MUSIC MUSIC MUSIC MUSIC MUSIC MUSIC MUSIC MUSIC MUSIC MUSIC MUSIC MUSIC MUSIC MUSIC MUSIC MUSIC MUSIC So everyone needs to have a seat, or if you don't have a seat per the fire marshal, we can seat you outside. So we'll get started as soon as everybody has a seat. Yeah, I'm fine with that. Okay, great. All right, I'd like to go ahead then and call to order the Lexington Fayette-Urban County Council Work Session. And today is November 18th, 2025. And Council Member Whitney Baxter has a motion. Thank you, Mayor. We have a lot of employees in the audience today. And so I would like to make a motion to move our spoke award to the first item on the agenda. So moved. Second. All right, Council Member Ellinger seconded. Is there any question or discussion? This is a motion. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. So we will do the spoke award. All right, this is a very special occasion every year. And I would like to invite Director of Community and Residence Services, Danielle Sanders, to join me, as well as our Community and Residence Services Social Services Coordinator, Dolores Madrid-Sanders, to join me at the podium. And we have Commissioner Charlie Lanter here. So at this time, I'm very proud to present this year's spoke award. The spoke award, short for Skilled, Professional, Outstanding, Knowledgeable, and Exceptional, honors a city employee who exhibits a high level of commitment, initiative, and dedication to their job responsibilities. And this award is nominations taken only from our own employees. So I think that makes it very special. And it is my honor today to present the spoke award to Dolores Madrid-Sanders. Thank you so much. She is our Social Services Coordinator in the Division of Community and Residence Services. And I offer you congratulations on behalf of all of our employees. You were nominated by our employees. So Dolores' colleagues will tell you she goes above and beyond every single day, taking the lead on big projects and always lending a helping hand to residents in need. We thank you very much. We honor your work. We know it's not easy, right? And you always approach it in a way that gives residents a sense of hope and a sense of security. And you are a top-notch mentor to your colleagues. These are all things we heard in the nominations. And we are fortunate to have you on our team. And so I'd like to ask first Danielle, who is your supervisor, to say a few words. Danielle, welcome. So on behalf of Community and Residence Services, and Kathy actually nominated you for this award, we just want to thank you. Many, you know, there's so many employees that a lot of people don't know about who's behind the scene. You see the directors. You see the commissioners. But I know, especially for me, if it weren't for Dolores, I would be lost. She can fill in for any of our positions. She's always ready and able for all of our staff and for the residents. And we just appreciate her. Earlier this year we had an incident with Oxford Circle, and Dolores, I was on vacation. I was actually in Greece. And Dolores stepped up and took care of the residents in that situation. And we just truly appreciate her. She's surprised. She doesn't know anything about it. So we've been able to keep this from her, but we're just excited. Thank you. Thank you so very much. Now, Dolores, would you like to say a few words? I know you're kind of in a bit of surprise. Sure. Well, first of all, I would have taken the gum that I have inside my mouth off if I knew that I was going to speak. I just want to say that it is an honor to receive this award. I am super, super surprised. And I am thankful for my coworkers. We do a great job at Community and Resident Services. And thank you all for your work. And thank you. Thank you so much. Congratulations. All right. Let's get a photo with you and your award and social services. What do you think? Anybody here who's with Community? I mean, I know a lot of you are. Don't be shy. All right. Three, two, one. Congratulations. All right. Thank you very much. Now, the next item is public comment for issues on the agenda. We have a lot of people signed up. So the way this will work is when I call your name, if you will please come to the podium. And then for the record, you need to restate your name and also give us your council district. And so first up, I'm going to say two or three names so you can kind of queue up. First is Jennifer Palmer, followed by Malil McAlpine, followed by Dan Bayer. Jennifer. And then Malil, and then Dan. And you'll each have three minutes, so the buzzer will go off when your time's up. Welcome. Welcome. Hi, I'm Jennifer Palmer, and I'm with Glean, Kentucky, and I'm in favor of funding the grant recipients that have already got funding for food insecurity and nutritional access. And I'm in favor of this since I'm with Glean, Kentucky, and we redistribute produce to those in need. And I have just seen an increase in need, and it's just a dramatic increase. I gleaned like two weeks ago, and community members were waiting there in their cars before I even got in the parking lot. I'll say I was in tears when I left there just seeing how many people needed that food. That day alone, when I got there, we had 600 pounds. And it's just, I'll say, I'll be honest, it's not enough. I don't feel like we can meet the need, and this extra funding will be a dramatic help to our organization. Just to give you, to this date, we've delivered over 137,000 pounds of food to the area with the funds you have given us. This will help our community even more, and we also use volunteers to help deliver that food. So we are really able to help the community in two ways. We engage your community with volunteers and also feed the community with the food. So please consider allotting more money, not only to us, but to the other community organizations, because we'll be able to help even more residents. And the need is out there, and I know others will speak of that need today, and please take into consideration and help us. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next is Malik McAlpine, followed by Dan Bayer, followed by Alex Maddox. Welcome. Hello. My name is Malik McAlpine, and I'm others that Jennifer was talking about. I'm kind of more boots on the ground here. I'm at Glean, Kentucky. I'm the Central Kentucky Coordinator. You can raise your mic. Oh, I can raise it? Oh, perfect. Thank y'all. As y'all can tell, I'm a little new here. I'm a little young. But I'm boots on the ground, like she said. I've seen what she's talking about week in, after week in, after week in, before snap cuts are cut. Just last month we gleaned over 20,000 pounds from every single one of you guys' districts. So that's another reason why I'm here. I think this is Lexington's problem. This is Kentucky's problem. This is a situation that, you know, we really need to help trying to solve. I think another thing, like she said, is just in one of our gleans last week, I was onboarding another new member of our volunteers, and we had just a couple of barrels of peppers. And just in that one afternoon we had three people stop in the middle of the road in their cars and ask for some of those peppers. That just put a perspective on, you know, what we're dealing with. And this is before snap cuts were, you know, cut. So that's just why I'm here. I'm others. I just wanted to represent Glean, Kentucky, and, you know, just ask like the same thing that Jennifer asked for is just to reconsider. Because like she said, it's not enough. We're doing the best that we can. And we are making a genuine difference. And I want to say thank you guys for everything that you guys do. It means a lot. And thank you for your time. You guys have a wonderful day. Thank you. Next is Dan Baer, followed by Alex Maddox, followed by Jessica Cleveland. Welcome. Thank you. Dan Baer, Executive Director at the Nathaniel Mission, which resides in the 11th District. I come in favor of Vice Mayor Wu's proposal to add additional funding to ESR organizations in regard to food insecurity. At the Nathaniel Mission, we continue to see rising need. Numerous families and individuals facing food insecurity come to our doors every single day. And our wait lists for access to our mission market, as well as access to our daily meals, continues to be an extended list. We have more individuals seeking services than what often our capacities allow. And that only means that there is more funding needed for organizations like the Nathaniel Mission and many of our other partners in Lexington to provide for families facing food insecurity. These monies will go far in taking care of vulnerable neighbors this winter. These monies will have a direct impact in our community when our friends are facing so much fear and uncertainty. This move would allow for many individuals to see this community rally around them and provide them the necessary support they need to get through this holiday season. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Next is Alex Maddox and Jessica Cleveland and Kathy Clement. Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor Gordon, Vice Mayor Wu, and members of council. My name is Alex Maddox. I reside in the 8th District, and I am privileged to serve as the Development Manager at God's Pantry Food Bank. I want to first thank you for the invitation and for the opportunity to speak with you all today. But most importantly, I want to thank you for your consistent, longstanding support of the food bank and specifically our Fayette County Pantry Program. LFUCG has been one of our primary funders of the program for years, and we are deeply, deeply grateful. Your support represents 37 percent of our total FY26 program budget, so needless to say, this partnership is essential to our ability to serve Lexington families each and every day. The most recent Map the Meal Gap data shows that one in seven Fayette County residents, more than 47,000 of our neighbors, including 13,000 children, lack consistent access to nutritious food. Hunger in Lexington is not isolated to one neighborhood or one demographic. It is a countywide public health issue affecting working families, older adults on fixed income, people navigating illness, and many who never expected to need our help in the first place. The Fayette County Pantry Program exists to meet this need with five strategically located pantries across Lexington, open Monday through Friday, including evening hours at some locations to reduce transportation and scheduling barriers. When we applied for ESR funding in 2024, we were serving an average of 2,600 households per month. This fiscal year, the demand has risen dramatically to 3,500 households on average each month. That's nearly a 35 percent increase and does not even include November numbers, which we expect to be even higher due to disruptions to SNAP benefits amidst the federal government shutdown. The most significant cost in this program is very simply food. Even with the purchasing power of the Food Bank and strong community support, the need continues to outpace available resources. This additional ESR funding before you today will help us keep pace with the rapid rise in need. It ensures every pantry stays well-stocked, properly staffed, and able to respond immediately to families who simply cannot afford to wait. I want to end by sharing something that a Lexington neighbor just recently told us. She said, when my food stamps run out, I know I can come to the pantry. It means I can have three meals each day. You may not see the struggle from the outside, but this help means everything. That is the impact your support delivers. Thank you again for your continued investment, partnership, and support of the Food Bank. Together, we are all ensuring that no one in Fayette County has to face hunger alone. Thank you for your time. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Next is Jessica Cleveland, followed by Kathy Clement, and then we'll have Reva Russell-English. Welcome. Hi. Jessica, Cleveland 9th District. I'm here to talk about the proposed funding for a new city hall. It's truly out of touch that while our city is hurting, increasing evictions and homelessness, rising housing costs not met with higher wages, growing food insecurity, increased costs of health care, and more, our city government is now considering spending $30 million on a down payment for a new city hall and $3.5 million per year for the next 35 years at a base cost of around $150 million. Our residents are told often and repeatedly that we don't have money for things that would improve the lives of those in the community, but somehow we have money for a brand new city hall. Sure, as Shiny said, a new city hall would be pretty to look at. However, how does it improve the lives of Lexington residents? Does it improve transparency from elected officials? Does it increase access for the public to their elected officials? Does it house our neighbors, including the 1,100 homeless Fayette County school students, homeless children? A new city hall building is a want, not a need. Investing money in this project now, while so many are hurting our community, is comparable to a presidential administration that adorns the White House in gold while Americans go hungry, that builds a new ballroom while our citizens sleep on the streets in the cold while facing arrest or institutionalization, that brags about marble bathrooms while the rest of us worry about how we will keep our lights and heat on this winter. It's a let-them-eat-cake mindset. This economy is not doing well. I'm personally struggling to pay my mortgage. Why would this council risk our security by signing on to a binding legal document that we can't get out of if we can no longer afford it, which would mean cuts to vital services to cover the debt? My fellow 80s kids remember our parents telling us, we'll eat at home, we don't have McDonald's money. In the words of the parents to Gen X, I say, Lexington City Council, we don't have new city hall money. Make your current building work and focus money on what we, the people of Lexington, truly need. Thank you. Thank you. Next will be Kathy Clement, Reva Russell-English, and then Judith Humble. If you all can queue up, please. I don't see Kathy anymore. I don't know if she's outside. Kathy? Is Kathy Clement here? We'll have somebody go check. Thank you. Reva, you're up. Then we'll have Judith Humble and Doug Holloway. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you, Council. Thank you, Mayor. My name is Reva Russell-English, and I live in the 1st District. I also farm in the 12th. I have to leave right after this because I have to go back to work, so I'm not interested. I am interested in a discussion. I'm just going to have to catch up on it later. I just want you to know that. But I'm here to ask you to vote no on moving the request to allocate funding for a new government center out of work session. I know this building is old, and it requires a lot of maintenance. But now, unfortunately, is not the time to spend our dwindling money on a new building. The federal funding that has bolstered our budget for decades is not coming back. The economy is hemorrhaging jobs. We have more unhoused people than we've ever had. Last week, an article in the Herald-Leader began with this sentence. A teacher's union in Kentucky is asking Fayette County public schools to consider implementing parking lots where the families of students who live in their cars can sleep safely. Surely we can do better than that. To have a job in Lexington, you also have to have a car because our public transportation is so anemic. It makes for terrible traffic, for dangerous traffic. I know you know this, but you're more likely to die in Lexington as a bicyclist or pedestrian struck by a vehicle than you are as a victim of a violent crime. This is a matter of literal life and death that you invest in our public transportation. It's also impossible to get to work without your car. People can't afford groceries. They're very soon going to be unable to afford health insurance as the ACA subsidies are drying up. You all just bought and forgave a bunch of medical debt from Lexingtonians. Thank you so much for that. But that problem is about to explode even further. Housing, transportation, 500 new shelter beds from a study that you yourselves proposed and carried out. You've heard so far from some of our partners in the city who take care of folks who are hungry how much our hunger problems are rising. Rising unemployment is happening too. We need you to invest that $30 million that's just for right now into resources to keep us and our neighbors afloat. These are about to be brutally lean times. Please do not give yourselves a new government center, even though I know this one is old and trying sometimes. So many are struggling. And at the very least, please give us more than three days when you're going to spend over $80 million across 35 years of our money. We are in the middle of one of the worst economic downturns since 2008. This is a very significant expenditure. And when you all allocated $8.5 million back in October 2024 from the excess funds, that made sense because we didn't know who the president was going to be and we didn't know what was going to happen to federal funding. These are very different times. I'm asking you to respond to the future that's facing us and the present that we have not the things that we wish were happening. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next is Judith Humble. Is Judith here? All right. We'll come back to her in a minute. Doug Holloway followed by Deborah Winslow. If you can queue up, please. Welcome. My name is Doug Holloway. I live in the 10th District. I've worked for LFUCG a little over 12 years. It got brought to my attention that there's a reallocation, reclassification, however you want to call it, of the engineers and some other people. In 2021, when they'd done the MAG study, I was bumped up three pay grades and did not get the 12% pay raise I should have got as per the ordinance because it was suspended for the MAG study. Yet here we are reclassifying people again. And they're getting a percentage by their steps per the ordinance. This makes the engineers get almost 22% in the last five years. With the MAG study, my career was narrowed quite a bit anyway to move up. Then if they do happen to reclass me and move me up two more pay grades, there's literally nowhere for me to have a chance to move up to. I don't know what the thought process is here, but I think there needs to be a survey done of how many employees have to work two jobs just to make it. I understand the city will never pay as much as the private sector, but we're nowhere near, falling further behind. The insurance, it gets higher, the deductibles go up. It's getting to the point it's almost unaffordable when you have to pay a $6,400 deductible every year. The morale is at an all-time low. I've never seen so many people unhappy, dissatisfied. And we all know when you've got unhappy, dissatisfied employees, some tend not to do the right thing. I can only hope that we can fix this. It could have been fixed in 2021 when you'd done the MAG study. Just put us back at our old pay grades, you wouldn't have narrowed people's career, and it wouldn't have cost the city a penny. So I can just only hope that this gets looked at and hope that more people come forward and also tell their side of things. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Deborah Winslow, followed by Calvin Penn, followed by Cassandra Brown. If you can queue up, please. Welcome. My name is Debbie Winslow. I live in Council District 3. I am against the current proposal for money for a new city hall. Mayor Gorton, on the LFUCG website, you state a sort of mission statement. You say, quote, quote, by working together, we can make our city a place where citizens of all ages have opportunities to work, grow, and thrive. We will build on strong momentum to attract new businesses, help local firms grow, promote our agricultural industry, and strengthen our economy to make it work for everyone. Where does a new city hall fall in that personal mission statement? Is our economy working for everyone? Now, you've already heard about the cuts to SNAP and the current needs in Lexington from nonprofits in our community. Next are the looming health care premium increases. You've seen prices rise at the grocery store. You've heard about the drastic increase in 401k withdrawals. According to a story published on Morningstar two days ago, hardship withdrawals have more than doubled in recent years, jumping from 2% in 2018 to 5% in 2024 as workers turned to their 401ks for immediate financial needs. The 5% level was the highest since 2018 when Fidelity started tracking the data. The Trump administration has made clear their priorities. Here in Lexington, let's focus on Mayor Gordon's mission statement, an economy to make it work for everyone, not new offices. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Calvin Penn, who will be followed by Cassandra Brown and Leandra Foreman. Welcome. Good afternoon. Calvin Penn, a resident of District 5. I'm joined here with our Executive Director of Moveable Feast, Ned Butler-Royce. I'm here to lend my voice today to Vice Mayor Dan Wu's proposal to increase funding for ESR partners working in food insecurity. I've had the pleasure of serving for the last five years on the board of Moveable Feast Lexington. Our mission began almost 30 years ago to support folks in our community affected by HIV and AIDS delivering hot meals every weekday, free of charge, as well as to their caregivers and their dependent children. Our mission has since expanded to include folks under the care of Blue Grass Care Navigators, formerly Hospice of the Blue Grass. We're a wonderful organization that provides a vital service to the most vulnerable in our community, and we've been struggling as of late from funding cuts, risk of losing grants, because of the simple mission that we have to feed people in need. And about 60% of our funding comes from grants. The other percentage, 40%, comes from private donations. That has also gone down in recent times because of the rising costs of everything for everybody. Our food costs have gone up between 15% and 20%. As of late, our supply costs have almost doubled because of the current environment. We're here today to lend our voice in support of this because, frankly, our work can't continue if the funding dries up. We've had great partners like God's Pantry who have helped bridge the gap, but it's not enough. We need some support financially from the city, and we hope that enough voices can convince you all to sign on to that proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Cassandra Brown, followed by Leandra Foreman, and then Sarchie Eldridge. Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon to all of our councilpersons. Thank you so much for allowing a humble servant like myself, a volunteer, this opportunity. In the words of Dr. King, everybody could be great because everybody could serve. And as a servant to my community and as a servant to Food Chain, I just wanted to paint a picture for you of what I see two days a week that I volunteer as well as my three children volunteer. And this is even before the SNAP crisis was going on. This is individuals and children lining up here in Lexington, Kentucky, through all climates of the weather, lining up for food. We're not California. We're not Chicago. We're not New York. We are the bluegrass state. We are the state that does not run away from fires. We go to them to help. And so right now I am asking this amazing council to please consider helping and providing those additional funds to service our neighbors, to service our families, our children, our vulnerable population. Not only those, but those individuals who have no homes, but they know where they could go get a fresh, healthy meal. And these, if you have not visited Food Chain, please allow me the opportunity to invite you as a volunteer to come and visit with us because I see each council person's members attend on a weekly basis. So this is not just a downtown Lexington. This is south Lexington. This is east. This is west. They're all coming to one hub to get fresh, healthy meals. These meals are prepared local, in-house, and they're prepared with love. I don't know if anyone's grandmother was like my grandmother, but you know when she created a meal, it was created out of love. It was created with love. The food that comes from them, again, to the amazing God's Pantry and you all, phenomenal work. And it's so honored to meet you all today. So thank you all for what you continue to do because if you're like me, you see so many faces of concern and fright. Will they run out when I get to the line? And that's not a beautiful picture, and that is a picture that hurts. So, again, I as a volunteer see that, and I explain to my boys what humility is. I explain to my children, my foster children, yes, we do have it bad, but someone else has it worse. So what can we do? We can serve. We can be a servant to our neighbors, to our vulnerable individuals. And it does not have to just be now, but this problem was existing before the SNAP crisis. So thank you all so much for your time, and please, thank you, Mr. Wu. Thank you. Next is Leandra Foreman, followed by Sarchie Eldridge. Welcome. Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you all for allowing me to speak in front of you today as a council. My name is Leandra Foreman. I'm one of the co-executive directors of Food Chain, and we are so grateful for the investment the city has made in us repeatedly over the years with ESR funding and other opportunities. I did want to speak to, similar to the other organizations who have come in front of you today, that growing need that we are seeing in the community, as well as the opportunity for the city council to invest in organizations that are meeting that need, not just as serving as a vector for feeding our community, but also as a vector for creating a sustainable food system that is stimulating our economy throughout the Bluegrass, throughout central Kentucky and here in Fayette County. So for Food Chain, when we think about how we operate, we are not thinking about just how many meals we provide, but also the jobs that we're providing within the food system, not only to the people who work within Food Chain. We have 21 employees in addition to over 15 youth workforce development participants. So those are high schoolers here in Fayette County who get paid $15 an hour to come work with us on our farm and in our kitchen. We are also thinking about all of the farm opportunities. We have urban farmers throughout Fayette County who are selling their produce to Food Chain on a regular basis in order to feed their neighbors. They're people with big hearts and not a lot of funding, but enough opportunity here in this city to grow food and care about making sure that food gets to their neighbors. All of the donations we're able to work with through the city, through Glean, Kentucky, through God's Pantry, these fellow organizations, all of those donations, when they come into Food Chain, they're leveraged into real small business economic development here in our city. And that's what I believe is why it's so important to invest in small local organizations who are feeding their neighbors, why it's so important for the city council to remember to find the organizations here in the city that are serving that need and feeding families and providing for them. But also thinking about how that is helping their small businesses, that is meeting a need for our small business owners and for our farmers and for our agricultural economy and making sure that we're able to keep those dollars here in the circulating in Fayette County and helping those businesses and helping you see their opportunities here in the city. So I 100% know you guys are seeing this catastrophic need growing for our neighbors. And so I'm employing you all today to consider investing in these feeding organizations. Thank you all so much for your time and for your dedication to our city. Thank you. Our final speaker is Sarci Eldridge. Welcome. Hi, my name is Sarci Eldridge. It's okay. No big deal. It's spelled differently. I'm a member, I'm a lifelong Lexington resident. I live in the eighth district. I actually have my whole entire life. I'm also a nursing student here in Fayette County. I'm older, but that doesn't matter. In nursing school we are taught over and over and over the Maslow's hierarchy of needs and the basic function for people to live is our physiological needs. I keep hearing over and over time and time again how those needs are not being met in Fayette County. Food, water, shelter, and warmth, a place to lay your head at night that you don't have to fear being hurt, that you can go to bed with a decently full stomach, a place that you don't have to just walk around Fayette County all night, all hours of the night because you can't stop and rest. I have never been to a council meeting. I'm 43 years old. This is the first time I've been moved to do so. I spend a lot of my time studying because I am an older, nontraditional student at my husband's office off of Winchester Road where I deal with our unhoused population on a regular basis. I call them my friends because they truly are. They are community members. As I see these young men and women walking around because life on life circumstances has gotten them to where they are, they have no place to rest. They have no place to feed themselves. They have no place to feel warmth. They overflow our ERs. They cause problems in our streets because they are just trying to get their basic physiological needs met. You cannot go on to the second step of Maslow's hierarchy of needs with the safety until your physiological needs are met. I love this city. I've never wanted to leave. I've wanted to live here my entire life and now I am taking my time and talents to turn back to serve our community as a nurse. What I can't understand is how our city government can continually pass laws like the Safer Kentucky Act that the truth is we are not taking care of our community members. On a day-to-day basis when these people's physiological needs are not met and we decide we are going to go spend what was it $150 million on a new center, yeah, this one has problems, that's fine. But people can get in and out. I just sat through a nursing conference where there's a brand new nurse who's in a wheelchair. She learned to get around old hospitals. There are 20 more in her footsteps. This has just happened in the last 10 years. My point is this. We have got to take care of our people because at the end of the day if we have a shiny new building, it's just putting lipstick on a pig and the problem are not being taken care of. Thank you. Thank you. I want to thank all of you who came to speak today and that concludes our public comment. So next on the docket we have a public hearing. And this is to hear anyone who wants to speak about the urban services changes. So I'll declare the public hearing open and ask if there's anyone here who wishes to speak to the new urban services changes. These are people in the community whose streets have applied to be on our services. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? All right. Thank you very much. I will declare the hearing closed. Now next up we have a table of motions from October 20. Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. Next up is the docket approval. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Council Member Reynolds seconds. And first up about the docket is Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to try to be brief with my preface about the motion that I'm placing. So in light of the recent record-breaking government shutdown and the disruption of SNAP benefits that are just now coming back online, LFUCG responded by kicking off a huge citywide food drive. And while that's commendable and very necessary, I know that we can do more. Our ESR program in FY25-26 granted $633,520 to seven community partner nonprofits for their work in food insecurity and nutritional access. Those partners were vetted, scored, approved, and went into contract with LFUCG. In total, they had requested $841,545. They were not fully funded only because the allocation for our food insecurity ESRs was $633,520. The difference between the requests and the allocations is $208,025. I am proposing to fully fund those seven partners at their originally requested amounts so that they can maximize their impact on our residents who are struggling to put food on their tables. I have spoken to all of these partners, most of whom tonight spoke more passionately than I could about their work, and they have confirmed that that additional funding would greatly help them in their vital work. I want to thank Commissioner Casey Allen Bryan for providing me lots of really helpful information and clarity on the ESR process. So here is my motion. I move to place on the docket for tonight's council meeting a resolution authorizing the mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute a first amendment to purchase of service agreement with the following extended social resource program agencies authorizing additional funding for services related to food insecurity. Food Chain, Inc., Glean, Kentucky, God's Pantry Food Bank, Inc., Greenhouse 17, Lexington Pride Center, Moveable Feast Lexington, Inc., and the Nathaniel Mission at an additional cost not to exceed $208,025 in the fiscal year 2026. And I will have an additional motion to go with that. So moved. Council Member Curtis seconded it. Does anyone wish to speak to the motion? All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That passes. Thank you, Mayor. I now move that the budget amendment request list on page four of the work session packet be amended to add a budget amendment to provide budget in the amount of $208,025 to the ESR program agencies for services related to food insecurity. Funds are available in the unallocated fund balance to fund these allocations. So moved. All right. Who spoke first? Council Member Reynolds seconds. Are there any questions? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Thank you, Mayor. Next up is Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Mayor. Colleagues, I have a motion that has to do with our council capital funds. I move to extend the deadline for encumbering council capital project funds presently required to be encumbered by December 31, 2025, to a new deadline of June 30, 2026. I second. Council Member Brown seconded. Are there any questions or any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. On behalf of the administration, I move to place on the docket for the November 18, 2025, council meeting an ordinance authorizing and approving the execution and delivery of a 10th supplemental lease agreement between the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Airport Board as the lessor and the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government as the leasee in connection with the issuance of the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Airport Board 2025 Series A up to $25 million and Series B up to $40 million credit notes for the purpose of providing interim financing for certain airport facilities at the Bluegrass Airport. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Council Member Savigny seconds. Any questions, comments about the motion? Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Can we have somebody come talk about the way that our responsibility is for this? I think it's helpful to explain our liability on this. Is Commissioner Hensley in the house? Or John Merchant is here? John is our bond counsel, and I welcome Eric Frankel, director of the airport. They're both here to answer your question. Well, thank you, and thank you for the motion and the second. This is part of a long-term process for the airport. We're trying to prepare ourselves for a large expansion. Some of the members of the council may recall that over the years the city has backed our debt, which requires us that when we change our debt profile to come back to the city. This has been beneficial for the airport for a number of reasons. Obviously, we meet our obligations. We always have met our obligations in terms of paying the debt, but it allowed us a lower interest rate when the city backs our debt. However, when we make a change to our debt profile, we certainly need the council's concurrence with that, and that's what we're asking for today. Mr. Merchant, did you want to add anything? Did everything I would say. I know that Council Member Ellinger, my question, which I got answered earlier, was who's on the hook if something goes south? You might want to mention that. So it is the airport's responsibility. It's the airport's obligation to pay our debts. Obviously, if something dramatic were to happen, the city is backing that debt, but that's never happened, and we don't expect that to happen. We're very responsible, very considerate, of course, of our obligations, and we don't anticipate that to happen. This is, again, just short-term debt. We would come back to the council at some future point in time to issue long-term debt, and we can have that conversation again at that point in time. Thank you, Mary. I had the privilege of serving on that board for a few years, and it's one of the most professional boards I've ever been on, so I have a lot of respect for them, and I just wanted you to kind of explain that to make the community feel safe, the obligation is really yours. So thank you. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Higgins-Hord, did you have a question? I move to place a motion. Hang on a second. Did anyone else have a question about the motion for the airport? All right. All those in favor of approval, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? So that's approving to go on the docket. All right. Thank you very much. Mayor, I have another motion. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Colleagues, I sent out an email earlier this morning speaking to the housing stability program and how we funded an FY 24 fund balance, but we didn't take that into consideration just a couple of weeks ago when we did our FY 25 fund balance. So from my understanding, that fund is going to run out of funding before the fiscal year is up, and after talking to Commissioner Lantern, I just think it's appropriate that we fund some additional funding, put some additional funding towards that initiative. So I have a motion that reads, I move to place on the docket for the November 18, 2025, council meeting a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a purchase of agreement with Northern Kentucky Legal Aid Society, Inc., DBA Legal Aid of the Bluegrass, to extend existing housing stability services through August 31, 2026, at a cost not to exceed $150,000, contingent upon approval of necessary budget amendments. I further move that the budget amendment request list on page 4 of the work section packet be amended to add budget amendments to provide budget in the amount of $150,000 to Northern Kentucky Legal Aid Society, Inc., DBA Legal Aid of the Bluegrass for services related to housing stability. So moved. Second. Council Member Reynolds seconds. Any questions, comments? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Thank you. Did you have one more, Council Member Brown? Yes, I have a budget amendment. Okay. Next, then, we have Council Member Higgins-Ward. Now it's time. Thank you. I move to place PLN-MAR-25-10, War Admiral Place, LLC, a petition to remove a conditional zoning restriction in a commercial center B6P zone relating to the maximum gross building area limitation for 56.27 net acres, which is 71.45 gross, for property located at 2300-2350 Greg Lag Way, 2320 and 2344 Elkhorn Road and 2200-2277 War Admiral Way on the docket without a public hearing. Second. All right. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger seconded. Is there any question or comment about the motion? Council Member Morton. It's just a generic question. Was this a contentious zone change, or was there any community feedback that wanted a public hearing? Do we have Jim? Director Duncan. Director Duncan. Council Member Morton, would you restate the question, please? I was just wondering if this was more so of a contentious zone change, or was there a lot of community feedback that may have wanted opposite? Council Member, there were no speakers in opposition to this, and there was no letters received. Thank you. All right. Is there any other question to the motion? All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Thank you. Is there any other motion for the docket? Anybody? All right. All those in favor of approving the docket as amended, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. We've had our public hearing, and that brings us to the October 21st Council Work Session motions. Second. Thank you. Council Member Baxter, seconded by Council Member Ellinger. Are there any corrections, additions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. That brings us to budget amendments. Could I have a motion to approve? Second. Vice Mayor Wu, seconded by Council Member Reynolds. Does anyone wish to speak to budget amendments? Council Member Brown. Thank you, Mayor. I move to make a motion to amend Budget Journal 159465 on page 5 of the work session packet to correct the urban fund amount for a seller software subscription cost to $13,041. So moved. Second. All right. Council Member Curtis, seconded. Are there questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Thank you. Anything else about budget amendments? All right. All those in favor of budget amendments as amended, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Thank you. Next, for your information only, we do have some budget adjustments, and that brings us to new business, and I'll entertain a motion to approve new business. Second. All right. Council Member Baxter, seconded by Vice Mayor Wu. And please log in if you have questions. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. I have quite a few, so I'll try to go through these quickly. Let's do you as an umbrella. Mr. Hensley. This is, I think, Director Luker, Budget Director Luker. Is this a contract that we're changing going forward then, where it's been 1 percent, and now we're going to 2 percent? And where do we come up with the 4.5 percent for parks? Is that how we initially had done it? So this, the payment to the sheriffs for collecting the taxes is set by state statute, so they can take up to 4.25 percent of the collections for their work for collecting it. The urban service fund had been at $350,000, a flat rate for as long as I've been here. And so when the new parks tax came on board, it's an additional tax that has to be collected, additional work. And so in negotiating that, it got brought up that we needed to renegotiate the urban services fee as well. So that's just, we're doing 1 percent this first year, and then next year we'll go to 2 percent on urban services. The general fines in parks are at the 4.25 percent. And you said that up until this year, what were we paying? It was a flat $350,000. Right, that's what I thought. And now what's the 1 percent and the 2 percent going to be paying? The 1 percent, it's an additional, let me, we've, sorry I didn't have that written down. Oh, here we come running. It is. We've got some help. We've got the budget amendment. It's an additional amount, right? Yeah. It'll be $580,264. For 1 percent, and then over a million for the second one? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Oh, as in oxygen? Director Neal, welcome. Thank you. We've been talking about this one a long time, and is this in relationship with the quiet zone? Is this part of that? Because we, back, I think it says in the information, back in 2018 we met to try to look at the five different intersections, because I live on the Rosemont Garden, so that was one of the five. So are we now getting to the point where we're going to, because working the railroad is always not the fastest issue. Right. We're getting closer. It's been a task working with the railroad on this. The study back in 2018 or 2017 was just a study to kind of show what we might need to be able to establish a quiet zone. It wasn't funded for several years, and then it was funded a few years back with $300,000, and then we went to the first stage, approached Norfolk Southern and the Federal Railroad Administration with that, and that costed $17,500, and that was back in 2023, I believe. We did that part of the study, and we've got some feedback from Norfolk Southern recently that there's the next phase is what we're asking for now is $30,000 for them to look at the plans that we produce to see if they'll approve what we're thinking is needed. And this would be long term to be able to do the five areas for the quiet zone? Well, there's another step after this. So once we get the plans approved, there's a construction agreement that we'll have to be entering into with Norfolk Southern for that as well. I'm sorry? There will be a construction agreement with Norfolk Southern on the next phase. I think maybe optimistically it's another 12 months down the road before we can actually do what we need to do with those crossings. Okay. Thank you. And I guess I'll bring up the big elephant in the room, T.T. I'm sure there's going to be a lot of discussion in this one. I'll start it. That is Commissioner Ford. We'll welcome him to the podium. Now I have 45 seconds, so can you give me 45 seconds on the government center update? I'm just kidding. Go ahead. Could you talk about T.T., and then I'm sure there will be lots of questions. Yes, Council Member. As we were here in September, we provided an update in regards to the government center. We are very, very, very close to finalizing our negotiations. We are bringing a request for council authorization for the mayor to execute the agreements to form that public-private partnership for a new city hall. That new city hall will have an annual lease payment of $3.5 million. That is less than 1% of general fund revenues here for the government. And it also represents a sizable reduction of the originally proposed project to move this forward. And with that, the requirement we're making when that negotiation was the $30 million that we had set aside in the capital fund, correct? That's correct. We are requesting $30 million, which would go towards a portion of the total project costs. But it will also allow us to take ownership of the site at the time of the execution of the agreement, bringing on that asset. And it will also allow us to keep our annual lease payment low. Again, that annual lease payment is less than 1% of the general fund revenues here for the entire general fund Urban County government. I think my time is up. And I believe there is going to be a motion. Right now, this would go on for first reading for today. And then it could go on second reading for Thursday. But I think there's going to be a motion to move it back until December, I believe. Councilmember, I do believe that's our understanding in our previous discussions with the council. If this were to pass as part of new business this afternoon, it would then move to Thursday's docket, November 20. We'll go through the holiday week, and then it will return for second reading and hopefully adoption on Tuesday, December 2. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. All right. Next up is Councilmember Reynolds. Thank you, Mayor. My first item is on item Q, if Commissioner Lanter is available. This has to do with a transit development and a contract with Habitat. And I'm aware that there has been some discussions with the Lexington Community Land Trust about the possibility of them being part of this project as well to maintain land affordability and housing affordability. Is that still a possibility moving forward? Yes, it is. That is the plan for the lots that Habitat for Humanity will operate on the site. All those lots will be part of the land trust portfolio, meaning they'll own the land under the house. And so would that just be for this one particular contract, or is it a possibility for all of the land? Some of the land is multifamily, so it's not necessarily appropriate for the land trust, but the single family will be set up that way. And then I think what will happen is as we migrate the land trust into this project, I think as you all know and a lot of people know, the land trust has not stepped outside yet of their current footprint. They're still in that original footprint. So I think this project will help sort of get them out of that footprint and have them try into some new areas. And assuming that that works, I think we'll probably see additional projects where we start to incorporate that. Okay, great. Thank you so much. The next item I have is T, if Commissioner Albright is available. That has to do with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet accepting some land and then giving it to the city at Oliver Lewis in Manchester. Could you explain for my constituents what is going to happen? Yes, ma'am. Thank you, and thank you for the opportunity to display something here to put it in context. This was the last page of the right-of-way application that is in legislature but didn't survive all the way into your packet. There is that small blue sliver of land that was purchased by KYTC as part of the Oliver Lewis Way construction project in the 2010 timeframe. It's surplus to their need, but because of the way it was purchased, they can only sell it to a non-government agency. So we are going to accept it, and then the blue sliver and the bigger yellow sliver will both be on a maintenance agreement with the park, and they will take over maintenance of that area and be able to incorporate it into their space a little bit on an agreement with us. We will not sell it to them. We will just let them operate and maintain it. And my understanding is they're going to use quite a bit of that for parking. Is that right? Yes. I think they are remodeling their entrance a little bit and having space for parking and drop-off. Okay. Thank you so much. Yes, ma'am. I appreciate it. And then my last one, I'll also go to TT, Commissioner Ford, if you could please come forward. You know, I know there's a lot of concerns about the city spending money on a new government center. Having been here quite a while, I first want to state that this building, from what I know of it, is not a great use of taxpayer money for us pouring more money and more money and more money into this building and that I think we see this opportunity to be able to use taxpayer dollars in a better way going forward. Can you speak to this building and why there might be need and how a new government center is not just about offices, but it's actually about being more accessible to the public, which we have a lot of issues with that right now. Yes, indeed, Council Member. And, Councilor, I'll be brief as best I can in all of my remarks and hopefully answering all the Council's questions. When we got here to this site in the mid-1980s, it was supposed to be a temporary fix. It is not an office environment naturally. We have currently $55 million in deferred maintenance here in this building, and if we were to invest in that now, which is not what we are recommending, it still would not address some of the more acute needs that we have, accessibility being one. We noticed that we had a sizable crowd at the beginning of today's meeting at 3 o'clock, and we had folks overflowing on the mezzanine. So we feel that our time here at 200 East Main Street is nearing an end. We also feel very strongly that we have worked extremely hard since 2019, the first year of the Mayor's Administration, and the Council also was very much engaged in starting the planning process to get us to a point now through study, through saving, and through working very hard with our negotiating team and our outside counsel at Frost Brown Todd to bring the very best, more manageable financial deal that we can to the Council, and that's what we feel that we have at this moment. I'm out of time, or I would comment more. Thank you, Mayor. You can come back. All right, thank you. Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question about Item DD. Director Burton, could you just give me a little bit more information on this Clay's Mill Road project? I thought we were done. So we have been substantially complete since December of 2023. Some contractors are better than others in closing out projects. This one is maybe one of the less better. So during that period, we've been working out warranty issues and things that have come up after the fact that, okay, this didn't work as well as it was designed or well as it was installed. So a lot of these change orders have been related to issues that have come up since construction. Some of them are related to issues that came up during construction with utility conflicts and otherwise, and this is the final two years later cleaning all of that up in order to close out the project. Okay, that's all I need. I just want to make sure we weren't tearing anything up again. All right, thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Morton. Thank you. I'll start off with Item TT. And this is merely for public transparency as well. I know that the uncertainty at the federal level is front of mind for me, and it has been front of mind for the administration when advising and recommending other items throughout the year. Can you please talk about the admin stance and thoughts tied to moving this forward now, knowing that we're facing uncertainty at the federal level and why the administration feels this is a good time or the right time to do it? Facility need is primarily the core of the purpose of this exercise of pursuing a new government center, which does provide an office environment for our staff here on the downtown campus, but it also provides a community space, such as today's meeting for our constituents to come in and engage city leaders. That's primarily one. It's about the need for the facility, and we do have that. And then I also think we've always tried our very best to be budget conscious. One of the key components of our negotiating through the evaluating of the RFP through negotiating since April has been about cost containment, not cutting financial corners but just being very pragmatic and prudent in reducing the cost. And we feel that we've gained a great level of success. The original project proposal for the negotiating partner was $120 million. And this afternoon we're bringing a proposal that's $86 million, which represents a 28% reduction of the original proposal that was brought to us. We've had to make some tough choices, but that's being budget conscious and also understanding that there are still other critically important programs and services that the government needs to provide. Thank you. So then knowing that this is a longer term lease, about 35 years, that can cost up to $150 million total at the end, can the administration commit that this will not handicap existing programs or limit the creation or implementation of future programs and projects? Councilmember, we feel that this is a responsible outlay and a wise investment for the future of our government. And, again, our general fund revenues now exceed $500 million. So our 3.5 annual lease payment is actually far less than 1% of our general fund revenues. Thank you. And then just for my constituents, so what I'm doing is I'm seeking as much community feedback as possible, but then also I have an advisory board that I've sent this to, and they will help me make my final decision on that item. But then I'll move on to the item. I want to go to Commissioner Lantern and speak about the land trust real quick. Item Q. And then while you're coming down, so I'm not too familiar with this being part of the plan. Was this always a part of the plan up front, and has this been communicated? Was this communicated to the community, impact community around it? I don't know for sure if it was part of the developer's original plan. This was something that Habitat for Humanity carved out themselves. It was something they're intending to do with a lot of their projects anyway, whether at this site or other sites. It's something their director has been exploring. Darrell's actually here if you'd like to ask him any questions as director of Habitat. The plan would be that the property itself is not being put into the land trust name at the time that LFUCG is involved. It would be at the time that the homeowner, or the new homeowner, buys the home from Habitat, and it's just to preserve so that the home will always remain affordable and won't be sold again in 10 years, 20 years, and go back to a full market rate price. When this plan was advocated, could that not, like when we think about home ownership and generational wealth, could that not limit that as well? The way the land trust system works, and I don't pretend to be an expert on that, the homeowner still achieves the equity when they sell the home. They just share that equity with the land trust. So there's a slight reduction in the equity that the homeowner would get when they sold it, but it's not a complete elimination of the equity. It's a percentage, and I don't know what that percentage is. I think it varies depending on the amount of time they've been in the home. Okay. I will say that I did hear this rumor several months ago, and it was almost put away, so then I stopped looking into it, but now it's being brought forward back again. I have huge concerns tied to it, and I guess I need to do a little bit more digging into it, but then also I would hate for it to be seen as a bait-and-switch to the community that had a lot of concerns and a lot of input tied to the zone change, and I'll just leave it at that for that. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Mayor. On behalf of the administration, I'd like to make a motion to amend item QQ, and the change would read, authorization to amend the classified and unclassified civil service authorized strength by updating job codes from three digits to six digits and adjusting the job titles and or pay grades as summarized below, effective at the beginning of the first pay period upon passage of council, abolish 13 positions of municipal engineer seniors grade 528E, create 13 positions of municipal engineers grade 530E, and transfer the incumbents, abolish three positions of engineering section managers grade 530E, create three positions of engineering section managers seniors grade 532E, and transfer the incumbents, split 48 job classifications with 537 positions into 96 job classifications, increase pay grades from 31 job classifications, and transfer the incumbents. This action will have a 12-month impact of $324,385. So move. Is there a second? Okay. Council Member Morton. All right. Is there any discussion? All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. And then, Mayor, I also have a question in regards to Item Q as well, and it's along the same lines of Council Member Morton's questions. And, Charlie, this agreement that we're – Commissioner, I'm sorry. This agreement that we're approving today has no – it has no impact on how these houses are going to be developed and what the structure is going to be. This is just really moving this money to this entity so they can get started on the infrastructure and the other costs associated with the development. That's correct. We're a long way away from actual houses being constructed. Okay. The other thing I'll say, too, is, you know, that was a contention zone change. The neighborhood is still – you know, still has their concerns, and I share the concerns that what was told to them what this development would be, and part of the reason that I really supported it, it was the home ownership component. So if there's a new element that's introduced into this development, I think we need to come up with a – or the team needs to come up with a pretty robust way to communicate that to the community and let them know that there's a new element to that. And even to the extent of explaining where, you know, there's still home ownership opportunity, maybe the equity is going to be reduced, but the intent is to, you know, keep these units affordable in perpetuity. And I understand the land trust model. I just wanted to be clear to those neighbors that that's the intent and to make sure that they understand what we're talking about. And we're not talking about every home ownership opportunity in that development. We're talking about a portion of it. Is that correct? So there's still going to be some home ownership opportunities just straight up, flat out for people to have in that community. I see some heads nodding from some of the folks involved in that. I can't speak for the design. I've not seen the final. But I will say that the land trust is an affordability model, and it exists to prevent loss of affordability and to prevent gentrification. So it's a good thing for a neighborhood. It's not a bad thing. Yeah, I think that I agree with you, but I think some of that interpretation is for the neighbors to decide what's a good and a bad thing. But, no, that's the only question I had, and the point that I wanted to make is that we communicate that with us as council members and then also the neighbors as well. Thank you, Mayor. All right. Thank you. Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Mayor. I would like to speak to item TT. I don't have a question about it, but my colleagues are not going to be surprised by what I have to say. We routinely say that our budget reflects our values, and while I support the improved accessibility and public access of the city hall proposal, how much we are spending on it makes it seem like this is the highest priority project for our government. And the speaker has highlighted today that when you do the math on the lease payments that incorporate our financing, it's not an $86 million payment. It is a project. It is a $152 million project. And I understand that $3.5 million each year is a relatively small part of our budget, but that is almost what we put into the affordable housing fund each year and how much we give to the extended social resources grants to non-profits in our community each year. That amount of money is very significant. I believe we are facing more pressing problems right now, and I believe our highest priorities should be basic needs in our community and specifically affordable housing and decreasing homelessness, two things that I know we are actively working on. And our task force to address homelessness specifically just started this week. We are facing financial uncertainties. And last week there were federal cuts to programs that play a significant role in addressing homelessness. And it is safe to assume that we will see other changes in federal funding. At this moment, I'm very conflicted because I do see the benefits of a new building, particularly for all of our government workers. But our service in this body is to make the lives of the Lexington community members better as a whole. And so in particular, I will not support an allocation of capital funding to City Hall until after we have the recommendations and a funding plan from the task force on homelessness. I can support it after we have funded these other basic needs. I would also like to make a motion to vote on the approval of new business item TT separately from the other items. Typically we vote on all of our new business items together, but I would like to vote on TT separately. So moved. Okay. Council member Curtis seconds. Any questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That passes. That's all. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Council members. Council member Legree. Did you, I saw your name, but you slipped off. You hit the wrong button. Okay. Let's have council member Savigny back on. Thank you. Thank you mayor for recognizing me. So I've got a few questions. TT. Just a few things. So I just think it's good for the public record. How did you come up with the $30 million down payment? Thank you. It could have been, you gave us a whole bunch of papers. I don't know if it was in there. Was it, was it to get to the three and a half million dollar number? Cause you felt comfortable with that or, or what, why 30 million? 30 million. We, I think to get straight to the answer, there's approximately $40 million in the capital reserve fund, but we understand that there are other priorities that the council, some of the council members have spoke to that now. And so in our engagement with the council, going back till April, we met with you guys in closed session about four times or so. That was the response. And we appreciate the partnership with the council, but we felt that that $30 million number gets us to a lease payment. That's manageable and does not sacrifice programs and services as council member Morton mentioned. So there's still approximately $10 million remaining. If this were to move forward for city hall, a fund that was set up for this purpose, still be $10 million for other priorities. So if we, if at some point we, if we wanted to amend it and actually do only $20 million, I think it would have about a $636,000 a year impact. If something happened that we wanted to save more money for other projects that are a high, that are, that have equal priority to city hall. Or have you already negotiated to that point and you can't change your negotiations? We have thus far back to this strongly into our negotiations. Okay. All right. That's fine then. Then let me ask you this because that's our three and a half million dollars is based on an interest rate. So in the negotiations, if interest rates go down three points, how does that affect our lease payment? Or do we then have an option to flip that to maybe a bond and do a buyout? Yeah. I think yes to both of those. The construction period will be approximately 18 to 24 months. There'll be a construction loan. That our developer will take out on behalf of this project. Then we will go to permanent financing. It is our hope, council members, that we will have a more favorable interest rate by that time, which then would result in a lower payment. What we provided for you guys now is projected project cost at $86 million, projected lease payment at three and a half based on the information we have now. Okay. Based on current rates. All right. And I just, over the course of 35 years, interest rates will fluctuate. So I just want to make sure that whatever deal we're doing, just like any other organization will refinance debt when it makes sense. I just want to make sure that we're willing to do that. Yes, sir. We'll have that flexible. Okay. And then the other thing that I had asked before in a meeting, and I really haven't gotten a straight answer on in light of the issue that I think Winburn just had in Frankfurt, where property tax is owed because they are a private holder of a building that the public is leasing. Where are we on the property tax piece on this building? Because that's about a $600,000 to $700,000 a year number. And I just don't know where you have that and if you have it somewhere. Yes, council member. And I have legal counsel here with me as well to help if I need it. We are approaching this as the development of a public facility meant for the benefit of the general public. And then we have been engaged all along with more recently with the PBA's office. Even prior to the ruling coming out of Franklin County last Friday, we, legal counsel, has indicated there are major differences between how that project was structured and how we are pursuing our project structure here. Us taking ownership of the site with proceeds of that $30 million that we'll bring forward really helps us make the case. So we will continue to engage the PBA's office and the Department of Revenue. And then we do have support from the development team because cost savings is cost savings that will benefit the taxpayer. All right. I'm out of time. I'll sign back in because I've got some other things to ask. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Council member Curtis. Thank you, Mayor and sorry, Commissioner. I'm coming back to AT&T. So one of the concerns that we've heard from a lot of folks here today, and I've heard individually throughout the community from my constituents, is a feeling that this has been sort of rushed together and is now being presented without much opportunity for public input and whatnot. And I want to provide an opportunity for you all to just once again clarify how long have these discussions been happening about a new city hall behind closed doors? And if you could speak to why those discussions weren't happening in public, I would appreciate it. Yeah. The nature of negotiations primarily is one factor in regards to that. However, I think it is very fair to say that it has always been our intent, and I think we've succeeded to a great deal, the administration and our negotiating team in keeping the council apprised as best we can along the way. It has been mentioned that there's been many administrations who have pursued a new government center. Even though those have not been successful, we've always viewed those as kind of foundational and some lessons learned. There's a slide in this meeting's packet that was included in our presentation to you guys on September 16th, and I think that slide shows the timetable from 2019 to now that shows the various studies and the various investments and savings, and issued one RFP, recalled it, and issued another. So it's demonstrated a long pattern that this is not a new idea. This is something that we've long visioned and we've worked hard for. And specifically to this effort that started in earnest last September, through the evaluation and through the negotiation, we've had 35 plus meetings, and those are just the formal meetings. There's been many other ad hoc discussions internally, et cetera. So there's been a whole lot of work. The one last thing I'll say, Council Member Curtis, is while those negotiations by nature have to be contained to a certain degree, our negotiation principle has always been in partnership with the administration and the council, and financially looking out for the best interest of John Q. Public and Jane S. Taxpayer. Thus, us trying to bring an affordable, reasonable cost project to you guys. We tried our very best to operate on good faith and in the best interest. And I really appreciate that, Commissioner. Something that you do want to say is that I feel, having come into this process in the middle of it as a freshman council member, that you and the mayor and the rest of the administration have done a good job of keeping council appraised of the situation, and it's something that I personally am very appreciative of, and also with getting us newbies up to speed. When we're talking about a new government center building, one of the things that I think we need to consider is whether or not we face safety issues in the long term with this building, whether that's because of deferred maintenance or not. It's often spoken about as, for lack of a better term, a vanity project. And I was wondering if you could take a second in this setting. I know you've talked about it extensively, but to talk about this long-term safety concerns with this building. There are not immediate safety concerns for our staff or our visitors to be concerned about. However, time is when a long-term functional use is going short. And we've gotten to the point where, even though there's not a consideration now to address the deferred maintenance, and I mentioned in September, not an excuse, but a component of that deferred maintenance has been this on again, off again, do we pursue a new building, do we stay here? So that has kind of exacerbated kind of where we are now. But further investment in this building for the purpose of being an office setting has us to a point of diminishing returns. And that's why we think it's a wiser investment to move forward with a new project that's more efficient, more modern. And it won't be anything luxurious. I think our negotiating team will say, and when we get into schematic design, it's going to be practical, and it's going to be what we can afford. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. And I have a couple more questions, but I'll let my colleagues go ahead, and then I'll log back in. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Legere. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question about Item V. Welcome, Director Neal. I just wanted to seek some clarification about the lane use control signs on US-27. Would you be able to explain a little bit about what this project entails and the visual or practical impact, please? Actually, that one's ongoing. We tried to clean up some of the money we've been getting from KYTC. KYTC gives us some. We have a maintenance agreement with them that's annually renewed for $396,000. Last year they tacked on an extra $30,000 because our lane use control signals on Nicholasville Road needed to be retrofitted and upgraded. So instead of doing it all at one time, where they're spreading that money over, like, five years until we can, like, replace them incrementally over the next few years. So we're getting $30,000 last year, this year, and we're supposed to get it for the next two or three years. Okay. All right. Thanks. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to clarify one thing. I know Council Member Savigny, and this is about Item TT, brought up the amount remaining in the capital projects fund. Commissioner, would you be just willing to explain how that money could be used? We've gotten some questions about other potential capital projects, other needs in our community. So would you just be able to elaborate a little bit about that remaining amount? I'll try my best, and I'll ask the team for finance to back me up. Okay. I understand it's a capital reserve fund. There's been some discussion of the initial contribution, I think, very much was generated around the pursuit of a new government center. But I think as we begin to move forward and not make just one, but I think at least two contributions in that fund, which has us now to $40 million, is capital projects I think would be an eligible use by administration and council to pursue. And this is aside from City Hall. You're asking about what perhaps could be used with the surplus there. I think it would be capital, major assets and investments. Okay. That's helpful. I guess the main point here is that there will be $10 million remaining that could be used toward additional projects, additional initiatives, to meet additional needs in our community. Yes, Council Member. And I think one of the discussions we've had, I remember Council Member Hensley mentioning this to us before, is that what we've learned from setting up the capital reserve is that this is a good model. I know we're going in some maybe more lean budget times, but if there isn't an environment where we have surplus or fund balances, investing in those capital reserve accounts allows us to pursue future projects at a more affordable and advantageous approach. Yes. And that's what we had done with this funding, for example. Okay. I just wanted to seek a little bit of clarity about the possibility of doing additional projects with the remaining funds. Thank you, Mayor. I don't have any additional questions at this point. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Savigny. Thank you, Mayor. At this point, I just want to make a few motions. So I move to place item TT under the new business items, which pertains to the new government center project, on the docket of the Thursday, November 20th, 25 council meeting under first reading of ordinances to allow for additional feedback time between the first and second readings. So moved. Council Member Curtis seconds. Now we'll have discussion. And this is about putting that item only on the Thursday night for first reading. Correct? Yes. Because the way Commissioner Ford explained it is not the way it was explained to me. It would go on tonight. And I want to make sure that we have a little more time. All the other new business go on at the 5 o'clock meeting today. Yes. Okay. What kind of discussion? Council Member Brown. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Council Member Savigny, for your motion. I think from the comments I've heard from other council members, even though we've been talking about this and working on this for years and having meetings for the last few months and closed session about it, I think it's appropriate to give the public more time to digest what we're doing and what we're talking about. So I'm going to support that motion. I'm debating on whether to go in depth about why I support this and all that, but I think I'm not at this time. I think just to leave it out there and let folks kind of reach out to us and see where we stand and actually have the opportunity to talk it through. So I'm going to ask my colleagues to support this motion just so we can have this item in the public to allow them to engage us on this issue. So thank you, Mayor. All right. Thank you. I see Council Member Sheehan. Does anyone else want to speak to the motion to put it on for Thursday? Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Mayor. I do believe it's out in the public now, and this is the first time that the public is seeing the financial information, which is a very important piece of this. Council Member Sivigny, I appreciate you working to extend the timeline, and I do expect that motion to pass, and I appreciate you working on that. I am going to vote no on the motion because I don't want this to move to the docket at all. At this point, I want more time for community conversation before we go to first and second reading because even if we move it to the docket for first reading on Thursday, then you have Thanksgiving break, which people are going to be spending time with their families, and second reading would be December 2nd, which is very quickly after that. So I don't feel like that is enough time. I'd rather see it be moved into the new year for discussion, so I'm going to vote no. But thank you for working on this. Council Member Morton. Thank you, Council Member Sivigny, for bringing this forward, and I am going to support this motion just for public transparency just because I do believe that it is good to give more time for the public to get information, gain information, and reach out to their council members. But then the next motion that Council Member Sheehan put forward, I will be voting no on until I hear from my advisory board, and that's the reason for that. So thank you. All right. Does anyone else want to speak to the motion? All right. All those in favor of placing item TT on the docket for first reading on Thursday, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? No. We have one no vote. Council Member Sheehan. All right. Thank you. That passes. I have another one. Okay. And Council Member Brown took two minutes of my time. I'm glad he didn't want to speak long. On item number N, I want to make a motion, and I want to point out something. In the EQPW meeting, we had a discussion, and they said there was a copy of the actual letter for the non-binding letter of intent. It was not in the package, and I couldn't find it in either one of the meeting packages. But I do have a general concern on how this kind of played out. I am supportive of solar in all forms, so I appreciate all the work that you guys have done and are doing. I just want to add my motion is I move to change item N under new business items, which pertains to the solar landfill project, to insert the word non-exclusive after the word non-binding. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Council Member Morton seconds. Is there any discussion? Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Could you just explain how that would change it? Yeah. I just think that I'm a little concerned because everything has moved very quickly on this thing, from a proposal to a bid to a quick response to a bid, that we truly did not get enough industry interest because I don't necessarily know that they were brought up to speed on it. So I'm concerned about that. If they're going to have kind of an exclusive way to do this, there's no opening for someone else to give us a proposal that is also an unsolicited proposal that says, hey, we'll do this. Because it gives us an option to compare it to something else. That's it. Could I ask somebody who could comment on that? Is this potentially a deal breaker in any way, or is that an issue? Good afternoon. I would have to look at the letter of intent again, and perhaps they can answer for us as well. From my perspective, my recollection of letter of intent is it really is drafted in a manner that they don't have. If your concern is someone else pops up in the next three months while this is being worked out to approach us on this, I believe it's probably general enough where they're not precluded from doing that, but I want to make sure that they're not interpreting it a different way. So if they're willing to answer. Mr. Edelman, would you like to comment? Welcome. So we have enormous respect for the delivery process, and I completely get both and accept both the spirit and the view behind what you're offering. Here's the real reason why nobody else responded, because everybody else is owned by a publicly traded company, and this project on a brownfield site is below what is called an investment-grade return. And so the reason why we're here in Lexington, Kentucky, proposing this is because I'm here in Lexington, Kentucky, across the street. And if people could make money at this, Councilman, they would have responded. This part of Kentucky, this part of Lexington, is a major transmission corridor. There is sufficient capacity on that map. In every development shop in America, including my own, I've got two people who do nothing but look at capacity pockets everywhere in America. So the fact of the matter that the second largest city in Kentucky failed to get another alternative bid to the process isn't a reflection on the worth of this community. It's based on whether they think they can make money at it. And so all I would say is don't compare me against the almighty, compare me against the alternative, of which there isn't one. The process by which the Gorton administration lined this out followed both the letter and the spirit of the law. And much to my great frustration, after we made an unsolicited proposal completely within the spirit and the letter of both city governance and state law, they came back and said, well, no, no, no, we've got to open this up one more time in abundance of caution. So the bottom line is this, and I don't want to waste your time, and I certainly don't want to waste mine, but if we're not in a place where we can have the authority to begin to have conversations with the utility, with regulatory authorities, with financiers, with potential offtakers, because of the situation that the Trump administration has put us in, we're going to lose this project. And so I apologize that the council is in the spot that you're in right now. It's not my fault, it's the Trump administration's. And ultimately the question in front of you is, do you want a shot at a best-in-class use of brownfield for green energy development in this community, or are we going to leave it to chance? And governing is about choosing. I completely respect the deliberative process. I will confess that there's a reason why I never really wanted to be in a legislative body. But I understand your process and your motivation and your commitment to getting this right. But the reality of the calendar, forced down upon us by an administration that does not believe in green energy, is the reason we're in the circumstance we're in. And councilmen and other members of the council, how you navigate through that is certainly your prerogative. And I want you to be as comfortable as you possibly can. But the fact of the matter is the situation that we're currently in is aging like milk and not like bourbon. And I'm refreshing my memory, and it is exclusive as drafted for 180 days. So you would be changing the material terms, so it would be up to them whether they would be willing to still sign it at that point in time. So we have your motion, which is to change this to item N, non-binding, non-exclusive letter of intent. Is there a second? Did I have a second? Thank you, Councilmember Morton. Is there any other discussion? Okay, Councilmember Ellinger. Mr. Barbary, could you repeat what you said about it being a material change and how that would affect it? So the letter of intent that is before you all for consideration, it has an exclusive term in it as one of the terms. So if you take that out of there, it would be up to the Evelyn group to decide whether or not they were still comfortable proceeding with the letter of intent. That's where you would be legally. Okay, any other questions? Councilmember Morton. My apologies, Commissioner. And then just my bad, because I'm reading it right here. And so a little bit earlier you mentioned that we, I guess, even if we didn't do this amendment, that we could, I guess, still seek proposals possibly? No, so I spoke incorrectly because I didn't have it in front of me to look at. After looking at it, it does have an exclusive provision in it for a 180-day period. So if this got executed as is right now until, you know, like May or so of next year, you wouldn't be able to negotiate with anyone else about using this property for a similar purpose? Right. So and I know that in front of us is merely just that letter of intent. But ultimately, the decision based on this motion, the decision we make today, is basically going to decide if we move forward today with this company or not. I believe it's been clearly communicated that if you didn't move this forward today, they're not going to proceed with the project. I believe is what was just communicated to you all. Okay. So I guess my follow-up is to say that pretty much, so a council agrees to this right now. There's no other item coming back to us that is going to? So what should happen is, and I think this was explained in the committee meeting, there's still a lot of pieces that need to take place for it to be feasible for anybody to do anything there. Correct. I think the idea would be if things come together quickly, we would have a lease agreement for you all to consider and sign off on probably no earlier than January. So when you come back in January, that's where it should be if it's going to hit the time frames that they're concerned about hitting. And then you would have the full opportunity to ask questions about the lease and what was included and what was not. And that would be pretty much your voting up or down on proceeding with the project. However, the way that's going to be structured also is they'll probably have some outs so that if it doesn't work out from a financial standpoint because they can't use enough of the acreage or whatever it is that they need to be doing with this to make it work, then they would be able to back out of it anyway during that period of time. But we would be locked in going forward if the project was feasible for them to do. Ultimately, so let's say if something just didn't work and we still have this letter of intent with the inclusivity language in there, we still can't seek anything. The landfill is done. So I would take the position that if you all vote the lease agreement down, the letter of intent really doesn't have any effect anymore. So at that point in time, you can do whatever thoughts you want to do with the property at that point in time. Thank you.  Thank you. Are there any other questions to the motion?  All those in favor of the motion on in to change it to a non-binding, non-exclusive letter of intent. Please say aye. Aye. Okay. Let's do an electronic vote. All right. That motion fails. Ten. Five. Ten. Nay. Five. Yay. So the item remains as is for now. All right. Council Member Morton. Okay. Very good. Council Member Curtis. All right. Coming back to item TT. So, Commissioner Ford, if you wouldn't mind joining us again and mentally hopping back a few minutes, I would appreciate it. Thank you so much. So one of the things that was mentioned by Council Member Savigny and Council Member Legree as well was the remaining $10 million in the fund. So when we're talking about these capital projects, just again for public transparency, could you speak a little bit to the types of projects that might be? I know that's a broad category. But I'll get directly to the point and ask, would a permanent homeless shelter qualify as a capital project by the definition needed that we would need to meet to allocate money from that fund? Council Member, I believe it would. I think there are several capital projects that are underway. I think we are actively working on a fire training facility. We are actively searching for land for a police training academy. I know that there is discussion of the need for a new homeless shelter. All of those represent what would be capital facility needs. But also for clarity, there is currently no funding commitment towards a permanent homeless shelter in Fayette County from LFUCG? I can't speak. I think the answer to that is no. I think my understanding from observation, that's not my department, my area of expertise, but my understanding is that there's been a study, there's been a recommendation. Mayor Gordon just established a task force that began meeting last week. But that is, I will say, that is, I know there's other needs. And I'm sorry to put you on the spot like that without a heads up about that. I mean, I can ask, Mayor, if you're willing to weigh in on that for a second. I would appreciate that. I think your question is, would a permanent homeless shelter qualify? Yes. Yes, it is definitely a capital project. The task force, I don't know what they will recommend, whether we need emergency shelter, transitional shelter, or permanent shelter. But they are going to be looking very carefully at all of that based on the needs. We have a lot of providers on the task force. And that is one of the items that I have also spoken with legislators about. And so it is a high priority. And I really appreciate that. I'm going to speak a little bit about this because I thoroughly support the new City Hall project. It's something that I think is a need in our community. But as these conversations have gone on throughout the year, there has been this shift at the federal level. And things have gotten less and less certain. And a lot of the restrictions around funding for how we address homelessness have changed as well. And I agree with Council Member Sheehan when she says that how we spend our money is a reflection of our priorities and our values. I do believe that a new City Hall is necessary and it's a priority. But at this point in time, I'm not comfortable moving forward with that. So I'm not going to be supporting item TT today. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else want to speak to new business? All right. Oh, Council Member Sheehan. Can I just clarify procedurally? Because I think Dave's motion and my motion were not in conflict. But I moved to vote on item TT separately. But then he made a vote to change when it would go on the docket. So I believe that we have now voted on putting it on the docket. So we won't make another vote on item TT today. That's exactly right. Correct? I just wanted to clarify for the public because I had made a motion to separate. And then we had the motion for the different time change. So just because we've had some other comments about voting again. So I just wanted to clarify. The item on the table right now for voting is new business minus TT. So all those in favor of approving the other new business, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Now, next we do have communications from the mayor. First, we have appointments. Could I have a motion? So moved. Second. All right. Are there any comments, questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That passes. There are no donations. As soon as our crowd leaves, we'll continue. No, no. You don't have to leave. I mean, the ones who are talking. I just wanted a little bit quieter atmosphere in here. Can you please take your conversation outside? Thank you. All right. Communications from the mayor. We have procurements. Could I have a motion? Thank you. Second. All right. We have a motion from council member Baxter, council member Reynolds. Any questions? Thank you. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Now, we have continuing business and presentations. First, our neighborhood development funds. Could I have a motion? So moved. Second. Thank you, vice mayor. Second by council member Curtis. Any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Council capital projects. I'll entertain a motion. Council member Baxter. Second by council member Hale. Are there any questions? All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. And at this point, we have environmental quality and public works report. And I'll call on council member LaGrie for that. Thank you, mayor. The meeting of the environmental quality and public works committee on October 7, 2025, was called to order at 1 p.m. The August 12, 2025, committee summary was approved unanimously with no additions or corrections. First, Angela Poe, program manager, provided an overview of the public information and engagement section, whose purpose is to inform the public about the services offered by environmental quality and public works and to encourage community-friendly behaviors. She reviewed marketing and outreach responsibilities and explained that marketing efforts are coordinated with other outreach activities to create a consistent flow of information. She concluded with an update on composting, which has been in operation for four years. No action was taken on this item. Next, Brandy Peacher, Complete Streets coordinator, discussed the roadway design and delivery process. Lexington's roadway projects follow a standard design and delivery process. However, operations and maintenance are not always prioritized during project planning and execution, which then risks compromising our ability to sustain the project's lifecycle. When operations and maintenance are integrated early, longer-lasting assets are developed, lifecycle costs are reduced, and cross-departmental responsibilities are clarified, and from there, further public trust is built through transparency and well-maintained results for our projects. No action was taken on this item. Finally, Rob Allen, Director of Streets and Roads, explained that the goal for the 2025-2026 winter season is to complete roadway snow plan routes within 48 hours and sidewalk snow plan routes within 96 hours. He reviewed snow season expenses from 2021 through 2026 and shared that new equipment has been added for pre-treating and to support neighborhood routes. Allen noted that they cannot treat every road, but a plan is in place to utilize resources efficiently and they prioritize treating main roads before secondary roads. The final plan for 2025-2026 has been published on the City's website. No action was taken on this item. The meeting adjourned at 2.58 p.m. and that concludes my report out. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Are there any questions for Council Member Legree? All right. Thank you very much. I would like to take just a quick moment of personal privilege before he leaves. I see Jacob Ball in the audience, if you don't mind to stand. Jacob is our new Permanent Executive Director of the Bluegrass Ag Tech Development Corp. And I welcome you. I didn't realize you were here. I don't think Council Members had necessarily met you before, so thank you for being here. All right. Now it's time for Council Reports. Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Mayor. We have seen proposals for data centers come before municipalities across Kentucky and the first massive hyperscale projects appearing in Louisville. As General Government and Planning Chair, I am putting data centers into committees so we can discuss our zoning ordinances now to be proactive and have guidelines about these structures before any applications come before us. I'm Chair. I don't need a motion. Thank you. Anything else? Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Mayor. I just have an item I would like to put into committee. Council Member Lynch and I are co-sponsoring an item named Affordable Housing Solutions. We want to look at different ways to expand affordable housing. And so I move to place that in GGP. All right. Is there a second? Council Member Svigny seconds. Any questions? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Is anybody opposed? All right. That passes. All right. Council Member Lynch. Thank you, Mayor. I have a couple of announcements from our District 2 neighbors. The first one being that the Farms of Faith Market with Black Soil will be this Sunday at Bracktown Church from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m. So please come out and shop. And then secondly, our second annual, our annual now, Christmas Tree Lighting and Toy Drive will be on this Sunday, November 23rd from 4 to 6 p.m. at Fire Station 24 on Magnolia Springs Drive. So families, please come out. Bring your lawn chairs. We'll have some nice treats. And a very special guest will be there to take pictures. And I know the kids will love them. So please come out this Sunday from 4 to 6 p.m. at Fire Station 24. And don't forget to bring your toy donation for the Fire Department's Toy Drive. Thanks so much. Thank you. Council Member Lugari. Thank you, Mayor. I know that Director Larkin is here. And Director Larkin sent us a pretty detailed e-mail about an event happening on Thursday, November 20th from 8 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. at the University of Kentucky. Director, would you be willing to just share some information about that so that the public knows and so that council members can understand what's going to be happening? Absolutely, ma'am. As far as participant, what I'm kind of allowed to say and what I know, because as a participant, we're not 100 percent read in. But thank you for having me up. And good afternoon, everyone. Just some general information about an upcoming event to prevent an alarm from our residents, specifically over in 3rd District. University of Kentucky Police and Emergency Management, U.K. Health Care, U.K. Athletics, along with Lexington Public Safety, namely Fire, Police, Emergency Management, and E911, and numerous other local, state, and federal responders will be participating in a full-scale exercise at Kroger Field, and that's an emergency exercise. It will be conducted Thursday, November 20th from roughly 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. This exercise will allow us to practice our emergency response procedures, communications, standard operating procedures, and contingency plans. We look forward to participating in this and continue to build and maintain strong relationships with the numerous partners we work with on a daily basis. And as such, expect large numbers of emergency vehicles, personnel, and movement during that time frame. Emergency operations centers, both at the University of Kentucky and here for Lexington Public Safety Operations Center will be activated as well. And obviously we hope we never have an incident like this. But we are, you know, being prepared is kind of what we do. Does anyone have any questions about it? I know it's been a long day. Yes, ma'am. I do have a follow-up. Several of us have districts that kind of border on this area around the University of Kentucky, and I'm wondering if you all have any content that we could share on social media or publicly in other ways, or if this is the main announcement so that people know what's happening. I just know that there will be a lot of emergency vehicles and whatnot, and we're just trying to make sure that people understand what's going on. Right. There won't be a response or transport to area hospitals in what we would call Signal 9, so it will be non-emergency, just kind of like driving with normal traffic, no lights, no sirens. But there will be a large congregation. I will also reach out to RPIO to see if University of Kentucky Public Affairs has put out anything further. I know it's already been advertised, and the link that I provided you all with your email is certainly transferable. Okay, excellent. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Take care. Thank you. Did anyone else have a council report? All right. Wednesday is GIS Day. Thank your GIS person. There is no one signed up for public comment for issues not on the agenda. And before we adjourn, it is a couple minutes after 5 o'clock, and I know that our clerk is working hard to get the new business and everything on the docket for the 5 o'clock meeting, so we'll take about a 10-minute break if it's okay, and we'll see if we're ready to go then. All right. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? Sure. Thank you. Anybody second? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.