approval. The second point about this statute is that no publication thereof shall be required to make it effective. Publication, of course, is a legislative term. That is the kind of thing that's necessary when legislation takes place. So here again, the General Assembly was clearly removing this process and the approval of this contract from the legislative process and making it clearly, simply an executive process. And third, and this is what I think is most important and has been overlooked on, uh, on many of the discussions, is that the procedure for making an agreement between an urban county government and the labor organization provided in this section, which I've just been discussing, shall be the exclusive method of making a valid agreement. The exclusive method, and we know that exclusive means the only method. It excludes all others. And so by these words, the General Assembly meant that not only this is the way the contracts were negotiated and signed and put into effect, but this is the only way. This is the exclusive way that those contracts were negotiated and put into effect. Now, the point has been made that this council approves many other contracts. That is true, no doubt about it. But contracts involving collective bargaining for firefighters, uh, police, corrections officers, governed by this particular statute, are different from all of the other statutes, all of the other contracts that the city signs and the city enters into. It's different because the General Assembly, in enacting this statute, treated it differently, and treated it in a special way, and authorized the mayor of an urban county government to sign the contract, and then it becomes effective. Now, it is the mayor's function, of course, to negotiate the contracts. Part of the negotiation of a contract, as it's defined in the statute, is the execution of a contract. I mean, a- again, it just confirms the whole idea here, and this is perfectly consistent with the Lexington Charter, which in Section 5.04 authorizes the mayor first to sign all written contracts, but second, authorizes the mayor to supervise, administer, and control all the departments. And this is really part of administering, controlling, supervising the fire department, the police department, you know, whatever the, the corrections department. Now, there's been some discussion about Louisville, and I gotta tell you, I can't give you all the history of what has happened in Louisville. I do know that many years ago, uh, there was some occasions when, uh, a committee of the, uh, Board of Aldermen, this is, I mean, way back, you know, I mean, many years before we had metro government in Louisville, uh, became very much involved in negotiations, and there's, like, you know, a tug-of-war involving the legislative body and the mayor. And this is a certain thing, which I understand the legislature intended to prevent when it enacted this statute and put the function of negotiating contracts, the function of signing contracts, uh, in the hands of the mayor. Now, someone has made the comment about, uh, legislation being like making sausage. That is often s- I may not have the quote exactly right. Forgive me if I, uh, uh, garbled it somehow, but that is often also said about collective bargaining agreements. It's like making sausage. You don't wanna... You wanna see the end result. You don't wanna be involved in how it came about. And once, you know, I hate to use this term, an outsider, you know, someone who hasn't been i- intimately involved in the negotiations, gets involved in just a little bit, it upsets the whole balance that has been achieved in the collective bargaining agreement that's been agreed to. There are provisions in the contract where one item is traded off for another item, which may be traded off for something else, and you can't just take a look at it and say, you know, "We think something's wrong with it. Go back and renegotiate." Or you can't say, "We think X is wrong with it, too many vacations, too much pay, too much whatever." ... go back and renegotiate, it's sort of like pulling a thread from a cloth. And once you pull it, you know, everything starts falling apart, everything that's dependent and interdependent. And I think, you know, that is one reason why it's not appropriate for a body of as large a number of, as this body as, to start getting involved in negotiations. And I have to echo, uh, you know, what was said by one of the council members here. Uh, if this body undertakes to approve a contract, it implies it has the ability, the authority to disapprove the contract, and that is becoming involved. And that starts to pull at one of the threads of a, you know, a finely woven fabric, sometimes not so finely woven, frankly. But the whole fabric that has been put together and finally agreed upon. So, you know, I appreciate your, uh, allowing me to speak. I'd be happy to answer any questions, and, uh, if there are no questions, then I thank you for your time. So I think- Council, Council Member Crosby? Um, I'm not done with... I'm, I'm still not done, but I think Dr. Blues might have a question. Well, I, I guess this is your... That's still part of my report. Yeah, this is, uh, your report. Thank you. And when you finish, we'll take questions here. Well, I actually have a... Okay, sure. I don't know if you would know the answer or not. Um, did Louisville, um, did they review the... Prior to collective bargaining, did they review contracts? Has it always been a practice of Louisville to review contracts? Uh, collective bargaining agreements? Prior to collective bargaining, did they always review... Did, was there, were there contracts in place prior- I can't- I remember, I, something came across my desk. Collective bargaining agreements- Yes. ... in effect? Uh, yes. Before the statute was passed, and by way of history, um, KRS Chapter 345 was enacted, I can't tell you exactly when, I believe in the 1970s. I've got it here someplace. Which granted, um, collective bargaining rights to firefighters in, I believe at that time, it was cities over 300,000, which was, of course, Louisville. The, uh, the... Before that, there had been collective bargaining between the City of Louisville and the Firefighters Union, um, interestingly, Local 345. Um, and that was done pursuant to an ordinance, a collective bargaining ordinance, which had been passed by the city. And I may be mistaken, but I believe that it was under that ordinance that the, a particular committee of the Board of Aldermen, the Employee Relations Committee, or something like that, was really a part of the bargaining process. Uh, they were involved in the negotiations, they, uh, approved the contract, they recommended it to the full Board of Aldermen. The mayor and his office and the chief of police, of course, were involved in the negotiations also. And, and again, I can't say this definitely, but my recollection is that it was the, the, the tussle, it was the problems that arose out of those negotiations under the ordinance. Before there was ever any collective bargaining statute passed by the legislate- legislature, it was that problem that led the legis- legislature, when it enacted Chapter 345, to, uh, put the responsibility with the mayor's office and the responsibility for actually signing the contract, and that the contract goes into effect, uh, upon signing by the mayor, uh, into that statute, and eliminating the, uh, at that time, the Board of Aldermen or the city legislative body. Thank you. I think I'm done with my questions. Someone has some follow up. Questions for Council Member Crosby? Um, Council Member Blues, yes. Thank you. I, I, I just have one question for you, and that is- Yes, sir. ... when, when you say that, that, uh, our getting involved with this is like pulling the, the thread or, or, or hitting that one domino, uh, what happens when, however, when, uh, a, a contract is negotiated and between management and labor, labor goes back to the rank and file? They vote it up or down. I, I mean- That's par-... That's part of the process also. It is. And that does present some problems on some occasions, on many occasions, and that's something that, uh, is inherent in the collective bargaining process as far as unions are concerned, because most unions provide in their constitutions that the membership must ratify a contract before the union will approve it and sign it. Not all of them. And I gotta say that that does present problems, uh, sometimes when a negotiating committee, when the union leadership has negotiated a contract, they've reached an agreement, and then it goes back to the membership. And I mean, I'm taking... I'm talking about a case where the union leadership thinks it's a good contract and recommends ratification. When they recommend ratification, it's usually ratified. ... but on those -- some occasions it's not. And on those occasions, it really presents big headaches and big problems when the union committee's then got to go back and renegotiate. And I think that's the kind of problem that, you know, we want to avoid. Well, but I think possibly that, that, that kind of problem is, uh, is unavoidable, but it also, if we, if we go ahead and, and further consider this, uh, this resolution, then, uh, we have to recognize that as part of the responsibility that, uh, you know, you, you, you don't take that, that problematic step lightly, I would say. Yes. Just as, just as the rank and file, uh -- That's right. Yes, yes. Yes, sir. Right. I certainly agree with that. Right. Thanks. But my, my main point is that it's really the general assembly did not intend for the counsel for the city legislative body to have a role. But, yes, you're certainly right, and I'm, I'm sure that the counsel, you know, if they were to, um, have a contract before them would consider the factors we've talked about. One quick question, uh, regarding the, the legislative in- intent. Uh, it wasn't prohibited however, the role of the counsel. Yes. I think it was prohibited, and I say that because the statute provides that the, um... procedure for the making of an agreement between an urban county government and the labor organization provided in this section. This is the section that deals with signing by the mayor and so forth. Um, shall be the exclusive method for making a valid agreement. And by that, I think the legislature intended to provide that this is the way that it's done. All others are prohibited. It's not... that is, that is my reading of the word exclusively. I guess there could be some lawyerly difference of opinion on that. There, there could be. Yes. And I suspect that there are lawyers who may disagree with me. Right. The, but that's, I think, a pretty clear reading of the word exclusive. It means the only, and, uh, that's, uh, you know, certainly what, what I think is meant by this, and, and it seems pretty clear to me. Thank you for your question. Thank you. Are there other counsel members that have questions either for Counsel Member Crosby or Mr. Cutler? Couns- Counsel Member Beard? Well, obliquely, I guess, and, um, I, I think the process that we'll have to deal with, however, is that our law department is gonna have to come to the same conclusion you do, seeing as how you represent, uh, the, the police and, and fire, and, uh, they represent us. So we're pretty much at a impasse at the moment until we get, uh, something from the law department that, uh, either reinforces or, uh, or doesn't, uh, w- what you brought out today. The, the questions about 1C concerning questioning and such are somewhat moot at this point if, in fact, we aren't involved at all. So, um, you know, I, I guess I would recommend, Mayor, that, uh, that we, uh, put the law department to work and see if they, uh, agree and if they do or don't, they'll give us a ruling and we'll go from there. I think Mr. Eskew can probably speak to that issue now without much, uh, further delay because he's given this a fair amount of consideration already. I'm sorry, Counsel Member Beard, I didn't hear your question. Well, the quest- the question is whether, whether you agree with, with, uh, the previous counsel or whether you, uh, uh, disagree, and, uh, think that, uh, the, the counsel should be involved at some level or in some way. Well, first of all, I don't know what the legislature intended, so I can't say that, and I don't think Representative Stein said unequivocally that was the intent, although that's what's been stated. Uh, and I don't believe Mr. Miller spoke at the last meeting, but I will tell you that 67C414 which governs the approval, the negotiation approval of police contracts in Louisville, Chapter 67C was adopted by the general assembly after the statutes we're talking about because that's what allowed Louisville and the cities up there to create a consolidated local government. It governs police contracts, the negotiation and approval, and the statute is identical with these two changes. Instead of urban county government, it's cal- consolidated local government, and instead of, uh, his or her representative, it says mayor's representative. And instead of, uh, police officers, firefighters, and correction, it just says police officers. So what you have is you have a subsequent statute adopted that governs the approval of contracts, the negotiation approval of contracts in Louisville that's adopted after the statute that Mr. Cutler's talking about, and his partner goes to the counsel to get police contracts approved in Louisville. The statute that he's referring to that governs firefighter contracts is virtually identical too. It also says the exclusive method, but Mr. Cutler and the firefighters go to the counsel to get those approved. So I don't know what the intent of the statute was when 67C was adopted or what 435-100 was, Mr. Cutler, but- ... uh, all I know is, is that the Louisville Council, which essentially is governed by the same substantive language has gone, for some time, to the Council to get approval up or down. And that's what was presented to you the very first time this came up. Now, maybe Mr. Cutler can talk about the statute he operates under in Louisville, but I believe the process, and I confirm this, we confirmed this with Mr. Cutler's partner, who actually does the police contract in Louisville and the contract here, that that is the process they follow in Louisville. So, you know, I don't wanna gauge the intent when they adopted the statute that governs Louisville or the, what the intent was when it was done here, but, th- the statute simply doesn't say. And you'll also notice that in the charter, it says that the Mayor approves contracts, or excuse me, executes contracts on behalf of the government. That's true, but you approve them. In all other cities under the city council form of government in the state, the mayor also approves or, uh, uh, uh, signs contracts on behalf of other cities, but the council approves them. Now, I don't know about Council Member Crosby, I think sh- you asked whether the Louisville Metro Council approves contracts and authorizes the mayor to sign them. I don't know, we can find out. I feel certain they do, but we can find out. So, you know, eh, fortunately, uh, the firefighters have asked the Attorney General for, uh, an opinion on an interpretation of this statute and we have, as I indicated to you, we would respond that we thought a, an opinion would be helpful and so perhaps we will get some clarification as far as the Attorney General goes on the statute. Or- That was not my question, thank you. I'll, I'll ask, some- something was sent to me specifically regarding, um, eh, police and fire contracts prior to collective bargaining. I'll try to find it and get the question to you specifically, but it wasn't regarding all contracts. So- Okay, I misunderstood. I- Thank you. And I, I guess my point then is until the Attorney General rules, is it not premature for us to be passing this resolution today? Or sending it to, uh, uh, Council for, uh, approval? Well, well first of all, y- you could look at it that way and that was suggested the first time I was here. It's been suggested we not sign any contracts until the Attorney General makes a decision. I don't particularly think that's a pretty good course of action because the contracts have been negotiated. Uh, the sense that I'm getting from the Council is you want the mayor to sign them. Uh, we understand what the potential challenges may be that the Council hasn't approved them, so I don't know that that's a particularly good option, but we could do that. One thing to r- remember though is the, the Attorney General's opinion is not the final word. Oh, I, I know there's strings of courts from here to all, all the way to D.C. but... Well, and, and as I indicated to you before, Mr. Cutler's part- partner, Mr. Miller, has suggested that the FOP, and I'm sure the firefighters would like to work with us on some language that would clarify the statutes here and in Louisville. So... Well, my original point concerning the, uh, the, the questioning of, of both sides of the negotiations, uh, was probably not the first question that I was concerned about. It was the second, third, fourth and fifth that might be triggered by the first, because I'm sure nobody's gonna sit here and ask a pertinent question and then say, "Oh, that's very nice. I'll go home and discuss that with my wife." I think they'll go a little bit further and deeper and then that, uh- Mr. R- ... that's problematic. Yeah, and Mr. Cutler may be able to weigh on, weigh in on this, but when Mr. Miller was here before, Mr. Miller indicated they actually refer collective bargaining agreements once approved by the membership to a council committee to consider. So I'm not sure what discussion takes place when it gets to the council committee in Louisville. All right. And that list right now shows Council Member Beard, although you may have asked all your questions. Next, I have Council Member Decamp. Not present. All right. Council Member Lane? All right. So Council Member Ellinger, who stepped out just a moment ago, um, wanted to speak. Does anybody else... All right, Vice Mayor Gray. Blevins. I'll vote yes. Pardon? I'll vote yes. I think Councilman Blevin- I was just gonna comment before, so I can explain how I'm voting . Uh, Mr. Cutler, you know, thank you for coming all the way from Louisville. That's good. And your, your being here reminds me that those who come from a long distance are always respected very highly. So thank you for coming. And actually, I do wanna say that I, I was listening, listening very, listening very attentively to you because I was hoping that you would disabuse me of the idea and the notion that we had a responsibility here . Unfortunately, I didn't quite get there. Or you didn't quite persuade me. Um, but it was a, it, it was a very meaningful and, um, view of the history as you, as you view it. Um, but I think it also did illustrate what, there's a, there's a gravitational pull to the notion that we do have a responsibility and if, and that abdicating that would be irresponsible perhaps and that, uh, balance of power, all of those sort of cumbersome issues associated with democratic processes are present in this. And as much as, um, I guess some of us would like to sometimes duck on questions like this and issues that are sometimes difficult, we can't. So I have to support the motion on the basis of it's our responsibility as a matter of looking at the, uh- ... the financial and fiscal issues that we're responsible for, being on the council. And, um, the significance of this, as a budget item, is, um, as close to the whole budget as anything else we do, in my view. So thank you again very much for being here and- Thank you. ... and for, for your remarks. Um- If I could just add one point, which I think, uh, Mr. Askew invited, uh, sort of whether I knew anything about it or... The thing I would say as far as the ordinance in Louis- or the, it's actually a resolution in Louisville, um, the Louisville, uh, Metro Council has rubber stamped, has just pro forma, at least in recent years, as I understand, the collective bargaining agreements. As long as the agreement's approved, I mean, it doesn't become an issue and it's never tested. So, you know, the, the problem arises, of course, if the legislative body should disapprove, and then it gets to be a question of, you know, you know, where do the legalities lie. And I, you know, I appreciate your, uh, comments and I guess I had hoped that I had persuaded you that, in fact, the, uh, legislature took this, the state legislature, took this authority away from the council. And of course, I don't advise the council. That's Mr. Askew's job. All right. Thank you, sir. I have, uh, Council Member Ellinger, Council Member Stevens, and then those are the last two that I, I've got, so Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. I guess I'm starting to become a senior member of this council because I was one that was here prior to the collective bargaining and now here as we have collecting bargaining. So I remember these discussions when we were talking about it, and it was one of my concerns is when we'd start talking about collective bargaining is that it was going to take away our authority. And, and I think you elicited it pretty well at talk, going through the statute and what the statute and what the state legislature, um, did. And by doing that, it, it really, um, set up a lot of things that now we have a lot of little impact on what goes on in the negotiating process. In fact, we have no, um, impact on it. They're, they set up the procedure with the mayor and the labor organization and how that went about, and it took us out of, um, it took us out, it took our authority away. And I think you, like I said, elicited that pretty well. I think, Dr. Stephens, you wanted to, um, to ask some questions. I was going to make a motion here to table this until we, um, got a, an attorney's opinion from, um, that has been asked for, attorney general's opinion, um, so I, I think I'll wait till you speak and then I'll ask that because there won't be any opportunity then to have any, um, conversation on that. So I'd like to yield the floor to you and then come back, if you don't mind. Well, thank you for that courtesy, um, o- of doing that. Um, I, uh, feel like that, uh, having been here when that charter was written, that we do have a responsibility to the public to protect, uh, our... and to review the major expenditures which we engage with. And I think this is one of the major ones. Also, for Mr. Cutter's benefit, I've been, I left Louisville about, I guess, 60 years ago, and I've been over here for quite a while, but I still have my union card from the International Printing Pressmens' and Assistants Union, which is where I was employed when I worked in Louisville as a student. So I've had some sympathy for unions and collective bargaining as my father was a union representative there and did just what you're talking about in negotiations and so forth. But I think that as a representative of the council and the legislative body of this government, we have a responsibility to do that. And thank you, Mr. Ellinger for allowing me to make a little speech. . You're welcome. Um, with that, I'd like to make a motion that we table this until we get a, a opinion from the attorney general. Second. Okay. The original motion on the floor was to add this resolution to the docket. Council Member Ellinger has moved and Council Member Beard has seconded that we table the, uh, motion to add it to the docket until we receive an opinion from the Attorney General's office. That motion is debatable only insofar as the debate goes to the question of when it is to be tabled. So in this case, whether it should be when the AG's office issues an opinion or some other time. Is there any debate within those narrow confines? Council Member Lane, if it's to that point, yes, otherwise- All right. ... debate's precluded. Yeah, here's the only concern that I have is that we don't know when the attorney general will rule on this. What if it's three years from now? This is an issue that we need to address immediately and not put off to the indefinite future. So I feel that tabling until the attorney general, uh, makes a recommendation, and, and the other thing to remember is that an opinion is an opinion. It's not case law. It doesn't... It's not binding. It's not legally binding. And so to put off what I think we need to do today is, uh- Uh, I gotta agree with the point of order raised by Council Member Ellinger that that's outside the realm of our debate right now, but, uh, does anybody else have debate on the issue of how long, uh, or to what time the matter should be tabled? Seeing none, we're prepared to vote. Uh, let's use the machines if we can. Those in favor of tabling the motion until the attorney general rules, please indicate by voting aye. Those opposed of ta- to tabling it, please indicate by voting nay. My count is seven- Seven in f-- ex-- excuse me, six in favor of tabling. Seven opposed to tabling. The motion is still on the table. Is there further- You missed some votes here. You missed some votes. Uh, it's eight. I just lost it. Eight to six with one absent. So- so the motion is on the- the floor for further discussion. Councilmember Blevins. I'd like to call the question, Mayor. Second. Okay. Um, m- moving the previous question is what I think has been done with a view towards terminating debate. Does anyone wish to debate it further? Then all in favor of terminating debate, please let it be known by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. We're prepared to vote. Those in favor of adding this resolution to the docket for the November 20th council meeting, uh, please indicate by voting "Aye" electronically. Those opposed, vote nay. That's lost. Chair counts as seven to seven, tied, and the chair votes in favor of adding it to the docket. So, that matter is approved. Any further issues as part of your counsel report, Mr. Lane? Thank you, Mayor. That's- that's about it, I believe. All right. Um, I think the last person for a counsel report is, uh, Councilmember Stevens. I don't see anything. I think I've already said my counsel report. That's... If I knew how to take this off, I would. All right. Does any, does any other member of the council have a report? Yes, sir. Yeah, just a clarification. Uh, Councilmember, uh, Vice Mayor Gray. Uh, this is just a clarification, um, that the committee, the whole... I'm not... I- I think it maybe wasn't clear to everybody that the committee, the whole meeting will be next Tuesday at 9:30 for the purpose of, uh, report out on the committee on committees. Right? That right? Gotcha. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. And Councilmember Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, the five o'clock workshop today , u- unless there's any objection, has been canceled for today and will be rescheduled because several councilmembers have six o'clock and 6:30 meetings. Thank you. Thank you. If there's nothing further, we'll move to the mayor's report. 25th. We have a few, uh, appointments to be added to the docket for approval. Is there a motion? 9:30. There is something else going on. I- I need a motion to approve the mayor's report. Move approval. Second. Have a motion by Councilmember Gordon to approve the mayor's report, second by Councilmember Blevins. Any discussion? All in favor, please say, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, no? Motion carries. We're now down to public comment on issues not on the agenda. I see none. Is there a motion? We adjourn. Moved. Second. Have a motion by Councilmember Blevins, second by Councilmember Gordon that we adjourn. All in favor, please say, "Aye." Aye. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Just a little bit.