# Urban County Council Work Session - March 24, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · March 24, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/821 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/821?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-03-24 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: June 17, 2026 - **Length**: 34,350 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Council convened on March 24, 2009, with Mayor Newberry presiding over the session. The meeting addressed six agenda items spanning a range of legislative and administrative matters, including budget amendments, new business items, and informational updates on planning and street conversion benchmarks. Over the course of the meeting, the Council took 13 votes and heard 3 public comments on agenda items. Key actions included the approval of the docket, passage of budget amendments, and approval of new business items, while the Planning Committee Update and Street Conversion Benchmarks were presented for informational purposes only. ## Attendance All members were present at the March 24, 2009 Council meeting. The following 16 officials attended: - Mayor Newberry - VM Gray - CM Stinnett - CM Gorton - CM Myers - CM Beard - CM James - CM Lawless - CM Ellinger - CM Blues - CM Henson - CM McChord - CM Lane - CM Crosby - CM Feigel - CM Martin No members were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The Council took the following actions at the March 24, 2009 meeting: - **Docket Addition – R-1D to R-4 Rezoning:** On a motion by CM Stinnett, seconded by CM Gorton, the Council unanimously approved placing on the docket without a hearing an ordinance changing the zone from Single Family Residential (R-1D) to High Density Apartment (R-4) for the March 26, 2009 Council Meeting. - **Docket Addition – R-1B to I-1 Rezoning:** On a motion by CM Gorton, seconded by CM Stinnett, the Council unanimously approved placing on the docket without a hearing an ordinance changing the zone from Single Family Residential (R-1B) to Light Industrial (I-1) for the March 26, 2009 Council Meeting. - **Amended Docket Approval:** On a motion by CM Myers, seconded by CM Gorton, the Council unanimously approved the amended docket. - **Budget Amendments:** On a motion by CM Gorton, seconded by CM Myers, the Council unanimously approved the budget amendments. - **Amendment to New Business Item J – Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority MOA:** On a motion by CM Beard, seconded by CM Stinnett, the Council voted 12–2 with 1 abstention to amend new business item J regarding the Memorandum of Agreement with the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority. Voting in favor: CM Beard, CM Stinnett, CM Myers, CM James, CM Lawless, CM Ellinger, CM Blues, CM Henson, CM McChord, CM Crosby, CM Feigel, and CM Martin. Voting against: VM Gray and CM Gorton. [timestamp: 0:07:00] - **New Business Items A–Y as Amended:** On a motion by CM James, seconded by CM Lawless, the Council unanimously approved new business items A through Y as amended. - **Ad-Hoc Committee – Zoning/Building Permits:** On a motion by CM Gorton, seconded by CM Ellinger, the Council unanimously voted to establish an ad-hoc committee to review possible changes to time limits and increased fines on zoning/building permits. [timestamp: 1:14:19] - **Heritage Tree Program Withdrawal:** On a motion by CM Gorton, seconded by CM Beard, the Council unanimously voted to withdraw the Heritage Tree Program issue from the Planning Committee. [timestamp: 1:15:23] - **Courthouse Area Design Review Board Text Amendment:** On a motion by CM Gorton, seconded by CM Blues, the Council unanimously voted to initiate a text amendment to include the Courthouse Area Design Review Board recommendations. [timestamp: 1:17:04] - **Planning Committee Special Meetings:** On a motion by CM Gorton, seconded by CM Henson, the Council unanimously voted to set two special meetings for the Planning Committee. [timestamp: 1:19:17] - **Street Conversion Benchmarks:** On a motion by CM McChord, seconded by CM Meyers, the Council voted 6–9 to adopt proposed benchmarks for street conversion. The motion **failed**. Voting in favor: CM McChord, CM Meyers, CM James, CM Lawless, CM Ellinger, and CM Blues. Voting against: CM Beard, CM Gorton, CM Henson, CM Crosby, CM Feigel, CM Martin, CM Lane, VM Gray, and Mayor Newberry. [timestamp: 3:03:37] - **Main Street 44-Foot Street Design:** On a motion by CM McChord, seconded by CM Martin, the Council approved by voice vote authorizing Clete Behnken to provide detailed design of a 44-foot street on Main Street. [timestamp: 3:05:42] - **Lexington Distillery District TIF Project MOA – Docket Placement:** On a motion by CM Blues, seconded by CM Lawless, the Council voted 10–1 with 1 abstention to place on the docket a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor to execute a memorandum of agreement with the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority for the Lexington Distillery District Mixed-use Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing Project. Voting in favor: CM Blues, CM Lawless, CM Stinnett, CM Gorton, CM Myers, CM Beard, CM James, CM Ellinger, CM Henson, and CM McChord. Voting against: CM Crosby. [timestamp: 3:21:17] ## Budget and Financial Actions The Council addressed one financial item during the March 24, 2009 meeting involving a formal agreement tied to a major redevelopment initiative. - **Lexington Distillery District Tax Increment Financing Agreement:** The Council considered a Memorandum of Agreement with the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority in the amount of **$47,000** related to the Lexington Distillery District Mixed-use Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing Project. This agreement establishes a formal relationship between the city and the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority in connection with the tax increment financing (TIF) structure supporting the Distillery District redevelopment effort. No resolution number or additional contract identifier was recorded in the available meeting data for this item. ## Public Comment Three members of the public addressed the Council during the public comment period of the March 24, 2009 meeting. - **Mr. Cobb** [timestamp: 3:36:35] spoke on the themes of community unity and the revitalization of Black history in Lexington. He urged the Council to support new initiatives and to take action to help save young people in the community. - **Mr. Powell** [timestamp: 3:38:49] raised concerns about the amount of personal information required when selling items to pawn shops. He cited identity theft as a significant risk associated with these requirements and called attention to the issue as a matter of public concern. - **Ms. Debi Tester** [timestamp: 3:40:23] addressed concerns related to civil service employment practices, specifically focusing on employees who have been serving in acting or temporary positions beyond the established 90-day limit. She also noted the absence of adequate grievance procedures available to employees seeking to address these situations. ## Contested Items Two items generated notable disagreement during the March 24, 2009 Council meeting. **Street Conversion Benchmarks** The council was divided over a proposal to adopt benchmarks for street conversion. The debate centered on concerns about the costs associated with implementation and the timelines for carrying out the conversions. The item resulted in a split vote, indicating that a portion of the council was not prepared to move forward with the benchmarks as presented. Specific vote tallies and the names of members on each side were not recorded in the available data. **Memorandum of Agreement for TIF Projects** A heated discussion arose over a Memorandum of Agreement related to Tax Increment Financing (TIF) projects, specifically involving the Distillery District and CenterPoint projects. The disagreement focused on how funding would be structured and how reimbursements would be handled under the agreement. Council members debated the terms before the item was resolved, though the final outcome of the vote was not captured in the available data. *No transcript timestamps were available for these items.* ## Public Comment on Issues on Agenda [timestamp: 0:05] The Council meeting opened with an invitation for members of the public to comment on any issues appearing on the agenda. No public comments were offered at this time. ## Docket Approval [timestamp: 00:37] The Council took up approval of the docket for the upcoming meeting, which included several zoning changes and resolutions. CM Myers and CM Gorton were the key speakers during this portion of the meeting. The docket was approved. ## Budget Amendments [timestamp: 05:57] The Council took up a resolution on budget amendments for the fiscal year. CM Gorton and CM Myers were the key speakers on this item. The resolution was approved by the Council. *Note: Additional details about the specific amendments discussed, any concerns raised, or the nature of the debate are not available in the source materials for this item.* ## New Business Items [timestamp: 06:29] The Council took up several new business items during this portion of the meeting, including various agreements and contracts for consideration. CM James and CM Lawless were among the key speakers participating in the discussion of these items. The Council reviewed and deliberated on the presented agreements and contracts, moving through the new business agenda. Following discussion, the items were approved by the Council. *Note: Detailed specifics regarding the individual agreements, contract parties, dollar amounts, and the substance of any debate or concerns raised are not available in the source materials for this agenda item.* ## Planning Committee Update [timestamp: 1:12:26] CM Gorton presented the Planning Committee Update to the Council, providing information on several ongoing initiatives under the committee's purview. The update covered two primary areas of focus: - **Zoning and Building Permit Changes:** The Planning Committee reported on proposed or ongoing changes related to zoning regulations and the building permit process. - **Heritage Tree Program:** The committee also provided an update on the Heritage Tree Program, an initiative tracked and managed through the Planning Committee. The presentation was informational in nature, with no votes or formal actions taken as a result of the update. ## Street Conversion Benchmarks [timestamp: 2:58:02] The Council held a discussion on proposed benchmarks for converting one-way streets to two-way streets, with the conversation centering on Main and Vine Streets. Key speakers in this discussion included CM McChord and Clete Behnken. The item was informational in nature, meaning no formal vote or binding decision was reached during this session. No additional detail on the specific benchmarks proposed, concerns raised, or the substance of the debate is available in the provided record beyond the focus on Main and Vine Streets as the subject streets under consideration. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Place on the docket without a hearing for the March 26, 2009 Council Meeting, an ordinance changing the zone from a Single Family Residential (R-1D) zone to High Density Apartment (R-4) zone - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Place on the docket without a hearing for the March 26, 2009 Council Meeting, an ordinance changing the zone from a Single Family Residential (R-1B) zone to a Light Industrial (I-1) zone - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the amended docket - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the budget amendments - **Motion** — passed (12-2): Amend new business item J regarding the Memorandum of Agreement with the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve new business items A-Y as amended - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Establish an ad-hoc committee to review possible changes for both time limits and increased fines on zoning/building permits - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Withdraw the issue of the Heritage Tree Program from the Planning Committee - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Initiate a text amendment to include the Courthouse Area Design Review Board recommendations - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Set two special meetings for the Planning Committee - **Motion** — failed (6-9): Adopt the proposed benchmarks for street conversion - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Authorize Clete Behnken to provide detailed design of a 44-foot street on Main Street - **Motion** — passed (10-1): Place on the docket a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor to execute a memorandum of agreement with the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority for the Lexington Distillery District Mixed-use Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing Project --- ## Full transcript The first, the first item on our agenda today is public comment on issues that are on today's agenda. Does anyone wish to address the council? All right. Seeing none, we'll move ahead to docket approval. We have, uh, a docket to approve today. Is there a motion? Move. Second. Council Member Myers has moved that the docket be approved. Council Member- Mayor. ... Gordon has seconded. Mayor. I hear you, but I don't see you. Mayor. There you go, Jeannette. There needs to be action on number six and seven. All right. I'm ready. Thank you. Council Member Stennet. Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on the docket, uh, for Thursday night, item number six, without a public hearing. Second. Have a motion to put item number six on the docket without a public hearing. That has been seconded by coun- That's by Council Member Stennet. Council Member Gordon has seconded that motion. Any discussion? All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. Is there a motion with regard to number seven? Move to place it on the docket without a public hearing. Second. Council Member Gordon has moved, Council Member Stennet has seconded that item seven be put on the docket without a hearing. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. Um, now, we're back to the m- docket as amended. Any discussion? Council Member Stennet. Thank you, Mayor. I moved, uh, I gave, uh, the council members last week, um, the resolution, proposed resolution for the 2010 World Equestrian Games, uh, to recognize it as a celebration and to allow certain types of signage th- that was in the resolution. So I move to place it on the docket for Thursday, March 26th, the proposed resolution for the 2010, uh, World Equestrian Games, recognizing the games as a local celebration, that related decorations or displays are generally exempt pursuant to Section 17-2E of the zoning ordinance. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Stennet and a second by Council Member Gordon to add that item of business to the docket. Is there any, uh, discussion? Then all in favor of amending the docket as described, please let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. Any further items with regard to the docket? If not, we're ready to vote on the docket as amended. All in favor of approving the docket as amended, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. We're, uh, now down to the approval of the summary from the March 17th meeting. Is there a motion? Council Member Beard has moved that the summary be approved. Is there a second? Second. Thank you for being there for us today, Council Member Gordon. We have a second by Council Member Gordon. Um, any discussion? All in fa- Jeanette, Madam Clerk. It was called to my attention that on the March 10th, um, summary, it was not voted in about the task force for the Lyric, or the work group for the Lyric Theater. That needs to be put in a motion so that it can be passed. I'm gonna update the summary, but someone needs to put that in a motion. Let me, let me get clarified. Does that impact the March 17th summary? Yes. And where? It actually should have been approved on the March 10th summary, but we need to go ahead and add it in. We can add it today so that it can be on the March 10th summary. I think it'd be appropriate to deal with that by way of a separate motion on the March- Okay. What we're doing is going back and amending the March 10th summary, correct? Yes. Okay. The motion on the floor right now is to deal with the March 17th summary, so let's put that one to bed first. And then we'll circle back around on the March 10th issue. Any further discussion on the March 17th summary? All then in favor of approving the March 17th summary, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. Now, let's take up the issue of the March, um, March 10th summary. I'll make the motion, Mayor. Council Member James. Is- Is that, would that be app- appropriate or does it have to come out of budget and finance? I thought we made the motion. You were saying we did not o- officially vote? Go ahead. Oh, here comes Shay. Okay. To be accurate, you did vote. It's just on the, um... And it passed, um, without dissent at the work session. The agend- I mean, the summary just said that no motions were made out of budget and finance. That's it. So we just need a mo- uh, motion to reflect in the minutes that, uh, the motion was made before council during the budget and finance report to form a Lyric Theater work group, and the motion did pass without dissent, so I move... Correct. Second. All right. Any discussion? Those in favor of amending the March 10th summary as indicated, please let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. We're now down to budget amendments. Is there a motion? Move approval. Council Member Gordon has moved approval of the budget amendments and Council Member Myers has seconded that. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. New business. We have a motion to approve the new, those items. So moved. Council Member James has moved and Council Member Wallace has second that we approve the items in new business. Council Member Beard? Thank you, Mayor. Um, I would like to move to amend new business item J, pertaining to the memorandum agreement with the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority for the Phoenix Park Courthouse TIF District, to also authorize the Mayor to execute a letter agreement with Center Point LLC, regarding payment of the consulting fee in an amount up to $50,000. So moved. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion and second. Any discussion? Those in favor of item, of amending item J as indicated, please let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. No. Let's take, uh, vote electronically if we could. Those in favor of Council Member Beard's motion, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed vote nay electronically. Can I ask for clarification on the motion? Certainly. Thank you. Let's see if I can, uh, y- you know, this, this whole TIF situation is a little, um, heavy, to say the least. Um, we have two TIF districts that are running on parallel courses at this point. There is initially a $47,000 fee that is paid to, um, Frankfurt to do the study on the feasibility. If everyone remembers at the time of the CenterPoint, uh, uh, folks had offered to pay the $47,000 out of their own pocket. I think it was assumed that it would flow through us to Frankfurt. They sent the check to Frankfurt directly. We need to clean that piece up. And then, we need to understand what may happen with the $50,000 if, if in fact it's approved and gone forward with the $50,000, and who's gonna pay that $50,000. Um, there is some sentiment that, um, because CenterPoint, uh, maybe has deeper pockets, that they should pay that, that, but the Distillery District shouldn't. My, uh, my take on that is that, uh, uh, we need a level playing field on both TIF districts and, uh, and ask that both CenterPoint and the Distillery District pay the $50,000 at that time. They will know at that point whether they have a feasible project and the monies can be recovered from the issuances of bonds. Now, did I do that right, George? G- or George. Joe? Uh... Did I cover it correctly? I, I, it, as I say, it's a little, w- we're throwing numbers and, and, and entities around very quickly so, uh, I wanna be sure that everybody understands it. Yes, the item that you're, uh, considering at the moment would, would do exactly what Council Member Beard said, would, uh, ensure that, uh, the CenterPoint folks who have already remitted their check to the state for the validation study of the, of the, uh, courthouse Phoenix Park project, uh, all this is, is a letter saying that it qualifies for reimbursement from TIF proceeds when the, when the project goes forward. They, uh, they, when we got notification from the state that they were ready to proceed with a consultant, they had selected the consultant and they negotiated the price and they said, "This is what the price is. We're ready to proceed. We need a check to, in the amount of $47,000 to cover that cost." I contacted the state and I said, "Does that check have to come from LFUCG or can it come from the, from the, uh, uh, developer?" And they said, "We don't care who it comes from. We just need a check for $47,000." And, uh, um, y- you know, that's, that's what we did. Uh, we delivered that check on March the 18th, and they're just asking us to say that they can get the money back if the project goes forward, if it's approved and it goes forward. Now, there's another $50,000 if the project is approved, there'll be another $50,000 payment due to the state to cover their administrative costs for having processed this project. So, at that point, it would be our recommendation to the council that we cover that $50,000 and again, that would be recoverable from TIF proceeds. Yes. Whomever... If I- ... wishes to quirk. Um, to the amendment, well, when I look at the text of item J, it says, "Funding for the review process was advanced by the developer and should be recoverable as part of the financing of the project." So, is the amendment above and beyond this? Well, it-- it puts us into the loop as to who's gonna recover it, for one thing. W- we would pass it through... Right now, it looks like w- we're somewhat out of the loop on the $47,000, 'cause most typically i- that would be paid to us, and we would, in turn, remit to Frankfort. Okay. Okay. And th- this kinda clarifies this for our own purposes, probab- primarily. Frankfort doesn't care, uh- I did. In- In the letter that I sent to the state with the check from the CenterPoint folks- We care. ... I referenced our conversation of the day before saying that that was acceptable to them, and that it was recoverable, that the state had told us that it is recoverable. By us? By us and/or CenterPoint. So, um, they would, they would, uh... We could apply for the reimbursement and then turn the check over, or make a check payable to CenterPoint to cover this $47,000 that- that they have put up to cover the consultant cost. Okay. Can you re- re- reread the motion? Um... It is, "I move to amend new business item J, pertaining to the memorandum of agreement with the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority for the Phoenix Park Courthouse TIF District, to also authorize the mayor to execute a letter agreement with CenterPoint LLC regarding payment of the consulting fee in- in an amount up to $50,000." Now, that's not the same $50,000 that we're talking about. Okay. There is the $47,000- $47,000 is actually the amount. ... and CenterPoint has agreed if there are incidental charges above and beyond the $47,000, which is a- which is a firm estimate- Right. ... uh, if there is additional charges up to 50, they would pay the additional charges. Yeah. And be... And- and be allowed to recover that through the- through the, uh, TIF proceeds. Count- Council Member James, if I might, when the payment was made by the web companies, they included a letter agreement saying, "Here are the circumstances under which we're making this payment, and we want to be in a position to recoup that later if this project is approved. If you agree, please sign the enclosed letter." And so we're just bringing that to you so that you might be aware of what the, what's in the letter, uh, before I sign it. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. That's- That's- Thank you, Joe. Council Member Crosby. So just clarification. Yes. Because, um, Council Member, uh, Beard, made some comments regarding the other TIF project. This is strictly, we're strictly voting on the CenterPoint and for them to be able to recuperate the cost of- of their $47,000, correct? That's- That's- We're- We're- We're- We- We are strictly voting on the amendment. There- There's- Or 50,000. There's an amendment to the resolution that's in your packet that also allows us to enter into a preliminary memorandum of agreement with the state, saying that, um, w- we've applied for this project, and- and we're agreeing to make sure that the state is reimbursed for the consultant fee. It's in, that's in the agreement. Let me restate my question. This is strictly regarding one TIF project, correct? That's correct. This is just the- the Phoenix Park Courthouse project that we're voting on, or you're voting on , uh, or considering at this moment. Thank you. A- And let me clarify something. Uh, the reason why I mentioned the other 50,000 was that 50,000 was shown up here, that's 47,000 plus incidentals of 3,000, totaling 50,000. It's not the same 50,000 that we, after it's approved, that is also due the state to reimburse them for the- their effort in taking the application and processing the application. So there are two $50,000, eh, but one's really a 47,000 plus incidentals, and the other is for a totally different purpose. But the same project? But it's the same project, yeah. Because you had mentioned the other projects, so I just wanted to clarify that I was only voting on one project at this time. Well, th- they've been parallel with each other, so the same- I understand, but I'm only voting on number J for one project. Parallel? That's correct. Council Member Martin? Does this, uh, commit us to handling other TIF projects in the same manner? We would think that this would set the, uh, precedent. And matter of fact, we think the precedent was set when we asked the CenterPoint folks to- to, uh, cover the cost of the consultant report, and they agreed to do so. Um, but yes, we think that- that... At this point, we've tried to minimize the government, local government's, uh, exposure relative to these projects. We think that the initial work economic analysis that was done by the, uh, by the developers, and- and we helped them put the projects together, we retained legal counsel, Mr. Parsons, uh, who I- I- I also ran all this stuff by. Um, and so now we have a project that's been submitted, it's been preliminarily approved by the KITFA board, they are ready to validate the economics of the package, and they have selected this consultant. And the cost of that's $47,000, give or take. So, until the project has been validated and approved- ... um, we think that the, that the developer appropriately should, should bear those costs, subject to refund if the project goes forward, if it's approved, goes forward, generates revenue, they will get their money back. Once the project's approved, then we feel, and, and it'll be up to you to decide, but we feel that that last $50,000 fee that goes to the cabinet for e- the administrative cost, um, would be appropriate for, for the government, local government to, to pick up. And that too would be recoverable through TIFF, uh, financing. Has, uh, uh, I see Logan in the back. Ha- has Legal sort of signed off on this? 'Cause I, I sort of understand that the, that under the statute, the, the developer... I guess the city's supposed to pay the cost. Well, what it says is, is that, that there's a fee to cover the cost of the consultant due from, from the community. But where we, where we generate those dollars to cover the fee is not specified. And other communities that have done TIFFs have, have done it this exact way. That's why I checked with Mr. Parsons, who's probably one of the most knowledgeable outside, uh, attorneys, uh, relative to TIFFs. He's done so many of them. Uh, and he said, "Yes, communities normally do have a, an agreement with the developer that they'll front the money for the validation, uh, of the, of the, uh, studies." But you're welcome to- Logan, you don't mind. ... for Logan to, to speak to this. Sorry. I did talk to Jim Parsons about it, and what Joe just represented is correct. It's customary for the developer, as I indicated in my memo yesterday, to front that cost before the project is actually approved. So, that's what he told me. And, and as you all recall last year, when there was a discussion about this consulting fee, and I believe, um, there was a fair bit of discussion. I believe Lori, I can't remember her last name, was here and was talking about that. And there was quite a bit of discussion, and I think Mr. Turner indicated that they would commit to go ahead and advance this fee. And so- We... Did we require them to do that, or did they volunteer? No, I think there was some disc... As I recall, there was a discussion here with the council, and I think he was asked whether they would do that. And they... Is that right, Vice Mayor? And they said, "Okay, yes, we will do that." It... So under the statute, you think this complies with the Kentucky statute on the TIFF program? Well, it's like Joe says, as long as they get the 47,000, I don't think they care where it comes from. And again, according to Mr. Parsons, this is money that's usually advanced by a developer anyway, so... So we're... But we're okay under the statute? Oh yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I'm quite willing to go forward and, and vote yes on this, on this motion, so long as it is understood, uh, that this pertains only to the CenterPoint TIFF. And that was, I think, the question that Council Member Crosby asked. That's correct. I- I'm very concerned about, uh, about this being taken as some, some precedent, uh, for w- w- you know, with, with relation to the, to the, uh, to the other TIFF. As you know, council members, I'm going to bring forward a resolution regarding the Distillery District TIFF. It bears on this, on this issue. I'm hoping that here we can vote on, on this apple and take up the orange, uh, when I, when I introduce that resolution during council report. So I will, I will vote yes on this, but only on the understanding that this is not a commitment with reference to the other TIFF or any other TIFF, past or, or future. Thank you, Mayor. All right, next I have Council Member Gordon, then Lawless, then Stennett, then Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Um, my comments were very similar to Council Member Blue's. Um, it... Because I heard, I heard it said, and I'm looking at you, Commissioner Eskew, that this was a voluntary... I believe this... It was just said that it was voluntary on the part of the CenterPoint developers that, yes, they would do this. Well, I think they were asked to do it. And they voluntarily said yes. They said they would do it. And they- That's the way I recall the meeting, but I think we were all here when it happened because is... My recollection was there was a real issue about this 50,000 and who was gonna pay it. Well, it's- And- Go ahead. That, that's my recollection, but I had... To be honest, Council Member Gordon, I hadn't gone back and looked at the tape. The only thing that we're trying to do with this letter of agreement, which I sent you, is they've asked that it be signed and that we represent, yes, it would be a, a, a cost that would be recoverable in the event the project were approved and tax increment financing became available. And as you recall during that same discussion, and I think Jim Parsons might have been here that night, he said, "Yes, that is a recoverable expense." So, I don't think we're agreeing to anything here that's not consistent with what we had in the discussion that night, uh, nor with what the law would say. Well, I, I simply wanted to highlight the point of precedent setting, because in all of our discussions about the TIFF, uh, the discussion centered on the applicant paying the fee. And it -- to my knowledge, there was never any kind of written agreement that the w- until recently, when we saw your letter, that the applicant would get the money from the developer. And so I think to set this as a precedent, I don't see it as a, as precedent-setting to Council Member Martin's- I don't, I don't, I don't- ... question. Well, if you're talking about some sort of legal precedent, I can't sit here and say that the developer of, of the Phoenix court, or Phoenix Park Courthouse project won't be back and say, "I want $47,000 from the city also." That's possible. Mm-hmm. But I haven't heard from anybody. I just know that we received a letter that they wanted us to sign, and before they signed it, we felt like we needed to get some approval of the council. But this pertains only to the Phoenix Park Courthouse project. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Council Member Lawless. Um, I, I, I, I can't help but go back to, um, Council Member Blues and Council Member Gordon's question, Joe, uh, and Logan, maybe, um, and follow up on what Council Member Beard said is, are we setting, are, are you all gonna be arguing that we have set a legal precedent by accepting the, uh, developers for the Phoenix, uh, Center Point project because they voluntarily said they would pay those fees that we will hold other TIF projects accountable for that? Because in state statute, it says KRS 154.30-030, uh, "The city, county or agency making the application shall pay all costs associated with the independent consultant's or financial advisor's report." So that is very clear in state statute. If Center Point developers agreed to pay that when asked, "Would you pay for it?" "Sure, we'll pay for it," that wasn't ... I, I watched that 'cause I'm one of those geeks that TiVos GTV3. Um, that was, uh, that was not, "You must, or else." It was, "Will you?" "Yes, we will." That was not asked of the next TIF coming forward, and there are two different kinds of TIFs. One's a signature project and one is a blighted land project. So I wanna make sure that if I vote yes on this, that then, uh, the next thing I hear is, "Oh, well, now we've set a legal precedent" because actually, we're not, you know, we're basically accepting a voluntary payment- Well- ... for something that the city is legally bound by statute to pay as applicant. Yeah. I- if you take, if you take the position, which I, I don't- ... but if you take the position that the statute is literal and it means we should pay, then we should have never asked the Center Point people to voluntarily pay it, nor should we have accepted their check and submitted it to the state for payment if that, if y- if one argues that the statute says that it must come from the city's own resources. I don't think it says that. I think it says that, that, uh, the, the payment on behalf of LFUCG in the m- in the amount of $47,000 needs to be paid. And, um, and, and it's not unlike perhaps a, a mortgage payment. If I have a mortgage, I'm obligated to pay it, but, but if you were so gracious as to offer to pay it for me and sent the bank a check, they would take it. So I, I view this as, as reasonably- Well- ... common. ... I mean, if, if you're saying that- Mm-hmm. ... because they offered to pay it or agreed to pay it- Mm-hmm. ... whether they were asked or not- Yeah. ... we need to hold other TIFs to the same standard, that's like saying, uh, you know, the Landsdowne Neighborhood Association mows their own median, but the s- city is really responsible for that, therefore, now we're not gonna mow any medians. I'm sorry. I, I can't make that connection. Well, I mean- ... we're, the government's obligated to keep up the medians. If somebody graciously offers to mow their median, do we quit mowing all the other medians because one said they would? I, I just don't s- see those as being- So I mean, it's- ... apples to apples. ... the legal obligation of the, of the city government. I think, I think we have met the legal obligation relative to the Center Point project, uh, by submitting a payment that came from the developer. Uh, it would seem to me that from a, from a consistency perspective about future projects that may come to us, and I expect there will be, how are they going to expect to be treated? Um, are they gonna know on the front end that they need to budget for and allow for covering the cost of the validation, uh, work that has to be done with the consultant? If it's a, you know, if it's a 30, 40, 90, 100 million, $200 million project, um, y- y- you know, that's 47, $50,000 is not insignificant, but relatively speaking, it's a cost of doing business. So we think that's a fair thing to ask of developers of all TIF projects, and because at this point, we've tried to protect the interest of the taxpayer and the government by not extending... ... a payment on something that we do not yet have the ability to recover. So that's why we agreed once the project is approved, once the project is a- va- validated and approved, then- then that last $50,000 we think would be appropriate for us to, uh, to- to pay. And- and- and then of course we would have some assurance that we would likely recover that if the project is successful. But only the CenterPoint, and I- I- and I- and my memory, if my memory serves me correctly, uh, TIF task force was put together to realizing that there were a lot of things in the CenterPoint process that, being the first TIF, uh, maybe w- weren't in the best interest of the project or the community, and so coming up with a precedent. But the other TIF project, the next TIF project was not asked if they would do it. That's not their fault. Actually, I did tell them that we would be expecting them to pay the consultant fee during the time when the, uh, when- when the working group was- was meeting. I advised them that our expectation would be that they would cover that cost. Now that was- But that's not... That was a- Is that in your authority or... Well, it's- Not to be disrespectful, but... Sure. Well, I- I think I have an obligation to make a recommendation to this body and to the mayor about we, how we handle these, uh, going forward, and you ultimately make the decision as you will ultimately make the decision here today. But our job is to make recommendations, uh, to, uh, to this body about, um, what we perceive to be fair and equitable, and in a sense, yes, setting a precedent, because the next developer needs to know what the expectation is gonna be of the, uh, uh, uh, him or her. And that wasn't in the... Was that anywhere in writing with the other TIF? No. No, it was not. So... And it wasn't a council decision, it was just your opinion at some point that you thought they should? That was, that was, yes. That was my, uh, that was my advice to them, is that we would have an expectation that- that they would, um, advance the payment for- for this consultant and that would be what we would recommend to this body. And when- when did they receive that in writing? Last week, um, Wednesday, Thursday, when we sent them lea- the letter about the, uh, the package being due to Frankfort, the payment being due to Frankfort. So the application for the Distillery District was, um, sent to the state by the city on December 12th. Mm-hmm. And they were notified in writing last week that they were expected to pay the $47,000? Yes, because we were notified in writing a few days prior to that. We had not received anything from the state telling us what our expectations were, uh, relative to the consultant, and we got a, we got a- a letter from the state saying, "On the distillery project, um, we have selected the consultant. The estimated firm price is $47,000. In order to release the consultant to do the work, we need a check." And so that, at that time, we had, um, I think Barry and I exchanged emails and then we met, uh, a week ago Friday and discussed, uh, this issue at length. But for months, the S- CenterPoint Phoenix Park developers had known because they had voluntarily said they would pay it. I mean, that's public record. That's something that, yes. Okay. Sure. So, again, I'm still not hearing a clear answer about if we vote yes on Council Member Beard's amendment, are- are we then going to change the rules mid- Ooh, sorry about that. Midstream for another one? That would, my impression would be that would be your decision, uh, Logan. I think you're asking the question about legal precedent and whether we would somehow open ourselves up to some exposure from the Phoenix Park Courthouse TIF ap- or folks. And I don't... I doubt that's the case, and I don't know that we're gonna hear a whole lot about it, uh, but that doesn't mean that we won't, because it does appear as if they're beating tre- being treated differently. I do know that we've got some other TIF projects, one in particular that's kind of in the development stage now, but I do think we need to... If it's going to be the council's position that the government should advance the consulting fees, that's fine. That's what we'll represent. If we want to eliminate any issue about the Phoenix Park CenterPoint folks coming back and claiming they've been treated unfairly, then we can just vote to, y'all can go ahead and authorize that they get $47,000 back. And- And they're gonna be reimbursed if that project goes forward, correct? If the project goes forward and there's money there, that's correct. Okay. So if it doesn't go forward- They don't get their money back. Okay. That's correct. But I don't know that there's any definite answer, Council Member Lawless, whether we're going to, somebody's gonna come back and raise that question with us, I guess is what I'm saying. I doubt that's going to be the case. Thank you, I think. Council Members ... Did ask. Thank you. All right. Council Member Meyers. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Mr. Kelly, can you come up for just a second? Um, I wanna go back and- Mr. Kelly. ... talk, talk about ... Could you come up just for a second? I wanna go back and talk about a couple of different things and, you know, they had the full court press on you. They're talking about that CenterPoint developers voluntarily paid this fee. And I wanna go back and talk historically about what actually happened. And I'm actually the one that called the developers and asked them if they would be willing to pay the fee. They did not come in here and voluntarily pay that fee. They came in here with their development plan and their project and there were people on this council, and I had a conversation with the vice mayor offline, uh, earlier about this, there were people on this council that said, "Essentially, my vote is predicated on who pays that fee, because I don't want the city to be on the hook for this fee in case this project doesn't go forward." That is not the same thing as someone coming in here and saying, "Will you pay the fee?" And they say, "Oh, yeah. We'll pay the fee." They paid the fee because in order to get the passage of the vote to move their project forward, there were council members that said their vote was predicated on that. This body, like it or not, when it votes, it sets precedence. I'm not a lawyer, but I do know this, if you do one thing for one company or one entity that comes in here, and then you do something totally different for somebody else, when you set that first precedent, and then you do something different for someone else, you set up a situation where that first person can then come back and take you to court. Now, whether or not they win is a whole nother story, but you can't say to one group, "We're not gonna vote to pass this unless you pay that fee." And then say, "They voluntarily paid the fee, therefore we shouldn't do this or they're not entitled to get that money back." Um, we also agreed to reimburse them when the project went forward, so they do have an expectation of getting the money back as well. The other thing I would say is that there was a, there was an analogy that was trying to be made to you that if the city allows someone, a neighborhood association to voluntarily cut a piece of grass, then we can't hold them to that in the future. I think a better question would be that if the city is responsible for cutting a piece of grass, and they allow somebody else to take over that responsibility and then at some point, they stop doing so, and the grass grows up to be two foot tall and an accident happens because the line of sight was blocked because the grass wasn't cut, the bottom line is, who owns the property and who's responsible for cutting that grass? And in that case, it would be the city. It wouldn't be the neighborhood association. And it's the same thing here. We required them essentially to pay the fee up front. I'm not gonna go as far as to say it was a quid pro quo, but there were people here that made it clear they would not vote for this if this, if the city had to pay that fee. So they did not voluntarily come in here and say, "Oh, we'd be glad to pay that fee." We have set a precedent and so I do agree with the motion that's on the floor, that we go ahead and, and sign this letter and move forward. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gray. Thank you, Mayor. Um, what we're talking ... Let me put it this way. The context of this going back into our TIFF meetings a while back, was on the CenterPoint project and the CenterPoint TIFF, it was repeatedly said that the city would have no cost associated with applying. So therefore, why wouldn't we do it? And it came up in this meeting, in the council, that actually there was a consultant's fee. And that's when it was presented to Mr. Turner at that meeting, uh, you, I believe Council Member Meyers, would you all be willing to pay for it? And he said, "I'll check on it." They came back then, the next meeting and Council Member Ellinger reminded them of it, and they said, "Yes, we're willing to pay for it." Okay. Now, today we're hearing that there's another 50,000 dollars administration fee by the state. Now, as far as I know, that's the first time I've heard about that. All right. But this takes me back personally to a year ago when my vote against CenterPoint was on the merits of the business plan. When a year ago, some of us said, "This is a bit of a fantasy project." Now, today it is a full illusion. And going forward with any more money for the CenterPoint TIFF, at least in my view, is a big mistake, because the business merits do not permit it. On the Distillery District, on the other hand, at least my point of view is the business merits endorse it. It has bu- business merit. So we as a council could very reasonably say, "We agree with this because we believe in the business merits of it." And that's where I take the whole issue. I mean, that's my take on it, that's how come I'll vote for the Distillery District, for the, um, what is it? The consultant's study. Funding it like the statute says, and I'll vote against the CenterPoint continued funding. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanna come back to council member, uh, Council Member Meyers' assertion that the, that the votes of several council members, uh, in favor of the CentrePointe TIF were predicated on the, uh, on, on the developer's payment of this, uh, independent consultant's fee. If that is the case, that certainly never came out in open discussion in front of council. What came out in front of council was a council member asking if, asking Mr. Turner if, uh, if the developers would pay the fee, and they agreed to do it. And I, for one, my vote was also in, in, in opposition to CentrePointe, but it had nothing to do, and I assumed that, that other members had not, it had nothing to do with who was paying, uh, the fee. So, uh, I'm a little surprised to learn that the, uh, that, that this previous vote was somehow predicated, uh, obviously not, not in, not in, in, uh, in open meeting, not in open discussion, not in open debate, uh, as, as Council Member Meyers asserts. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, this discussion has really clarified for me, um, that I will vote no on the motion that's on the floor, because there's a question as to whether this will be precedent-setting or not. I think that we should not change the rules in the middle of the game. If we wanna set this precedent for future TIFs, ones that are not already in the works, I think that's a different question. And we know that future TIFs will come to us. But we have two TIFs that have been moving forward, and I think this is not the time to change the rules. So I'm going to vote no. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I know that CentrePointe's been controversial from the beginning, and I understand the whole history of it. But to be fair to any developer that wants to develop in our fine city, I don't know why we couldn't do a, a 50/50 match. It's a partnership. I see TIF as being a partnership between, uh, the city, who will definitely benefit if that project goes forward, and a developer that will benefit. So I, I just wanted to give everyone something to think about. But, uh, for w- I'm, I would like to set some type of precedence where it would be across the board. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to address... Council Member Lawless. Sorry. Um, Council Member Meyers, um, you know, a lot of people that come forward with a project or wanting something from the council will do something perhaps to sweeten the pot. And if they chose to sweeten the pot thinking it would get more votes, then I don't see how that has anything to do with anybody else. They came back with different drawings in an effort to get more support. So how... So I, I, I just don't see how those are the same thing. That's all I'm gonna say for right now. Thank you. Council Member Meyers? Thank you, Mayor. I certainly wish that they were here to, not necessarily defend themselves, but to help set the record straight. And, uh, we all know around this horseshoe that there are conversations that are had offline during the process of trying to move something forward. And so I'm not gonna debate whether or not, uh, everything that I talked about was said actually on camera. I would encourage people to go back and get the tape. You can get it online and watch it and see certainly what the intent was during this whole process. Um, I do think it's very dangerous for government to set precedents in the way that we are. And that is that if you like the developer and or his or her project, then you require some things from them. If you don't like the developer, which we all know that during that debate, there was a lot of animosity about the developer. And there was probably more discussion about the developer and maybe things that happened in the past than the merits of the project that we are looking at today. I think it sends a dangerous message to the, our community, and even people outside of our community that want to come here and build, when we say, "Based on who you are, based on whether or not we like you and or your project, we require you to do some things. If we like you and we like your project, then we require you to do other things." I think it's a very dangerous thing to do. I think that is what we're doing if we continue to say to this group, "We're gonna treat you differently than we're gonna treat this other group." Thank you. Council Member Beard. I guess I'm totally confused at this point about, um, uh, uh, who's on first. Um, the individuals who do not like CentrePar- Point, don't wanna let them in the door to pay $47,000 is what it sounds like. And, um, there, there really isn't any, uh, uh... And we'll be having these, these discussions as it relates to the Distillery District. Uh, I don't see the precedent-taking, uh, uh, s- uh, fear at all. Uh, we all know that when we're, um... ... here for a two-year period of time that, uh, we can't bind future councils, so we now are, uh, three months into, uh, uh, that two-year span of time and uh, there's gonna be future councils and there's gonna be future TIFFs and, um, each council can look at each TIFF on its own merits and, and decide what we want to do and how we want to do it with each one of them. And I don't, I, again, I don't, I see no fear of, uh, of, uh, retribution from, uh, uh, the CenterPoint folks. Uh, th- they, again, did do this of their own free will. Uh, and, um, w- we haven't gotten that far, I guess, with, uh, with the Distillery District and as, uh, Mr. Kelly said, uh, we have other TIFFs, uh, in the offing and, and they may look a little different than, uh, any of these. For one thing, the, the CenterPoint is a signature TIFF and, um, the, the implication of a signature TIFF is, uh, over $200 million and it's a large project and, uh, and the $47,000 is relatively a, a drop in the bucket compared to, uh, uh, other TIFFs, which would be mu- probably mu- much smaller. So again, I, the fear of, uh, uh, of, uh, this, uh, precedent setting is, uh, i- is, is unfounded, I believe. Um, k- and Jody, are you ... I was, I was asked to ask you this. Uh, are you kind of on board with what I just said? That it will not set a precedent. That it will not set a precedent? Uh, I would just, I would- I mean, we, we decide whether it's a precedent or not for that matter. That's exactly, that's exactly right. So I don't see how y- h- h- how you have to... S- say, you might have your preferences as to how it is, but, but the council's the one that's gonna decide in any case. Is that not correct? That, that is correct. Okay. If I'm a developer sitting at home right now watching this and I've got a, uh, a project that I'm, am considering bringing forward, I, I, I would not know what the expectation... If we handle these differently, I would not know what the expectation might be if I move my project forward until it comes to the council and the council will decide what, what, um, how the consultant's fee, uh, would be handled, uh, should they advance to that point. But yes, we... All we can do is make recommendations and, and, and you folks are the ones who make the final decisions. Again, thank you, Mayor. Vice Mayor Gray. Yeah. Um, e- d- I agree with either Council Member Lawless or somebody said earlier, this has been a good conversation and I agree with that. A- and I particularly, uh, what Council Member Meyers was saying is instructive as well. Uh, you know, I think the, um, CenterPoint is clearly... CenterPoint project, you know, clearly, you know, had lots of controversy associated with it and in many respects will be considered an outlier. Um, but I, I am, I'm interested in this, the point of view, genuinely interested in the point of view of the, um, arbitrarianess or the perception of arbitrariness on the part of the council and the impact of that or the perception of that impact on developers. Um, 'cause I'm in, been in that business for a long time around it and I'm puzzled about that because my point of view on this is that, what I tried to say earlier about my vote has always been consistent. I opposed CenterPoint on the merits of the business plan. Didn't have anything to do with personalities. It had to do with whether or not it was a bona fide project, would be a bona fide project for the city. So I think that's our responsibility when these things are presented to us and so my vote opposing the funding for this amendment is consistent from the beginning. That's, I mean, that... I just wanna make sure that, that that is... 'cause I've heard, heard what you were saying, George, and I respect Council Member Meyers, of course , and I, and I'm genuinely trying to process that. Can I, can I respond, Mayor, just briefly? Yes. Because what I wanna say is, I'm not trying to get anybody here to own anything that I said today. So I, I'm not talking about your vote and whether it's consistent or inconsistent. When I talked about you, what I was saying was that when we had a conversation, you acknowledged to me that it's gonna be very difficult to treat one development and one developer one way and treat another development and another developer another way. That's what I was speaking to when I was speaking about you. I'm not implying that your vote's inconsistent or anything like that. No, I didn't interpret it that way. Okay. I was just trying to confirm that the point of view on our decision here and its effect. I don't have a problem with my decision being, my decision on this being different on one than the other at all, as it relates to that question of perception and impact on, uh, developers. But, but in our conversation, you acknowledged that that was a difficult thing to do. I don't remember whether I said it that way or not. I mean, I can't remember exactly what it was, but I- Of course, you know, any, any decision we make is often difficult. It doesn't come to us if it's not tough , so. Vice, uh, excuse me, uh, Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple of comments. I wanted to, um, I wanted to say with reference to Council Member Beard's, uh, observation that the opponents of Center Point are now seem to be opposed to, uh, the developer paying this, this, this fee. I, I oppose Center Point, uh, and I'm not opposed to the developer's voluntary contribution, uh, at all. And, uh, and I'd like to, uh, to simply add that, uh, those of us who voted, uh, in opposition to the Center Point TIF, voted on it based on the merits of the project. And I believe wholeheartedly that the, the prevailing majority voted for it on the merits of the project. And that it had nothing to do with whether the developer was going to pay this fee or not. So I'm, I'm gonna support this, uh, support this motion, uh, because I'm gonna make the daring assertion that it's non-precedental. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member James. I just wanted to clarify, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to clarify, um, an understanding that I have, which is we keep saying that we're setting a precedent, but we actually have a state statute that sets in the absence of a policy, there's a prevailing policy. And the policy in the state states that the applicant pays the fee. If there's a vote to the, um, contrary, that's an exception, that has to come before us. So I think, uh, I would say that we should see each one on their own merit if there's an exception to the established policy, which is that the applicant pays. And the information that Council Member Wallace has right here in front of her states that Irvin County Government is the applicant. And, you know, and, and I think at, at least on the, um, Distillery District one that's here, and I'm sure it's the same on the Center Point as well. So, just keep that in mind as we're looking forward that there, there is a precedent, it's the state law. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. Um, it, it... I, I have the benefit of, of not having been around when this was approved. So I, I'm gonna take advantage of that. Um, um, I, I might just as, as, as a way to close this off and maybe call the question to, to say that w- we might need some sort of a standing committee. Economic development projects are, are really just exceptionally complicated. And there's a, there is some degree of risk, uh, for the city, and, uh, it would be an opportunity to sort of develop some consensus 'cause whe- when these come to us, it, it's, it's you have to consider a lot of things, and there might be a way for us to sort of look at these in a more long-term way before they actually hit the vote here. So, uh, uh, I just wanna throw my two cents in. Thank you, Mayor. Vice Mayor Gray's nominated you, nominated you to chair that committee, Council Member Martin. Especially since you weren't here earlier. Yeah. Council Member, Council Member Beard. Just one last comment. Uh, unless I'm mistaken, the determination of the quality of the business plan and the feasibility of both projects is what we're talking about paying for at this point. And we don't have answers back yet as to what the state thinks or what the consultant that the state engaged thinks about the quality of the business plans. Mm-hmm. And we've been up here making some judgments, we. I'll be more pointed this time. I generalized last time and it, uh, it got me in trouble. So, uh, Vice Mayor Gray ... uh, has opinions about the business plan and, um, uh, it's premature to know what that is until we hear from the consultant, in my opinion. Uh, am I correct that the, the consultant, that's why they're doing that? The, the developer, uh, employs a consultant, um, when they are developing the project. And then that consultant does a financial analysis about the value of the project and how much incremental revenue it might create if it, if it comes to fruition. What you're considering here is the validating consultant that the h- that the state hires to take a look at what the first consultant did. Okay. So that, I am correct that that's- Yes, sir. ... that's where the rubber meets the road is the... is, is what the second consultant says? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Feigel. Uh, thank you, Mayor. Also, um, I'll take advantage of, of the benefit of not having been here during that time as well. But it seems to me that, um, we will probably get lots of TIF requests. This is a brand new vehicle for us, and I think that we'll get probably quite a few. Some of those we will like, some of those we won't like. And it seems to me that this is an incentive program for those that we do like. And I don't see any reason why we can't handle one that fits in with our overall development plan and the overall, um, uh, the feel of the city. If it fits in with that, then I think we have every right to give those pe- people some additional incentives. But, you know, if it's a TIF project that really doesn't impress us, then we don't have to, we don't have to initiate that. So, I-- I-- I really think it has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Thank you. A- any further discussion? All right. The motion before us is Council Member Beard's motion to approve an amendment authorizing the mayor to sign a letter agreement with, uh, the Webb Companies, if I recall correctly. The paper here is yellowed, a- at this point. But I do think that's what, uh, what- what the motion is, yes. If there's no further discussion, let's proceed to vote. Um, those in favor, please vote aye electronically. Those opposed vote nay electronically. And the motion carries. We are now ready to discuss remaining items of new business. Co-Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I've, uh, I just have a couple of quick questions about item I, and I'm-- I'm very happy to see this, uh, this PSA for the-- for the farmer's market on the, uh, uh, on the new bus- business items 'cause I think this does have to be approved fairly quickly in- in time for the opening of the market in its new location. I- I- I do have one question. I'm not exactly sure for whom it- it is, but the- the previous PSA of that, uh, that- that our task force, uh, crafted last year called for annual renewals. This, uh, this one, uh, would- would be automatically renewed, uh, for 2010, uh, unless terminated or renewed prior to, uh, to that date. And I just wondered what the rationale for that, uh, for that change is. And the- the reason I- I- I have a- have a little concern about that is, uh, in- in moving to a new, uh, a new location, conditions on the ground might change and might necessitate some, uh, some tweaking, some changes, some revisions, uh, after the first, uh, the first season of operations. Mike Saner from the law department prepared this, but he's not here this week. Um, but essentially, I think it's just to allow us to continue moving forward with the farmer's market. I can't remember their exact title, but the one that we're- we'd be entering into with this PSA, and if we wanted to end the PSA, we would have the right to do so. But it would, um, allow us not to have to bring this forward again and again and again, unless the administration or a council member wanted us to do so. Sure, I understand. And I- I- I- I do want just to make that cautionary note that, uh, we've been on Vine Street for so long now, it's, uh, we know exactly what the, uh, the conditions are. Movin' to a new- a new locale, could- there could be reason for, uh, you know, for making some changes in- in the 2010 agreement, uh, and- and in fact, there- there will have to be s- you know, some changes. Uh, there will be dates that will have to be- to be changed. Uh, you know, that sort of thing. So, I just wanna make sure that this, uh, renew- automatic renewal does not preclude some, you know, some- some tweaking if necessary. I think you're- you're correct. That it does not preclude any tweaking. Okay. We would come back to the table with the- the party and negotiate a new PSA. Great. Thank you. Now, a- and one other comment. The- the- the PSA, uh, the current one and the one that- that would be passed if the council approves this, calls for an annual report to the mayor and the council from the Lexington Farmer's Market, and, uh, to my knowledge, we have not received the '09 report at this juncture. I wonder, uh, when that might be coming forward. Maybe- maybe Jeff can comment on that. Thank you, Council Member Blues. I appreciate it. Uh, that report has not been finalized. There was, uh, data, if you will, that's re- been reported as- as required by the PSA on a monthly basis to the Director of Economic Development. Uh, but the annual report has had no deadline and was presumed part of this discussion as- as an ongoing renewal of the PSA, but that can be provided, uh, as quickly as possible, uh, late this week, early next week. Uh, it could be provided right now, as a matter of fact, uh, as a point of summary for the year, if- if you so desire. Uh, actually, we've got probably enough reading material to get us through the next few days, so I just wanted to make sure that- Absolutely. ... that it is on the- on the way. Absolutely. All right. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you. See you at Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Um, could I- Uh, this could be- Could I interrupt for just a second? Sure. Just a housecleaning issue here. I think the clerk had a difficult time picking up the vote on the, uh, amendment that you proposed, Council Member Beard. Th- the vote was, I think, 13... Excuse me. Thir- third, no, Twelve. twelve, thank you very much. I was having a hard time with my math here. It was twelve yes, two nos, the two dissenting votes were cast by Council Members Gray and Gordon, and Council Member Lane recused. All right. Now, I apologize. Okay. That's ... Shea, let me ask a question as it relates to the, uh, PSA. Um, and this goes back to a news broadcast I saw quite recently with, uh, uh, the, the concrete from the monument being chopped up and, and saying that, uh, w- we were gonna be in a temporary type of situation this year, this season, and hopefully it will be a full-blown, um, d- structure and all of that made r- ready for 2011, 2010 actually. Um, i- was that addressed at all as to what the, uh, facility's gonna look like and, and, and what it will do, and what we will, w- as far as electrical and water and all of that? Are, are, are we gonna really ... Is this just really a one-year deal? Are you talking about the temporary structure? Or are you talking about the f- No, I'm talking about the, the permanent structure that ... Okay. I believe that's part of the streetscape plan, and, um, either Harold, Mike, someone other than me can answer that. That- Thank goodness. Tha- tha- that's fine. I, I didn't see Harold back there. I da- I, I, I just skipped over to you. I'm sorry. Uh, we are in the process, in terms of the design of the, of the pavilion itself, that is not complete. We've, we're beginning that discussion in terms of what needs to be in there, not just for the market, but for other activities as well. Okay. So that has not been finalized at this point. Mm, well, I guess my question is then, uh, in any case, wh- what's gonna be there this season is going to be different than, than what's gonna be there for- That is correct. This is just a, this- ... for the rest of our lives. This is just a temporary situation. Or at least mine. Okay, thank you. Mm-hmm. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'm not sure who can answer question, it's about the PSA for Farmer's Market and it deals with, um, the right of ways that are referenced on page 30 of our packet. And it has to do with North Upper Street. And on our map that's in our packet on page 43, it shows a little sliver of North Upper on the west side that will be the boundaries of the Farmer's Market. Is that ... What's gonna happen in that space, and are we looking at any road closures? Those are the parking spaces that are along the west side of Upper Street next to the courthouse. So it's not the streets themselves, it's just the parking spaces. The meter parking spaces. So this will, will vehi- vehicles be backed into? Will folks be vending from the backs of their vehicles there? D- oh, no, that's a possibility that it may happen, or we may just have tents set up, you know, on that, on the sidewalk where they just need to have loading and unloading area. But that, that's why we did, we did not wanna close any lanes in, on Upper Street itself, so we just included the, uh, the parking spaces. And ma- they may not even be used. That was just in, put in there in case, in case of a- Okay. ... episode that came up, they might need 'em. What if something happens and those are going to be used for vending out of the back, and, um, it, when folks pull their vans or trucks there, it blocks a lane of traffic? They would not be able to do that. They would have to parallel park, just like a car does normally. Okay. So within the PSA, when it talks about, on page 31 of our packet, and it says, "Said locations shall be subject to change as determined by reasonable agreement of the parties," um, it's in, it's in the top paragraph there, uh, about fifth line down. I'm just trying to figure out when, what kind of conversation, who's involved in the conversations if something changes about the boundaries? And will we see that here at council? I- i- if any ... I did, I did not write this so I don't know exactly- Okay. ... what it means, but any changes, a- as, as Shea said, any changes that are made would have to come back to you all for your- Okay. ... review before it is approved. So the reasonable agreement is actually a formal presentation or a formal resolution as an amendment- Correct. ... not just conversation happening? Right. No, you'd be making a complete change- Okay. ... on, on the documentation itself. Okay. Thank you, Harold. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you. Any other discussion on the new business items? Seeing none, we'll prepare to vote. Those in favor of approving the new business items, uh, as amended, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed, "No." Motion carries. We're now ready for the planning committee report. Council Member Gorton. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, the planning committee of the council met March 17th, and we had several items on our agenda with some motions to come forward. The first item on the agenda was the electrical inspector fee update, and we heard from Dewey Crow, uh, Director of Building Inspection, that there will be a list of recommendations coming forward at our next meeting. The second item discussed is, was time limits on building permits. And the two questions entered into committee were, can LFUCG place a time limit on the completion of a permitted project, and can LFUCG adopt fines or penalties for zoning or building permit violations? And we were very lucky to have the State Director of Building Inspection, Richard Maloney, with us for that meeting. Um, he commented that he did not think it was possible to preempt either, either issue since state law provides comprehensive legislation pertaining to housing, building, and construction. The third issue which we discussed was increasing fines on zoning and building permit violations. And a motion is coming forward from the committee. After, uh, much discussion, the motion by Councilmember Blues to establish an ad hoc committee to review possible changes for both time limits and increased fines on zoning and building permits was seconded and come, comes forward, and by the way, was supported by Councilmember Maloney to go to the state. So moved. Second. I have a motion by Councilmember Gordon, a second by Councilmember Ellinger. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. The next issue which was discussed was the Heritage Tree Program, which had been placed in committee by Councilmember James. And this, uh, program is to recognize, um, old and valuable trees, which are considered heritage trees. And the motion, since the commit-, the council moved to put this into planning committee, the motion coming forward is, uh, Councilmember James moved to withdraw this issue from planning committee, as it was not, uh, ready to be discussed under the current plan. So moved. Second. Heard the motion by Councilmember Gordon and with a second by Councilmember Beard. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. The fifth item which was discussed by committee was the Courthouse Area Design Review recommendations. Billy Van Pelt, Design Review Officer, and Mike Moiser, Review Board Member, presented two proposed changes to the ordinance, which came out of their last public hearing. These two proposed changes are, number one, no demolition would be allowed until all administrative appeals are complete, and number two, requirement of roof inspections by the Division of Code Enforcement and the Division of Fire. And Mr. Van Pelt, uh, explained that the, um, downtown area design review, revie- review overlay does not include all buildings that fall under the zoning ordinance. And so this is an effort to provide oversight by code enforcement and building inspection. So the motion coming forward to council is, uh, to initiate a text amendment to the zoning ordinance to include the Courthouse Area Design Review Board recommendations and specific language regarding non-compliance, enforcement, and penalties. So moved. Second. Councilmember Gordon has, uh, made those, made that motion with regard to courthouse area design review standards, I guess is a fair way of saying it. Councilmember Blues has seconded the motion. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. And just for councilmembers' information, what will happen now with that, since we have requested to initiate a text amendment, is that this will go through planning to the Planning Commission. And so the cl- uh, Planning Commission will do the heavy lifting on this and come back to the council with a recommendation. Um, the, this is a motion which happened within committee, but which doesn't need to be voted on by the council, but we did remove private retention, detention basin maintenance as an issue, as it has already been voted on by the entire council. And then, uh, finally, for, uh, information, the, uh, planning committee has, uh, several heavy-duty issues which the committee decided needed to, um, have extra meetings in which to have some resolution to these issues. So the planning committee will be having two special meetings. One will be April the 9th at 5:30 PM. That is a Thursday before a council meeting. And one will be April the 21st at 9:00 AM, and the, uh, agendas of these meetings will include the following, the Destination 2040 Vision, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the exte- extended stay zoning text amendment, and the Big Blue Horse branding. And so I would move forward to the full council to set two special meetings, April 9th at 5:30 PM and April 21st at 9:00 AM, to discuss these specific issues. So moved. Councilmember Gordon has moved to schedule two special meetings of the Planning Committee. Councilmember Hinson has seconded the motion. Any discussion? All in favor, please say, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, "No." Motion carries. And that concludes my report. Thank you. Um, I'd like to ask Commissioner Helm to, uh, join me at the podium here for a quick presentation. As some of you are well aware, there are a number of, uh, social workers who do a number of outstanding things in our community. We have, uh, three who serve on the, on the council. Uh, Councilmember Meyers, Councilmember Lawless, and, uh, Councilmember Hinson are all engaged in the social work profession. And this, uh, is the time of year when we try to put a little, uh, added emphasis on the enumerable cons- contributions that social workers make in our community. So, uh, I wanna share with you a resolution that we, uh, shared with some of the social workers a day or two ago. Whereas social workers have the education and experience to guide individuals, families, and communities through complex issues and choices, and whereas social workers connect individuals, families, and communities to available resources, and whereas social workers are dedicated to improving the society in which we live, and whereas social workers are positive and compassionate professionals, and whereas social workers stand up for others to ensure everyone has access to the same basic rights, protections, and opportunities, and whereas social workers help people help themselves whenever and wherever they need it most, and whereas social workers have been the driving force behind important social movements in the United States and abroad, and whereas a social worker is filled with purpose and possibilities, now therefore, I, Jim Newberry, Mayor of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government in recognition of professional social workers and their commitment and dedication to indi- individuals, families, and communities, as demonstrated by their service, research, education, and advocacy, do hereby proclaim March 2009 as Professional Social Work Month, and call upon all citizens to join the National Association of Social Workers in celebration and support of social workers and the social work profession. Commis- Uh, Commissioner Helm, it's my pleasure to present this to you, and I think you have some guests here that, uh, we ought to recognize. Yes, yes. Thank you. ... you got the medal. You got it. What we found in, uh, doing that, uh, exercise is that, uh, the savings that could be realized was rather dramatic. Uh, in many cases, 50% or above. And while not compromising quality, but actually gaining quality across the board. So, um, with that, um, we feel like, for the administration moving forward, that, uh, w- we want to, uh, have this catalog and it's currently in PeopleSoft and people can go in there and select what they want to buy, business cards, envelopes or, um, letterhead. Uh, there are two types, uh, white and, uh, ivory color on the stationery and the envelopes. And the, and the business cards across government will be all ivory with a, uh, with a three color, uh, print. They will all look the same. The, uh, the printer has all the specifications and everything, so when someone from, uh, various divisions go over there and, uh, he knows what they should be getting and he prints those things for them on request. So with that, if there's any questions about that process and where we were and where we're trying to go, it's really to save money and standardize stationary, uh, across the various divisions of government. And, uh, Johnny has a PowerPoint, I believe, to sort of show you where we were and, uh, where we're trying to go with this. Thank you, Brian. Uh, I do have a PowerPoint presentation, and to start off I want to make sure that I say that we're not trying to single out any divisions in the offices, any departments for what they are currently using. We're just showing examples of what we are handing out. Uh, here's letterhead designs, various letterhead designs that we're putting out on the street to people. Now, looking through all these letterhead designs, you can see the diversity that we're putting out, the, the diversity of the designs. Here are some of the business cards, and this really kind of accentuates the different, uh, images that we're putting out there. Now, what we're proposing is the new, uh, letterhead package. The letterhead design looks like this. We've got the seal in the upper, uh, center of the design. Underneath, the words Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, the office or the department, which is underneath the, the text of Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. On the flush left is mayor's name, Mayor Jim Newberry. On the flush right is the commissioner and their title underneath that. Second would be the business card. The color's not coming through on this, but I've set that on an ivory background. What we're trying to do is streamline the information, leading the viewer's eye from the most important all the way down. And the text on the bottom, uh, we have room for up to six lines of text. So, if you want your office number, your cell number instead of the fax number, you can put that in there. Uh, following this is, uh, also the envelope design, keeping the seal rather uniform, putting the right align- or the left alignment on the return address and then having space for the addressee. A shipping label's used throughout. I don't believe that, uh, the specifications were put out to bid for this, but this design is, uh, a template that's offered on the R drive. And these, all these designs are available on the R drive for individual employees to pull up, to look at and to use at their personal desks. Are there any questions at this point? Yes, sir. I didn't see anything that represented what the council, uh, stationery's gonna look like. 'Cause you said th- the mayor's name and the, uh, commissioner. We don't have a commissioner, so... Correct. And on here, instead of the commissioner's name, it would be the council member's name. Underneath that would be council member, in your case, uh, Council Member District 4. So, that would be on the, uh, on the right hand side, I'm sorry, on the right hand side. And what are we to do with our present stock of, um, not only that, but the b- I've got enough business cards to last me through, uh, 2027, I think. Well, we want you to keep using those, because that, that's sort of what was mandated in the communication that we sent out. Use up all existing stock first, and then move forward to the new designs. Well, we won't... W- We won't, we won't be, uh, doing any volume business then on the business card at the end of it, I don't think. Council Member Stennet. Now, at the bottom, picking on the back of Council Member Beard, will we have our individual phone numbers? I assume you can plug that in. I don't believe so. I believe all of the busine- or all of the letterhead will be standardized with the header and the footer. And in the, um, the signature block will be space for the individual contact information for division, departments, offices, uh, and individual, uh, people as well. Yeah, I mean, uh, I do business with a lot of companies in the private sector that have standardized stationery and it does save a lot of money, but all the personal data is fillable. It can be printed on there, you know, uh, for instance, some people don't have the main street address here. They're on O. Frankfort Pike or wherever. We can't look at that and develop something that you can fill address, fax number, telephone number, 'cause it is important to have those things on there as well as email, standardized for or personalized for each person. I understand having the standard logo and the position of it. I think it's easy just to fill in the blank on the personal information on a box to the right. Right. Can we do that? That's a decision that's gonna be made by somebody other than myself. And, uh, and, and, and, Brian, go ahead. I was just gonna say that I, I think that Rom and I have had this discussion, and if there are things that the council would like to do differently, he would be willing to work with you all on that, so... Well, I mean, I think it would definitely be prudent to have the same logo at the top, but, you know, being able to personalize it with each department's exact fax number and things is very beneficial across the board, not just council. Um, also, the council does have stationery that has every council member listed on the left for several, uh, memorandums and things we use. Um, probably also wanna look at keeping that. Have you put the RFP out for this yet? Well, it really doesn't require an RFP. It's really a quote because it's gonna be under 20, our expenditures. Because most people in offices print their letterhead on their printers, okay? They don't actually order formalized stationery. So the volume is about the 15 or $16,000 a year. So we have done a formal quote, but we can work with the vendor. We've already been working with the vendor to, to modify the template in whatever way we need to make it work for us all. You're basically just selecting the, the vendor yourselves and- We, yeah, we had 14 responses on it. And, and we went through the pricing and, uh, Business Print America was the best pricing. And so we're, we're now working with them to sort of do any retooling, uh, that needs to be done. Is that here local? Yeah. Up on Short str- West Short Street, so... Okay. Very good. Thank you. And I did wanna say one other thing. It, it's 30%, uh, post-recycled content. All of the items are, so. Mr. Green. Council member Gorton. Thank you, Mayor. Brian, I know that, uh, I was in my office working the day your memo came out, and you received quite a bit of input from council offices on this. I applaud all of you who've worked on it. I think the, the money-saving effort is really well worth it. Mm-hmm. I would advocate, uh, for my personal opinion is it's been very nice to have the legislative body have the entire list of council members. I think that stationery has proven to be, uh, very good over a long number of years. We've used it for a long time, and if we could center up the logo, and of course, at the bottom of, of ours, at least the one I use, the Horse Capital of the World is at the bottom, um, with the address. But I would certainly advocate if other council members were, um, supportive of this to continue to use the full legislative body stationery. Because I think it... When, when people do get a letter from a council member and it's on this stationary, they can look and say, "Okay, I, you know, I know these people on here." Or, you know, two council members may send a joint letter or whatever. So I, I certainly think that would be something that, um, I would support you all including in those templates is, uh, s- you know, what we use now with however you wanted to center up the information at the top and the bottom. Council member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I just would concur with both, uh, Councilman Tennant and Councilman Gordon on both of what they said. All right. All right. That's all the people I have listed. Thank you all very much. And I'd like to thank Johnny because he's done a lot of work just on the layouts and everything. He's been great, so... Thank you all. Thanks very much. All right. Uh, let me ask Harold Tate and Cleet Benkin, one or the other, or both, to, uh, step to the podium. Please. Thank you, Mayor. Um, again, for the record, my name is Clete Benkin. I'm a landscape architect and principal with Kinzel McCline Gossman. I'm representing, uh, Strand Associates today, our consulting partner, um, who was not able to be here. Um, do we have a PowerPoint? Bringing it up? Thank you. Um, and do you have a clicker? Um, uh, three weeks ago, you asked us to come back and, uh, make some clarifications, uh, about several issues related to, uh, the proposed phase one of the Streetscape Project. Um, and in... Before I do that, and before I get into the nitty-gritty details, we had quite a bit of comment from council last time about, uh, not missing an opportunity, um, not becoming prone to incrementalism. And I think those were, um, wise, uh, comments. And, um, and the point is well taken. Um, so I... For the benefit of all concerned, those that weren't here when this master plan was adopted, and for the general public that is viewing and listening in, we felt it would make s- uh, sense to very quickly summarize, uh, how we got started. And I, I will promise to do that as brief as I've ever been, um, about summarizing. And I, I knew I'd get chuckles from some about that. Um, and so what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna talk about some case study examples very quickly. West Palm Beach and Greenville being two that, um, were, have been discussed a lot. Um, we're gonna clarify the, what we, we have said, the consultant team has said about the conversion strategy. And then I'll get into a little bit of the details of the lane configuration alternatives for the various streets. Uh, again, I will move quickly through those. And if you have questions, I can always come back to them. And then lastly, we would like to reaffirm the goals and priorities, uh, as we move forward, and to get clear direction from council on what it is that you want us to pursue. Uh, and, and that will lead, of course, to the recommended next steps. W- when we set out with this, uh, initiative... Um, we of course responded to an RFP that set out these principles, these, these, these big ideas. Um, let's, let's not... Let's, let's make an immediate impact on Lexington's downtown regional and world identity. Let's create great connected urban spaces, let's think about sustainability, let's build excitement for people that are already here and for those that have yet to find out how great Lexington is. And then, uh, not to be, uh, swept under the rug is, well, let's get it funded and let's get it built because, uh, we have heard loud and clear that you are, um, tired of talking about it and you want to see something done and something that, uh, can be done in time to, to show the world that, that you're, you're achieving great things. Um, in terms of great things, um, all of these examples really speak to events and, uh, events were, uh, certainly at the heart of, of, uh, why the city of Atlanta reinvented s- uh, Centennial Park. Um, Chicago obviously makes excellent use of Millennium Park for events, uh, and, um, and festivities. Um, we talked a lot about, um, using streets, uh, better. Um, why do we have to give streets over to traffic? Why can't we make streets more for people, especially in a downtown setting? And we and many of you cited examples from all around the world, not just this country, of how communities get better use out of the pavement in their streets and they use it for people. And some of the examples up there, Chinatown in New York City, and on a smaller scale there's an example from Portland. Um, so we're trying to learn from those lessons. Um, there's some examples of how spaces can be one kind of s- of space by day, but at night, uh, they take on another quality and they can be used for different purposes and they can, frankly, even make a stronger statement about the quality of the city. Um, there's been a lot of talk already, of course, about the games and the clock is ticking over there on the wall, but that is a great, um, uh, reason to, to get ready and to want to get something done, um, now versus waiting. Um, and when we talk about street conversion strategies and, and converting one-way streets to two-way, um, I think it's important to note that you're beginning to do some things that are gonna make it easier to do that in the future or lessening your dependence on the automobile. The downtown circulator, um, the rolling trolley, uh, is gonna make a huge difference. People are gonna be able to leave their vehicles in a parking garage, and at midday rather than climbing into that car and making a trip to wherever, they're gonna be able to take that circulator and quickly and conveniently get to their destination. So, some of the things that you've been planning on doing and some of the things that you're setting in motion are going to have, uh, a real impact on the, on the future capabilities that we have to, uh, to incrementally convert streets. Um, I d- I won't spend a lot of time talking about this, but, um, you know, West Palm Beach, Florida, uh, uh, the vice-mayor mentioned is a great place and, and we certainly concur and agree. Um, uh, and it, and it's interesting when you look at West Palm, they have, they have recognized that they needed to do something and they needed to do something bold, and that's exactly what they did on Clematis Street. And there was a lot of hand-wringing, I'm sure, about, "Should we do it or should we not?" Uh, and at the end of the day they did, and if you were there today, you'd look at Clematis Street and you'd say, "This is a very successful environment." Um, there are those streets that aren't really even commercial streets that they have converted. So even one-way streets that, um, in the before photo on the lower right just looked horrendous. It's not a person-friendly place. I wouldn't set foot on that without, um, without knowing that I wasn't gonna be there very long, but if you look at the after, uh, above, it's completely different. So we're saying, um, we agree with the vice-mayor. Let's, let's not wait. Let's make dramatic transformation. Um, Greenville. Um, Greenville is... I was there last weekend. Um, it is, without a doubt, one of the most beautiful cities in the Southeast. Um, and four years ago, um, a, a large portion of that city was much different than it is today. Um, the slides up there show Falls Park and, um, the historic West End. And, um, it was, uh, a, you know, an industrialized area. It wasn't very people friendly, um, but it has become a magnet for people to come to downtown Greenville, to leave the suburbs, um, and use downtown as a place for recreation and enjoyment, um, not just as a place of business. Uh, and that's really the same idea we have here. Um, the, the slide up there shows the fact that they too, uh, have... Uh, their main commercial street is two-way. The other thing that I, that I found interesting about Greenville in looking at it was, they have one of the same problems that Lexington has, and that is that you've got state routes converging on the downtown. And for a brief, um, uh, s- I guess, what is that? One, two, three, four, five, six or seven block area, they have, uh, the streets split to move through downtown, and that is very similar to what we have happening in Lexington. Um, so thank you for allowing me to just give a little perspective and, uh, and to revisit a little bit of what we've done in the past because I think it brings perspective to what we're about to talk about. And that is, what do we want Main and Vine to be, and what do we want these other, uh, one-way streets to be in the future? Um, and many of them, we have heard, um, have great potential to not be one way in the future. Um, but at the end of the day, um, the future is the future, and we're here and now. We're today. What can we do today? So with that, um, I wanna quickly revisit what we know we can do, because it's well-reasoned, it's been discussed with folks within the urban county government and outside it, with the transportation cabinet. There are multiple stakeholders that go beyond, um, this building. Um, there are, uh, the federal and state agencies that review, uh, the roadway network that serves Lexington. Um, um, we also know that, um, in order to get the consensus of folks internal and outside of the city government, uh, urban county government, um, that we have to, we have to bring the public along. We have to have public support and c- and, um, buy-in for the strategy. And one of the best ways to do that, uh, as many other cities are finding, is to build a track record of success, to take that bold step to convert those first pairs and to show what can be done, so that at some point down the road, you can take even bolder steps. You can do more. But it, you, you want to build a track record of success. Um, it's expensive to take on all of the conversion at once, so phasing is realistic in certainly today's economic climate. Um, and phasing helps, um, build that consensus that we're going to need, that Lexington is going to need, with the transportation cabinet and the Federal Highway Administration. Um, this is just a Google map that shows those state routes that I mentioned converging on the downtown. And it's, uh, it's interesting that New Circle Road, um, dials in almost like a target, how all of those streets converge on Main and Vine. Now, that's different than many cities. It's, in Cincinnati, for example, we, we have a more orthogonal, uh, uh, grid system, 90-degree street arrangement in the downtown, and probably have more flexibility to make change there than you even do in Lexington. Um, I showed you Greenville and, and how their streets also converge on the downtown, and they have a remnant of a one-way pair there, but, but it is off the beaten path of the main street commercial corridor there. Um, so we, we do have, uh, a convergence of streets, we have a convergence of agencies, um, that are, that are, uh, speaking for those streets and the interests of people outside of the urban county government and outside the, the limits of, uh, Lexington proper. Um, I'm gonna move into talking about, um, how each of the proposed alternatives for Main and Vine, in our opinion, make a dramatic transformation in the current quality, safety, and function of Main and Vine. So you, in some ways, can't make a wrong decision. Um, what, what we're proposing is that, um, basically we take what is today a five-lane section and by eliminating the cove parking, the bays of parking, make it a narrower street. The perception of the pedestrian will be that it is a narrower street. In doing so, the sidewalks will become wider. Um, you'll create, as the perspective view shows, and that is, for those that know the street, that's taken in front of Bellinis. And, uh, if you've ever walked, uh, in front of Bellinis on a, on a, on a, a mild evening, when it's nice to be outside, you'll notice that when the chairs and tables are out there, it's pretty congested. And it's difficult, uh, especially if you're in a wheelchair or if you are sight-impaired, to get by that. Now, that's not to say that you, you wouldn't wanna, uh, have sidewalk dining. You do. Um, the, the good news that we can report is that, um, in any of these scenarios, we're making that sidewalk wider. We're increasing the capacity of the street to support the business activities of the property owners that are there. Um, and, um, we're also, in, uh, these configurations, these first two that I'm gonna show you, adding bike mobility into the street. So with that, um, we've quickly, uh, summarized the advantages, or I've sum- uh, I'm, I'm gonna quickly verbalize, uh, the, the summarized advantages. But, uh, number one, um, uh, let's talk about a 44-foot-wide street. Uh, why are we talking about a 44-foot-wide street as an option? Well, um, you know, if we're going to maintain, um, the possibility of, of, of having two-way in the future, this is an option that provides for four lanes. All right? The other options only provide three. Four lanes give us the opportunity in the future to have, um, a center turn lane, a lane moving in each direction, and a right turn lane, in addition to some parking. Um, there's a lot of study and work that needs to go into the detailed design of a two-way configuration. Um, and knowing what we know about where we are today, we're a ways away from being able to make that conversion on Main and Vine. We're gonna talk about other streets where we're not so far away. Um, but a 44-foot-wide street preserves that opportunity for two-way traffic in the future- At -- And in its one-way version, in the one-way, um, uh, form that would be in place when phase one is completed, um, it provides several advantages. It gives the wider sidewalk, provides bike mobility, um, it increases the inventory of on-street parking. And if I'm a downtown merchant, I like the sound of that. Um, that means my customers can be closer to my door, it means I'm buffered along the sidewalk as I'm dining, I don't have moving traffic immediately adjacent to me. Um, the disadvantages are, um, no, there's not two-way traffic, so it's, it's not quite as easy as it would be if it were a two-way street for people to see the storefront. Um, it's a s- it's a modestly narrower sidewalk than, than the option that is in the master plan. Uh, there's a, um, a marginal cost increase, 10%, and we won't know more on that until we get through detailed design. Um, and there could be a lesser traffic calming effect, uh, because it is a slightly wider street than, than the option that was in the master plan. Um, this is what it looks like when it goes to two-way. Um, perhaps the biggest disadvantage of this is the loss of a, of an on-street bike lane. We could do a share-o lane. We haven't gotten into the, the detailed, um, evaluation of having share-the-road bicycle mobility on Main and Vine. W- uh, that, that would come later. Um, and it's not to say that you couldn't move bike mobility off to one of the parallel streets, uh, in the future, whether that's, uh, Short and 2nd or, uh, Maxwell and High. Um, there, there are fewer on-street parking spaces, uh, as you can imagine when you go to two lanes because you're giving away more lanes to turning movements. Um, there's, there's some, a little less space for street trees. There is in, in, in the case study that we looked at between Upper and Limestone, less room for rain gardens. Uh, there's just not quite enough sidewalk width to be able to do a significant water quality improvement, but that's, that's one element. That's not the whole, that's not the whole package of amenities. Um, uh, there, because we are responsible for the city's carbon footprint, CO2 emissions, we do have to look, will have to look at in the future, how we can mitigate an increase in carbon emissions. And a two-way street, um, according to the OnTrans study, will, um, that w- that we mentioned at the last meeting, by the way, uh, will, will, uh, likely, um, have to be looked at, it- well, not likely, will have to be looked at to look at what the impact on CO2 emissions would be. Um, lastly... Oh, went too fast. Um, this is what was in the master plan. Uh, this is a 40 1/2 foot wide section. Um, this really does not have great potential, we don't think, to be a two-way street in the future. Um, so it, um, we, we know more than we did when we issued the master plan, having been authorized to move through detailed design. We'll no doubt learn more as we move from where we are today toward more detailed design for whatever you authorize on Main and Vine. Um, so, um, talked about Main, that was Main. I, and I wanna quickly show you Vine Street. Um, we... The, the upper right image is, uh, looking from the Phoenix building, uh, to the east on Vine Street. And what you're looking over is the location of the Phoenix garage that's there, and this was a, a vision sketch that shows what could be if that single-deck garage wasn't there in the future. But to the right, and I know it's difficult for you to see down there, it shows the floating bike lane concept, where we have three lanes. And in the evenings and in midday, um, we've got parking, uh, on the street. Uh, in the, uh, during drive time, uh, rush hour, uh, you give those parking lanes over to through traffic movements. Um, on the left, this is just a prototypical sketch of what we can do with the increased sidewalk width along the street. Uh, there's generous room for rain gardens, generous room for sidewalk cafes. Room for a promenade that s- can essentially be an extension of the Town Branch Trail. Um, and we have on-street bike lanes. The sketch that is there on the lower right shows the function of the floating bike lane, um, and it shows the amount of space that you have along the sidewalk, and that that space is really, uh, space that can be used for economic development. Sidewalk cafes, um, and street activities, um, promote economic development. They promote reinvestment in the downtown. Um, South Limestone, um, has been the, the, the schemes that we have presented here to date show the potential for that street to be one way today, two way in the future. Um, it's designed to, in the one-way configuration have, uh, one way, uh, on-street dedicated bike lane. Uh, we would have to be able to make that work coming down Upper Street, but we believe that's possible. Um, there's, uh, ample room in compressing the street as we're doing. Uh, we're, we're picking up about four feet by moving the curb in. Um, we're able to do that because, uh, the lanes are, uh, uh, wider than they need to be, uh, on a portion of South Limestone. So we're, so we're able to pull them in. North of Maxwell, um, we've proposed a modest widening of those properties, as those properties redevelop, um, so that we can bring some of the same amenities that we have proposed on Main and Vine to the Limestone corridor. Um, this is what it would look like in the f- in the future two-way scenario. Um, there's a, there's a dedicated, um, or there's a turn lane that's in the center, uh, that helps with some of the movements into what would no doubt be parking garages in the future and surface lots that are there today. Um, um, y- you'll notice in the disadvantages that we state uncertainty. Um, obviously there's uncertainty because we're not doing traffic modeling for this two-way scenario right now. So there's, again, work to be done and, and we'll talk about that in a second. Um, so what do we need to do? Uh, what we need to do is w- we need to, uh, hopefully come away from this work session with a read from council on what it is you want us to do. What are your preferred, um, what's your preferred approach to this? Um, we are in the process of completing a synchro model, it's a traffic model, for Main and Vine. We actually had a meeting with staff yesterday. Um, I was not there, but I w- it was reported to me from our traffic consultant, Strand, that there are no deal killers. That this idea of a floating bike lane, um, will require some work to make sure that we work the kinks out, that we can, uh, maintain the level of service that, uh, the transportation cabinet will require us to maintain. But that it is looking good that we can, that we can work with them and work with the city's, uh, traffic planning staff to make sure that we're not making a negative impact on the function of the downtown street network. Um, we have been conducting, uh, stakeholder meetings all along. There was a, a stakeholder meeting a- about a week ago on North Limestone. We're gonna continue to do those. Uh, we'll have, uh, additional public engagement as we move through all the phases of the design process. Um, at the end of the day, we're gonna have to come back to you for authorization. Um, uh, so w- we're here today, again, asking for some clarification from you so that when we come back, we've got schemes that, that reflect your, your intentions and wishes. Um, and we've already talked about the need for state and federal approvals. Um, this was, uh, uh, the mandate to us to come back with some idea of what the benchmarks are for conversion. And we've used the term benchmarks because frankly it's difficult to put a timeline on some of these things. Some it's easier to put a timeline on than others. Um, so, uh, I can't give you dates for all, but I can, I can give you a summary of what, uh, folks from our consulting team, uh, Strand Associates, uh, as our engineering consultant traffic, um, planning consultant, have provided. Um, and I can let you know that we have worked with, uh, Max Conyers from the MPO, we've worked with folks inside the traffic division of LFUCG, and we have shared and have been in ongoing discussion with, uh, um, the transportation cabinet here locally at the, at the district level. Um, the transportation cabinet, uh, is still reviewing these very items that I have up in front of you. We hope to get some feedback from them, uh, in the near future. Um, they're probably hoping to get really some direction from you all. Um, you know, they, they'd like to know what, what is council thinking about this? Um, and I think, uh, I, I think we can help them, um, as you respond to what you wanna see happen. But, um, again, to, to bring it back to center, um, these are well-reasoned benchmarks. It's a well-reasoned approach. Um, and Urban County Government staff have, have provided feedback on this and we feel comfortable showing it and stating it that way today. Um, I will quickly list them off. Number one, um, we already know that it's very possible, and there are, by the way, there are representatives from, or have been, I've seen them come in and out, from the Western Suburbs neighborhood, that, um, really support the notion of converting Short and 2nd. Um, we know from talking with staff that it is possible to do that this year. So if you wanna make a statement, that's something we can say right now. Let's do it. We can make it. And it can become a case study example, a success story for how that conversion can work. Um, now assuming that you all agree with that and, and that we pull the trigger and do that, the next step is, okay, what's next? Well, what's next is, um, really to get council to say, "This is what we wanna do. We wanna, we wanna use this approach that's been recommended, this incremental approach, or we don't." Um, if, if you do, um, we would want to engage, and staff recommends that we engage the MPO Transportation Policy Committee, um, to look at congestion management issues, um, and that, you know, there's experts in that field, folks that know what the implications of traffic movements are on, uh, the carbon footprint, on, um, on quality, air quality. Um, uh, not just, not just traffic function and traffic flow. Um, we certainly wanna initiate policy discussions with the transportation cabinet and the Federal Highway Administration, um, and we wanna identify, uh, critical needs that maybe they have that we're not thinking of at the moment. Um, but we already know that, uh, the, the completion, the incremental completion of the Newtown Pike extension is important. Um, the, the section, uh, that will be completed first moving from, um, Main to Versailles Road, uh, will have a, a s- a real impact. Um, and having that section completed will make it possible to do more downstream. Um, uh, there's work being done on New Circle Road right now in ap- in, in improving the, uh, capacity of that roadway. Um, what happens with the transit center has an impact on travel demand for Main and Vine and what we can do there. So, all of those things play into the timing, uh, of, of the conversion of all of these streets. Um, certainly from all of the play that this discussion, one-way versus two-way, has received in the papers and in blogs and in emails suggest that there needs to be, and it was discussed last week, some public discussion about it. Um, you know, what do we want to do? Um, so that your phones, um, aren't ringing off the hook with angry callers that don't understand what's going on. So again, some of that will go away as you show a track record of success. You know, you've got people from the western suburbs that are ready to support, um, the conversion of Short and 2nd. And, you know, they're willing to be the case study. Sh- you know, they're willing to s- to, to see the consequences of that and they, they welcome it. So, let's, let's let them lead by example and let's see what happens. Um, these are looking at the pairs. Uh, Short and 2nd, Limestone and Upper, High and Maxwell were presented in the master plan as the logical progression. Let's start with that one. Short and 2nd could be done and converted by the end of this year. Um, Limestone and Upper, uh, more complicated, uh, more moving parts, um, but it seems logical that those would be the next pair. Um, the, the benchmarks, uh, um, certainly are probably the, for, for Limestone and Upper and it's not stated up there, but we're assuming that we need to get the section of Newtown Pike completed over to Versailles Road. High and Maxwell, um, by the time you get to that, uh, there's more work that has to be done. The Newtike- Newtown Pike con- extension, um, probably has to be completed completely, um, and of course, as it states in all of those, we've gotta work with the Federal Highway Administration and the Transportation Cabinet, and there may be other benchmarks that we uncover. Main and Vine. Um, Main and Vine, um, have been a rallying cry of late. Um, you know, folks, folks are saying, you know, "Let's, let's not miss an opportunity to make downtown stronger today and in the future." Um, we think that the strategy that we presented does that. We believe strongly that, um, taking an incremental approach and installing the improvements as we propose them immediately makes Main and Vine better streets for Lexington. Increases the quality of the environment, increase- i- increases the, uh, the function, uh, and safety of those streets and sidewalks, and, um, frankly, it's a strategy that's embraced by, um, the folks that have been involved in the development of the master plan, the Streetscape Master Plan, and the folks that we've been talking to at both the city and, uh, and state level. Um, but it requires that we get direction from you on, do you agree with that? Do we wanna take this incremental approach? Um, in terms of the cost of doing it, if we were to employ the 44-foot wide section that we think has the best potential of the alternatives which have been considered to be two-way in the future, you'll see that in, I guess you don't see because it's difficult to read from there, but you'll see that it, it's, uh, relatively, um, modest increase in the total budget. And if we can be smart with, um, keeping an eye toward value engineering along the way, that, um, it's not a dramatic increase in the cost and we might be even able to, to level it out as we move forward through this. So, I guess what we're saying as consultants that we know that you have to be responsible with, with the use of public funds, but in light of the opportunities, um, that is not a huge factor or should not be a huge factor in your decision. Um, so back to what we established, uh, and presented to you, and what you, this body, adopted, um, in, uh, August of last year was the short-term goal of improving Main and Vine whereas they would be one way when they were completed before the games, uh, in July of 2010. Uh, we would like to, uh, proceed with the design of the Oldho- Courthouse Square area and Cheapside Park. Um, we would like to look at South Limestone corridor, uh, and evaluate what we can do along North Limestone. Uh, we would look at the conversion of Short and 2nd immediately, um, with the idea that it would be completed this year. So, again, just for those that weren't on this, um, panel on this body, uh, last year, that was, that was the recommendation. Um, assuming that we're on course with that and that you agree with that strategy, uh, we would, um, we are proposing to complete the sinker model that hopefully will be done, uh, within the month. Um, we will, uh, then be in a position to apply for state permits. Um, we would then ask for, um, uh, authorization to complete the curb, sidewalk, and utility work. Noticed I didn't say lane configuration. We can employ these improvements without having to have final determination on what the lane configuration is because we're designing a street that handles the demand that's there today. So we're not putting the city at risk of having something that doesn't work. As a matter of fact, because we've looked at the 44-foot wide section, we know it puts you in the best position to have something that works in the future as well as something that works today. Um, you have time to make determinations, um, that, that make an even, uh, perhaps bigger impact. And, uh, you know, if, if it's the public's desire, if it's your desire to have Main and Vine be two-way someday, we're not closing out that possibility. ... but we strongly recommend and strongly advise this body to take that incremental approach, build that track record of success, so that you maintain that option, so that you build support, so that you build a bridge, uh, for what you wanna do in the future. Uh, with that, I'll be happy to take any questions or comments. I think Coun- Councilmember Gorton, uh, what, Councilmember Meyers, I've got you- you on the list, but I'm not sure ... Okay, Councilmember Gorton. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much, Cleet. Uh, good to see you again. There's some really exciting, uh, stuff in here. Um, and I appreciate your coming back with this information. So, um, I'm real hopeful that we can move forward on this. I had a couple questions. Did you say you would give us a copy of the cost estimates? I know it wasn't in the packet. Yes, I have copies. You have copies of that? Okay. I, I was curious about several of your points were contingent upon the completion of the Newtown Pike extension or portions of it. Um, and I'm not sure today what the... I'm looking at Commissioner Webb. Do you know today what the estimate is for when it'll be finished and when the Versailles Road segment will be finished? Have you- I, I can help. Do you know that, Mike? I'm not sure on the completion of the- Okay. ... entire project. Right. Yeah, I've got that. It's 2014. 2014 is the entire project? Right. And the projection on the part from Main Street to, uh, Versailles Road is, uh, 2010. And has that ... I'll ask the mayor this question. And has that changed at all in terms of funding that we know of at this point? Yes. I thought it had. The last pie- well, the last piece I mentioned, the piece from Main Street to Versailles Road has just been identified by the state in, uh, the road plan that was adopted. It either is adopted or just about to be adopted in Frankfurt, and, uh, there's approximately 11 million dollars that's been made available for what's known as the phase four piece from Main Street to Versailles Road. Okay, good. I, I knew it ... Just to clin- uh, to Cleet's, um, various slides that were dependent on the Newtown Pike extension, that sort of, some of that sort of boxes this in a little bit, but what's your thinking on that in terms of- Um, you know, I, I- ... moving forward? ... I, I, I wish Mike Woolem was here to answer that directly, but I will p- paraphrase what discussion we had coming down the road, because I asked that very question, and I kinda thought- Good. ... that might come up. Um, if you're looking at Short and 2nd, it doesn't have any impact on that. We can do that now. Um, Limestone is where it begins to become a concern, and I asked, you know, Mike, "All right, what about completing all of Limestone? Does that have to happen?" Um, I don't think either he or I could give a definitive answer that it only has to be completed to Versailles Road. But our understanding from talking with Urban County government staff, and our understanding with what Mike knows about the model for Main and Vine, is that if that's completed and when, n- not if, when that's completed, that will allow for the diversion of traffic that currently uses that corridor. So we're talking about bleeding off some of the trip demand that currently has to use Limestone and Upper, because they have an alternative route to the university to and fro downtown. So it's an incremental improvement, and at such time that that is completed, be in a b- better position to say, "Okay, here's what the counts are at those intersections. Here's the exact impact that it's had," and it'd be a good time to revisit that question. You know, what, what now can we do with Limestone now that we know what happened and what occurred, and we have some data for that? So, ag- that really is a great example for how we would look at each of those conversions. Mm-hmm. Okay. We're doing an improvement. The circulator, my understanding will be working and in place by then. What kind of impact will that have? Um, it might be substantial. Mm-hmm. Well, I appreciate that, because I, uh, uh, it seems like a long time to wait till 2014 for some of this. So I really, um, I lo- I like what I've seen here, and I'll look forward to seeing your cost estimates and, um, appreciate your being here. Thank you. Thank you. I'm, I meant to mention this before I, um, recognized Councilmember Gorton and just failed to do so. I have four people, four members of the public who've indicated a desire to speak to the council on this issue. Would you rather do that now or after the completion of the questions for Cleet? Any preference? All right. Let's, if, if, if there's no objection, let's go ahead and I think some of these folks may have already left. Uh, the first one on the list is Van Meter Petit. All right. Gary Reading? Redding, I'm sorry. Mr. Redding, if you'll step to the podium, you'll have three minutes. Uh, I just was here to, uh, plead with you to please move. I'm, I'm growing old during these discussions. Uh, I, um, I've been living on, living on 2nd Street, uh, since the early 1970s. Uh, I vaguely remember when it was two ways, uh, and it was fine. I've always opposed it being one way. I, I'd like to be able to make a choice when I leave my driveway. Uh, ten, ten years ago now, I opened a business on Short Street and which is, uh, uh, many times, uh, made me realize the importance of having two-way there. Just giving directions to people in our own suburbs who don't know how to come downtown, uh, is a nightmare, as you can imagine. I don't need, I know I don't need to tell you all of these things, but please, on Second and Short Streets, let's do it this year. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Redding. Uh, next is Wendy Roland. Ms. Roland, if you'll step to the podium, and then Travis Jones. Mr. Jones? All right. Thank you, um, I, I'm very excited about the idea of two-way streets downtown. Um, I think that the most important one for me is Vine Street because it's such a blighted area, and, uh, the thought that it might be till 2014 is dismaying. Um, anyway, I hope you will do whatever you can to speed the whole process along and get us two-way streets, just to help revive downtown. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Roland. And Mr., Mr. Jones is not here? All right. Then we'll go back to the council list. Uh, uh, does anybody else wish to address issue with the council? All right, uh, Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Cleet, maybe, or Harold, pr- probably Cleet in, in this case, um, I've heard some concern about two-way when Upper and Limestone go two-way and Main Street goes two-way. As far as handling f- heavy truck traffic, which isn't supposed to be there, but it is on occasion, and fire engines not being able to make a turn during any kind of high traffic area because, ah, they, they need more than one lane from one lane to get a fire engine around the corner. Uh, will your model take any of this into consideration? Um, the, the model that we're completing right now is for the Main and Vine network, and it's really limited to looking at the, the floating bike lane and the non-parking proposal. Um, in that, um, th- the other, the other benchmarks haven't occurred, uh, and it's really premature for us to look at that model, uh, as a two-way. Along Limestone, uh, we have talked with the, the consultant that is doing the Limestone multimodal study. We've asked them, as part of their study, to look at the issue that you brought up with emergency vehicle access. Um, we think there's a solution, uh, in that we have this on-street dedicated bike lane, which provides the ability for a car to pull over and, and get out of the way of an emergency vehicle. So, we don't think that's an issue, but we've asked them to confirm that as they complete that study. And then, uh, second part of the question, and this involves Main Street, but could involve any of them, um, if you're two-way, from two-way to two-way, are you gonna have turn lanes at all or are you gonna have turn lanes both ways? And isn't that gonna eat up three lanes? Uh, yes. Yes and yes. Yes and yes. Okay. Um, did everybody get the yes and yes ? I did. Um, and then I'm not sure about Maxwell. I, y- you were talking about r- expanding the right of way. Uh, my grandmother used to live on Maxwell Street between, uh, Li- Lime and, and, and Rose, and, uh, I could easily spit from her front porch into the middle of, uh, of, uh, Maxwell Street. So, I'm not sure that, uh, on the north side of Maxwell Street, there's a lot, a lot to play with. Yeah. And- I, I'm, I'm sorry. I may have been unclear. Um, we were talking about Limestone north of Maxwell, and, and we're talking about there's, um, several properties that are there. Um, the good news is, is that, uh, until you get to very near High Street, most of those properties have sufficient front yard space that you could move the curb over, create the additional space. Certainly have to have willing property owners to be able to do that, and that was what I was referring to. Okay. Thank you very much. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. Clete, uh, really appreciate not, not only the work that you and your group have, uh, have done on, on, on this project, but also your, your enthusiasm for it. And, and, uh, we, we all, I think, really appreciate the, uh, the energy and the thought that, that have, have gone into this. I'll just say one thing on behalf of a couple of streets in, in, in my district and in the neighborhood that the neighbors have really, uh, recreated, and that i- that is So-, uh, uh, uh, Short and, and, and Second. And, and I can, I can, uh, I've heard Mr. Redding's story from any number of residents of those two streets. And as you know, the, the neighborhood, and as you've said, uh, uh, is, is ex- extremely enthusiastic about the prospect of, of, of, of, of twinning those , those streets, converting them I should say, um, and, and bringing, bringing a measure of traffic calming, of safety, uh, uh, of aesthetic improvement, uh, and, and it, and we can do this, this year, and I, and I'm, I, I hope that, that, uh, uh, we will, we will follow through and, and get that, get that done and, and, and, uh, make that a model for, for how we can change our downtown. Thanks again. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I- it would be great for Lexington to feel more like a small town than it does. Uh, I've gotten a lot of calls, uh, talked to folks about w- whether some of the changes were contemplated would, would, uh, basically turn Lexington into gridlock, particularly with Main and Vine, possibly High Street and Maxwell. Uh, I'm, I'm concerned whether we know whether or not the conversions, all the conversions we're considering, I think, uh, I, I think High Street ... Excuse me, I think, um, 2nd and Short, that sounds very easy to do, but some of the other ones I'm concerned about whether we know whether or not it's gonna encourage people to come town- downtown or discourage them to come downtown. People are tired of bad traffic in Lexington. Th- I, I can tell you, they really, really are. And I don't wanna be one to vote on something that's gonna make our bad traffic worse. And so I, I, I'm, I think we need to, to air this out a little bit. I don't wanna slow it down because I think it sounds ... It's a very exciting thing, but we need to get our brightest minds on it and y- I, I, I'm, I'm very impressed with y'all's presentation, but there may be other opinions th- than y'all's and we, I think we need our brightest minds on this 'cause if we miss, we're gonna shut down downtown Lexington. Uh- Well, I, I, we, I think, Councilman, we can, we can answer that by saying conveniently not putting you in that position to have to make that vote today. Where, where the strategy, um, first of all is designed to actually remove restrictions to traffic flow over time, to take restricted turning movement intersections and turn them into full turning movement intersections so that folks have many more potential routes to get to a destination within the downtown. That's the, the science behind a conversion strategy. Um, and I think it's difficult for the, a layperson, and frankly, traffic engineer I'm not, so I'm doing a lot of summarizing and reporting on what the, the real experts have to say about it. But, um, this conversion strategy opens up more routes to get to my destination. So, if there is congestion on a street, I've got another route to get to that street. The other, the other wisdom of the strategy is we're gonna do the easy ones first and we're gonna look at the evaluation and see how that went so that your phone doesn't ring, your constituency doesn't call and say, "You caused me to have gridlock and you caused me to miss a meeting." So, we're gonna do it onesie twosy, get the first two out of the way and then start moving onto the second one and get those done so that the general public can see that it didn't cause gridlock, it didn't cause them to lose an economic opportunity, which most people are pretty sensitive to these days. Uh, time is money, but money is money too. So, um, I think, I think the strategy, if you simply support it, is built to build consensus. It's built to make sure that, frankly, there's public support because we're not asking you to do it with the stroke of a pen right now. We're giving you the ability to do it with the stroke of a pen, if you choose, um, but frankly, it's gonna be more difficult to build consensus if we try to, to wave a magic wand and make it happen, um, universally today. Nor would we today. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I just have a couple of questions. Uh, I, I've had some of the same complaints. My constituents have called and said, "If I want to go through traffic from the East end to the West end, it's gonna take me twice as long to get there." Um, and so they're very concerned about that. Is there any way that we can, um, reserve one, one of those routes as a one-way route in each direction? Well, I, I, I guess it's premature to, to even talk about that in, in that it's a good question and, and if, you know, if I didn't know what I now know today, I would say, "Gee, that's something we should consider." But the idea is by actually opening up more routes, opening up more routes, allowing people more options to get to a destination, that you're decreasing travel time. So, you know, it will be born out over time how that will work. Um, so I, I think the idea is we'll just have to wait and see. Okay. Um, and when you respond to your constituents, that's the answer I would give. Um, another question just for my own information. Uh, I didn't get the slide on the Vine Street, which had the, the lane widths and all that. So, it just occurred to me, what is the current lane width? Or what's the current width of Main Street? Do you know? Uh, yeah. Main Street is f- is 40 and a half feet wide today at the intersections. That's why we had that brilliant strategy to have a 40 and a half foot wide section originally. Okay. And it has four lanes? It has, uh, three lanes- Three lanes. ... of northbound or of east, uh, yeah. Okay. Eastbound. Westbound. Directionally challenged. Okay. Um, the s- main ... And you asked about Vine. Vine is approximately 68 feet today, uh, at the mid-blocks. What it is at the intersections varies with each intersection. Um, but we'd be looking at having four lanes of traffic, so it'd go from 68 mid-block to 44. Uh ... And are you projecting a speed limit at this point? We, we'd have to work through, um, the, the traffic model and we'd have to work with both the transportation cabinet and staff to, to arrive at that. But, um- ... w- we are hoping actually to have a calming effect with any of these schemes. Right now, as you well know, Vine Street is a bit of a racetrack- Mm-hmm. ... at certain times of the day. So you want, uh, you're, you're striving for a calming effect, which means slowing the traffic down. Correct? Yeah. Safe to say. Yeah. All right. Thank you. That's all the questions I have. Council member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Cleet, for coming back at the, at the request that I made a couple weeks ago and I, I think that we've, we've struck a chord not only, uh, amongst ourselves, uh, but the last time you were here and, and the vigorous debate that, that the, uh, subsequent articles and blogs and so forth that, that this generated in a positive fashion, uh, I think are a testament to this pent-up demand. And I wanna go back and address a couple things, uh, very specifically. You know, last meeting we talked about, uh, public input, what does the public have to say and so forth, and I think it's important to re- remind folks that during the 2006 master plan, uh, that there were hundreds and hundreds of people involved giving thousands of hours and it kept coming out, two-way streets, convert all your one-ways to two-ways. That was recommendation number three, uh, o- of that report. And what's interesting about that recommendation was it talked about a phase conversion, which is what you're talking about, doing it in pairs, um, and the reason why is because one-way streets provide, uh, produce higher speeds that are totally detrimental to the pedestrian mobility and traffic and if you look at, at Vine Street and people trying to cross to go to the transit center, that's, that's the only place you have to look for that. But this negative impact on retail and I know for a fact we've lost multiple opportunities for grocery stores in downtown because of two-way streets. So it is having an economic imp- uh, detrimental economic impact on us in our current form. And let me just go on the record and say this is a 30-year, let's say 35-year experiment of urban renewal that has failed. Uh, it has chased people out of downtown. It's failed all over the country. It's failed here. So, um, partly, I'm, I'm of the mindset of let's be about doing. But I've got a, a couple of clarification questions for you, if that's okay. You showed a couple of options. You showed a 40 1/2 foot option and a 44 foot option, but I was a part of that RFP, um, not selection, but, but I was very specific about asking them to put in to the scope of work that it had to be designed in a way that could handle two-way traffic someday if it, if someone chose. And what you're saying to me is is that the only one of those two options is the 44-foot option. Is that correct? Uh, based on what we know, that's, that's our opinion today. Okay. So, so the 40 1/2 foot option doesn't give you any latitude to do that, so based on the RFP and what we said, this is what we are wanting from the scope of work, that's really the only one that we as a council really can ask for a detailed study of. Uh, legitimately, logically, I mean, obviously we can do whatever we like, but- I, I, I think that is well-reasoned, yes. Okay. Um, the cost of, of doing 2nd and Short. I know you had said you got cost estimates and stuff. Is, do you know that- Don't- ... off the top of your head? We don't have it. I, I would, I would s- um, say that it, it's, you know, we're, we're just gonna have to work through staff to get it. It does not, because we don't have to have signalized intersections along all of those intersections, it's going to be, uh, relatively less than it would be on any of the other two-way network. Okay. All right. Or one-way network. Well, you know, in one of the other comments about coming from, through downtown, and I'm gonna, I pointed this out the last time you were here, I'm gonna point it out again. When you did the, the modeling, the traffic modeling, and it showed what the, uh, extra travel time would be from one end of downtown to the next, it ended up being roughly 120 seconds. Correct? Entran did the modeling and, and, and I, I hear what you're saying and agree that when you're talking about seconds and, uh, it's presented as percentage increase, it can be misleading. Yeah. And, and that's, that's just it. When somebody hears it's gonna cost 30 extra m- uh, percent time through, you know, immediately your mind starts working to a California highway. Uh, and what we're talking about is, is, uh, shorter time frames because you want downtown Lexington to be more pedestrian-friendly. So given all those things, I, I'm, I'm prepared to make a couple of motions, uh, today because, again, we can talk all day long about this and we can pontificate about how great it would be and this and that and the other, but, but it, let's go ahead and do. And, and so, um, what I wanna do is, uh, start with the easiest one. I, I wanna make a motion that this body adopts, um, your, your benchmarks that you showed us today as our benchmarks. Uh, something as simple as that. So with that I, I move that- Second. ... we, we accept those as the conversions, uh, the, the conversion sequencing, the benchmarks, that those become our benchmarks. We've, we've already got a second. The motion was made by, uh, Council Member McCord and seconded by Council Member Meyers to adopt the benchmarks. I, I think the most appropriate way to proceed is for us to put a resolution on the docket for consideration in order to formalize that. That'd be fine. So the motion is to, um, amend the docket by adding a resolution confirming adopting the benchmarks. All right. Any discussion? Pardon me. We've got... Okay, we've got several here. I'll take names on this one, so we'll start with Council Member Gorton and then Council Member Beard and- others. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, will you be giving us cost estimates before any of this comes for a final vote? Um, I have in my packet, maybe Diane can help, we can distribute those now if you like. Uh- I, I think it might be good timing. I appreciate it. Thank you. Welcome. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Um, are we talking about Thursday night's docket or are we talking about- ... two weeks and two days from now? Uh, I was thinkin' in terms of Thursday night docket myself, but there is the m- the motion-maker over there, so. I ... Let's go. W- um, well, I- I really would like to have a little time, to tell you the truth, um. I- I ... A- as far as your suggestion to, to uh, a- accept this as a benchmark, uh, that, that doesn't bother me at all. I just don't wanna, uh, do a rush to judgment, by any means. Happily, I've gotten, I've gotten this now, and then this, uh, this will help me. But, um, um, I would pr- I would prefer we waited a couple of weeks, myself, so that we had time to, to flesh it out and, and talk through it. Um. Th- this is all kind of, uh, k- kind of new. It's old and new at the same time. Well, and that also ... Mayor, we, if, if we walk it on for Thursday night, that's just a first reading and that gives us two weeks to, to look through this before it's even second reading. And that's correct, that's fine. That's fine. All right. Further discussion on Council Member McCord's motion? Then, Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. Um, we, we were just handed out, I guess, the benchmarks, so I, um, you know, if there's a way to get these to us in advance and put in, put 'em in our box, that'd be great to gal us a little bit of time to sort of absorb this. It's a lot of information that comes through here. Thank you, Mayor. I- I'm, I must confess to being a little confused right now. Do these benchmarks relate to what was previously- Yeah. It's, it's the summary on the, on the screen. These are the ... It's the same text. So what we're talking about is this document, as opposed to what was on the screen. Sh- it, it's the same. It's, the, the, the text is the same, Mayor. Okay. Council Member James. Uh, it, within the, um, within the presentation, it did say that this would be provided. I- in a packet that we received, they were still working on the benchmarks, so I would ask, Council Member McCord, would you, would you be okay with maybe not making it for this Thursday and give some, give people time to, to look at it a little bit, since we just now got it? Well, let's do this. I'm gonna make the motion that we walk it on Thursday and if it fails, then we'll, we'll go another route. Bingo. Thank you. Any further, further discussion? Council Member Beard. Th- thank you, Mayor. The- these, uh, cost estimates don't include, uh, Shorten and Second Street. So, what are we talking about? Well, we- we'll have to come back at a later date with that. We just, we're, that's not something that we're, um, we're ready to, to give today. But, as I mentioned, when the question came up previously, we're, we're not talking about dramatic increase in cost, because- No, I- ... of the, the fact that the intersections- Well, we aren't, right now, we aren't talking about any costs. Right. 'Cause it's just there, so it's gon- it'll be incremental costs of some sort- Mm-hmm. ... I would think. Um, but that's the first one we're talking about doing. So, I don't guess I can accept the benchmark at this point un- until we know what the numbers are. So I, whether we, whether we do it, uh, walk it on for, uh, two days from now or wait another two weeks until I get the numbers, I can't support it. Thank you. Other discussion on Council Member McCord's motion? Council Member Gordon. Just to comment on that, um, when we can, is there anyone in the room who remembers what it cost to convert Third and Fourth? 'Cause it might be similar. Do you, do you know that, Mike Webb? No, I don't. But what I wanted to say, I got up to answer Council Member Beard's request. Uh, I have asked traffic to assemble an estimate of the cost. I don't recall what that number is, but I have it in an email. And w- we, we have, are working on a list of stakeholders to get together to do some preliminary work on that now. And, and that was one of the first things I did, was ask for that cost. So, Thursday evening, I could have that available for you. Well, my, my question about Short and Second, since we do wanna do that first, if we're gonna do this, um, the, I know that the signals have to, it has to be re-signalized and that is a substantial expense. Mm-hmm. Um, and so, I would favor what Council Member James was suggesting, that we not walk it on day after tomorrow, but that we look at it in the future, so, uh, the, at the next meeting. So if you could get the cost estimates to us, uh, about, for Short and Second- Okay. ... I would appreciate it. Any further discussion on Council Member McCord's motion? 'Kay. As it stands, the motion is to walk on a resolution ... Pardon me. Council Member Feigel. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I think what you're trying, what you're suggesting that we approve tonight is th- this handout that just came out, correct? And it says, "The Council resolution to authorize a feasibility study for the street conversion initiative." Uh, certainly that needs to be done. But we don't have a cost estimate for that. And even, I mean, just the study alone needs to be considered before we move forward with anything else. Let me, let me clarify my motion. My motion is that we adopt this as the benchmarks for moving forward. Nothing more. Doesn't say that we, we have to start doing 2nd and Short tomorrow, that this document is the document we go by, is what we would do, when we do it. That's all my motion is. Okay, so that... So you're not really asking us to approve and begin going through these benchmarks? No. This... I'm just saying that what was presented today becomes our benchmarks. This is the roadmap we work off of, uh, and then all that other information that we keep talking about is, is fleshed in as we go, as we wanna move forward. So this is basically just a working document. This is- That's it. You're just accepting a working, working document. Correct. Okay, thank you. Council member Gordon. Uh, thank you, Mayor. That kind of went to what I was gonna say, 'cause number one benchmark is, "Begin design and permitting for Short and 2nd Street." Well, we don't know how much that's gonna cost, so you're not saying actually do the benchmarks. No. You're saying- I, I'm saying this becomes our roadmap. This is our working... Yes. So we're not approving these benchmarks. All we're approving is that this would be the order that we'd work in. This is a document that we're going to accept to work off of as we consider this two-way conversion. After we've discussed cost and whether we're gonna move forward. Is that- Exactly. Yep. I- i- if I may- Yes, Cleet. Um, Councilman Gordon, um, there, there are two things that, that I think it's important to note. Number one is, this is in response to Councilman McCord's request for knowing what the benchmarks are to convert the one-ways to two-way. This is different than what we have proposed that we do as part of phase one, and that is to take the first step to convert these streets to better, more pedestrian-friendly, improved streets and sidewalks for the complea- for the phase one deadline. So two separate things, but I think it's important to note that we would like, and the administration, frankly, would like to come away from this discussion tonight with consensus for, what are we going to do? Are we going to design Main and Vine and Limestone and Upper to have the potential to be two-way in the future, but to immediately be better streets today? Um, now, we're not committing you to the funding it. We're saying, "Allow us to design it, allow us to uncover all the cost issues, allow us to uncover the engineering issues, allow us to get to that next step." That's what's really important in our timeline right now. And, and maybe there should be another motion around that, that is separate from the two-way conversion strategy. Mm-hmm. Well, I'm, I'm very supportive of, actually, of this, uh, but I just heard you say, uh, are you already paid to design it? So you said we wouldn't need to fund anything, so are you- Well, it, it, it... The question is, we have an agreement with the Irwin County government on, on compensation for what we do. Mm-hmm. What we need clarity on is, okay, we've got a 40 and a half foot wide option, we've got a 44 foot wide option. We've recommended that we be authorized to move forward, if you wanna have the possibility of having two-way in the future, the design of a 44-foot wide option. So if nothing else, we'd like to come away from this meeting tonight with some clarity from you all on what you wanna see happen in that regard. I, I think some of the confusion is that the benchmarks include things that are funding-related. Uh, you know, once, and once you get into permitting in any of this, then you're pretty much committed unless you wanna give up your, what you've put into it. So I'm very supportive of this as long as it's viewed simply as a concept until we can see the funding, you know, the costs of, uh, Short, and, and I hope we can do Short and 2nd this year. I think that would be a great thing as a start. So, um, I appreciate your insight. All right, let me see here. We're still talking on Council Member McCord's motion, Vice Mayor Gray, then Council Member- Yeah. ... Feagl. I promise I'll not talk a whole lot 'cause everybody's bridge stroke out, I think. Uh, but that's, that's lifting Council Member's Crosby's language. Um, I've lived the downtown now, gosh, longer than I wanna remember, 22 years. I'm kinda like my neighbor down there, Jay Redding, and I've lived between 2nd and 3rd Street for 22 years. I've seen 3rd Street change. It went to one way, it went back to two way. I've seen 2nd Street change between Upper and Limestone and other streets, and it was no big deal, okay? Yeah. Only reason I'm saying that is this, this little deal here is no big deal. All that Jay is asking for is... I think, and we've not agreed on everything, but, Lordy, this is no big deal, really. This is just, like he said, a road ma- uh, uh, uh, huh? Outline, outline, roadmap, lots of words to describe it. And I, I think Mike said that, you know, we can get numbers on. So that's probably not a big deal either. Um, to get the numbers, it's certainly a responsible question, what it's gonna cost to change 'em, although... A- and we can get that pretty quick. We can get that pretty quickly, but I still don't think that we're jumping the gun on anything right now by... ... my sense of it that we're not jumping the gun. Council member Fico? Thank you, Mayor. One last question. If we vote on this today, then does this tell you, "Go," on number one? Does this say, "Go out and do a design?" Uh, well, the first resolution, uh, yes, it would do that. Council member McCord's resolution would tell us that t- frankly, to do some of what's already been done. We- we- we do... I- if we have cost estimates, obviously traffic has some idea of, of the design implication of that. So when you leave here today, you'll begin work on number one? Yeah. And, and, and w- heretofore, we have not been involved in that. That's a little bit easier to understand, a little less controversial, and traffic's already got that. What... T- Councilwoman, to your, to your point, our, our, our need is to have clarity on Main and Vine, um, because of the concern that you all have voiced about having that potential to convert it to two-lane in the future. I wanna take just a little bit of a stab at, at clarifying some confusion here. The impetus for this conversation to begin with is with a view towards trying to do the streetscape stuff that has been discussed lately. Now, one of the considerations there is, do we want to do the streetscapes now, ASAP, so that we can have those finished hopefully by the early to middle part of 2010? And one of the key considerations in that decision is, do we make the streets narrower or wider? If we make the streets wider, we maintain the option on down the pike after we go through all these benchmarks. They have a two-way arrangement on all the streets we're talking about. So because of the, the, I think, emotional aspects of the one-way versus two-way issue, the, the one-way, two-way issue has gotten a lot of attention, and justifiably so. But the critical issue here is, do we want to proceed with the streetscapes now? And if so, do we want to design them in such a fashion to accommodate two-way traffic at some point in the future when the stars align? Is that a fair characterization? I think, yes. Okay. So the, the, the critical issue today, which Council Member McCord's motion addresses but doesn't yet quite resolve is, what are we gonna do about our streetscapes? Okay. And there's nothing inappropriate about his motion because it goes to a key issue downtown. But the time-sensitive issue right now is trying to get the approval to roll forward with the streetscapes so that, as Clete said, they can become more pedestrian-friendly, better streets. And the redesign of the streets could impact traffic flow going forward. It opens up a whole different set of issues. I hope that helps a little bit in terms of clarifying where we are. All right. Now, I have Council Member Gordon online to talk about Council Member McCord's motion. Just a quick question, Council Member McCord. So, um, is the reason that you wanna walk it on because you feel that two weeks will be an unbearable delay? I'm just curious. I think walking it on is one of the sticking points for several... is what I've heard from several council members. And April 9th would be our next council meeting, so I didn't know what the sticking point was about walking it on. Other than the fact that I've got probably 40, 50 emails from people saying, "Move, go, go forward." I made a motion three weeks ago to ask Clete to bring back benchmarks and, and so forth, and, and that's what he's done, uh, for that, that conversion. My... I, I mentioned I had a couple of motions, uh, but this first motion was literally, if this makes sense, if this is an order that makes sense to adopt this as the order that makes sense. Some of the questions that we've got about cost and so forth like that, um, if you had brought cost today, then I would have been prepared to make a motion about second and short. We don't have it, so in a couple of weeks, when, when, when we do have it, I'm prepared to make a motion about moving forward with that. Um, so, uh, at the very end of it all, uh, I plan on making one more motion after this. But, but all this is, is moving forward with that, that... It's first reading on Thursday night. It gives us two weeks, one week without any council meetings to hit whatever questions we need. Um, and if, if, uh, you know, if we don't want to, to do this, this is just guiding him for, "Hey, this is what we would like to do with regard to two-way street conversions." I'm, I'm very supportive. I'm just curious about the walk on. Sure. There are no council meetings next week. Many council members will be out of town. So, I guess the questions then would be answered in a public forum on that Tuesday before second reading. I mean, I, I have no problem with this except for the walking it on, so, you know. Sure. So that was what I wondered. Thanks. All right. Council- One other quick question, if I may. All right. Council- Oh, I'm sorry. Council Member James and Council Member Fico. Thank you, Mayor. Um, as you all know, I'm, uh, I understand about delay of projects and, um, timelines of projects. I wish the lyric was on this sheet right here. Um, but I... I, my concern is, I am, I'm supportive of, um, the feasibility study for the street conversion as well, um, but in going back to what Council Member Gordon just said, it- it- it's, um, for me it's about in- it- I'm think- I'm hearing more of an intent in making sure that Cleet understands what our intent of a council is to support, and I'm wondering if instead of all of these in full, if there's something we could do, um, you know, short of all of the rec- recommendations at this point to s- to show our intent through a resolution that says something like, whether it's to authorize the feasibility study that one of these elements, it just is a, it's a lot, i- if you're like me and I think Council Member Gordon and- and many of us go through and read and really kind of look at each one of these issues and try to figure out what does, what does this mean, um, holistically, it- it's gonna take some time. I'm supportive, I'm just, um, I don't know that I'll be ready by Thursday to be able to support, um, and you're right, it does come down to a vote, but I wouldn't want to jeopardize, um, something that we could all support, or the majority of us could- could support, over something that- that folks are having a tough time, uh, digesting. So if- if the vote does not go through to accept the benchmark, accept them and move forward to a- adding them to the docket, I would support, um, a motion that would show something that- that clarifies our intent of a council to allow Cleet to pursue, um, the idea of a two-way street conversion. And I- I do wanna clarify that I am supportive- Yeah. ... of looking into that. Uh, Councilwoman, if I may, a- w- actually that ... If it is Council's intention to begin the two-way conversion phasing, then that's what you should do, um, to vote on that. But as the, as the mayor mentioned, what I, what ... In order to make that dramatic improvement, to make that transformative impact on Main and Vine and Limestone now, okay? We can, if authorized, make that impact through the design of the sidewalks and the curb alignment such that we give you the luxury of not having to make that conversion decision, but we still work, build on the momentum that we've gained, and we've got lots of momentum, and as Council Member McCord mentioned, there's been a lot of involvement to arrive at what the quality of the streets are. Whether they're one way or two way, we know what folks want the sidewalks to be like. So, let's ... We want you to tell us, do you want us to move on with that or not? And I think that's an easy answer for you. It's a easy decision for Council. But, when you zero in on Main and Vine, we're not giving you options on the other ones. It is what it is. There's only so much we can do. Main and Vine, we've got more leeway, okay? So there is a, um, a- a marginal increase in cost to do the 44-foot wide section. I don't think as a consultant standing here today, and I'm a consultant, you're responsible for the public interest. But I would advise you that's a no-brainer. Go ahead, put in the 44-foot wide street. It prefers the best option in the future. So if I may be so bold to suggest that you have a motion or a resolution that says, "Yes, we want to have you design that street," and we're not committing you to the funding, we're just asking you to allow us to design that street to be 44 feet and we'll move through the paces with s- traffic staff, with the transportation cabinet and others to learn the particulars of that design and we'll bring that back to you. We'll- we'll- we'll bring you up to speed with what we found out as we complete that before there's ever a funding decision. You're gonna have the budget in front of you and it'll be more detailed, we'll have more answers, there'll be more clarity. I would support the movement of that motion. I would support what you just said. This could be, you know, minute details of what you just said, but to look at ... After my 15-year-old daughter looked as we sat at the light at Thoroughbred Park and she said, "This is a really weird way that this street is." And for a 15-year-old to be able to observe that, it's clear to me something does need to be done in that area. I mean, I would support what you just said, this is, this is a lot. And I, and I know, I mean, there- there are projects that I'm working on right now that it seems like it should be very, very clear and it's a yes or no. Um, but there are things that folks have to, as voters, you know, we have to resolve and I'm just trying to... I mean, the vote may pass, it may, it may go through, it'd be fun, but I'm just ... But I- I think we should stick to what it is we're trying to achieve and not necessarily, um, the full- Monty. ... the full Monte. Right, thank you. Thank you, Cleet. Thanks. What? Not really a Monty, sorry. What is a Monty? We need all the levity we can get at 5:56. Oh, God. Okay, Council Member Feigl has ... Council Member Crosby, do you have a question? Oh, gee. Yeah, just to follow up on what Council Member James had said, maybe, I don't know, when we started this over an hour ago, if we would have just had... I- it sounds to me like if we could just do the most critical portion from what I understand is 7D, that's what you need for us to give you, um, advice on is 7D, correct? Main and Vine? Uh, we're not asking you to comment on the- As a benchmark. No. That would ... No? No, I- I'm sorry. Um, what we're asking you today is- ... to tell us whether or not we are authorized to move through the design of a 44-foot wide street. So that sometime down the road -- Main and Vine, at Main and Vine? Main and Vine could be two-way. And we know what we know today, but we are doing a traffic model. We're working with the transportation cabinet and staff. We'll have more details as we complete that, which is already authorized. We will learn more about the consequences of that design and we can bring that forward to you so in the future, you're better armed. You know what the budget is, you know what the design implications are. Right now, we're just at a point where we need to be authorized to move forward with the design. It doesn't mean that you have to take action on making it two-way. I understand we don't have to take action on that, and maybe, I guess, what muddied the waters probably was in the presentation, there was a lot of discussion about the two-way design when probably if we could have just had that information upfront versus i- in the backend for what we needed to take action on. I believe that was the motion three weeks ago, that we prob- this probably could have been done a long time ago. I would have been very supportive like Council Member James, rather than having 10 things on a piece of paper. You know, I would hope that we're already engaging the MPO. I know several of us are on that. I would hope that they're already engaged in this process. Um, I'm not sure that we are, but, um, you know, as a committee, I don't know that we are, but hopefully people in the office are. Um, to me, that's one of those no-brainers. But obviously, I don't know that I would be ready to support all of this, but what you're telling me, particularly considering there's no funding involved at this point, I could be supportive of that one. I cannot be supportive of this whole document. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Uh, one question and that's all. Is, is if we pass, pass Council Member McCord's motion to do what Clint has just asked us to do, does that put us out any, any further money? Does that cost us more that we don't know about? The, the only motion on the floor right now is one by Council Member McCord to walk on a resolution to adopt these benchmarks. That doesn't really have anything to do with the critical issue that, that Cleet has put forward today. It's related, but it's not, it doesn't really address the point. So what we will need once we resolve this issue is a motion authorizing Cleet to proceed with the 44-foot design if that's what we wanna do. Does that answer your question? Which is my second motion. Okay. Okay. But I think that, that, that the concern is, is, is moving forward on something that we don't know what it's gonna cost us in terms of, you know- That, that is correct. ... additional dollars. So that's all we wanna- And, and, and I would tell you that we had an internal conversation two months ago or something like that about starting to get some cost estimates together on short and, um, second, with a view towards trying to be able to present you with some definitive numbers, and that's what I think Mike referred to a few minutes ago. That's why we've got those numbers in hand. Are we through discussing Council Member... Council Member Martin? Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I think the, the he- horse is just about dead on this one. Is it blue? It's blue as well. That's r- that's right. Um, I don't know why we need to formally adopt this. I think my trouble with it is that it, it, there's some ambiguity that I've heard in the discussion about whether or not we're committing to do these things by adopting it. I've heard some statements that no we're not, it's just sort of a l- to-do list. But Cleet, you said, well, if we adopt it, you've got to go ahead to do a couple things on the list. No, no, not asking for authorization to do anything on this list. Right. This, this is... Right. It's, it's really two separate issues- Right. ... as the mayor said. What I'd like to s- do, I mean, I think we can just use this as our, I mean, we can just, we can just sort of keep it and put a staple in it and bring it to the, the meetings to do it. Uh, I don't know why we need to, to, to formally adopt it by resolution of council acts and stuff like that. I think it's a great list. I, I commend Councilman McCord for prompting to get this done. I'd, I'd like to vote on specific things and, you know, get done, try to get done what we can get done. So, um, I, I don't know why we need to go through the formal process of trying to adopt this at a council meeting. So thank you, Mayor. Okay. The motion... Council Member Blues. Excuse me. Council Member Beard. I'm sorry. Thank you. I, again, I think probably this document has, has muddied the water a little bit and probably is not sequenced or fleshed out like we would want for something that's gonna be our benchmark. It could be polished up a little bit and, um, a- and changed so everybody would feel a lot more comfortable with it. If we're, if in fact we're voting on 44 feet wide rather than what, 40 and a half feet, the three and a half feet difference, uh, in, in my mind, that's a no-brainer. Um, so I, I would not op- I would not oppose that if that was part of the motion, but I, I think this needs work and maybe it just needs to be cl- uh, dressed up and, and, uh, and prettied up a little bit and resequenced and it'd be all right, but I'm not sure. Um, well, I think what worried me and what worried a lot of people was, uh, that, that Cleet had indicated that he would begin design and permitting for Short and 2nd Street. And I think I heard that right, and that's, that's really not what he's, what he's saying at all. He's saying he wants to know about the 40-foot wide, uh, uh, main street, and that's, that's fine with me, and then that's probably fine with everybody in the, in the room. Um- Let me suggest- If- ... we move forward to vote on, on Council Member McCord's motion to add, uh, the benchmarks, uh, resolution approving the benchmarks to the docket for Thursday night. And, uh, let's do that electronically. Those in favor of the motion, please vote aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay. All right. The motion to add that to the reso- to the, to the docket for T- Thursday night's meeting fails by a vote of nine to six. Now, Council Member McCord, I think you said you had another motion. I do. Uh, I wanna make a motion that, uh, Clete in, in two weeks, uh, you bring back to work session, um, the particulars of what the 44-foot design is. I think that's has been said loud and clear with this discussion that people want to, uh, have great details, so, um, I'd like to make a motion that, that Clete would come back to work session two weeks from now with that, with greater information on that. Um, I agree 100% that that's, that is the number one thing. I also, uh, well, that's the motion. Second. I have a motion by Council Member McCord and a second by Council Member Martin to request Mr. Behnken return in two weeks with a 44-foot design. Yeah, and, and let me ask, is that within the realm of possibility? Uh, uh, in ... Short answer, no. Um- Okay. ... that, that what, what we're asking for tonight, and, and, and it would require rewarding of the resolution, are, is to be authorized to do further detailed design of that design section. I showed you tonight the, the level of design that we're at today. Um, we, we know that it has the potential to work. We expect it to work, but we really wanna look at the entire roadway section. I make that motion then that, that we- Okay. Thank you. Second, second. All right, we have a, um, friendly amendment and a second. It's all squared away now. Any discussion? All in favor of, uh, authorizing Mr. Behnken to provide detailed design of a 44-foot street on Main Street, is that right? That's correct. Please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries unanimously. Lastly, lastly, I, I wanna just make it known that, Clete, I'm asking you to bring back also the detailed information about, uh, or as soon as possible, email it about, uh, 2nd and Short, the costs specifically. Uh, once we have that in hand, if that is something that, uh, you know, has, has any feasibility, I'm prepared to make that motion at such time that we move forward and, and, uh, begin doing. Thank you. Thank you. And, and let me elaborate on that just a little bit. Um, I don't know whether or not our folks in traffic engineering have had a chance to look at a timeline for construction. Um, eh, but I gather the design work on that switch is, on, on that conversion has not been done. Do they know about how long the construction would take? Like- No, we haven't gotten that far along yet. We were just setting up that first meeting after looking at the estimates. Uh, for the work itself, uh, there were some estimates done. It's go- a couple years ago, and I think what we have is based on that, uh, which I can provide those Thursd- uh, Thursday when Clete provides his information, provide that for everybody at that time, and then we can look at- Okay. ... uh, whether we can e- establish a timeline also. All right. Now, before he gets away, is there anything further for Mr. Behnken? Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Clete, I just, I did wanna take the opportunity to thank you for meeting with the North Limestone, um, area and, um, what ... to share with all council members what we kinda discovered when we met. We met with, um, um, the schools along that area, and what we figured out is within that educational triangle, um, which we hear the mayor, uh, speak about, in that one s- side of the triangle, which is the Limestone corridor, we have about four different school systems there. So it's almost an e- you know, the whole educational corridor there. And, um, Clete helped to facilitate, um, a meeting along with, um, Sayre, St. Peter, um, LTMS, and, um, we, we talked about Arlington and Johnson Avenue along with that, because it is that Limestone corridor, and had a very productive meeting as we talked about conversion and traffic, and I think a lot of the issues we found out really didn't necessarily have to do only with Limestone, but some of the surrounding streets as well. So I would encourage other council members, if you have, um, areas that, you know, um, back up to, um, streets that are potentially gonna be converted, that you ask for someone, either Harold or Mike or someone to come in and talk with the groups about what kind of traffic issues are going on, because it was very helpful. Um, but as you were presenting today, I thought about something, and you talked about how it gives, um, conversion gives folks alternative routes to get to places, and I'm really sensitive to traffic patterns right now because of the redevelopment that's going along around 3rd Street and Limestone, New Circle Road, and, uh, Central Sector and East End plans. And one of the things we've heard about so long, for the example, a grocery store, one of the reasons a grocery store has never been able to happen along 3rd Street is because the traffic count was never what it was supposed to be. So as you talk about splitting up traffic and splitting up the routes that folks take, how does that... Do you have any experience of how that plays in with future economic development when we really need that traffic count in order to justify certain types of businesses along routes? Uh, a- as, as, as you already probably well know, it, you know, zoning and, and public policy have a lot to do with guiding where, uh, commercial development takes place. And there are things that you can do with design that promote the success of a commercial corridor or something that might be a grocery site someday. So i- in the, in the grand scheme of things, pedestrian safety, quality of the environment probably need to receive equal or maybe even greater consideration. Um, and then retail is gonna seek its level. And you have strategic goals and initiatives that require more detailed thought and understanding that I can give today on, on the consequence of that or the, or, or how you should approach that. Um, so I'm sorry. I'm gonna bail on that answer because that is ... that's, that's really an overarching thing that I, I, I just can't give you much clarity on that issue today. But I, I did want to take the opportunity and, and I know it's late and I apologize for, for, for not being able to give you the information sooner, but in reality, um, we are at, uh, we, we have made an effort to be very collaborative with this. Um, the transportation cabinet is a key stakeholder. Obviously, folks from, um, outer lying areas, um, want to know that, that there's not going to be gridlock, there's not going to be congestion. You're going to be able to achieve your strategic goals. I think it is important to give Council Member McCord's motion consideration because one of the things that frankly could become an obstacle in the future is if council doesn't send a message about how it wants to address the future conversion of streets. And the strategy that we put forward says there are benchmarks and Council Member Beard mentioned that he would like to see more detail. Well, you'll, you'll notice that it's one of the s- one of the, the points was that there will be more benchmarks that are discovered as you begin that strategy, as you look at the first pair. That handout could have been stated a little differently and it could have said, "Start with what was proposed to be the first pair." Um, and that first pair was Limestone aft... yeah, I'm sorry. After Shorten Second, the next pair was Limestone and one of the things that would have to be looked at was what's the impact to the strategic goals? What's the impact to North Limestone? What happens north of Fourth? Um, and I know those are... your constituents are very interested in, you know, the impacts of that conversion, but I think if council follows that strategy, which the prior council adopted when they adopted the, the Streetscape Master Plan, it is good governance. It's good policy. Um, it does not commit the city to unnecessary or frivolous expenditure because it allows you to look at the consequences of each action on a case-by-case basis. So I would encourage council to revisit that the next time, to follow through with the motion and to try and bring some clarity to that so that when Frankfurt and the local district are looking at it, they have a clear read from council on what you want to do because it could be an obstacle to achieving the vision if there is a lack of clarity in that regard. Well, and I think we're, we're losing folks. We've been here so long today, but I think what's critical to something you just said is choosing that strategy and moving forward with it, but then you have to, you have to think, uh, where this is something that's been coming before us and, and everyone's ... and there are groups of folks who are bringing it pretty fast-forward to us. You still have to look at the prevailing strategy that would be important because, you know, when I look at the benchmarks, I'm gonna have to look at the central sector, the East End Plan, and the areas with the ... of the first district that are not within those plans to see how they would be affected by this. So that's kind of ... that's where I'm ... where this might be for folks that whose districts are not here, um, it might be something to easy- easily bring forward. Um, "Hey, this is the, this is the strategy." But when you're in it every day and you're working in the area, it's ... you don't know which one has favor over the other necessarily or how they can play together. But I ... thank you for the continued conversation and I think we've, um, I think we've developed a relationship enough to where you can call me, I can call you, uh, as the issues progress and, and we'll work on it, and I look forward to the resolutions coming forward from the benchmarks. Thanks. So Council Member James, let me throw out a possible way to resolve this. Um, perhaps if the three council members whose district are impacted, you, Council Member Lawless and Council Member Blues, could get with, uh, Commissioner Webb and Harold Tate and Cleet and revise this document in such a fashion that we can just blue sheet it and bring it, bring it back, uh, as promptly as we can, whether that's next Tuesday or ... well, I guess we don't meet next Tuesday, but two weeks from now. Um, maybe that would give us ample time to get this document rolling in a fashion that is acceptable. I'd support that if Council Member Gordon would sit in with us. Well, congratulations. As an at-large. As an at-large. Thank you. I'll, I'll ask Commissioner Webb to get you all together and brainstorm through that. All right. Um, anybo- Council Member Blues, do you wish to speak now? All right. Anything else for Mr. Behnken? Thanks so much, Cleet. Well done. Uh, and we're now ready for council reports. Council Member Blues. ... Am I on yet? You're on. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Do you want to take- No, you're good. Okay. Council members, as I indicated earlier, I, uh, and, and we've, in our earlier discussion of the, uh, of the, of the now infamous Beard Amendment, uh, I, th- I, an- and I put some material in your box indicating that I was gonna, uh, move to put a, uh, uh, an item on the docket for Thursday night, and I'll make that motion now. I move to place on the docket for the Thursday, March 26, 2009 council meeting, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a memorandum of agreement with the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority regarding entry into tax incentive agreement for the Lexington Distillery Mixed Use Development Tax Increment Financing Project at an initial cost not to excede- exceed $47,000, so moved. Second. Okay. Council member Walls? And I, I, uh, I don't... Did you speak- I won't go back over all of the, uh, I won't go back over all of the, uh, uh, the territory that, uh, uh, that we discussed earlier. I think that, that, that, that much of what is at issue here has been discussed, uh, several hours ago, but for me, the issue boils down to, to this. We've come to the point where, uh, in order to move forward with the, with the memorandum of agreement, uh, we are obligated as a government to pay, uh, what has been, uh, noted as a, as a tight estimate of $47,000 to support the independent, uh, the independent study and, and review. The position has been taken that since the, uh, the Center Point, uh, TIF developers volunteered to, to, uh, uh, to pay that, that, that amount of money, that subsequent developers should be required to pay it. And I would simply quote here from the Commissioner of Laws, uh, letter to, uh, to the council, uh, from, from yesterday, in which he says, "Although the s- the statutes provide that the government applicant will pay these fees, Jim Parsons, our consultant throughout, advises that it is customary for the developer to pay these fees." And I think the key words here are that the government requires and the, and, and what is said to be customary. I think we have to go by the law here, by the rules, and , and since, uh, since Mr. McNeese, the developer for the distillery project was not asked whether he would , whether he would pay this, this fee, but was told that he would be required to pay this fee, that's what motivates me to bring forward this motive- uh, this, uh, uh, this motion. Uh, I would, I would add that, that I know there's concern about, in tight budgetary times, where the funds will, will come from. I would s- I would make one suggestion, uh, as a, as a source of the c- the council constituting itself as an economic development task force, uh, allocated to that task force $50,000, uh, for the '09 fiscal year. We've spent something under a thousand dollars. There's over 49 left, and I would be happy to suggest, eh, uh, and, uh, to my, to, to my colleagues that, that since, uh, since what we're talking about here is an economic development project, that the funds could come from that source. In any event, uh, I think that, that, that we have to, to, to be, uh, to be consistent in following the, the statute, the requirements that move these, uh, uh, these projects forward. Council member Gordon. Quick question. I'm supportive of your motion. Then, and to your comments, then would you expect the reimbursement to come back into the council's economic development task force? Is that your suggestion? Well, I think that- If that's the funding source? ... I s- I think the idea here is that, uh, that reimbursements come back to those who- Give them. ... who, who paid in the first place, if, if I'm not mistaken. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So that would be consistent. All right. Any further discussion? Um... All right. Um, I see none. Let's proceed to vote. Those in favor of council member Blue's, uh, motion, please indicate by voting yes. Those opposed, please indicate by voting no electronically. And it appears as though the motion carries. Anything further, council? Count- Council member Blues, are you through? Anything further? All right. All right. Let me s... I, I've got, um, Council Member Gordon next. Thank you, Mayor. Two, uh, fairly brief updates. This morning, um, we held our second joint planning committee, planning commission workshop. It was... Uh, we had wonderful discussion. Uh, our BOA chair, Board of Adjustment chair, and our Board of Architectural Review chair are attending these workshops. We've set our next workshop for April 7th at 9:00 AM, and then June 30th at 9:00 AM, and we are moving toward what I would call, uh, visionary planning in a coordinated effort. And o- one of the intentions that came out of this morning's discussion was to look at what, uh, changes to our state statutes we need to allow Fayette County to do some visionary planning. And so, that is an update on that. The Stormwater Fee Task Force met, um, last week, and we are meeting again this Thursday, March 26th, at 9:00 AM. All council members have been receiving all minutes and agendas, so I trust you're up-to-date on what we're doing, because this Thursday, we'll be looking at a final draft ordinance and the final expense model, and we will be meeting with stakeholders in the community. We've had anywhere from 20 to 50 members of the public attending these meetings weekly, so we've had some good stakeholder input from the broad community. But on Thursday, we have commitments from, uh, the Chamber of Commerce, who will be bringing, uh, their stakeholders, UK, Fayette County Public Schools, home builders, and those folks that they represent, the Thoroughbred Association, the Farm Bureau, the Fayette Alliance, uh, two different church groups, the Black Church Coalition, and the large church group, United Way, Community Action, Lexmark Train, the Greater Lexington Apartment Association, and the Co-Op Cooperative Extension Service. We will be meeting with all those folks to get some input from them. Our hope, Mayor, is to report out on April the 7th, and, at the work session. And then, from this meeting last week on stormwater, we've had extensive discussion about the issue of street sweeping. The consultant who's been working with the stormwater fee information has brought information from round the country, which supports the fact that street sweeping is a, um, a major action that correlates with increased water quality. Streets that get swept on a regular basis and frequently increase and improve water quality. And so, we have, we being urban county government, have incomplete information on street sweeping cost of what it would mean to sweep all the streets in Fayette County, what the impact to our water quality would be, and the Stormwater Fee Task Force feels that it's very important as we move forward on water quality that we know what kind of an impact we could have if we increase our street sweeping. So, I was asked on Thursday to bring forward a motion from the committee and to bring it forward today, and I've passed out copies of it. And the motion is, I move to request that funds from the street sweeping urban services fund balance be used to complete a study to evaluate and redesign our street sweeping program to focus on water quality. Second. We have a motion, second. Any discussion? Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Gordon, I know when I was, um, in on the Stormwater Fee Group, the task force, we talked about how not every street gets swept. And I believe, was it determined that who got swept was, um, by vote or the street and by certain... So, that means I didn't have to pay a certain fee and things, things and such. Are we... With this study, will it also talk about the increase of fees for those streets that are not paying now- Well- ... for the implementation of fees? You're correct. Uh, s- the areas that get street sweeping are areas that have... They're either new development, which is automatically getting full urban services, or they're neighborhoods that have voted along the way to pay the increased tax to receive the street sweeping. And the hope with this motion is, w- at this point, the Stormwater Fee Task Force doesn't feel we have enough information to say, "We should include this in the model, or we shouldn't." And so, the hope is that if we can get some complete information about street sweeping, that we might move toward, uh, being able to include it in the stormwater fee and take away the tax. That's one of the, one of the discussion points that's been occurring. Thank you. Um, any further discussion? Those in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Those opposed, "Nay." Motion carries. Thank you. Let me, let me say one word about the stormwater fee. Time is important here. It's going to take us approximately six months from the time the stormwater fee is finally approved by the council to get that fee implemented. That means it's going to be into the next fiscal year. Our best estimates right now is that we can run the program on a reduced level of about 12 million dollars a year until we get fully, get it fully funded. Consequently, it's gonna cost us a million dollars per month in general fund dollars to keep the stormwater improvements coming along. So every month we delay is gonna be another million dollars that we'll need to take out of the general fund before we have money coming in from the storm sewer fee. I'm not advocating that we do it rapidly, but I do want everybody to understand the fact that time is money here. And if we gotta have 15 sessions, I would just ask that we consider having one a day as opposed to one a week or one a month and, and come to some quick resolution 'cause it's a very, very expensive proposition for us as we are pulling the budget together. Councilmember Hinson. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, and I know the urgency of the stormwater, but, um, I, um, I feel very good about what that task force has produced, and I've read the minutes and I know that they have been extremely thorough. And I appreciate it and I know the citizens of Lexington will appreciate it, so thank you. But I just had a couple of, uh, comments or announcements. Uh, tomorrow is an Apartment Managers Association meeting for the Cardinal Valley area, be held at noon. Uh, bring your lunch. Cardinal, it's at the Cardinal Crossing Community Center, 1346 Village Drive. Um, at large members are more than welcome to come. Um, also tomorrow evening, the Valley Park Board will be having a meeting at 6:00 at the Valley Park Shelter. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember McCord. Thank you, Mayor. Just, uh, two quick things. One is, uh, wanna remind everybody on Th- uh, Thursday at 5:00 on the fifth floor, uh, conference room, we're having the, uh, quality based selection, the QBS, uh, selection, uh, workshop that is put on by the American, uh, Council of Engineering Companies. And, uh, this is so that we can start moving forward in, in changing some of the way that we procure engineering services in the future. Uh, we wanna make sure as many councilmembers and members of the administration and staff are there. Um, I lastly just wanna thank, uh, Mayor, you and your staff for just another phenomenal, uh, sweet 16, uh, for that, their part in that. I wanna thank, um, uh, Commissioner Devries and Commissioner Tackett, KHSAA and National City Bank for making it possible. Um, the finals game was possibly one of the most, uh, remembered games. Uh, it, it may be w- go down as one of the best finals games that's ever been held, uh, in, in that storied history. So again, I, I appreciate all the hard work from your staff, Penny Ebel and, and everybody else that's involved. Let me mention one thing. That contract still has a little more time left on it, but we need to begin thinking now about what we need to do in order to keep that event in Lexington. It has developed into a significant economic boost for downtown and it's a lot of fun too. This was the 30th anniversary of it being back in Lexington, and I think everybody really enjoys coming here, so I agree with you 100%. And, and thanks for your all's support of that financially in the past. Uh, Councilmember Lane. Uh, thank you, Mayor. Uh, this afternoon I recused myself from two votes. Uh, one was on the Phoenix Park Courthouse TIF, and the other one was on the Distillery District TIF and, uh, you may recall that in the past that I had re- recused myself from the votes for the Distillery District because my firm had done some consulting work. And today, I also elected not to vote on the Phoenix Park Courthouse because those two issues were related, and I felt it would be inapro- inappropriate for me to vote on that one also. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gray. Uh, Councilmember McCord, did, is that qualifications based, uh, is that Wednesday or Thursday after? Thursday, 5:00- Thursday? ... for a council meeting. Okay. I had it on Wednesday. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Um, two things quickly. Uh, I su- uh, I suspect that many of you all may have read the story about the, a story in the newspaper, uh, last week about the Government Center RFP Task Force that did recommend, um, without dissent, uh, that the administration proceed with the RFP for the Government Center. Um, administration has that authority anyhow, but wanted to report to you all that, you know, after several meetings, uh, very productive meetings, um, Councilmember McCord was involved, Councilmember James, Councilmember Lawless, uh, anybody else? I can't... That was it, yeah, participated, um, in it and, um, there were some good healthy conversations all along the way. Productive. Um, uh, se- second thing I wanna just mention is, um, you know, regrettably many of us, uh, found out that yesterday, um, Michelle Koo, the reporter for the, the city desk for the Herald-Leader, was among those who were laid off and, um, from having, um, uh, worked with Michelle, like many of us have, um, known her to, uh- ... have been disciplined and, um, and, uh, motivated. Uh, you know, she would be here often. Uh, she'd be here like we are today, having covered our three-and-a-half-hour meeting and then have to go back to the Herald and work on the story for the next two or three hours. And even when, uh, you know, her work product, maybe her writing didn't particularly resonate with us and we didn't agree with it, I remember hollering at her on more than one occasion saying, "Michelle, why in the world did you say that?" "Now, did I really say that?" But we also know that, you know, her work was a real tribute to, to, uh, the Herald-Leader, to that institution, uh, to herself and to her many friends at the paper, um, and friends, uh, here as well. Eh, and I think it gives us a chance to reflect on the, the importance of the free press and the work that, uh, these people do. I know from the two years being here that, um, as much as this body, as this group is important to democracy, the work of the press is as well. And, um, I think she knows it, you know, that, um, she was a friend to many people, uh, here and certainly at the, uh, and surely at the newspaper as well for a very long time. Thank you, Mayor. Council member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Vice-Mayor, I'm gonna have to agree with you 100%. Isn't that nice that we hit on something to, today that we agree upon? Um, I personally will, will miss Michelle. I think she did an excellent job. Uh, hard worker. All the things that you, you outlined and said. Um, and I'm sure she's got further successes in her future. Uh, m- m-maybe in bigger venues and, uh, than she presently has and, and better jobs. Um, I would like to move approval of, uh, the, uh, March 24th, 2009 NDF, uh, fund list. Is there a second? Second. We have a second from Council Member McCord. Those in favor of approving the NDF, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed, "No." The motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I've lost my speakers list. I think that's everybody. Uh, anyone else care to make a report? I had, uh, Mr. Kelly lined up to give a Recovery Act report today, but I'm, uh, unless somebody's just dying to hear that today, we'll postpone that until, uh, next time. Um, that brings us down to public comment on issues not on the agenda. I have two speakers. The first is Mr. Cobb. If you'd step to the podium, Mr. Cobb. You'll have three minutes. First, giving honor to the most high. Thank you Mayor, for the opportunity to speak. It's truly a blessing to be alive today. Have a few shout-outs that I wanna send out. I wanna give a shout-out to Connie, Lola and Samara, aka Miss Classy, and Jodie Meeks. Jodie saved the day last night. Uh, giving a special shout-out. Kentucky needs to, uh, be a little bit more confident and we going places. Uh, I want the Council to know that I know y'all working hard, but y'all gonna be challenged. Y'all gonna be seeing my face more and more and get used to it. Uh, I need to work with y'all. There's other areas that we haven't covered yet that we can raise money. I'm not just saying these things. These things are literally gonna happen. We gonna transform Lexington. The Lexington of old is, is, is history. We gonna transform it. We gonna unite. We gonna have a new Urban League. We're gonna have a new NAACP in Lexington where all people's voices will be heard. Lexington is, uh, uh, a project. We gonna call it Project Black, where we gonna restore the Black unity, the revitalization of Black history. Lexington was a mecca for Black life, and we need that. Not saying that it's just for Blacks, but we need everybody's help, you know. I couldn't afford to be a hater of anybody, of any other nation. I wouldn't even survive. So I'm gonna bring that same spirit in front of all y'all's faces, ask y'all to truly help me to save our young people because now is the time. When we have elected a Black president, we have to listen to other Black leaders in the city. I beg you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cobb. Our last, uh, speaker is Mr. Powell, Glen Powell. If you'd step to the podium, you'll have three minutes. Excuse me. First off, this is very unnerving. In the, on 2/21/09, um, I sold five DVDs at, um, the Castle and had to give them my name, Social Security number, driver's license number, date of birth, address, phone number and a thumbprint. And it's a local ordinance that says you have to give that much information for anything that is pawned or sold at a, um, pawn shop in Lexington. And in today's climate, with the, um, talking about identity theft, there's a lot of information floating out there in these pawn shops. I'm just wondering why that much information has to be given out. I'm out of Winchester, but just... Um, Mr. Powell, I wasn't here when that ordinance was approved, and I'm not sure anybody else on the Council was, so I can't speak to exactly what the rationale was at the time. But my understanding is the Police Department uses much of that information in order to track stolen goods. I was informed of that. And as a consequence of that, uh- There's some pretty rigorous disclosure requirements in that. I think they have proven helpful in, um, number of investigations. Yes, and I was aware of that whenever I went to talk to Mr. Winings or Winnings, I forget his name. And I could have, you know, stolen five DVDs the night before and just tried to sell them the next day. I, I'm aware of the, um, information that is given. But I'm telling you, man, it's a lot of information out there. That's seven pieces of information. The only thing that's not listed is the, um, license plate number and I don't know why they didn't add that to the ordinance. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Powell. We appreciate your comment. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council? Yes, ma'am. I'm so sorry. And it's, and it's getting late. I know you all are retired, but, um, my name is Debi Tester and I'm the Civil Service Employee, uh, Association Treasurer and I sent every council member an email. I'm gonna read this letter. It says, "I've been approached by several employees who have concern about employees in acting positions and these employ- employees have asked what CSEA is doing, going to do about it. Jack Barnett, the CSEA former president has previously brought this issue before the council. I sent the council an email- mail and received a few responses and my email was forwarded to the law department and to human resources. The response of the law department was in the form of the same ordinance that I had sent you. The way the ordinance reads in Section 21-16 is, 'If a position becomes vacant by absence, employee resigns, retires, or is terminated,'" which the employees ha- have retired in the positions we want, uh, that they are talking about. "'Then the position... Then it becomes a temporary..." No, wait a minute. "'The requirements of six- Section 21-15 relating to temporary appointments applies. Section 21-15 was enacted pursuant to the government is enable- uh, language set forth in KRS 67A:270. Because this section is based on state law, the government is unable to make any changes such as increasing the number of days that an employee may serve in a temporary appointment or eliminate the prohi-hibitation against session appointments. If there is, if there are employees serving in a temporary capacity, they are limited to a 90-day appointment and during that time, the government should b- be taking affirmative steps to recruit or permanently fill the positions.' If the employees are in the position longer than 90 days, they are not in viola- are they not in violation of this ordinance? The employees say that they would ha- have filed a grievance, but they knew nothing would be done because of the Human Resources Department and all, all grievances stop there. And if they did file a grievance, they would be, be possibly a strong reprimand put against them." So that's what I, uh, several employees had asked me about if I would come and speak and that's what I come to say. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Tester. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council? Do I hear a motion to adjourn? So moved. So moved. Motion by Council Member Elaine and a second by counsel- Second. ... by Vice Mayor Gray. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you.