# Council Services Committee - July 6, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · July 6, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1450 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1450?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-07-06 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: June 18, 2026 - **Length**: 9,011 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 Services Committee convened on July 6, 2010, at 1:00 PM, with Mr. Chairman presiding over the session. The meeting covered three agenda items, all of which were informational in nature, including discussions on the Street Re-Paving List Priority Plan, Street Cleaning On Street Parking Restrictions, and Items in Committee. No votes were taken during the meeting, and no public comments were heard. The session functioned primarily as an informational briefing, with no formal motions or actions recorded across any of the agenda items. ## Attendance All members were present at the July 6, 2010 Council meeting. The following twelve members attended: - Ellinger - Myers - Lawless - Beard - Feigel - Crosbie - McChord - Martin - Henson - Lane - Blues - James No members were recorded as absent or late. ## Contested Items - **Street Re-Paving List Priority Plan**: Council members engaged in a heated discussion regarding the Street Re-Paving List Priority Plan. The disagreement centered on two key issues: the accuracy of the road condition ratings used to determine which streets would be prioritized for repaving, and how funds allocated for repaving would be distributed. Council members raised concerns that the ratings may not accurately reflect the true condition of roads, which could affect whether the right streets were being targeted for repair. The allocation of repaving funds was also a point of contention, with members questioning whether the distribution was appropriate. No specific outcome or resolution is recorded in the available data for this item. ## Street Re-Paving List Priority Plan [timestamp: 00:43] The Council held a discussion on the Street Re-Paving List Priority Plan, focusing on the process used to assess road conditions and allocate paving funds accordingly. Key speakers in this discussion included **Kevin Winty**, **Council Member Beard**, and **Sam Williams**. The discussion covered: - The methodology for assessing the condition of roads and determining which streets should be prioritized for repaving - The process by which funds are allocated based on the results of those road condition assessments - The overall framework guiding how the repaving list is structured and ranked This item was informational in nature, and no formal action or vote was taken by the Council as a result of the discussion. The presentation and exchange served to keep Council members informed about how repaving priorities are determined and how available resources are being directed toward street maintenance needs. ## Street Cleaning On Street Parking Restrictions [timestamp: 54:36] The Council took up Agenda Item 2, a discussion on street cleaning and on-street parking restrictions, focusing on enforcement challenges and potential approaches to improving the effectiveness of street cleaning operations. Gary Means was the key speaker on this item, presenting information related to how parking restrictions interact with street cleaning efforts. The discussion centered on the practical difficulties of ensuring streets are adequately cleaned when vehicles remain parked during designated cleaning times, as well as possible solutions to address these enforcement issues. The item was informational in nature, meaning no formal vote or binding decision was taken as a result of the discussion. The Council used the session to examine the current state of street cleaning parking restrictions and to consider what measures might better support street cleaning effectiveness going forward. No additional speakers, specific proposals, vote tallies, or detailed findings are recorded in the available materials for this agenda item. ## Items in Committee Agenda Item 3 covered a general discussion of various items currently in committee, including matters related to future meeting scheduling and agenda setting. Mr. Chairman led the discussion during this portion of the meeting. The item was informational in nature, and no formal vote or binding decision was recorded as an outcome. No additional speaker names, specific committee items, or scheduling details are available in the meeting record for this agenda item. --- ## Full transcript Careless Whisper Music She had put both of these items in the agenda, but we'll go ahead and proceed with them. And if we need to take action, because I think she'd like to maybe next time, we'll keep them in. The first one is the street repaving list priority plan. I think we have Kevin Winty is going to give us this. Thank you. As you mentioned, Council Member Lawless had requested, I think, a little more information on some of the restructuring that we felt would better serve the community as far as our allocation of repayment funds. So we wanted to address that this afternoon. Just a quick overview, and I'll keep this brief, but I think the main action item is really step three. But the overall assessment process actually begins within the Division of Engineering, where we have interns and our staff that assess the roads every year. On the fourth year, generally we do one-third of the county every year, and then the fourth year we evaluate the full county. This happens to be one of the years where we assess the full county of the roadways that we maintain. We collect that information into a database format, and then as step two, within the Division of Engineering as well, they maintain the payment management system where they calculate or all the assessments are entered into that management system, and then we come up with a rating. With the step three, we have this begins the transition from engineering into the Division of Streets and Roads, determining the total linear footage of pavement that we are currently maintaining because that does change from year to year based on new development and what have you. Step four is to determine from the collected data the total linear footage of pavement that is rated 65 or less. Typically that rating is where we have the cutoff for determination of what will be resurfaced within the given council districts that year. From that calculation, we'll look at the total linear footage of those roads that are rated 65 or less within each council district, and then we'll accumulate that into a percentage total of what that council district effectively receives and percentage of necessary repairs based on the overall percentage of needed repairs. The box that would be on your left, or excuse me, the columns there, basically they reflect the total linear footage for each council district that we maintain, and then the two columns on the right reflect those total linear footages that we've determined within this past pavement management cycle of those roads that are of 65, a rating of 65 or less. From those percentages, effectively, that you see on the far right-hand side of the column, is what we can then use as a quantifier for the percentage of allocation of resurfacing funds that we have available. Whereas in the past, the practice was more or less of divvying out a select amount of money per each council district, this we feel would be much more effective in tackling the broader spectrum of all roads that are requiring resurfacing. From that determination of percentages, we'll allocate, as I said before, the monies that we have available for resurfacing that fiscal year, and then from the determined list, we will provide to each council member roads that fall within that rating of 65 or less. So that is basically the way we are looking to approach this. And as I said, I'll keep this brief, but just allow you to ask questions of us. The commissioner as well as Sam Williams are here to address anything that I will not be able to. Thank you. We now have a quorum. I'll ask Council Member Blues and James if you'd be part of the quorum. So we now have a quorum, and I see Council Member Beard has a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kevin, here's the problem, and it may be unique to me, but here's the problem. In the Camelot subdivision, we have segments that we've been picking away at, and I had promised people who did not get their segment done that we would get it done next year. Well, there were some other roads that were in much worse shape, and I felt like I had to go ahead and take care of them, and I left them out in the cold, and I've heard about it. We really didn't have a lot of time to communicate to the people what has happened, and their take is, being a constituent, their take is, well, you know, what's so special about everybody else? Why can't we be just on an even par with everybody else? And I've tried to explain this, and this is not a bad way to do it, but it's just a little making the transition from one way to the other way is a big problem, a problem to me anyway. One other question. It involves striping. I've had a couple of constituents talk about re-striping in some areas before, like on major thoroughfares, like, for instance, Nicholasville Road, before the World Equestrian Games, to make it look a little fresher. It has taken, Nicholasville Road has taken a beating from the utility companies for some long period of time, and I just wondered if there is any idea that we're going to do some special striping or needed striping before the World Equestrian Games. To address that, Council Member, I would say that the striping in the past was conducted by the Division of Traffic Engineering, and that is essentially being absorbed by the Division of Streets and Roads. The likes of Nicholasville would be something that we probably need to discuss with the state, because it is a state-maintained road and not the responsibility of urban county government to re-stripe, unless there was a negotiated, you know, part of the project where we would, you know, facilitate that. I'll let the Commissioner speak to that topic. Well, you can also shoot down an urban myth, I guess, and that is that supposedly, at one time anyway, we had an agreement that we took care of everything inside New Circle Road and the state took care of everything outside of it. And I don't know whether that's true or if that was an urban legend or what exactly it was. I believe that the paving of Nicholasville Road, those state routes that come inside of New Circle Road and the striping are still the responsibility of the state. What I'd like to do is I can, we can give the state a call and see if they have any, if they have that on schedule before the games and let you know. As it comes to other striping needs, if you have a striping need in your council district, if you will just notify Traffic Engineering, they still have the staff going out and checking those streets and roads. The folks who do the actual striping have been transferred over to Streets and Roads. Traffic Engineering takes a look at it, they draw up a work order, which automatically goes out to Streets and Roads and we get the work done. But I can be more than happy to check with the state and get back to you on that. Okay. One other thing while we're at it, where medians and islands begin and people are turning into them, I think they've been painted at one time but not any time recently, and especially if it's raining, you can just drive right up on a median and not even know it's there, especially if you're an out-of-towner. I've seen that happen numerous times in the Fayette Mall area, for instance. On Nicholasville Road you're speaking of? Yeah. We can pass that along also. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One other thing in that regard. Sure. Sam, would you come to the mic, please? I understand the state has some maintenance paving scheduled for Nicholasville Road. I saw some signs there this weekend. I know there's been some work in preparation for that. I don't know the extent of it, but they are doing some work. Of course, down near U.K. where the hospital is, it's a mess. I understand that. But even on out, almost the last time it got paved, the gas company was in there within three weeks. I think paving must make leaks, from what I understand. But in all seriousness, I saw a sign this weekend there at Southland Drive that said that there would be some delays due to paving out that way. So I know they've got work going on out there. I just assumed that was the traffic signal situation. I just assumed that. I saw the sign also. And I just assumed that that was because the sign was aiming out toward Man O' War. I understand that there's some paving that's going to go on associated with that. That's great. Great. Thank you. Actually, I'm sorry to interrupt, but just one other point regarding the maintenance agreement with the state. One thing you may be referring to, customer, is the fact that we have an agreement with the state whereby we will take care of snow removal of state routes inside New Circle Road, as well as point repairs, potholes and what have you, and obviously downtown with street sweeping and those types of activities, but not major construction such as the repaving of those routes. One other quick question, if I might, Mr. Chairman. The county road fund, is that rolled into this calculation? And if not, why not? No, it's not in that calculation. It's done separately. The county road fund is separate. So it does not enter into identifying the percentage for council districts. Either way. I mean, it's not. That's correct. Thank you. Dr. Beluse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kevin, the spreadsheet on page four, I assume that starting at the top, that's District 1. Actually, no, sir. We did not allocate council districts on this list. I couldn't tell you which is District 1 from District 7 to District 12. We were just merely wanting to show the allocation and percentages based on what we would calculate. We can provide that. But this was strictly for the sake of discussion of fund allocation. Not per council district, but based on percentage of roads that were of 65 or less within all of the urban service area. Okay. I like this system, and we've talked about it before. My one concern is the extent to which the ratings are up-to-date and accurate. And, of course, I defer to the engineers and the folks from Streets and Roads. But under our, shall I call it, yet our old system, I've gone out and driven roads in my district, and they'll be in pretty wretched shape. But the rating is above 65. I know it's difficult to keep up with that survey, but I think in order for this system to work, we've got to have full confidence that to the extent possible, the ratings be up-to-date and accurate. I do agree. I believe our assessment for the full county is to be complete by August. The third week of August is where our student interns will be going back to school. If there is a particular street where you feel like the rating doesn't adhere to what we have assessed, we'll obviously be happy to travel out to that location and reevaluate to see if maybe a mistake wasn't made. But I feel pretty confident with the basis of where we're starting to provide you with this information now and knowing that we're going to have a full assessment as a result of the third week of August to where we can put this to a functional format. And one other question. How much of what we can get done, given the funding that we have from the MAP funds plus the bond money, how much of that will be done this season? I'll turn it over to Sam to answer that, sir. We're probably getting our final schedule of streets to pave, working that with our contractor now. And I anticipate maybe as early as the first of next week, starting on the ones that are approved for FY2010. Of course, that's the 1.7 million that we worked on that last time. I know we did one of the roads on the county 2010 deal, just finished it Friday, the long road. We got it finished about 1.7 miles, and they're going to start with the city plan hopefully next week. And we'll keep you posted on how we're progressing with that. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Could you get that list to the council members that have it marked on what is 1 through 12, please? I'd like to see that list. Sure. That had the district. Thank you. Council Member Henson. I'm sorry, James. Thanks, Chair. Kevin, we just heard that the college students will wrap up their survey in August. So the list that we submitted is the list from last summer. Is there any way to make those coalesce a little bit better? I think they blend fairly well. What we'd like to see is from the evaluations that we're currently doing for the full county and how that compares, obviously update what we've seen in the current database. As far as, you know, the confidence in the current data that we're using for the evaluation, like I was referring to Council Member Blues, if there's a particular street that you feel is not of a rating that is, you know, is currently adequate, we'd be happy to reevaluate that and assess to see if it's something that should be placed on the list. I feel pretty confident in the data set that we have now as far as using that as the basis for our rating. Well, I'm with Council Member Blues on I went through my list. I drove my streets that were on the list. And it's not that one particular street is off. It's that the whole, when you look at the entire list and you're looking at the 65s versus the 35s, the whole kind of range seems to be off. And I know that that number can change depending on, you know, whether there's construction projects going on and higher traffic impact and how much salt or whatever was used on a particular street. But it just seems, it seems really inaccurate, not just like street by street, but the whole, do you understand what I'm saying, the whole spectrum seems off. I believe I do and understand what you're trying to say. One of the things, if you recall, the way we evaluate streets is that we do everything and then for the next three years we do a third each year and then we do everything again. So some of the information that we provided to you, because of the process, we use the information that was two years old. Some of it was one year old. And some of it was the previous year's information. That's by that one-third, one-third, one-third, which I think we all realize that the previous two winters have been significant in the amount of salt and how deep the freeze was. I believe that our roads are much worse than the data we provided you at this last pass, but that was the best we had. In August we will have that complete cycle, so it should make much more sense to you and be more accurate. And I really question the process we use, the value of doing a third, a third, a third, and we'll evaluate the information we get this year and look at whether it would not be more prudent to every other year doing everything. And then once we give you that information, we produce a paving list, a two-year paving list, where you go down and select, and we wouldn't even go out and rate. That would be my next recommendation, that we get on that paving list, and then before we produce another one, we do everything again. And it's captured each time you do that survey. That's what I was going to suggest, that we do, not only do our current year, but do a recommendation for the next year, so that you use that as your starting point, evaluate whether that list is accurate or not, and then go to the next ones, because I'm seeing that it seems to be necessary. And in our request, I don't think a lot of people caught in our request, when we sent you the list of 65 and under and asked you to do your priorities, we wanted your priorities to go from the first, what was number one, all the way to the end of your list, in case we got additional money. But we are getting so close now to having the better data, it makes more sense for us to, in August, try to have the system closed down the third week of August. We've already talked to engineering about producing that list to get out within one week, back out to the council members, based on the new data, and then to get as much of that paving done before the end of the paving season. Okay, and a couple of other things. How do you count an intersection? If there's a very high traffic road, the side street is not necessarily more used than another, but that intersection area, are you counting those in the north-south or the east-west corridor? How do you count that, and can you just get intersections done without touching the rest of the road? I believe it's possible just to do an intersection, but the information is put in by street, between streets. So if the street runs north to south, then it would include the intersection north to south. Well, the issue with that is if you, let's just take 7th and Maple, for an example. If I did Maple, I'd have to do the whole section of Maple. I'd have to do two sections of Maple in order to take care of what that intersection is, and then I'd have to do two sections of 7th to capture that other side. I'm looking for a way that we can just do just that intersection and not count it towards a full segment of the road, because it takes quite a bit of money to do that full section that's not necessarily needed. There, I believe, whenever you get your list, if you have an issue like that, that's where you would sit down with Streets and Roads and see how they can manage that for you. I agree with you 100%. If we spend the money on the road, per se, we need to get the intersection taken care of. It would still come out of your paving money, but it wouldn't downgrade, or it wouldn't upgrade that section of road that it was connected to. And are we looking at the ones that we are requesting, especially when they're an intersection or a place where maybe we just did resurfacing last year or the year before, are we looking for why that's happening? Is there utility work or something that's being done that has impacted that intersection to the point to where maybe the utility needed to restore it to a certain level so it doesn't come out of our coffers? We're not, to my knowledge, looking at that at this point. The one benefit, huge benefit for going to a process where we evaluate everything every other year and get into a two-year paving list rather than sometimes we have a spring and a fall paving list, that does not allow utilities the time to get out and do what needs to be done, and sometimes they just get caught. And we pave it, and they have to come back and cut it up. If we get into that two-year process, we could give them a list of next year's paving well ahead of time, which would allow them time to get out there, do whatever they need in those intersections, and tend to be held more accountable for cutting pavement after the fact. And does a large hole or divot count as a negative rating on a street? So if a street is generally like a 67, but there's a huge hole, how do you know what percentage it bumps down? I do not rate those streets, so I don't want to answer that question. But I'd be more than happy to have somebody from engineering visit with you. That would be helpful. Not just my office, that's something that I think we all need to know on the full council or this committee is how does that count? Because if we're adding stuff on our paving list just before one big, large hole, it doesn't seem right to do that. But to me, that might be the only way that I can get that fixed. Almost like something that was too heavy had sat in that space and cracked it. I don't know exactly. Council Member James, what you're describing sounds like a base failure. And that's something that we repair internally. And what needs to happen there is make a request through Lexington service call or you can e-mail me with the location. So there's other funding for that? That's not part of your allocation to fix those type of issues with your pavement. There's two basic things that we do on normal maintenance of pavement. One is repair potholes and the other is base failure situations like you're describing there. That's not part of your allocation for funds at all. And we need to address those prior to the maintenance paving. Because all the maintenance paving does is it refreshes that top say inch and a half, two inches of surface. And this situation you described is far more involved. And I can see that a base failure could lead to paving needs because it cracks across the asphalt. And that comes into the pavement evaluation. One of them is the number of potholes that we've repaired, the number of base failures we've had. Also alligator cracking and various other issues that affect the integrity of the surface. So that all comes into the pavement management. But those issues like that are not part of the pavement resurfacing plan. Okay. And I only have one last question. I'm not sure who could answer this. Does the cost of asphalt vary year to year? Actually what we received this year was pretty much I think within a few cents of what we received last year as far as our maintenance paving. The specific cost of asphalt per? There is ways that the price is adjusted. But our base bid for this fiscal year was the same as for last fiscal year. Now there are ways that they adjust it depending on the cost of the bituminous part, the oil component. And I can share that with you. It's based on a calculation that the Kentucky Department of Highways has in place. But historically for the last couple of years it hasn't even varied much on that. Because it's based on the cost of oil. But there's a calculation that's used to adjust that. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilmember Henson. Thank you, Chair. I too experienced when I received my list and I talked to the commissioner about the ratings for the streets in the 11th District and some of the streets that were on the list were streets that had been paved last year. So it wasn't really accurate. So I didn't have a lot of confidence in the other information. I apologize for that. We did, because this was a new process that we went through. We experienced a number of problems reducing a paving list like this. It was frustrating for our streets and roads folks that did this for the first time. We are working. We had other issues where some boundary lines in the data system were not correct and streets that needed paving were in somebody else's council district. We're working on all those issues right now. As I shared with you, if you had selected something that was paved last year, that would not have counted against you. That would have just been money that we could have moved down to your next priority. I know I went out and drove the streets. Just from memory I saw them on the list and I'm like, I know that street was paved. I drove it and of course it was. But the dollar amounts that each district receives, I like the formula, the new formula you're using. But it just doesn't seem to be enough. And I'm not sure if what we could do to change that, but I know I think I received $136,000, which when you look at the linear footage of the roadways that need to be paved, it just doesn't go very far at all. So I was just curious, if you look at all the streets in the city that are rated 65 or less, what is the total cost to pave? Have you ever looked at that? I believe we did in the presentation I did to council, I believe we did generate a figure. For paving this year I believe was very close to 20%. So if you took that $1,700,000 allowed us to do close to 20%, does that sound right? Then you multiply that number times five and that would be the 65 or under. It would be pretty close. I think we're falling behind into a deficit where I know I have several streets that are rated like 33, you know, and there's not enough money to pave those. So next year, it just feels like we're going to be creating a deficit each year if we don't take a look at that. I think we'll be able to not immediately tell you what's going on, but since we've gone to this point, this new process, and we're producing paving lists directly from the data management system, I think within a year or two you'll be able to take a look at are we catching up, are we going backwards, and the amount of money that's made available for paving definitely impacts whether you're going forward or backward. But I have not been involved with it long enough to say that this process is helpful. I know this process is helpful. If you had a large amount of roads that were 65 and under compared to other council districts, you're not given the same amount of money, you're given money by a percentage of what was 65 or under. So it doesn't mean that you're going to catch up. Everybody's going to stay about the same place. I guess I would think also, like, you're saying 65 or under, but what if you had the largest percentage if you looked at what were 40 and under? So if you looked at each district and their ratings were 40 and under, you know, like one district was 40 and under. And the other district, it might be greater for the 40 and under than it would be for the 65 and under. I understand completely what you're saying, is we could have used that cutoff line for division of money at any point. You could raise it up to 70, or you could lower it to 50 or 40, wherever you wanted. We chose 65 because in our minds that's, we need to be addressing these roads. When they reach 65, if we can move our paving forward far enough, we probably would be better looking at streets that were in the 70s, getting them in a two-year paving list. But we're not there yet by any means. Again, my concern is not the ones that are rated very, very low, and that we cannot address those because the dollars are not there. And so hopefully we will see some catch-up eventually. And whenever in August, whenever we have the new data, I will make certain that we provide you with a total cost, estimated cost it would be based on linear foot or square foot. We'll provide that at that time with you, you know, so that you have an idea of what it would cost to go out and do all the 65 and under. And the point I'm trying to make is, for instance, if one district has several streets that are rated 65 to 55, but then another district has several streets that are in the 30s, I just think maybe those need to be addressed first. I'd be willing to look at whatever you all choose, you know, whichever process you choose to do. Or whatever cutoff you want to use. The one thing that I was really interested in getting us a process that addresses in a more even way the bad paving for the council districts. So if the committee would like to look at something that, you know, produces money or divides money by a certain percentage, this process, the money that you receive in this process, we did not say that these streets had to be paved. We merely said you can select streets that are 65 or under. And we would consider something within a few points over if it was connected to 65 or under. And we left it up to the council members, if they so choose, without our input, to select those streets. So anybody could have selected the 35, the 45, or whatever. But, you know, again, like I was saying, in my district there are several that are rated really low. And I didn't really have enough money to do one street. In the August report, could you include streets that are rated, say, 40 or less. Yes, ma'am. And the cost for, regardless of what district they're in, the cost to pave those. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. That brings up other questions. I think what Council Member Henson is thinking about, which might not be a bad idea, and that is a weighting factor of 55 to 65 and 45 to 55, and apply a weighting factor to the dollars also that would allow her to get, maybe if she's got some 30s down there, to get some before somebody's got nothing but 65s or 64s or 63s. Would you like us to propose a weighting factor and bring it back? It would be nice to look at and see how it applies. We can, in August, bring that forward to you. We can propose that. The one thing I don't want to do is I don't want to slow up getting this blacked up on the road. A couple of things. First, a compliment. I was at a Lansdowne Neighborhood Association meeting a couple of weeks ago, and they wondered when we were going to finish Lansdowne. I said, do you really think that needs, oh, yes, it needs it bad. I would take a minute just to compliment the folks out at Streets and Roads there. Just what they did on the long road here recently. And it's more difficult for them, but they worked out a process to pave both lanes without that center seam. It means more communication, working harder with the neighborhood associations, but the end game is your paving lasts longer because you don't have that automatic failure in the center. So we are trying to stretch the dollars where we can. This is coming up, speaking of paving streets that are not in the correct district, and that could happen again soon, I guess. Hopefully soon. I guess in my opinion, I think we have fallen behind. Just in noticing driving around town, it looks like we can't catch up at the amount of money that we're putting toward this, and this is something we as a council need to look at. More allocation, I think. Councilman Beard, one thing that comes to mind, I think before Mr. Webb and before I got involved in Streets and Roads, I think that was the consensus at that time. I think Councilman Stennant may want to expand a little bit, but that was the reason for that bond money for paving that was started. Of course, with the financial situation that we all face, that has not been funded for the last, I guess this coming fiscal year. So that was recognized as a problem a few years back, and that was the fix at that time. But financially, I think we haven't been able to fulfill that. I think that was a good observation from your field, and it was brought to light a few years back. Manholes. I've got several streets in my district where the manholes are two inches up, and I don't know whether that's in anticipation of getting paved at some point or whether they aren't on, have not been anywhere close to being on the list. One is Tahoma, if anybody wants to drive it. But it can rattle your teeth pretty good if you're not zigging and zagging when you should. As you know, we have, and you funded our Mr. Manhole project. We have been just recently acquired a new skid steer loaded operator, and so we've been leasing a piece of equipment to do that with. We continue to do that program. We fix about five to six manholes a day, and we anticipate working the area, some of the downtown area, UK campus area, because now the limestone is open, we can work that area. If you could just e-mail me where they're located, and we'll try to work that area. Because we intend to work that equipment and do that function up until, basically up until the snow falls, and then we put it on mothballs until the spring. So we've got a lot of time to fix, and we do 25 to 30 a week, so we can hit in one area and fix several. Okay, thank you. On Rose Street, just past High, going south, during the late winter, early spring, it looked like there was a huge failure all the way across that street, and I was just kind of curious what would cause that. There was two segments of pretty good size repaving. As a matter of fact, they were base failures that we repaired last summer, and I drove that area this morning, and there are areas where we've had secondary failures, and our intent is to get those repaired again. Okay, I think I've exhausted all the possible questions I can have, so I'll keep my mouth shut from now on, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And, you know, I've had lots of conversations about roads. I guess a follow-up question for Councilmember Henson. So we don't yet know whether, we don't yet have numbers to know whether or not we're getting more and more roads below 65. No, that's correct, because the data system where you rate the roads, no one has been collecting that annual data to go back and see. There was a different process used for generating a repaving list. But a third of it's updated every year. That's correct. So at least it would be, I guess, incrementally. We'll be able to compare this year when the data comes into last year. I can go back and check, but I don't believe we maintain those percentages. They keep changing as data is entered. Okay, so we don't have a list from four years ago to know how many square feet we had. This was the first year that councilmembers were provided with a list of their entire council district that showed what their paving was. I believe it shocked some councilmembers. In fact, I even heard comments, if I had known this, I may have voted differently on different things. The fact of the matter is you weren't provided that information as completely in years past. Well, I certainly applaud you all's efforts to sort of streamline the process and I applaud Councilmember Henson's efforts and Councilmember Beard. Beard, I'm sorry. I've been going too fast today to weight the averages. I think that's just a marvelous idea, and so I think that would bring even more fairness to those. A couple more questions. I want to say briefly, I really appreciate Sam took a couple hours a morning to ride around. In my district, and Sam, I really appreciate you helping me to understand what bad roads look like and how to think about those. I had a question that Councilmember Henson said sort of made me think of this. We share Lane Allen, and Lane Allen has some shoulder failures. So does that come out of, how do we, do we just report that with a 311 or is that coming with a repaving? Generally, I think Lane Allen doesn't have curb and gutter, and generally what we do is when we do a paving, a maintenance paving project, we try to reinforce in those shoulders just recently. Like similar as we did on the long road, we went in there and basically milled out the edges and built the edges up with base and then stabilized that. So generally it's done in the maintenance paving program on roads that have no curb and gutter. The same as base failures? Yeah, or if it's an issue that we need to address, we can do it under a base failure type deal and repair that edge of the road. And get the area that we need to look at and we can make a judgment on how to address the problem. Now, there are parts of Lane Allen that, I know they did that intersection with Lane Allen and Alexandria. Was that a part of our funds or was that a different program? Up until this past year, we had a separate funding for intersection repairs, and I think that was handled out of that money. And basically an intersection repair is done a little bit differently than maintenance paving because we actually mill out more and bring in more base. It's more expensive per unit foot. Now, when we pave a road that kind of serves as the boundary between two districts, do we just split that? I think that's the proper way to do that. Thank you very much for taking time to walk me around on that. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Stinnett. I'm sorry, Ms. James. I had a follow-up question on that about you don't have the percentages from previous years. I'm not sure which one of you said that. But the numbers were just replaced every year as far as the ratings on the spreadsheet. I think maybe Commissioner Webb said it. On the percentage, the ratings, those are just, it's like a spreadsheet that's changed every year. Have we started making that a little bit different to where we can now track? Is that in the new process? Because I think that would be really helpful. Yes, we'll be capturing that information every year. And each council district will potentially change in percentage based on what the last paving review was. So from now on, from here going forward, we'll be going like, well, now for 2010, 2011, 2012, what one particular street is. In August when we come back to you, oh, you can go in there and see what it is today. As we maintain those lists, you'll be able to go back and see what it has been in the past. If you're looking at each individual street. Yes, that's exactly. Because I think that will get at where the, and then we can check to see if there's been construction on a particular road or utility work. Or if maybe the paving wasn't done right or something like that from the get-go. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Chair. Sorry about that. Mr. Stinnon. Just to be clear on your math, about five years ago we had the same discussion on council. And we did used to get lists. We got a list of every road in our district with the ratings. The difference between that list and the one you provided now is it was updated every three years, as you said. But we do, I have all mine from 2005 to today. So we did have that data. Because that's what we were missing. And we can't go back right now and say when a road was last paved. I hope you're recording it now. That's in our system, the date that it was. It was always in A or missing for whatever reason on our list. It was not 20%. But it wasn't too far under 20%. Multiply that out. That's about 8.5 million is your best guess estimate that we have today. What I suspect is in August we're going to find that that's not going to be anywhere near because of the last two winters. Right. And the point I'm getting to, five years ago we had the same discussion. That's three times that number, easy. And that's why we started doing the extra $3 million a year plus the MAP money. And the power is really in the council. If we want to go at this hard, we'll start bonding $10 million a year and go at it hard. If we really want to make a big difference. I think you were answering the O10 question, but for FY11, which we're in now, we have $4.5 million. So I assume we're going to wait until August to get the new list and then go tackle that money and maybe get that on the ground before November? That would be my recommendation. If the council would choose to just add to the list that we have, we could do that and try to get as much of it done as we can. There are a couple issues that you have until we have a really good process. Number one being we could run out there now, get another contract, run additional crews, try to get a lot of blacktop on the ground, but we have given no notice to the utilities. So we know because of that that there's going to be areas that they come back and cut up. So as we modify this process and get into a two-year, if we can get into a two-year sequence, that will allow us to notify those utilities, give them more time, and we can actually do more paving if you choose to bond it, and then still have more time to get in there than we're providing today. And I think it's probably the most discouraging thing for not only us, but the utility, to see it, to cut brand new paving. Nobody likes to do that. No, and I agree. I just don't want to be having this conversation a year from now and we still haven't spent the $4.5 million. So hopefully the new process, I think Kevin alluded to this, will help us speed up that process and have it coordinate a little bit better with the fiscal year and start spending the money we approved in that same year. So that will help us all get going forward. Thanks, Chair. I just had one follow-up. Was there a clarification about how much money we have? Commissioner, I guess I'll direct this to you. You and I were talking the other night that we only had $3 million. Councilmember Stennett said we said $4.5 million. I believe what Councilmember Stennett is referring to is the $1.7 million, and Matt Bunning. So it is going to be $4.5 million. And that's in addition to the $1.7 million that we already had. Oh, from last year. Not this year's $1.7 million. Okay, I got you. No, I remember it well. So that's the point of clarification I had. I appreciate it. And that's the difficulty we have with our borrowing. Obviously we have a lot of things from decades past that we're trying to catch up on, but it's limiting our borrowing capacity to catch up on the roads as well. And that's, to me, another form of unfunded liability. It's our responsibility to do that and to give you all the resources you need to catch up. So that's on us to do. So thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Any other Councilmembers? We'll keep this committee. And the next issue was put in also by Councilmember Lawless, and it was a street clean on street parking restrictions. I think we have Gary Means and also Kevin Winty I think are both probably going to be looking at this. So I'll let them start with it. Why don't we go to Gary, because you sent us the memo. Why don't you just give us a little review. Yeah, I'll just hit a few highlights. The takeaways from the memo is that street sweeping on most streets is planned for once a month, so 12 times a year. We, we being Lex Park, are typically the ones enforcing the citations that are by ordinance. If someone's parked on a street on a Wednesday that's cited, we're citing those. What we began to get a lot of complaints because people felt like, for instance, they may see the street sweeper go down the street at 10 a.m. and then our person comes by at 11 or 1 or whatever and still writes the citation. So that's some of the complaints that were arising. But the more I started looking at it, the more I realized that they weren't moving their vehicles, the street sweepers going down the middle, and then we're writing citations. And this is revenue that we don't want. We don't, we're not budgeting for it. We're not trying to do this, but we want clean streets. I think that's the ultimate goal. So that drove us to have a meeting. We pulled several folks together for the meeting. And I talked about some of the results. The idea was to maybe try to correlate with U.K. for most of the areas that are being swept are in a dense area around the U.K. area. We felt like by trying to observe them during, say, spring, fall, winter, and a couple times during the summer, you could pick up five sweeps. I also talked to the University of Kentucky Parking Service Department, and they said they would allocate some places to park on campus that we could communicate to say, if you don't have a place to park, here's an area to park for free. Though the way to do it right and the way to get it done right would entail towing, and I think I heard from some streets and roads folks that maybe that was tried a few years ago, and there was a whole lot of complaints, as you would expect, with towing, and so that was just sort of dropped. But if we did it this way and we really made good announcements, maybe did some door-to-door, you know, announcements this coming Thursday or next Wednesday we're going to be sweeping in your area, give people time to make plans to have their vehicle moved. I'm not sure if Councilmember Lawless was looking for any kind of a motion, but I just wanted to kind of recap the problem and some of the suggestions that we made that came out of that meeting. And I think a couple important things to think about is, is this an EPA issue as far as lessening the amount of sweeps? I can't answer that question. That always upsets people. So that would just be something that would come along if we wanted to take this route to really do a good job sweeping. That's kind of where we've left off with the issue. Thank you. Questions for Mr. Means? I would similarly liken to the issue we had with the towing downtown during the last ice storm, when we were declaring a snow emergency. With working with 911, there is the reverse call option, but that's only at this point for folks that have a landline and perhaps utilizing technologies that would alert folks along the street given that cycle. Similar to folks that can look for days when leaf collection are going to occur. There's a cost always associated with that and trying to weigh that option. But I think there's a lot of opportunity out there just to consider. So that was just one thing. There was some e-mail strings going around as to the associated cost of manpower for sitting out or hand delivering signs to residents. How effective would that be? We did that long before there was a discussion of consent decree because of the issue that we were having and the scheduled days that they were supposed to be swept. Additionally, from doing that initial step of giving folks a flyer, there were signs that were placed that alert folks to the days that their streets will be swept or which side of the street that they'd have to park on given that cycle. So that's one way to hone in on means to alert folks. Thank you. Mr. Martin, did you want to speak or were you from that last time? Okay. Mr. Beard? Just a quick question, Mr. Means. They are insofar as being a part of the urban service fund. But they are two separate taxing entities on the property tax. For those that are, say, in a district where they don't receive that services, those can elect for services, street lights, street sweeping and refuse collection. They can unbundle those and get the refuse and not the other or whatever? We don't revert back to telling folks that they are having an option to refuse that. For example, if they petitioned and successfully got street lights within their district, they can't petition to have them removed. Oh, no, that's common sense. But they could say there's no reason to sweep the street but once every 27 months or whatever. As far as that being a taxable issue? Well, it is a taxable issue. Somebody is paying the same price and they're getting their street swept once every two weeks. And somebody else, like out in my district, I've seen the street sweeper once in six years. And I honestly would have to revert that to streets and roads as far as looking at cycles as that occurs. I'm not that familiar with it. But as far as the taxing issue, you know, the street lighting and street sweeping are two separate entities that are taxed. Well, we're getting some very sophisticated questions sometimes from our constituents. Once we've dropped a couple of fees on them, they start looking at their tax bill a little bit more closely. Exactly. Understood. I've heard two or three times, and I don't know whether that's just a sampling, adequate sampling or not. Are you having problems with your equipment, your new equipment? There was problems early on, but we've pretty much regulated it. Are you talking about the new solar-powered stations? Yes. We haven't been having problems lately. Out of ticket material? That was one thing I heard. I'm sure it happens. It happens with ATMs, too. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? I do not believe that there are any motions that are going to be coming out from this. Ms. Lawless wanted us to keep this in committee. But I think this would probably be just a policy that Public Works would, if they wanted to change, could do with you all working with them. But I think we'll keep this in committee in case Ms. Lawless wants to do anything. Mr. Bresta, what's going on, if you would, please? Any other issues here in front of the committee? I would like to tell the committee and look at your calendars, if you would. Our next meeting is not until October 5th, and there are some issues that we need to address between now and before then. So I was looking at doing a special meeting on August 31st at 9 o'clock, if that works with you all. There's a partner agency meeting at 11, the budget finds at 1. I was going to do it at 9 o'clock. So not hearing any comment otherwise, we'll put that down as a special meeting for the service committee. Is there any other items the committee would like to address at this point? Is there anything that you'd like to have put on that August meeting? I think I was told that the utility poles on right-of-ways wouldn't be put on that. And also the issue that we had looked about, about the Enterprise Golf Fund, had been talked about that being put on there, too. So is there anything else? Because we need to, for the agenda, we'll have to have that set, because that's all we'll be able to talk about at the special meeting. Seeing that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. We have a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. We are adjourned. Thank you.