# Budget, Finance & Economic Development (BFED) Committee - June 23, 2026 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Committee · June 23, 2026 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6809 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6809?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2026-06-23 - **Body**: Committee - **Last revised**: June 23, 2026 - **Length**: 17,835 words - **Speakers**: Chair, Council Member, Vice Mayor, Clerk > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Budget, Finance & Economic Development (BFED) Committee met on June 23, 2026, at 1:00 PM in the Council Chamber of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. The meeting covered four agenda items, all of which were informational in nature, including a Monthly Financial Update for May 2026, an Infrastructure Funding Plan Update, a Technology Ecosystem Development presentation, and an update on E911 Fund Revenue Sources. The committee took 2 votes during the course of the meeting and heard no public comments. No presiding officer is identified in the available meeting record. ## Votes and Decisions The committee took two votes during the June 23, 2026 meeting, both of which passed by voice vote. - **Motion 0576-26 — Approval of March 24, 2026, Committee Summary** [timestamp: 0:09]: The committee voted to approve the summary from its March 24, 2026 meeting. The motion passed by voice vote. No individual roll call votes were recorded. [timestamp: 9:05] - **Motion to Advance Draft Ordinance to Full Council** [timestamp: 1:12:12]: Council Member Sheehan moved to send the draft ordinance out of committee to the full council, and Council Member Higgins-Hord seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote. No individual roll call votes were recorded. Both votes were conducted by voice with no recorded ayes, nays, or abstentions, and no conditions were attached to either motion. ## Monthly Financial Update - May 2026 [timestamp: 09:05] **Agenda Item 0577-26** Commissioner Hensley, Director Holbrook, and Director Lueker jointly presented the monthly financial update covering the period through May 2026. The presentation provided the Committee with an overview of the organization's current financial position, noting that revenue was tracking close to budget. The update also highlighted operating variances as a key area of discussion. No additional detail on specific revenue figures, variance amounts, or individual line items is reflected in the available record for this item. The presentation was informational in nature, and no formal action or vote was taken by the Committee as a result of the update. ## Infrastructure Funding Plan Update [timestamp: 21:21] Agenda item 0578-26 was presented as an informational update to the Committee. Sean Denny delivered the presentation, which covered three primary areas: the urban growth master plan, the fiscal impacts associated with infrastructure development, and a proposed privilege fee ordinance. The item was informational in nature, meaning no vote or formal action was taken by the Committee at this meeting. No additional outcome, debate, or specific concerns are recorded in the available meeting data beyond the scope of Denny's presentation on these topics. ## Technology Ecosystem Development **Agenda Item 0579-26** | [timestamp: 1:12:46] The Committee received a presentation on Technology Ecosystem Development, focused on a proposed pilot program designed to strengthen the local tech talent pipeline. **What Was Presented** Erica presented a proposal to offer partial wage reimbursement to local employers who host tech-based internships. The stated goal of the program is to retain local tech talent by creating incentives for businesses to bring on interns within the community, reducing the likelihood that skilled workers leave the area for opportunities elsewhere. **Outcome** The item was informational in nature. No vote or formal action was taken at this meeting. The presentation served to introduce the pilot program concept to the Committee for awareness and discussion purposes. --- *Note: The available record identifies Erica as the key speaker. Additional details regarding specific reimbursement amounts, program eligibility criteria, employer participation requirements, or any concerns raised during discussion were not captured in the available meeting data.* ## E911 Fund Revenue Sources [timestamp: 1:32:06] The committee received an informational presentation on agenda item 0580-26, which addressed the financial challenges facing the E911 Fund, specifically the declining revenue generated from landline fees and the need to explore alternative funding mechanisms. Director Holbrook led the discussion, presenting on the current state of E911 fund revenue sources. The core issue identified was the ongoing decline in landline telephone usage, which has historically served as the primary revenue stream for funding E911 emergency services. As more residents and businesses abandon traditional landline connections in favor of mobile and internet-based communication, the fee revenue supporting E911 operations has correspondingly decreased. The presentation examined potential alternative funding mechanisms that could help offset this revenue shortfall and ensure the continued financial stability of E911 services. No final decisions or votes were taken during this session, as the item was brought before the committee for informational purposes. The discussion underscores a broader challenge faced by many jurisdictions in sustaining emergency communications infrastructure as telecommunications technology continues to shift away from the landline model on which E911 funding structures were originally built. --- ## Decisions - **0576-26** — passed (0-0): Approval of March 24, 2026, Committee Summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Move the draft ordinance out of committee to the full council --- ## Full transcript Music Tilly dilly dilly dilly. Thank you. Thank you. I can rock and tweet, no, I can't believe it. No, I can round the bills, I'm really gonna rock my life. A great little raven like the bird can dance a dance. Don't I'm gonna do the bobbing and the bus stand. It's got it going steady and it'll bless my soul. Behind five, the birds and the oreo. Rock and the tweet up all day long. Huffing and bobbing and singing this song. All the little birdies on jaybird trees. Love to hear the robber go tweet, tweet, tweet. Rock and rock and tweet. Rock and rock and rock and tweet. Go rock and rock and rock and go rock and rock and roll because I'm really gonna rock tonight. Thank you. Oh, not long, oh, not long, oh, no. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Now, BG, shug me. Go ahead, tell me about it, John. She's like a hurricane, hurricane. You, you know the woman, shug me, shug me. Like a hurricane, hurricane, shake the ground. You know. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. The woman broke up My happy home, my happy home Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. at 1.02 p.m. And we'll go straight to our agenda. And the first item on the agenda is the approval of the March 24, 2026 committee summary. Second. All right, there's a motion to approve and it was seconded. Are there any additions or corrections? Hearing and seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Are there any that oppose? Hearing none, that motion passes. The next item on our agenda is the monthly financial update. We have Commissioner Hensley, Director Holbrook, and Director Luecker. And with that, I'll turn it over to you, Commissioner. Good afternoon, everyone. We know you have quite a hefty agenda, so we're going to go through this quickly. And if you all have any questions, we'll be happy to answer those. We are through the end of May, so we're almost to the end of our fiscal year. We do have just a couple of things to note. So we did make some notes here for your factors to consider that our revenue is running pretty close to budget. We did take into account our revenue and some of our expense savings when we did our pre-funding for the budget. But those are not reflected as of these financials because they were not approved until the budget was passed in June. So those are some things to keep in mind. And then we do have some rather large operating variances, but as you all recall, after looking through the last couple of years, we do have a PO roll that happens from this fiscal year into the next fiscal year. That's typically hovered around $14 to $16 million every year. We did note that currently we're sitting right about $17 million as of May. We still have June to go, so there's a lot of expenditures that will happen as we close out the year. But just to kind of keep in mind where we're headed, those are just some things that we wanted to present to you as we are headed toward the close of the fiscal year. So Wes is going to go through some of the revenues, and Melissa is going to go through these expenses, and then we'll be able to get into your presentations. Thank you. Good afternoon, council members. As the commissioner mentioned, we are running very close to budget. We look back over the last few years, and this is about as close as we've been 11 months through the fiscal year, at about 1%. And a couple years ago, we were at about 8% above budget. So we really did a good job of sort of right-sizing what our revenues are looking like coming in. You see across various categories, they're a little bit off. Payroll is running a bit ahead. Net profits is running a bit behind. We've talked a lot about insurance being one of our real highlights, sorry, franchise fees being one of our real highlights this year. One thing I want to point out, we've talked about insurance a little bit. We did have a lot of insurance that came in in April and May, but because we had a delay in the mail coming in and getting some of that processed, that took some time away from getting some of the insurance money in the bank that we would normally do. And we also had some staffing changes as well. One area I want to point out because it's got a lot of different pieces in it is the services line. That has a large number of things, EMS fees, detention center fees, parks and recreation fees. Those individual categories have a lot of variation to them. A couple that I just want to highlight, detention center bed fees is running ahead of budget by about 20%, so that's a positive. Our EMS fees are running behind by about 13%, but some of that has to do with some accruals that we'll do as we get to the close of the fiscal year because we have things that are billed in this fiscal year and then paid in the next fiscal year, and we have a time period where we accrue some of that back. One thing just to keep in mind is even though we're running close, we do still have one month, and we have a fair number of accruals and refunds and rebates and things like that that will come in. We're also still doing collections and writing letters. And so there's going to be some variations and fluctuations. Some of it's kind of difficult to predict which way it's going to go. But overall, we're running pretty close to where we wanted to be and where we thought we were going to end up. So hopefully we'll be able to maintain that through the last month of the fiscal year as we get through all our accruals. One thing I want to highlight, though, is even though we're running very close to budget by about 1%, we did have a fair amount of, a good amount of revenue growth over the last 11 months. We're running about 4.8% above what we did prior year. So we are experiencing a healthy amount of revenue growth in the coming budget. We did have slightly more than that as an amount coming in. So this is a good jumping off point. We typically do see growth year over year. Even if it varies by category, we do see some growth. So this is a good indicator that while we are tight on budget, we are still seeing economic growth throughout the city and across our various revenue lines. and even ones like services where you see on the budget where they're underperforming or net profits where it's underperforming on the budget side, on the actual side, and compared with year over year, they are higher than they were in the prior year. I'm happy to jump into any individual category that council may want to talk about, but if there are no questions, I can pass it over to Director Luker. All right, committee members, are there any questions for Director Holbrook? Council Member Savigny. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the presentation. I just have one. I'm kind of curious, this is kind of our second now, I think, year of the STR licenses and fees. I guess that would be licenses and permits. Is the revenue for that supporting the person and the enforcement for that? I'm just curious. Yeah, so that's going to be in that other licenses and permits line. That's not totally STR revenue. There are a few other things that go into there because we do regulate a fair number of businesses. Of that growth year over year in that line, that's $135,000. Regulated licenses and fees make up about $112,000 of that. So that's a good portion of that growth. The fees do go to cover a good portion of the salary for the staff and then also for the software that we use. But there are other things that we work on, and so it doesn't completely cover those. And do you look at that regularly so that if the fee needs to change to support that, we're considering that? I think we have a presentation coming up at a future committee, and we can go into more detail. but the number of STRs has stabilized year over year, so it was pretty high, and then once we started to regulate, you saw people entering the market and exiting the market, and now it's a pretty consistent number of somewhere between 700 and 800. I don't have the exact number with me, but somewhere around that ballpark, which goes to support a good amount of staff time and software. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. Next, we have Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. Could you go over again what you said about the insurance? Because looking at insurance for fiscal year 25 was 47.7, and then we lowered to 45.8, and now we're at 42 and change. And what, the discrepancy? Yeah, so some of that we look at how things come in and our anticipation of when we're going to be able to process those. insurance is quarterly and unfortunately the last quarter comes in around the same time as net profits and because of the way it comes in and some limitations of our software we do a lot of manual processing there and so what we did was we looked at when we did that last year and then made an adjustment on what the monthly budget was so the full budget is around 50 million dollars which was just a hair over what we collected in the prior fiscal year i'm hoping that once we get everything finally processed for this fiscal year and our accruals will end up right about that number. But we were just a hair behind because we had some staff changes and that just delayed us getting some of that insurance in the system. I think you said earlier, but you think that we will eventually hit budget? Be close. We've trailed it all year and this is really the first, I think, one of the first months we've seen year over year comparison be much, much lower. But some of that is just the nature of processing timing. Okay. Thank you, thank you, Chair. Thank you. That's all we have signed up, Director. Thank you. Good afternoon. So when we're looking at the expenses, I want to make a couple notes, obviously. We have the variance there in personnel. personnel, you all will recall we did a pre-fund as part of the FY27 budget. So about half of that variance is already moved out of the personnel categories and was used to pre-fund some items for the FY27 budget. So that 10.6 million is not actually a 10.6 million today if you were to go into PeopleSoft and look. On the operating, while it's still a large variance, last month that variance was 27.9%. So you can see we've spent down more of our operating budget in the month of May, as well as made budget adjustments and moved things to the various other funds. The homeless money was moved, that was the 2.8 million that was sitting in general fund. It moved over to affordable housing, so that lowered the budget. So we had a lot of these budget amendments year end type things that were happening in May. Some are still happening in June as we were closing out the fiscal year. So it's still a large variance, but it did come down significantly from the prior month whenever we were looking at April. What we've got in here is our operating variance is a lot in professional services. About 1.5 of it is at the jail for medical. We've just got the new contracts with the new vendor. That's all going to roll forward to FY27, so that variance will go away. I've looked in, we've got some of the medical debt money that is still sitting in the CAO's office. So that's a large variance. We have some equipment money and it looks like when I checked people's off today, that is being spent down in police as the next class has gotten started and they've ordered the equipment for them. And then we've got a grant match variance of about $2.2 million so far. So there's a lot of movement still going on with the operating as we're closing out the fiscal year. And so we'll just continue to watch that. The insurance and debt service, those are basically right at budget with those small percentages. We're not concerned about that. Partner agencies, that is savings with LexTran and United Way, and a little bit of that is the library. So it's the microtransit money that United Way and LexTran have that they're still working on spending. So that's what's making up the majority of that variance, and then a small piece of that is the library. Capital looks really overspent, but that is the Civitas. So those end up, we have to do budget amendments to clean all of that up, so that will get cleaned up as we go. We're not overspend on our capital by almost 20%. We keep a better handle on things than that, so it's just the accounting entry there for the Cebidos. So if we look at prior fiscal year comparison, we are spending more than we did in every single category. So you can see we are spending, you can see that 4.5% variance, that increase in personnel. So that's what our personnel has gone up this fiscal year. And operating, we're not quite to budget, but we are spending more than we did in the prior fiscal year. So are there any questions? Are there any questions for Director Luker? Council member Savigny. Thank you, Chair. Thanks for the presentation. So just going back one slide, so I'm basically saying there's about a $39 million fund balance. You said there's probably $10 million of that is being used in pre-funding, if I recall. Is that correct? Half of the 10-6, just about half of the 10-6 in the personnel line is being used for pre-fund. Small amount of operating and then revenue made up the rest of it. All right. We have one month left. We have one month left, yes. Thank you. That's all I have, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. Are there any other questions? I'm not seeing any. Thank you, Director. All right, Council Members, going back to our agenda. And also in your packet for information only is the ARPA financial update. And the next item is the infrastructure funding plan. This is the next update on this presentation. It's going to be presented by Sean Denny, Administrative Officer Senior. Thank you for being here, and the floor is yours. Good afternoon, Council Members, and thank you, Chair, for having us today for this infrastructure funding plan update. As you probably remember, we kicked off this work a little over a year ago, back in May of 2025, with our consultants, Partners for Economic Solutions, and their sub-consultant, Gresham Smith. For the past year, we've had a lot of meetings. We've met with staff, multiple divisions, any division involved that this work will cross over. We've had a monthly developer meeting, a stakeholder meeting, where we've heard from the developers. We've had one-on-one meetings. We've had a lot of meetings to get feedback from our staff in the community. And today we're here to talk to you about what we set out from the beginning to find a funding mechanism. How would we pay for, how would we assist in the payment of the installation of the major infrastructure in urban growth areas? So we're going to provide a recommendation today. That's where we are in the process. And then we can talk a little bit about the implementation of that also. But the very beginning is a good place to start. And that all started with the urban growth master plan. So as you know, back in 2023, the Planning Commission recommended 2,800 acres for expansion of the urban service boundary. As a follow-up to that, the Planning Commission adopted the Urban Growth Master Plan as an element of the 2045 Imagine Lexington Comprehensive Plan on October 31st of 2024. And that master plan included the recommendation that we, the LFUCG, develop an infrastructure funding program. That we would look at what those costs would be, the major costs, who would be responsible, and how those costs would be borne over time. A key finding, something to keep in mind from this, is that the market analysis in the Urban Growth Master Plan and in the IFP have shown that new development will primarily be residential. And that will have some implications on the fiscal impact, which we'll talk about in just a moment. So what are the two types of costs we set out to look at? Well, two, two major drivers of cost. One, infrastructure, those capital costs. Number two, fiscal impact, ongoing costs. Fiscal impact that we're looking at anything operation and maintenance. Once infrastructure is installed, once a road is built, we resurface that road every few years. Trash collection services, pump stations that need maintenance over time. Also looking at the impact to the general fund. As we bring in these new areas and services expand, how much new revenue is coming in? How many new community facilities are we building and staffing in those areas? All of those things will have an impact to the general fund. At the same time, the other costs we're looking at, not just the ongoing costs, but the initial capital. How do we get that major infrastructure installed in these urban growth areas? We're talking about things like sewer, fire, police stations, boulevards. Those are the major infrastructure items there. Now, we're here today to bring the recommendation for how to fund major infrastructure improvements. But before we get to that funding mechanism, we thought it was important to give a snapshot of where we're heading in the future. And I just want to remind everybody, this is just a projection. It's an estimate. It's making many assumptions that may or may not become reality, depending on how the market and how population growth and all those things factor out in the end. But that being said, it is a backdrop. It is something that the report will show. So we wanted to give you a preview of it today. So as it relates to fiscal impact, there are unavoidable costs of growth. At full build-out, once we expand into the urban growth areas, existing services will expand into those areas. and the report will show that those services will outpace revenue. Revenues are not projected to keep up with that. And in addition to the revenues and just expansion of existing services, we'll have major capital outlays to do in future years based on where the community grows and where population centers develop and where we need to invest in public safety facilities and parks and various things. Those will be drivers that may affect the general fund in the future. And we did want to note that the Urban Services District does not experience this same problem. And so that's a positive we wanted to highlight. But this is just a backdrop for the fiscal impact side of this, which we'll have a more full update on later in the fall when the report is complete. And you can see that on another slide here. These out years just show the years when we're projecting there will be a major capital outlay, something like a transfer station that might be attributable to growth, urban growth areas, fire and police stations, things of that nature. These are things that the general fund may have to absorb in future years. But back to the funding mechanism, what are we trying to fund? How are we trying to fund it? What costs are we talking about? Well, I'm a visual person, so this visual that Gresham, Aaron Masterson put together has helped me a lot. So we start at the beginning, which is the urban growth master plan. That's the starting point for every cost. What are we costing? We're costing the maps that I'll show you in just a second. Everything on the map turns into a future development cost. If there's a road there on the map, it has to be built. It costs something. It's shown there. Every future development cost then becomes either an LFUCG cost or a developer cost. For those LFUCG costs, we're talking about the annual O&M of those things that are installed and those community facilities and major regional network projects that would be, that would fall on the government. For the developer costs, we're talking about the build out of sewers and roads, those long-term items we want to facilitate reimbursement for. That's where we're going to show you the privilege fee in just a moment. Or the developers can fund those on their own. If they have the capital and the resources, they can go ahead and install that infrastructure on their own. Another visual, again, what are we costing when we talk about development costs? When we reference those costs, there's a map for every urban growth area, and we're costing what is shown on the maps, the boulevards, the avenues. We're not including the local streets internal to developments. We're talking about shared public infrastructure that multiple projects, multiple sites would benefit from. So what were some of the key assumptions that we carried throughout this project? Well, first of all, is that the cost of infrastructure improvements that are necessitated by development would be the developer's responsibility. It's been a longstanding LFUCG policy that new growth would pay for itself. The second thing is that the developers would comply with our standards, engineering manuals, et cetera, and that we would be responsible for those regional growth items, the major transportation networks being the majority of those, parks, and then public safety. Had the visual, and maybe you're a numbers person. So for the numbers, this kind of is a breakdown of what this looks like by numbers. So each urban growth area, this is the feeable, those things that can be included in the privileged fee structure are shown in this table. So you have by area, area one, you can see the sewer development required in area one, approximately $10 million. The internal roadways, that's our avenues and boulevards, those shared public roads. And then existing roadway improvements to connect to the existing, I believe it's Manowar, for a development subtotal of $38 million. That's just area one that can be applied to each area. That's the developer cost that could be reimbursed by privilege fees in the future. Next, you have those regional growth items. Those are those long-term investments, the major transportation network improvements. And then we have our community facilities costs. Again, those are LFUCG costs, which include our parks and open space and community facilities. And that is where we get our total of the 569. For today's purposes, $345 million, that's what we're showing is costs that could be recouped by developers through our privilege fee ordinance. So privilege fees, why did we land with this? Well, first of all, this was something that was used in the 1980s, the outer perimeter sewer study, and it was successful. There was a lot of feedback from the developers that that model worked. But the big takeaway, the main reason that we chose the privilege fees, that was the recommendation. They're simple and transparent. They're very easy to understand. They're easy to follow. They're based on actual costs. With an estimate, if you make an estimate and you miss it, there's a reimbursement. That can get kind of murky. This is clear. It's the cost, and those costs are reconciled. It turned into reimbursement rates. It's a clean, clear-cut way to do it. It allows for new development to pay for itself by giving developers the tools to go, and they can follow the market and begin building tomorrow if they have the resources in place. It also creates a mechanism to enforce future payment. So no future development that benefits from the original infrastructure installed can move forward without paying their privilege fee. So it makes sure that that original developer is paid back for their initial investment. And then also at the same time, no property owner that doesn't want to develop pays anything unless they choose to develop. This is a high-flying, extremely quick flyover of the ordinance. But just some of the main takeaways, the main points for how this works. First of all, the developer or LFUCG could build the shared infrastructure under this plan. That sewers and roadways are the main examples. But we wanted to make sure to note that this ordinance does permit LFUCG to do that in the future. If we decided to, we would be able to do that. The next step is that benefiting properties that benefit from that shared infrastructure, they have to pay a privilege fee before they can obtain a future final subdivision plan. So before they can develop in the future, they have to pay their privilege fee back to the first developer. That shared infrastructure cost, whatever that total is, whatever the construction and design and extra costs are, that is allocated to those benefiting properties on gross acreage. Again, back to that simplicity and transparency, gross acreage makes it a simple calculation. Through that process, they're submitting invoices, designs, all of that to us so that we can audit the cost and designs for compliance. A standard agreement is used to set forth these terms. That's negotiated at the very beginning. And those privilege fees that are set accumulate simple interest at the 10-year U.S. Treasury plus 1% for 20 years. We, as the city, will collect those privilege fees and then give them back to the original developer. I'll show you a visual that helps make this clear in a moment. And the ordinance does include a 0.5% administrative fee to us for the work of administering the program and a 5% management fee for the developer. So again, a visual. Developer initiates the process. They come to the city. They say, we want to develop. We know this is going to need this sewer to be installed, this road to be installed. We help them identify the properties that will benefit from that infrastructure. A contract is entered between the developers and LFUCG. The developer then moves forward, builds that infrastructure, the final costs are reconciled, and the reimbursement rate is set. And future developers pay their privilege fee plus interest to the government, and we give that back to the first developer who installed the infrastructure. One more visual here. Developer one, up front, 100% of the cost, even though only 30% based on gross acreage is their cost. Over time, developers two, three, four, or five, however many, pay back their privilege fee plus interest to the city, making up the remaining cost. It's their gross acreage apportionment. And we as the city remit that back to the original developer. That's the program in a visual. So what would be next for us? Well, we would hope that the ordinance would be adopted and moved to the full council. And in the meantime, we would be working on the implementation of this. So making sure that modifications are made in Acela to support the program, staff training, making sure that handbooks are in place because we want to make sure that this knowledge transfer over time is something that doesn't get lost over the years. And as long as this program is run, we want to make sure we have the resources in place to support the staff that run it. So that being said, I'll take any questions you have at this time. thank you mr denning for your presentation committee members this is the time for questions first we have council member shian thank you chair thank you for the presentation my question is about the lfucg staffing for this so what what do you estimate the staffing needs or staffing time would be for us to essentially be a middleman, right? Sure. Great question. So in the workflow that the consultants prepared for us, they call for a privileged fee administrator, someone who facilitates these agreements. There's a lot of internal work with the other divisions who are reviewing these plans, engineering, water quality, and we currently see that happening in-house. In our current, we believe that's something we can do and manage within house. So our current, our infrastructure program manager, Joe Black, has been overseeing the exactions program, and he and I would together administer this privilege fee program as it begins. Over time, if it grows, I think it would be a different conversation potentially, but in the initial years, we believe that this is something that the privilege fee administrator would be in our office. Okay, so currently this would be then house within planning and then as it's envisioned now with existing staff between you and the Exactions Program Manager. Correct, yes. Thank you. I think that answered my question for right now. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. Thank you, Council Member. All right, next we have Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. You brought up the word. I didn't want to talk about exaction fees, but I'll try not to talk about that one. Thank you. I appreciate that. We're hopefully getting that one finished up soon. That is being worked out, yes. Okay, good. Now, we have property owners that were brought in in 96 that still haven't developed. And so how does it run if somebody is one of the people that's identified in that that could develop, and then they go ahead and do that, and then they don't do it for 10, 12, 15 years later? How does that work on the interest then on that? That's a great question. That is why we capped it at 20 years, because over time that interest does, it becomes a very high cost to develop. We started at 30 years, and as we ran those numbers, we saw land could get locked up just due to the costliness of development. So we feel like a compromise in order to reach that concern that you're bringing up was to lower the number of years, and we lowered the interest rate. Originally, it was prime plus 2%, and the consultants recommended we drop that to the U.S. 10-year Treasury, which is a longer-term interest rate, a lower interest rate, and to cap that at 20 years. So we hope that by addressing that, it would not create a scenario where land becomes so expensive that it does discourage development. And after 20 years, if nothing's happened? It would be up to the property owner to determine if they want it to develop at that point. I would wonder if at 20 years, is it because of the cost or is it because they've chosen not to develop? I think that would be too different. That would create a discussion around what's the reason it hasn't developed at that point. Is it the cost or is it a choice of the property owner? And at that point, because like I said, we've had some that haven't done anything at this point. I guess there's nothing you can do at that point. After 20 years, they decide not to develop. I'll let Commissioner Horn answer that question. Well, part of this may go back to your discussion that you had related to the urban growth and preservation. plan, that whether or not property is on the edge of the boundary and you decide that there's a process by which you could remove it in order to replace it with property that might develop. It does mean that during this process and the way that we've been charged to assume that developers should pay as much of the infrastructure cost as is legally permissible, that may mean that they will never collect fees on that particular piece of property because it didn't develop. Okay. Okay, thank you, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilmember. Next, we have Councilmember Sovigny. Thank you, Chair, and thanks so much for the presentation. I've got a few questions that really revolve around trying to understand how you determine the acreage around a piece of property. And when we're talking shared infrastructure, are you generally talking about shared pipes? Is it mostly shared sanitary and storm sewer because water flows in certain patterns? Yes. So the ordinance is written that because the sewer service area doesn't overlay with the parcels necessarily. So the ordinance is written so that sewer service areas, the gross acreage would be based on the sewer service area, not the parcel. So I believe we've addressed through this, we've given flexibility for both stormwater and sewer could be addressed based on the sewer service area, not the parcels themselves. And that does help with that issue. Yeah, I guess what I'm trying to figure out is because the boundary now and the boundary in 20 years could be different. and the boundary in 20 years could have parcels that are not in the boundary that still are going to flow through that piece of property. So I'm curious when you're dealing with a developer who has to put it in for the first time and they're going to do this, are you looking at that watershed as acreage? On the sewer, yes. On the roads, the roads would be based on... Probably connection or something. the existing connection networks, and it would be shown, what's shown in the master plan. So what you mentioned about future expansion, we would be identifying the benefiting properties. I think that's the key moment, is when they come in for the agreement, they want to build the infrastructure, we're sitting down with them. A benefiting property would only be a property in the urban services boundary, because they would be the only ones able to benefit within that projected time frame. So I think it goes back to that initial discussion. And again, water quality and sewer areas, stormwater, all of that being handled in that discussion about what are the benefiting properties. I guess my thought would be though, if there is an expansion and that watershed, like that's still going to go through that property, you would want to contemplate that versus us ripping out. like we're doing now around Southland where you're ripping out sanitary sewer and storm sewer to manage just increased use. So that's something that concerns me in general because I don't think water flow doesn't really care about our growth plan. It is what it is. All right, so that was one thing. And then, so my concept there would be, then the person might be over subscribed, right? So it's like, if you don't do a good job at determining the whole area, then you're not really dividing it properly amongst the acreage. It just seems like that would be problematic. And then if something gets brought in, that's going to use it. Are they going to charge them for that, but we didn't include it in that. So I don't know exactly how that piece would work. I don't think we currently have that permitted. Okay. This is part of the complication of having this much land added at one time. This is a large, long-time build-out. For most cities across the U.S. that may annex property, they're not this big, and so the anticipated build-out is much shorter. The best you can do is the best you can do. We're planning, we're assuming this will be a 30-year build-out. It's hard to say what that's going to look like in 30 years, but what we can do is plan now, keep it simple in terms of calculating the fees and the properties that are benefiting from it. And any future expansion, if there is one, would have to be dealt with on its own individual basis at that time. And then the concept of jumping apart. So let's say there's a property in the middle that is totally surrounded, that's not developed. But the sewer system is going to end up, the best logical path is to run through that property. Okay, it's in the urban service boundary. Are we, how do we deal with that owner who says, well, I may not want to develop my property, but there's a pipe that's going to go through my property? Is that managed or do we just stay away from people who don't want to partake? Let me make sure I understand your question. Is that related to a future expansion? It could be an expansion, but I think we had an existing situation where we could have run a sewer pipe through someone's property and they said, no, I don't want it to run through my property. But if it makes the most sense to do that, I'm just curious how you mitigate that, because you're literally putting infrastructure on someone's property if they allow it, but they're like, I don't want to pay for it. I just want you to run it through here. I mean, the government always has the ability to run a pipe. It's not one that this government likes to flex unless it absolutely has to. But in that situation, I would anticipate that's what we would end up doing. And it may mean that for that particular property there's no development fee collected for it. Or we do it and we collect it on the back end or something. Right. Okay, thank you. That's all I have, Chair, I'm out of time. All right, thank you. Next we have Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Denny, for your work on this. Will you go back a few slides to the general fund impact slide? It's got the little upside down bars. Yep. Can you talk me through how you're determining these expenses? Because it doesn't look like it's just kind of a waveform of like, you know, we've got various maintenance. You have very specific spikes here, you know, 33, 37, 38, 40. What are those based on? So it does include your baseline O&M. that's included with those future of those big drops years include like in 2037 i believe they're showing the fire police station project again projected these are conversations none of this is committed has to happen but if the growth is happening as we expect and the needs are there the service call response times indicate that the need would be there then in area two we had the fire station potentially a police station and then we get down into 2041 we're looking at Athins Boonsboro, similar build out of public safety facilities in that area. So those big years show those, that's what those show. Those show those capital expenditures that are projected to occur based on conversations. Again, no commitments, but conversations that we've had over the last few months. So these are basically guesstimates based on how we think things will grow and also where we think things will grow. And they even indicate that there's a phased, in the final report, there will be a phased fiscal impact. And it basically says this is almost impossible to project. However, this is the projection. So that's what this is. Let me add one. I don't know if everyone's aware of how much over the past year, and we really should thank all the commissioners, division directors, and all the employees that have been involved in this. Because where you're getting those spikes include projects that either divisions or departments have said it is likely we would want to or would need to. And that's not to say that this represents things that will absolutely occur. But through those discussions within the government, it includes all of those discussions about what divisions and departments thought might be needed during those periods of time. Okay. Thank you for that. But fast forward a couple of slides to capital costs for me. I'm looking at the total cost number there, the 569 million. Tell me what numbers you're adding up in this column to get to that number. So our development subtotal plus the regional growth of 160, 345, 160, and 63, the community facilities. Those bold numbers are the 569. Oh, I see. Okay. So it's like the 505 plus the 63. You really got three categories of cost represented here. And we said, you know, that visual I had that was the master plan and then cost, LFUCG, developer. Gotcha. Developer costs are represented on the top portion, and then those regional growth and community facilities would be that LFUCG portion. Okay. Gotcha. To that. I want to go to the privilege fees and kind of follow up on Council Member Ellinger's question about exactions. um you said they're wrapping up do you guys have any sense of what a timeline is when that program will be completely you know i i understand it's really pretty complicated to say it's complicated is perhaps an understatement the the areas that are building out and this is something being handled by the law department so i probably can't say a whole lot about it but it is anticipated that eventually that will reach a done point. Two areas aren't really developed. And so for me, the question becomes, for the ones that haven't had any exactions applied, I would like to move those into the new system so that you're really only dealing with the exactions for the areas that currently exist. But that takes a little bit of work as well in terms of removing them from the expansion area exactions into a new infrastructure. So to follow up on that, all of this new system, privilege fees, applies to these five new expansion areas that we created in 2023, right? You're saying, and tell me if I'm correct, that areas that used to be governed by the exaction system, which would be pre-2023, if they haven't already paid into it, they would be brought into this system of doing things? That would be what I want to explore. Now, there are other potential issues with that, but since there is no reliance yet on exactions in those areas, I think it may be possible to make a shift in what occurs there. I'm out of time, but I'll sign back in. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Next is Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Denny, for this presentation and all your hard work on it. I was curious, when we talk about the privilege fees and we say we're putting the burden on the developer, I know we're working with a master plan. How do we ensure when we come to an agreement for this contract that it is very cut and dry and that we're not making one developer do something different? That it's really, like it says, transparent and straightforward. Great question. So the ordinance references a privilege fee agreement, a standard agreement, a boilerplate template. And that will be used for each agreement. We have a draft privilege fee agreement that each developer that enters into an agreement with the government would use the privilege fee agreement. And those are pretty standard. So I believe that becomes your mechanism to ensure what you're mentioning there, that it is pretty standard and it just outlines the terms essentially that we've discussed in the ordinance. So then it will say we want the sidewalks to be X amount wide, We want the road to be X amount wide, and therefore it's going to cost a certain amount of money. Not necessarily, because we're assuming when they build the infrastructure, they're building to the manuals. So the ordinance requires everything to be built according to the manuals. So as those designs are coming in and the privilege fee, we've got that little, I'm going to call it a work group for lack of a better term, that internal group of staff, the water quality people, the engineering people, the parks people, whoever's involved. They're reviewing these for reasonableness. Does this comply? And they're giving that feedback in real time. So I see that as existing outside of the agreement because the agreement assumes that those infrastructure investments, those build-outs are being built to standard, whatever standard is approved by the government at the time. So then the fee will be connected to exactly not to that, but to the space. So the fee will be the – I wish I had a whiteboard to draw this. If the fee will be whatever that, if the person's building a road, developer A is building a road, and it costs them so much for design, all their engineering, and their 5% fee, let's say it's a million dollars, and they go first, they're down on the south end of the property, it's 40%, the next property's 40%, 20%. That million dollars, $400,000, they would never be reimbursed for. that next property parcel they would owe 400 000 plus their interest depending on when they come in would be what they would pay that original developer that final person that 200 000 the same they would owe the first developer who really bore the risk and put the to all the cost in knowing they may or may not be reimbursed if people don't develop they get that 200 000 plus the interest that accumulates over that 20 years. Okay. I'm trying to visualize it. It's based on the actual cost on the ground. So it's not, the design manuals, the engineering manuals say you have to build this way. What they're getting a privilege fee on is the cost that it costs to put in. Whether those sidewalks were five feet, six feet, whether it had an elevated bike trail or just a bike lane built on the road, the pavement, etc. It's the actual cost. The actual cost of putting all of it in. Okay, and then the interest starts when from the beginning? I don't know that anyone has asked that question, but once it's completed, the fee is set, then you would start your calendar your time running. Your time, okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. We said that dedication is when the interest officially would start, when they dedicate the infrastructure. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Savigny. Thank you, and thanks again. Could the fiscal impact, do you have the actual report for that like with the detail because i yes i do like i just i want to understand where you got those numbers yes a little better and then honestly you kind of you intermingled all the funds it seems like and i'd rather like did they do it by the fund so we understand by the fund piece that will be in the final report and that will be available this fall and And recognize that the graphic that Sean showed is an impact to the general fund. It does not include the urban service funds, etc. That's just an anticipated impact on the general fund for the government. Yeah. Yeah. I just want to understand the numbers a little bit better. Because, I mean, they paint the picture which, like, it's fairly negative to me. But I don't know all the details in there, so I just got to make sure I understand what's in there. We have the tables, the assumptions they made. A lot of it's based on residents. I'm deciding how far to go into this. Residents, visitors, and workers, and then attaching an average cost to those based on the revenue and the average cost. That was the model they used. We do have all the detail that we can definitely share. Yeah, and I don't know if you use, I mean, because basically people are going to be building. There's going to be building industries here. Sure. There's going to be contractors here. There are people from out of town that are doing all this construction work as well as in town. Sure. So I just want to make sure you've got it all kind of in there, done well. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. Next, we have Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Chair. Looking at the total graph of capital costs, I just want to kind of clarify, because we're adding up all five areas and all the potential costs, basically, this $569 million looks like a huge number. But this is all going to be very much spent incrementally over the course of years and also depending on the speed at which things are getting developed. Is that accurate? That is correct. This is the full picture. If you got everything you wanted and it developed just as we all hope and expect and want it to develop, this is what it would cost over the full build out. So that is exactly what is shown here. Yeah, and based on past experience, too, we could be looking at not just years, but potentially a decade or two down the road for all of this to come to completion. In that same vein, and kind of following up on Council Member Ellinger's question about when property owners are brought into the urban service area, but they don't develop for X number of years, you mentioned the 20-year cap, but it didn't sound like that that was a real consequence attached to it. It feels as though we kind of measure it, but then if they continue to not develop, continue to sit on it, we have the same situation that we did with the 96 expansion. And in some ways, I think we're at this point because these last two expansions in 2023 and 96, in my personal opinion, were not data needs or requests driven, and we end up in this place where we, the government, said, hey, let's expand our urban service area, even though there weren't necessarily willing or, you know, enthusiastic developers there. How would we be able to go about creating not just incentives but also, you know, the stick part of it? What kind of consequence or accountability could we push, you know, property owners to develop instead of sitting on land that we desperately need for housing in particular but other development as well, you know, instead of just sitting on it? I believe the biggest consequence will be the ticking clock of interest. I mean, it really does become significant over time. And I believe at this time, that is the number one, the big stick that we have at this time. But I would also say, you know, a lot of this is a front-end project, very front-end heavy. None of us know how it will develop over time. So I think for the fiscal impact for this, just watching it over time and responding in real time to the issues that come up, I think that will be the biggest key for the fiscal impact in the budget, as well as land that looks like it may or may not develop, digging in to find out why. What is the tension? They just don't want to develop. That's not a whole lot you can do, I think, about that. But if there's a real barrier, there might be something to do. So that's not an answer, but I think it will be really, because it is such a large expansion, as Commissioner Horn said, over a huge expansion. Really paying attention to how things are moving in real time will be key for the government to respond to those things and promote incentivize and encourage the types of things we want to see and mitigate risk at the same time. Yeah, and my hope is to with Lexington's Preservation Growth Management Program that five, 10 years down the road that we're not having this exact conversation again about potential expansions in the. And we talked about the same thing during all of our meetings. And as I said, we met monthly with the developers and builders as well. The same question, what is the balance between the interest rate and the amount of time to both incentivize people to go ahead and develop early because it saves the interest, but not disincentivize it so much at the end that it ends up not being developed. That's a very difficult balance to try to find, and that's where we landed on it. Incentivation, is that the correct word? Wise. I think the government always has some levers they could pull. If we decided that we wanted to build a particular piece of infrastructure in a particular area, that helps incentivize a certain area to go ahead and develop. And we'll probably learn other things as we go through this that might incentivize things as well. Yeah, I appreciate all the work that's been kind of put into this and this sort of format and structure. I just want to make sure that big picture-wise we don't lose sight of the idea that sometimes we put in rules and regs and even some of the incentives, they end up kind of becoming either burdensome or they become disincentives. incentives for development. So if our, we can't lose sight of our larger goal, which is A, we need housing, we need commercial development, all of those kind of things, even if the things that we're putting in place are in good faith and for good reasons. If the end result is that we're not able to develop and build, then kind of what's the point of all of it? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. On page 27, you have your infrastructure funding plan and you have a diagram of what that area would look like. This is a plan. What happens if the developer or the landowner doesn't want to do what's part of this plan and they want to come up with something different? How does that work? I'm going to ask one of our planners to come up and answer that question. Councilman Rellinger, I think what's important to point out of this program is it's largely agnostic to the type of development that gets built. It covers whatever infrastructure ultimately ends up getting approved. The master plan is going to guide staff's recommendation. Hopefully it will guide the planning commission's actions, and hopefully it will guide your all's actions on zone changes. But whatever development is approved ultimately by this body through the zone change, there's infrastructure associated with it. and how that will get paid for is through this process. So whatever gets approved, this is the mechanism to cover the infrastructure costs. I understand the mechanism, but we've got some pretty definite numbers that are put in there on that one page and how much it was going to be, and if on page 29, and if there's some changes from that, there's going to be changes also down the road for others, I guess. Sure, sure, and that's where Sean points out these are based on actual costs, not estimates. So they're giving projections in that table, but the actual program itself is based on actual costs as submitted. So if the plans change and the infrastructure costs change associated with those developments, then the actual costs that are being reimbursed through this program will change also. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Boone. Thank you, sir. I have just a quick question, I guess. As far as the percentages that you have broken up from developer 2, 3, 4, or 5, is that from an acreage use or is it a density usage? How do you come up with those percentages? This would be a hypothetical scenario where I shouldn't have made up of an actual scenario here, But if it were 10 acres, 30% would be paid by this original developer because he or she has 30% of the acreage. The remaining seven acres of that 10 would be this 70% of cost. And depending on how many people own that or developers are involved in that, they're paying their share based on how much of the remaining land is theirs. So whatever road or sewer, whatever it is, they're paying, they're remaining, their future payment back is based on how much of the land, gross acreage, they're developing. Right. So I guess if one developer is super dense, uses, in theory, using more to their benefit, I suppose, opposed to like single family homes, it's just done by acreage. That doesn't come into account, I guess. Right. Correct. Yes, this is based not on densities but on acreage. Right. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you, Council Member. So I think you all have asked really good questions. Y'all asked a number of my questions. I'm going to try to focus on this is the second presentation we had in committee. what kind of engagement have you had with the development community which is going to you know from this plan are going to be the community is really going to bear the brunt of the cost of this infrastructure can you talk about how you engaged and what kind of feedback you've got and have you addressed it or responded yes sir so we we have i feel we've been very engaged with them from the beginning the the primary feature of that has been a monthly friday stakeholder meeting so that started during the urban growth master plan and we repurposed that for the IFP and we've met on every really one Friday per month for the last year and it's just been a time of frank discussion where we will provide updates take their feedback and questions and respond to that in in real time and in overtime so one of the things that came up we had not included any fee for the developers that and we learned that there is a real cost of whoever goes first there's a lot of planning surveying designing there's a work that has to be done that nationally is recognized as work that should be paid for. So that 5%, we added that in there as a response to their feedback. So we've been very engaged. We've had one-on-one discussions. Even the privilege fee model itself was something that our consultants heard from the developers over and over as something that works, something that is simple and easy, and something they thought we might end up using. So I do feel like we, both the one-on-one level through our monthly meetings and then various invitations we've had to go and meet with people, we've had a very open door policy and And I hope they felt like they could bring their feedback to us and that we've been listening to them. Okay. All right. And I appreciate that. And, you know, the way this is kind of, I think about it in my mind, it seems like there's going to be the public dollars are going to follow the private dollars. In regards to your cost estimates that you have on some of the things on our side, on the government side, as far as infrastructure, Are there any areas or are there any big projects that we have on the horizon that will spur development? Or are there any places, and I guess you don't have to define them, but I just wonder if there's any places where we're going to have the incentive to go in and spend money and start putting in new infrastructure that maybe private dollars may follow our money? Well, I know Area 2, we have consent decree work that has to be done. And because of that, that would mean there are already public dollars that will be flowing there to upgrade the sewers in that area. Area three, there's a question. We're doing a sewer study as we speak to see what is the capacity, how much capacity, do we need more capacity to serve our existing areas. So those are the two areas that come to mind immediately. And one has a near-term project with the consent decree project taking place there. And the other, Area 3, is in the process of a study that Commissioner Martin asked for this year. The funding, they're about to start that in the next few months. That work will kick off, and that will tell us more about the capacity needs in Area 3, and we'll be able to answer that question more clearly. Okay. And I see, I was about to say director, Commissioner Martin in the back. Do you got anything that you want to add about infrastructure, funding, the timing, and just good information that we might want to take into consider with this infrastructure plan? Not really. They covered it really well. What spurred me to even come down here was the question I think that Council Member Sevigny asked about whether or not somebody wanted to not develop that was in between. Maybe the bottom and the top of the hill wanted to develop and the middle does not. We dealt with that in expansion areas. Winchester Road, I-75 corridor developed that way. Excuse me. Because a lot of times the least expensive land is the one that's furthest away from the urban service area. And so they wanted to work their way downhill. Oftentimes that just requires them to build a temporary pump station to get around the person that maybe is holding them up. So with the existing infrastructure, like I said, Area 2 is the one that's going really hot and heavy for us. We have a $20 million KIA loan in place for that already, hoping to be able to get some more. And so that will probably spur development out there more than anything else. KIA, Kentucky Infrastructure Assistance? Kentucky Infrastructure Authority. Yeah, we listed the North Elkhorn wet weather storage tank and pump station as it being one of our number one projects because, as Sean mentioned, it's a consent decree project, and we have willing participants. It's all the way out Hume Road, and I'm wondering how that will play out from the development area, because, again, most of the time people want to develop closer to Frontage Road. This is well back into that. But I think that the developers that I've talked to that are in that area are very interested in trying to move forward, provided that we're moving forward. Same thing with Area 3. The Athens-Boonesboro corridor is just ripe for something to happen there with the soccer stadium and other things going on out there. So that's why we're trying to get out ahead of that as well and be able to have basically a capacity roadmap so everybody knows what they're working with and what they're not working with. Okay. I appreciate that. That helps me think about it. I've got a couple more questions I want to ask you, but I will say, committee members, I know the rule is not to talk on any item more than twice, but I think this is important. So if anybody has any additional questions, feel free to log in before we go to the next item. The other thing I was going to touch base on is fiscal impact. So fiscal impact, and that's a whole other thing that we're going to have a conversation about, continuous. But I don't want to say it this way, but maybe it's the best way to say it. So that's a moving target, and then it's also tied to priorities and kind of what's going to be in front of us going forward. So fiscal impact is going to vary from fiscal year to fiscal year to fiscal year. So we just need to be conscious of what the total cost is if we built it all out. But that time frame and when it's going to be built out and the priorities are going to change. Okay. So, committee members, this is an important topic, a big topic. I think there's still questions, and I think there's still, at least for me too, there still may be some questions that I may have that I haven't formulated yet. The challenge that we have is that I believe we need to move this forward. I think there's an opportunity if we move forward to report this out of committee that it's going to come back to us August 25th, I think is the date. Our first day back from break is August the 11th, so it almost gives us two weeks. And I think if we move this forward out of committee, we'll start getting more feedback from the community, from the development community. And I think that will better equip us to ask more questions as we move through this policy. So I'm inclined to entertain a motion to move this forward to get reported out to the full council. And in the next couple of weeks, touch base with everyone. And if everyone is on the same page that there needs to be more conversation or dialogue, we can schedule a special meeting of this committee to do a workshop job and go through some examples and get more information before it actually comes to us to vote at council. Any thoughts about that? Any questions or is folks pretty good with moving that way? So with that I would entertain a motion to move the draft ordinance out of committee to the full council. All right a motion was made by councilmember Sheehan to move this forward and it was seconded by Councilmember Higgins-Hord, then seconded. Are there any questions to the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Are there any that oppose? Hearing none, that motion passes. So please feel free to reach out to myself or Sean Denny or Commissioner Horn about this, and we'll see what we need to do in the meantime to get your Councilmembers the information they need to move forward. Thank you, Councilmember. Thank you. Thank you for your work on this, and thanks for the presentation. Committee members, going back to our agenda as the technology ecosystem development update, and I'll turn it over to Council Member Civigni for introduction. Thank you, Chair. If you recall back a little over a year ago, we talked about this, and we did have some money we set aside in our fund balance discussion in October. to try to find ways to generate and retain tech talent in our community, because tech talent is generally paid pretty well. And we want our rating as a city wasn't as good as it could be. So we worked pretty extensively with the Office of Economic Development, and Erica primarily did a great job at working with us to put this program together. I'm really excited about what we're announcing here, and I really look forward to this program starting this summer. So I'm going to turn it over to Erica, and I really thank Councilmember Brown for his help in this initiative as well, because he was very key. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Council Member, for the introduction. I will do my best to keep it brief. And you've already pretty much covered my first slide for me. But you all will recall last year, Techonomy Partners did a consultation, released a study for Council to recommend four different strategies to grow our tech and tech-enabled workforce. The presentation and the proposed pilot program today focuses on strategy two of that study, which is to grow our tech employment by prioritizing connections among our educational institutions, students, workers, and employers. And again, as Council Member Sivigny mentioned, $90,000 was pre-funded in fiscal year 2025 to begin implementation of that strategy with an ultimate goal of boosting those linkages between employers and college students in tech-oriented fields. The consultants felt like there was more opportunity for us to retain local talent in this field as the demand of that industry sector continues to grow. And the specific approach from those consultants was to explore the development of a new tech-focused internship program. So that's what we'll be proposing to you all today. is a pilot program that would offer partial wage reimbursement to local employers who host tech-based internships for qualifying students of our local colleges and universities. And before I dive into the details of the program design, to give a little bit more background about how we got here, myself, my team have spent a lot of time this spring talking with different stakeholders in this area. Thank you again to Councilmember Savigny and Councilmember Brown for kind of leading the charge on that, as well as to CIO Rogers, who, again, in addition to our internal team, has provided a lot of input on how we are putting this program together. I also spoke extensively with representatives from our local colleges and universities, talked with tech employers, talked with our industry groups, really to bring their input together on what does our current tech internship environment look like and what opportunities are there for us to grow that so that we can make sure that even as a pilot program, this is as beneficial as it possibly can be to our students and employers. So with that being said, to kind of run through the metrics of the proposed structure here, we're proposing that selected employers would be eligible for reimbursement of up to 50% of the wages for up to two tech-based interns per employer. that reimbursement would be limited to $15 an hour and also be set at a maximum of $3,000 per intern position. And in order to qualify, those internships would need to be 120 hours in length at minimum. With those metrics, that should result in us getting at least 30 or so interns in this pilot program. Other requirements that we've proposed include that the work sites must be based in Lexington with an in-person work requirement. That was an important recommendation from the consultants because, again, we're not just looking at their skills enablement. We're also looking at their connectivity to the local community. To qualify, the students that are serving as interns would need to be enrolled full-time at an eligible university or college, which again are the three that just appeared on the screen at UK, Transylvania, or BCTC. And they would also need to be within two years of the planned culmination of their degree. And then the last bullet on this slide is the one that I think is really important to focus in on, which is that we're not trying to develop a strict definition of what constitutes a tech internship. That's a pretty broad term. That field itself touches a lot of different industry sectors. So instead of having a strict requirement that a student be within a certain major or something like that, we're going to be flexible to say this can be a technology internship if you're working with software, hardware, something that's more traditionally in that tech field, or it can be a tech-enabled internship. Maybe an intern is coming into a company to show that employer how they can use technology to enhance their products or services to be more efficient in what they're offering. I'm totally on board with being flexible so that we can hit many different industry sectors with this tech application. Continuing on with the proposed structure, we're proposing a rolling application beginning in July, following the second reading of the ordinance and continuing until the $90,000 is exhausted. We would have employers themselves apply for reimbursement from LFUCG by providing an overview of their internship, internship, things like the tasks and responsibilities of the intern, what they plan to pay, how long the internship will last. By having that agreement directly with the employer and not having any direct LFUCG employment, we felt that was the most efficient way to make our limited amount of funding go as far as possible here. And we are proposing to reserve up to $5,000 for networking events, educational activities. Again, this was a direct recommendation from the consultants to focus on developing those community ties and deepening those connections so that the students participating may be more inclined to stay in Lexington for long-term employment. I don't know exactly what those events look like yet because I'm not sure how quickly folks will sign up for the program, how many folks we may have participating at one time. But it's a minimal amount of funding in the grand scheme of the program. And then we, in terms of the logistics of how they would get that reimbursement, the employers would request reimbursement directly with our office by submitting an invoice that includes the timesheet and the pay stub for that intern. They would also be required to provide two reports from the beginning and end of the internship experience to evaluate not only their experience with the program itself, in case the pilot can be expanded in future years. But also to kind of track the growth of that intern skills. How prepared were they when they came in? How did you feel they grew throughout this experience? We would also be gathering data directly from the interns through surveys to evaluate their experience with that employer and also to monitor their long term career progress and hopefully eventual career placement. And just noting that those reports and surveys would remain confidential and would just be for our internal use and data gathering. As far as getting the word out about this opportunity, we plan to have direct application available through the Economic Development website. We plan to share flyers that have a QR code linking to that website. I'll also plan to share the program information directly with the entirety of council as well as with a list of more than 30 partners and stakeholders. Again, a lot of those same folks that have helped me with providing input into this program design. And we have multiple of those stakeholders who have been willing to share that opportunity directly with students and employers that are in their network. So we feel good about getting the word out. I think I'm good on time, so I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you for your work on this. I know myself, and I don't want to speak for Council Member Savigny, but we were really impressed when you presented us with the work and your ideas about this pilot moving forward. First up, we have Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Ms. Rogers, and yes, thank you for the development of this program. A lot of our offices receive requests to be interns, and having something formal set up through the city I think is wonderful. When you try to decide what will it look like as to which divisions could take advantage of this program, Will a director apply and ask to have one, or do they get sent to, or the interns who apply get sent to a certain place, and do council offices qualify? How does that all work? Thank you very much for the question, because this is a point of clarification I should have made. The intended audience for the interns is to be placed in private businesses. I'm sorry. No, you're totally fine. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. employers throughout the community. And again, those metrics that I shared, it might sound pretty small to limit an employer to potential interns to be reimbursed. But we want all sizes of businesses throughout the community to be able to take advantage of this. So, thank you. So then you would help facilitate those partnerships? Yes, along with those community partners that I mentioned and with the stakeholders from the university. The intention would be, and I think Council Member Brown phrased it this way initially and this helped me envision it, the employer would kind of pre-screen their job posting with us. And then we would say, yes, as long as the student meets these metrics, this job posting would be eligible for reimbursement. That's how that kind of process would be led. And I do apologize, I stepped out to use the restroom, so I'm sorry if I missed you saying that. But thank you for your clarification. Thank you. Thank you, council member. Next is council member Hale. Thank you for this presentation. I was curious on how does an employer apply for this program? Yeah, I can share with you all, again, as long as we get the approval to move forward, the actual application documents. It would be housed, again, on the economic development website. The first document they would fill out is fairly simple. It would have information about the company that is doing the employment, what size of a company they are, sort of what work they do generally. It would require them to identify a supervisor for the internship experience to kind of be our point of contact for reporting. And it would also require them to submit information about the planned structure of the internship. So, kind of telling us what are you going to expect this intern to be spending time working on. And from that, we would be able to deduce, is this something that qualifies as either technology or tech enabled? Okay, and then the same site is where the students will also apply, correct? The student would not have to do any direct application with us. Because again, really the only requirements for the students are that they're enrolled at one of our three local universities or colleges, full time within two years of the culmination of their degree. That language is built into the MOA that the employer would sign. We would still screen for that eligibility by requiring that they submit their .edu email address. So while we're not signing an agreement with the intern per se, we're still going to make sure they meet those qualifications. All right, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Next we have Council Member Morton. Thank you. And thank you to Council Member Brown and Council Member Savigny for this innovative solution regarding retention and I guess recruitment. My question was tied to, was there any conversation about making students that are from Fayette County first priority as a requirement? So I know that we have students all over the country that come to our universities, but then we also have local students that go to our universities. And my thoughts is tax bearing dollars probably should go to benefit residents of, or at least long term residents of Fayette County prior to over, I guess, folks that are coming here to move. But then I also understand the need to retain folks from these universities. So I guess, was there any conversation tied to just making Fayette County residents first priority and then allowing the rest to kind of just be open there? It's not something that's come up in our planning discussions, but I do appreciate that insight. That is something that I could track as we survey the interns. To see, are you from here, are you from a different place originally? I could send that information out to them. Again, with this being a pilot pretty limited in scope, that's certainly the kind of information that could help us make those larger determinations if we proceed with the program at a larger scale in the future. Yeah, I think that, yeah, just my thoughts, and that's my opinion. That would be kind of beneficial, and I think that it could be more impactful to the sense that it, one, serves our residents first, but then two, we need to retain folks from Lexington as well so they don't have to move away for these tech jobs. Likewise, I guess, I know that the criteria is college, two years from graduating, but looking towards the future. Is there any thoughts of maybe engaging some high school? like an advanced programming tied to tech or looking at possibly opportunities for entry-level jobs where folks can kind of grow in the industry? Has that been a conversation? It was certainly a conversation of the larger Techonomy Partners consultation and study, and it's also a conversation that's come up as I have been, you know, kind of asking questions in the community. A lot of folks have said, well, how can we get, you know, a younger generation involved in this. Maybe not everyone's going to college. Again, I think for the sake of the pilot program, we've got a limited amount of funding to work with here and it can only go so far, but it's certainly something that the study has kind of laid the grounds for to explore further in the future. I appreciate that. And yeah, if there's any internal way that we can prioritize Lexington Residence, I think that would be important. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Next, we have Council Member Joseph Vigny. Thank you, Chair, and thanks again for the presentation. I just wanted to make one comment. When I had my tech business, we would use internship programs like this to try to, it was kind of our try and buy of someone typically. So we would bring them in as an intern, we would see how they fit with the culture. You would pick well, and it was generally, it was inexpensive to have an intern, typically. And then you kind of, you primed that person for the possibility of working permanently. And that's kind of, I think, where we're really going with, like, this is kind of, this is the desire of this program, really, is to kind of make sure that people make really good decisions. we give them a little bit of an incentive to do something that may not be they were not thinking of doing, but they would be at that spot in the growth curve that they may be able to pull this person in on a full-time basis, and then keep that talent here, even if they are from out of town. So just like UK, we have people, UK we have Lexingtonians, but we have people from all over Kentucky and all over the world here. So I don't know if we had an issue with people with visas or anything like that. I don't know if we had that as a requirement, but that might be an issue, but we just have to think about that one. And I want to thank you again for your work on this, and I want to let my council members know that at work session, this is actually on the docket for us to move forward. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Council Member. I just got, I don't know if this is a question or just a point, but I remember when we were talking about the program, the monies that we reserve for the networking and educational activities I think is important, and I think you might want to speak to that. I think from the techonomy report or study that we did and just from conversations that we've had with TAB and other organizations, is that really building a community around this industry and the folks that work in it is important to retention. So I don't know if you want to speak to it or not. No, I think I just agree. It's something that we see modeled actively in our startup community, in our tech community here. We have these strong groups that network, and especially when you have some folks who may be in a full-time role working remotely, developing that sense of connectivity is very important to people. And so I think the networking events will be a way for us to illustrate that. Yeah, yeah. No, I agree. I just think that's an important component of it. But again, I just think Council Member Savigny, this is his item. I know he's given me some credit, but he's really been the driving force behind it. And then Erica and Kevin's team for really building this program to make it something that we can pilot and get out there and hopefully make our community sticky for folks to stay here and retain some of that talent. So I don't see any other questions. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. All right, council members, we've got 35 minutes. Do you think we can knock out E911? All right, so we'll move to the next item on our agenda, and it's the E911 Fund Revenue Sources, and I'll turn it over to Council Member Beasley for introduction. Thank you, Chair. So we, about a year ago, put the funding for our E911, our first first responders, into committee. That fee had been tied to your landline telephone bill before. Now it is currently not many of us have landline telephones anymore. So we are trying to figure out what we can do to keep from having to continually fund that through our general fund so that their funding is not necessarily tied to ours. So I'd like to thank Director Holbrook for working on this for me and all his hard work for this presentation. Thanks so much. Before I get started, I want to first highlight some of the team that worked on this. Brad Cruz, who's in revenue with us, has been working on this, doing some research, and also Scott Jones and the law department have been very instrumental in helping us get to a point where we can really wrap our arms around the problem. And so what we want to talk about today is really what I think may be the first of two presentations. One, we just really want to go into a lot of detail and talk a lot and really frame what the issue is that we're experiencing. And then at some point in the future, once we have some time to resolve some questions and maybe work through some outstanding items, come back with what a presentation for E911 funding might look like going forward. Because the path we're on right now is not necessarily sustainable for how our E911 operation is funded. And whenever we're talking about E911 funding, there's a lot that goes in to the division of E911. And Director Patton's here and also Commissioner Armstrong. And I think Director Patton has somebody from her staff here as well. What we really want to talk about is Fund 4204, which is the dedicated fee from landlines and wireless plans that go to fund E911 operations. So let's first start to just frame this a little bit and talk about what it is. E911 is a fee on landlines registered in Fayette County. E911 does have certain general fund funded operations that are separate from what we're talking about. They do some things that are not necessarily able to be funded by that fee. And so there's a certain portion of what they do that should be general fund funded naturally. Over time, and we'll have some pictures, you all may have already looked through the presentation, we'll see how this funding has stagnated and is just not producing what we need, given what our rising expenses are, to support the E911 fund. And also, as we look at where these calls are coming in and talk about some of the other examples from different communities, really the burden of funding E911 services is on landline owners, because that's where the vast majority of money comes from, and that's just a decreasing number of people, even though we do have an increasing revenue source every year. So you do have a smaller subset of the population that's funding the vast majority of this operation. So first, just our current ordinance. It's Section 1363 of the Code of Ordinances. It was passed in 2008, so 16, however long ago that was, 18 years ago. It was originally set at a monthly fee of $2.10, and it increases 4.5% annually. the fee effective July 1 is $4.64 per landline. So pretty marked increase in what our fee has been over time, but still not enough to fund the service that we need. If you look at how emergency calls come in by source, we really see it come in through three larger buckets. The blue, which is where the vast majority of the funding comes from, is landline calls. And so you're really not seeing above 10% of our E911 calls come in every year through landlines. The vast majority of them come in through wireless. You think about people who might be out on the road and see something or who might be in a wreck or just out doing their daily business, and that's where those calls are coming from. And then also a small subset of voice over IP as well. So the vast majority of these calls are coming in through wireless plans. So I think a natural question might be, and I'll go ahead and address this right now, why don't we just jack up the fee on what a wireless plan is? That is not allowed for local governments to do. Cell phone plans are taxed at the state level, and they don't really provide a lot of E911 revenue. We'll see what that amount is as we get a little deeper into the presentation, but it's really not something that we have the ability to impact and change through any local ordinance. Landline usage is either flat or is decreasing. We'll see some of that as we look at some of the graphs. And just the fund balance that we had and we carried for a significant amount of time has started to decrease as revenues have gone down. And also in this next point, rising expenses. We've seen this across everything we do. We've seen a marked increase in our general fund expenses. E911 is no different. They have personnel operating capital costs, and all of those things go to decrease what this funding source is. And then the real purpose, or the real nugget here is this is something critical that's provided for our community and something that needs to be available and we have to fund no matter what. So regardless of what we may or may want to do to fund it, we do have to make sure that everybody's available. We have call takers available to be able to take these calls and dispatch services as necessary. So we really can't do any sort of large-scale reductions like we might think of doing in some other fund or some other program. And so this really starts to highlight the issue as we lay over these revenues versus expenses. So you see a couple things happening here, and we'll break these out so you can see. But the revenues, they bounce around a little bit, but they had a little bit of a decrease after 2020 and then have just been pretty flat, pretty stagnant. But expenses have started to increase pretty drastically. like we've seen with the rest of our government expenses. So you can really see the gap starts to develop there in 2021 and just continue to grow and grow and grow. As we break out those revenues, you can see come in, we're looking at somewhere between, you know, starting around 81% in 2016, and then what's proposed for FY27, 64% of the revenue funding, Fund 4204, is going to be coming from the landline fee. So even though the fees increased 4.5%, you see the share of the revenue that's coming in go down. The wireless fee has grown, but really not grown to the extent that you can offset the decrease in the landline revenues. And then there are some other small sources that come in on a year-by-year basis that may not be consistent. It may be transfers, it may be interest income, but it's really generally pretty minor compared with what the overall funding needs are for E911. On the expense side, just breaking it to our four largest categories, personnel, that's something we've experienced with all of our general fund and other funds. That has grown over time. That's something we really start to see grow in 2021. We had some of the same impacts here. Operating is pretty consistent, but there have been some increases, especially in the last couple years. And then also capital needs. I mean, E911 has a pretty, not a super capital intensive operation, but there are things that they need, hardware and items that they need to be able to do their job efficiently and correctly. And so we need to be able to fund those at the level that they need. And so that's when you start to see those capital expenses, that's where some of those items are. So really breaking down, I mean, you saw the comparison, but you can really see where the issue is. Flat revenues, increasing expenses. And we did have a fund balance in Fund 4204, but just in the last few years, especially with those rising expenses and stagnating revenues, we've really started to pull an amount from General Fund that goes to subsidize this operation. And these are the numbers from the ACFER. So you can really see from 2020 on, we're looking at putting some amount in year after year, and something we're anticipating continuing to do unless we come up with a different way of funding this critical service. So the larger question is how can we go about this differently? The KRS has the ability for local governments to have a special license tax or fee to fund E911. It has to go for very specific items. That's why some of the things that E911 does that are general fund funded, they really can't be funded by this bucket. But we could establish a special license or fee that could go to fund the services that we're currently having to subsidize additionally out of general fund. And that really has to go with the delivery of the E911 services and the wireless enhanced 911 services. And there are some more specifics in there. Again, Scott Jones from law has done a lot of this research for us, and he may be able to jump in on those in a little bit more detail if council has any more questions. But the nice thing is we have had, there have been other communities that have started to tackle this question even as recently as this past year. And so we have a couple ideas of how we might be able to approach this a little bit differently because we're not the only ones going through this. So the two counties I want to highlight, because the way that they've approached this is pretty different, are Campbell County and Madison County. They've moved their structure away from landlines to other funding, and so that gives us some jumping off point to be able to start to talk about this and think about what this might look like differently. Campbell County was really one of the first counties in Kentucky that started to deal with this in a different way. In 2015, they put an annual fee on individual property bills. That's currently now, it was $45, it's now $70. It was challenged in court by the Greater Cincinnati Northern Kentucky Apartment Association, and withstood the challenge in 2015. So they challenged that it was an impermissible user fee and unconstitutional, and the court did not agree. And they argued that it was permissible because there's a real relationship to the benefit that's received. And the fee has a relationship to the benefit that's received. The other one, and this is very current, is in Madison County. So in Madison County, they originally looked at, in 2024, a new funding structure that would be shared between Madison County, City of Berea, and City of Richmond. And they would have followed a similar approach to Campbell County. For whatever reason, in mid-2025, they repealed the ordinance right before implementation of this fee. And in August of 2025, Madison County established a 911 service fee that replaced the landline fee and put it on their water bill. And so that was effective January 1st, 2026. So this is just a separate line on their water utility. It's a monthly fee as opposed to an annual fee, a fee on somebody's property tax bill. and even though this is very new, this fee method has also been challenged in court and withstood a court challenge in 2020. So really two different approaches for how you can look at this, one being something that's probably more similar to what people might be seeing if they've been paying their landline and having a line on there, or an annual fee that's going to be a larger amount that's not broken up 12 different times. So we do, as we think about this, we still do have some outstanding questions that we're trying to work through and think about how to approach this. And one is, you know, how do we break out residential versus commercial versus institutional calls? And is that something that matters as we think about what that fee structure looks like? Is there a need for some differentiated rate between a residential and commercial payer? Is it something that needs to be flat? Is the number of calls that go into that going to determine how that's calculated? The other is projecting out how do we look at capital needs for E911 over time? You know, if a fee can go to cover necessary capital expenditures and we can build that in and have it be able to develop over time so it can be ready for E911 for whenever they're ready to make capital expenditures versus trying to battle for funds in the general fund against other projects, that could be preferable. Is there a desire for an annual fee on something like a property tax bill versus a monthly fee, similar to what we see on the LexServe bill? What's the role of Central Kentucky 911 funding and how that plays into this, because there is a larger network at play here. And then with these pieces that are general fund funded, based on what E911 does for non-emergency calls, are there any operational changes we may want to look at and restructuring some of that that are going to change how much their operation is dedicated to specifically E911 and dispatching emergency services. So that's a very high-level framing of what the issue is, and I'm happy to take any questions. I've got, like I said, Scott Jones is here, Commissioner Armstrong, and Director Patton from E911 as well. Thank you, Director, for that presentation and your work on this, and Council Member Beasley. Committee members, are there any questions? And you did say this is one of two, more than likely one of two presentations that we're going to have on this. Yes, yeah, I think we want to think through what the best format for this is and how that could look for our government and for our community and then have an actual ordinance that is presented to council at some later date. But we do have, based on how this has been approached in different communities, there are some different ways that we could do this. So we really just want to think through what that might look like and see which direction we want to go. Okay. All right, I don't see any questions. I do see the director back there. Is there anything, Director Patton, anything you want to add before we close it out? Okay. Yeah, no, thank you. Number one, I just want to thank you for your time. This topic has come up over the years and they have done an excellent job. Needless to say, I am in full support of this. It is a need and as Director Holbrook said, we are working through some things because we want to do what is best for our community. And we look forward to the next presentation. All right, now thank you, and thank you for being here, and thank you and your team for the service that you provide out at E911. Council Member Lynch? Director Holbrook, I thought of a question. You've looked at, are the two counties you gave as examples, are those the only two counties in Kentucky that have dealt with issues thus far? Those are not the only counties in Kentucky that have dealt with this. Part of the challenge is a lot of the counties that have dealt with it are smaller and finding some of the information about it is a little more challenging. And navigating and getting some of that. There are lots of different ways that this has been approached. I think in some communities it's a general fund function just on its face. We have our own funding structure for it here and so that's not something that necessarily makes sense. Some of them have a utility fee like we saw with Madison County. Since it was challenged in 2020, that's not the first time that's been done. So they're following a pretty well-trod path. So there are multiple counties across the state that have dealt with this in some way, shape, or form. Just has my brain thinking maybe we should do some state advocacy with our legislature. If multiple counties are dealing with having this problem, then this maybe should get statewide legislation change. that could benefit everybody since we're all dealing with the same issues. So just thinking ahead, so thank you, Director Holder. You're welcome. Thank you, council member. Next we have council member Savigny. Thank you, Chair, and thanks for the presentation. I was actually going to ask, I didn't know, is there technology changes that are taking place in E911 that might have some bigger, I'm just wondering if there's some things that are coming down the pike that we just need to make sure if we have a revenue source for, that revenue source is somewhat variable to support. I was just reading some things today in the paper, we're talking about regional 911, and I think they were talking about the better tools to locate cell phone locations and that kind of thing. I just didn't know if there's AI coming to E911. I'm just kind of curious. So what you read about in the paper is the statewide ESINET program. Yeah. It's an initiative from the state and we have joined the ESINET program as of June the 11th. And that is a statewide initiative for call handling. So 911 calls are able to be transferred from PSAP to PSAP. Along with that, there is jurisdictional advantages to 911 calls that come in. So if you're in this area, you will get Lexington 911 if you're in Lexington. If you're in Georgetown, you'll get Georgetown 911. That wasn't always the case. But that is the main pro for Lexington. We've been very fortunate in Lexington due to council, due to the mayor, due to the support that Lexington E911 has received over the years. Other counties have not been as fortunate. So map-wise, we've been map-heavy for years. AI, we are looking and working with Commissioner Rogers and the government as a whole to find what solutions will be best, not only for 911, but can be used government-wide. So although there are some amazing things out there, we just kind of be mindful of trying to get the biggest bang for our buck. Thank you. You're welcome. I appreciate it. And my only questions were really kind of to make sure that whatever we do, I would just not want to lock in a fee with some sort of guaranteed increase. If the technology changes and it becomes cheaper or it becomes more expensive to provide a level of service, I kind of want it more tied to whatever level of service we're doing. So that would just be some feedback. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, council member. That's all we have. Thank you. Thank you, director. Thank you all. We look forward to the next presentation. All right, committee members, that brings us down to items referred to committee. I'd entertain any motions or any comments to those. Seeing none, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. All right, a motion was made to adjourn and second it. All those in favor, please say aye. Are there any that oppose? Hearing none, consider this meeting adjourned.