so oh so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so if the thought is there that there would need to be more capacity right although recognize that there's got to be enough customers on board early on to justify the larger diameter pipeline somebody has to pay for that pipeline and therefore if the customers are not in place today with some kind of take or pay agreement that's going to guarantee that so much water is going to flow through that pipeline then it doesn't make sense to build it much larger I think that's all my questions for now I did have a comment in regard to the Mr. McCord brought up the resolution from 1999 which I was here when that resolution was done and although it does say that we preferred the Kentucky River as our first source it also says we prefer the most cost effective to our citizens so I think that's one reason we're here today is to look at that so with that if council members don't have any more questions I'd like to ask oh council member Beard has a question excuse me I guess I'm a bit confused on this apples for apples if in fact the Kentucky American Water Company proposal is 80% 20% and yours is 100% publicly owned it's not an apples for apples comparison is it? Well not in the sense of who owns it but the feeling was that we wanted to look at an option which was in the best interest of the citizens of the ultimately the rate payers who were going to hook onto this system and the most obvious choice to do that is to present a pipeline which is in public ownership the option of pool 3 we didn't have that option because that project is already designed out for bid and the deal is already cut in terms of what will happen with pool 3 and ongoing maintenance of the pipeline if it's publicly owned would be I assume the public's nickel well yes but those costs are the same in either case those costs are essentially the same whatever operation and maintenance expenses that were applied to the Kentucky American pipeline are similarly applied as a direct cost to the Louisville pipeline. The difference between public and private ownership really relates to how the financing is accomplished and how the customers ultimately pay for the capital cost. The operating expenses are a direct cost to those customers out over the next 20 or 40 years. Thank you. Other council members? Thank you very much what I'd like now is we have a list of folks in the audience who want to speak but first I would oh Mr. Heisman. Can I make a few closing comments? Yes that's fine. And then I would like to hear from Kentucky American in terms of any comments Thank you We're passing out a brief summary of what we've covered over the past three meetings and I'll just quickly cover these and they're here for you. This wraps up and gives you the executive summary of what we see as the benefits for the Louisville pipeline One, the Louisville pipeline is the best low cost solution both capital and operating to meet central Kentucky's growing water supply needs The Louisville water pipeline will save rate payers between $28 and $66 million over a 20 year period and between $98 and $117 million over a 40 year period The Louisville water company provides an unlimited source of supply from the Ohio River Louisville has enough reserve capacity to meet central Kentucky We have an existing reserve capacity of 35 million gallons a day and we can easily expand that to 95 million gallons a day We also, the Louisville option, the Louisville pipeline provides a long term drought protection and a reliable redundant source that's independent from the Kentucky River. The Louisville pipeline along interstate 64 is the least disruptive to the environment since that corridor has already been disturbed. Development already exists and is already encumbered by the interstate as well as other existing utilities The Louisville pipeline provides connectivity for water providers along the central Kentucky region. That includes the water providers in Shelby County as well as central Kentucky and it's also a project that is very attractive for state and federal grants. So in conclusion, we want to thank you for the opportunity over the past three meetings to allow us to make the presentation and if there's any other further questions down the road, feel free to give us a call Thank you very much and I hope you won't just shoot out the door. Someone may think of a question they have today. We will stay here. Okay, very good Thank you so much At this point, I'd like to hear maybe from Linda Bridwell. Are you the point person today for Kentucky American? We heard your presentation last month and so I'm wondering if you wanted to make any comment on this proposal and then take any questions Let me just say, at this point, I haven't seen any of the numbers until 1 o'clock so it's a little difficult for me to make any definite comments. I can tell you right now, Kentucky American came into this meeting expecting to see something like this and it's interesting to me that Louisville's made four different proposals to the BWSC. Their engineers and Kentucky American's engineers have all evaluated those proposals and come up with, it's not the cheapest but then Louisville goes out and hires someone and lo and behold, they come up with a presentation that, wow, it's cheaper. I'm not surprised and we'll certainly get into the details of that with the Public Service Commission and the opportunities that we have going forward with that One of the things that we left from last meeting was questions about your presentation. I don't know what you, do you have another presentation? I just have really a couple slides that I wanted to emphasize because we were expecting some cost issues and you all have been put in a very awkward position and Kentucky American's aware of that. You're really getting competing costs on issues that are extremely technical and we've tried to simplify things and give you some more information. So, in addition to the cost, I want you to keep in mind the timing and if you could just put up the slides real quick. I just have Did you have Now, is this different from last month? This is different. The cover slide is the same just because I wanted to emphasize again that the project that we have in front of the Public Service Commission is the project that has been developed with the regional utilities and developed regional consensus and so I don't want you to lose sight of that fact and I think there's some folks here from the BWSC that also want to emphasize that. We spent a long time trying to develop regional consensus on the right project for Central Kentucky. This is not Kentucky American going it alone. This is what we've tried to come up with as a regional group. If you could, I get to control it up here. One of the other issues is the timing and in Louisville's original proposal they said well we can get it built in two to three years and I want to emphasize to you Kentucky American without having any information from Louisville has tried to give its best estimate on a schedule. I want to emphasize again our project is designed. We completed design in April of this year. It has a substantial completion date of April 2010. The total project time from design to completion is four years. At this point Louisville Water Company has initiated a couple minor reports and that's all. Design hasn't started. A project completion date has not been identified. So I just, and to move quickly through this because I know you all have other questions and other items on your agenda. We tried to come up with an estimate of a schedule and again the things on the left, the Kentucky American schedule, we're pretty firm on that. I mean we know we have design. We have all but two permits in hand. We have a public service hearing sitting and we have bid dates, I mean we have bids coming in, in another month. Trying to back into when we think if we started with a Louisville project, Kentucky American's not going to do anything until we get an order from the Public Service Commission and so backing into some critical path items, the best, the most optimistic that we could come up with on completing that project would be December of 2012 which is almost two and a half years, well it is more than two and a half years past the completion date. So again, while we're sitting in a drought this summer and we have an immediate need, both now and into the near future, we're talking about an option that at best is going to push us back over two years on getting completed. And then just finally, one of the points that I want to mention that seems to be conveniently left out of the RWBEC report, Louisville certainly does have a current capacity of 35 MGD that they're not using, but their own study from 2002 of Black & Veatch has demand projections that by the year 2020, just the growth in their service area is going to eliminate their reserve capacity down to seven and a half million gallons. Now they haven't talked about the cost of expanding their capacity to meet our needs. I didn't see that anywhere in the report and maybe it's in the detailed report or it's in some other information, but keep in mind that when they talk about this reserve capacity, they have their own demand projections that are going to have to be addressed and their own growth in the Louisville area that's going to have to be addressed. So again, I don't want to get in here trying to debate this back and forth in front of you all, we're just trying to give you some simple information because you've asked and I know you've expressed some concerns, but certainly there are some issues that the Public Service Commission is going to have to dig into in a lot of detail. So with that, that was really all we wanted to present today and certainly if you all have any other questions about what we talked about last time or what we've presented today, I'll be happy to try and answer them. Thank you so much. Council Members, I don't have anyone on my list. Are there any questions? I will give the Louisville folks an opportunity to respond to what you just said about capacity, if they wish. I have one question based on Council Member McCord's question of the Louisville folks. Last month you said you did not know what your rate increases had been. Can you tell us, do you know that today? Since we know what the Louisville rate increases were over the last few years, do you have that information today? I do not have that off the top of my head. I will certainly be happy to supply that to you. I think Council Members would appreciate that because we all realize that all water companies increase their rates and so that's not just a domain of one or the other. If you could give us that information. And then, did Louisville folks have anything they wanted to say about this capacity issue? I think that's important. Madam, if you will, since you gave Louisville a chance, give me a chance to address some of these. Financing. You know, you hear a lot about public-private financing. That's been a big debate around that issue. One of the things this community doesn't realize, in all fairness, they don't need to worry about because they have a good water provider. One of the benefits of American water is the fact that we can borrow money at rates that are unbelievable, not because of Kentucky American, but because of our size of American water. So when you look at the public-private financing, I heard a lot about that. We have an agreement with American Water Capital Corp., which is our parent company. So we're able to borrow money at very, very low rates. And we have looked at tax exempt financing and a lot of the mechanisms that will come forth through the public service commission review process. And I just want to let this planning committee know that we're not in a position, I think Linda did very good in trying to tell you that this case will be tried in front of the public service commission. In fairness to everyone, we can't try it anywhere but there because they're a regulatory authority. And all these issues will come out. The financing, the engineering costs, the schedule, the time, what's best for the customers. And I think that's why you've seen so many endorsements of this regional project. And we talk a lot about Kentucky American. And in all fairness to the Bluegrass Water Commission, they've played a key role here. They really have. They were part of the process in their engineering firm that really came up with the design. And we were a member of that BWSC. Like Linda said, sometimes we forget about the hard work that that group has done. They're not here to speak today. But I just want to make sure we don't leave them out. And lastly, we've done a lot of research on this issue over the last couple of decades. And our most recent research shows that those customers who are listening right now, watching this session, are saying please get on with a solution, Kentucky American. Get this done. Which is the same thing the Public Service Commission is saying. And the majority of the customers are saying they have the confidence in our company to get this issue solved. They realize we have a regulatory oversight of the Public Service Commission. And I think when it's all said and done, I hope this planning group comes to the same conclusion that so many of the regional players and so many of the chambers and so many other folks have came to that this is, including the Attorney General, that this is best for our consumers. Thank you, Madam. Thank you very much. I do have, if you would like to respond, Mr. Hyson, and then I have Councilmember questions. Perhaps of Kentucky American. I'm not sure who they're going to be directed to. I'll provide a couple of comments. One on capacity. The other one on the time schedule. One on the capacity that 2002 Black & Veatch report that was represented indeed did have that. That is an excerpt out of that. What we were concerned is we then retained, we were concerned about what is our capacity of record as a result of that 2002 study? And what would the Division of Water recognize as our firm reserve capacity? So we commissioned a study. We began it in 2006, completed it this year in 2007. And it confirmed that we have 240 million gallons a day of reserve, of total capacity, yielding 35 million gallons of reserve capacity. So it's an updated report since 2002. And what we did essentially is an extensive review of all of our facilities at both plants. And we moved, previously we had 230, excuse me, 225 million gallons a day that was moved to 240. So that capacity issue has been addressed. Further in the RWBEC report, we've covered that issue in the detailed report that's provided that the Lowell Water Company will commit to the adequate reserve capacity for existing customers as well as the capacity needed over the 40-year period as part of our commitment to get water to that delivery point in Shelbyville. So that's important information to know. The third point on the schedule is we do recognize that we have not initiated design. As I mentioned earlier, we have initiated design this month beginning on the Jefferson County portion. And that pipeline is going to move from Jefferson County into Shelby County. So we're now moving into that design phase. And I need to look at the chart that Linda provided and all the assumptions, as we mentioned earlier, all construction schedules and all financial analysis have a whole host and set of assumptions associated with being able to build or finance a particular project. We need to take a look at that. My initial reaction is that we can compress that schedule, take advantage of the existing infrastructure that's in place along the routes in both Shelby County and Franklin County and be able to get the needed supply of water by 2010. And if you recall, 6 million gallons a day is the amount that's needed in 2010, not 25 million gallons a day. So that's the first challenge is you can take phase one and literally build it in phase 1A, phase 1B, et cetera, to be able to maximize the use of capital. And then as I mentioned before, we would envision issuing multiple contracts, Contract A, Contract B, and Contract C all working in parallel to be able to expedite the schedule to be able to provide a completion of water supply by 2010. Thank you so much. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Chair. My voice is still a mess. As being the individual who initially put this issue into the Planning Commission by motion at a Council meeting, I just wanted everybody to understand on both sides of the horseshoe that I know that the Public Service Commission is the forum and the body that will make the decision on this. It's not us. But our constituents need to know also, and we have a little broader mechanism to be able to communicate with them here with GTV and the press than the Public Service Commission has. And they have a vital interest in all of this also. And so that's why it's here is to communicate actually to all of our constituents in Central Kentucky, for that matter, and not just amongst ourselves. Thank you. Okay. Any other Council Members? Before we go to our audience, I have several people who have signed up to speak. And if you will, when you come to the podium, please say your name and address. And you'll have three minutes. So first is Bill Greer. And following Bill will be Sandy Broman. And then we have others. For those of you who are meeting for the first time today, I'm Bill Greer. I live at 712 Cromwell Way here in town. And I've been associated with the Lexington water supply problem since the 1988 drought. And I'm somewhat casually familiar with it. I was part of the Scotty Basler team that did the original study. I've been a consultant to the Kentucky River Authority in various capacities. I am now on the Kentucky River Authority. I did the valve operating plan for them. I've written a book on the Kentucky River. And as a member of the Fayette County Water Supply Planning Council, I was very, very strongly in the camp of the Louisville pipeline was the solution to the Lexington water supply problem in contrast to the Kentucky River solution. The reason I took this position is this. The Kentucky River solution that was on the table at that time consisted of raising lots and dams numbers 9 through 14 by something in the range of 4 to 6 feet each for a few million dollars total. I knew in my engineer's heart of heart that this could not and would not be done. The fact saw that it has not and will not be done within the lifetime of most of the people in this room. The Louisville pipeline at that time was a very immediate solution to a very, very real water supply problem here. A lot of the engineering work had been done. Some contract negotiations had been undertaken. It was an immediate project. I was all for the pipeline at that time because that was the immediate solution to our very, very great problem. That was in 1999 and 98. Since then, of course, we know that not very much has happened and I feel right now, I know right now that the Kentucky River solution is the best one to supply our water needs at this time. And the reason I've changed my mind is this. Because I knew that the Kentucky River solution that was proposed in 1999 would not be done, but right now the Pool 3 solution is ready to go. It's been bid. It's on the table. The bids will be open in actually just a few days. The work has been done. It's an immediate solution to a very real problem, one that we have right now. But something else that hasn't really come up. Pool 3 is below Lake Harrington. And Lake Harrington contains more available water in it than all of the pools in the Kentucky River put together. Now normally, Kentucky utilities does not release water more than 15 or 20 feet down, but there are another 200 feet of water in that pool that are available if we have a real emergency. At that time, a real emergency like the 1930 drought, all of the surface waters of Kentucky are under the control of the governor. He could order these waters released in an emergency. Normally that is not done. This makes the Pool 3... I'm sorry to interrupt you, but your time is up. This makes the Pool 3 a highly advantageous solution to our problem. And I would urge this council to reaffirm its position in support of the Pool 3 position of the Kentucky River solution that was done earlier. Thank you so much. Next is Sandy Broman. ... ... ... ... My name is Sandy Broman. I've been a resident of Lexington-Fayette County since 1956. I've been a continuous resident. I'm a graduate of the University of Kentucky. I have a degree in engineering. I've been here a long time and feel like I'm part of the community as well. I found several things very interesting in the presentation so far, and I wore my tie so that we could talk about that. It seems to be all about the money, folks. That's what we're talking about here, is we're talking about money. Everybody's money, your money, and a lot of the ratepayer money. You already know what the plans on the table are. There's a Phase 1 pipeline. There's a Phase 2 pipeline through Carroll County and Owen County. And there's a pipeline to Louisville. We already know what the projects are. I made a base cost analysis of both Kentucky American and Louisville Waters' previous testimony. I hadn't seen any of the stuff that they said for today, but I took the numbers both from the Public Service Commission filings, which is the $6 million you see on the third page there, Kentucky American's base cost. One of the things they did leave out is what the cost of debt service is. We talked about how we've got lots of it available, but we didn't talk about the cost of it. $160 million at 5% over 20 years has a debt service cost of $12 million a year. $12 million a year. Add those numbers together with the profit that's allowed, and it comes to $20 million a year for the first year. We're going to produce 6 million gallons a day from that plant to begin with. That gives us a unit cost of $9.17 per thousand gallons. I went ahead and made a present value extension of that and added the cost of producing each additional 1 million gallons of water. On the next sheet, I did the same thing for a municipally owned line coming from Louisville. I used the cost that we've been talking about. I haven't escalated those either. I still used the $55 million cost that we talked about earlier. I added in the cost of debt service for that as well, and maintenance and power costs on that, and also escalated that. If you'll turn to my pretty little chart, you'll find the real bottom line. As you look at the chart from left to right, you see when we start out taking 6 million gallons a year, the difference between the cost of purchasing water from Louisville Water and reselling it to our customers is $12 million to the rate payers. As we escalated up to 7 million gallons a day, it goes to $11,500,000 difference in cost to the rate payers. Over a 20-year period, including upgrades to the treatment works and a pipeline to the Ohio River, the total comes to $173,403,930 difference to the rate payers. We're not talking about cost to the water. We're talking about the difference between what it would cost to purchase water from Louisville and the cost of producing water on Pool 3. Mr. Bowman, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but your three minutes is finished. Ma'am, I'd just like to say a little bit of an opposite conclusion. I think the conclusion that you should reach is a municipally owned pipeline from Louisville to Lexington. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Next, we have Mr. Jim McWilliams, and following Jim will be Mr. Tom Marshall. Go ahead and state your name and address, please, and you'll have three minutes. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, and thank you for allowing me to address the planning committee today. My name is Jim McWilliams, and I currently live in northern Franklin County. It's about a mile from where the Elkhorn Creek empties into the Kentucky River on Pool 3. I'm just a few miles away from the proposed water treatment plant. I've cut my presentation down by two-thirds, so I'm just going to hit some highlights today. I firmly believe that the decision or the opinion that this body will render could very well seal the fate of this entire project. I think it's very important what you say as a body. I've studied this Kentucky American proposal and the Kentucky Basin for nine months extensively since I got a letter from Kentucky American. I'm going to read a partial list of reasons that I think this is bad public policy. Kentucky American's plan will not meet the long-term water needs of the region. An expensive and necessary Phase 2 is rarely discussed by Kentucky American, and of course we heard a good side-by-side presentation today. Kentucky American's plan will not drought-proof the region. If you'll just take a look at the paltry amount of water that is flowing over Dam 4 into Pool 3 currently, which is the site of the proposed treatment plant, you can readily see this. Their plan will not provide protection against catastrophic events that may occur in and along the Kentucky River, such as large-scale contamination or dam failure due to natural, accidental, or terroristic acts. It places all of our eggs in one basket. This plan is not cost-effective for the people of Central Kentucky. The citizens of Central Kentucky should be better served by a pipeline would be better served by pipeline connection to the Louisville Water Company, and by insisting that the Kentucky American fix their well-documented treatment capacity deficit. The Kentucky American proposal will duplicate facilities requiring the construction of a new water treatment plant when the Louisville Water Company has excess capacity and is willing to sell. I am personally affected by Kentucky American's proposal in several ways. My property is located on the proposed pipeline path and is a few miles from the proposed water treatment plant on the Kentucky River. I will be subject to higher water rates well into the future if this plan gets the green light. The Kentucky American proposal will inflict a large amount of damage to areas of Scott and Franklin counties, including areas that are mostly rural. I would have to ask, would Fayette Countians like it if Kentucky American dug and blasted an 8-foot deep trench through 30 miles of their prime farmland? I think not. I also expect my taxes to increase as this ill-advised pipeline path will subject the interior of the Golden Triangle to unchecked and unsustainable sprawl. Again, an area that is largely rural right now. In closing, citizen demands for infrastructure improvement will increase dramatically. More roads, more utilities, more schools, and more governmental services will be required and will be demanded. Thank you very much. Also, I'd like to introduce this into the record. Thank you very much. Tom Marshall. Hi. My name is Tom Marshall. I live in Frankfort, Kentucky. I'm an attorney. I'll be very brief with three minutes. A little bit of background as to why I have an interest in this. I'm a former general counsel of the Public Service Commission, so these utility issues interest me greatly. I live in Franklin County, and I can tell you the natives are restless in Franklin County about this proposal. Indeed, our fiscal court has passed a resolution saying that, no, we don't need this proposal. What we need is for the Kentucky American Water Company and Louisville Water Company to work together and come up with a solution that will give us a reliable and redundant supply that will protect everyone in central Kentucky, and that route should go down I-64. If you don't know, at the Public Service Commission the other night, Carl Rollins, who is the representative from Woodford County and represents part of Franklin County, appeared and part of his statement was that he thought that the best solution was to go down the interstate. It was the least destructive. He did not like the fact that it went through the prime farmland in Scott and Franklin Counties. I urge you to take a ride down the Elkhorn Valley in the areas that are going to be disturbed. I think that it will open your eyes as to just what is going to happen. Quickly, there's been a lot of talk about a partnership between Blue Grass Water Supply Commission and Kentucky American. I think if you look at the facts, you will find that this partnership is not all that it's been touted to be. It could be that you'll find that it's kind of a shell partnership at this point. It is no longer controlled by the Blue Grass Water Supply Commission. It is now controlled by Kentucky American. It is only a 20% buy-in, and to get the 20% buy-in, they need $60 million. And in order to get that $60 million, they have stated that they need to get $25 million from the state and $35 million from the federal government. And that's to buy down the water to where they can afford it, so it's not in excess and perhaps well in excess of $3 per thousand gallons. All of these are important issues. They need to be investigated. I commend you for looking at this issue, because Kentucky American in the past has said, oh, we're doing this because Lexington said in 1999, this is what we need to do. I don't think this is what you told them that they need to do. I hope and I believe that part of what you told them to do is you ought to look at Pool 9 and you ought to look at Pool 10 and the others. Look at Crest Gates. I mean, if you didn't, you should have. I mean, they need to look at those Crest Gates and see if you can have your treatment in place, expand the treatment that you've got now so you don't have the disruptive line that's going through Franklin County. Increase the capacity in Pool 10. That will help Winchester. Winchester needs help. Put that Crest Gate, Kentucky River Authority, put that Crest Gate on Dam 10. While you've got 9 under construction, you should have done something about putting a Crest Gate there. It would have taken care of your problems. Look at the water leaks. Look at conservation. This is not necessary. So, you need a real Kentucky River solution. You need to look at whether or not this partnership is really a partnership, and you need to look at conservation. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Marshall. Foster Ackerman. Members of the Planning Committee, Foster Ackerman, Office of 209 East High Street, Lexington, Kentucky, 40507. First, I would like to compliment the Urban Council and this Planning Committee for having these hearings and making these investigations in order to make sure that the recommendations in order to determine which of the options that have been presented might be the better or best that would be available for this community in Central Kentucky. You may wonder why I'm interested in this. Over 50 years ago, when I was Attorney for the City of Lexington, and Shelby Kincaid was Mayor, we went to Philadelphia to see Mr. Weir, the then Chief Executive Officer of American Water Works Company. The purpose of our visit was to see if American Water Works would consider negotiating with the City of Lexington for the acquisition of then the Lexington Water Company. We spent an hour with Mr. Weir. He was a very pleasant fellow, very entertaining, never would discuss the subject that we came to visit him about. And I finally asked him, I said, Mr. Weir, are you going to talk about what you know we came to visit you about? He said, no, I am not. So we left. But I've had an interest in water, water supply rates ever since that time. I'm not here today to talk about the purchase of the water company, but I think this committee, the Urban Council, and the administrative officers of the City of Lexington should be aggressively investigating with all the tools at their command these proposals to find out which one is better. Once the expenditure gets in the rate base, and particularly when you're talking about plants that need to be replaced in probably every 30 years, that stays in the rate base for all practical purposes. And you know that the Public Service Commission does not always be the final authority in terms of negotiation. I would like to see negotiations with the people who are making these proposals to see if there is not a better proposal that can be made. And that can only happen if this government aggressively pursues that objective. I think that the presentations that have been made here covered a lot of the subjects that I had proposed to discuss with you, but I don't have time now. And I thank you for the opportunity, but I do hope that you will consider my suggestions that we aggressively get into the details so that the best rate and best supply of water will be available. Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Don Pratt. I hope I can see. With my new eyes, I can't real well. Will you state your name and address, please? Don Pratt, 210 Walton Avenue, Lexington, Kentucky. I, unlike a previous spokesperson, was on the opposite side of the fence regarding the Woodford County line that Kentucky American proposed a number of years ago. Because it was in the wrong place. I have seen this and heard this and have been curious about this issue with an open mind after I heard that this was going to happen at the cost it is. Now, I listened and I praised Louisville Water Company for the figures they gave in the sense that they were conservative. In fact, they probably overestimated the cost of their construction and their other prices that they put in there. And I'm sorry, I don't understand them all. I really don't. I am just a duckling in this pond. And believe me, at all these hearings, I've seen and heard the ducks lined up. And I have to say, with all honesty, a duck that we had was probably Sandy because he knew more about it than seemed everybody I talked to on our side. Everybody else was sort of a duckling learning as we swam. To be honest with you, the PSC, not because of Louisville Water Company, opened this to public comment because of the concerns of the rate payers. And believe me, the rate payers will not be protected by these ducks that aren't Aflac ducks. The ducks that they have lined up are actually going to be the ducks on the Christmas table. We, the rate payers, will be eaten up by public utilities that want to take it out of our back pockets, and in this case, this public utility wants to increase their investments as well as their profits off of that investment, and we will pay that figure as citizens and as rate payers. The reason they are here is because you all are extremely important. You can represent us. You can tell the Public Service Commission that we deserve the cheapest alternative with the best supply, and I do not want to come back here in 2050 to fight this battle again because I will have a hard time creeping up here, I am sure, and a much harder time expressing myself. Support a resolution to represent the rate payers of Fayette County and get the cheapest alternative, and if you can prove to me that Kentucky Americans is cheaper, I will be up here fighting just as hard, but you have not, and what I have seen and I have heard says that we will be taken advantage of, we will be the ducks on the Christmas table. Thank you. Thank you very much. Was there anyone who did not get to sign the sheet who would like to speak? Council Members, do you have any further questions? Well, I want to thank our Louisville Water folks, Kentucky American folks, citizens, and everyone who has come today, and I just might ask Ms. Goodwell, if you could contact Mr. Schoeniger with that information, that would be good, and then he'll see that it gets out. Thank you very much. Okay, we're going to move forward with our second item on the agenda, which is Loudon Avenue Phase 1, and Mr. Schoeniger has a packet of information. Oh, his is on Newtown. Pages 1 through 8 are information on the Loudon Avenue Phase 1. I believe Bob Baird or someone from engineering is here to give us the update verbally. Thank you. It looks like Mr. Lacar. Yes, ma'am. And Bob Baird. Right now, we have 87 properties that we have closed on out of the 93. I have two additional closings that are scheduled within the next week on these. I've got a couple that I still have property issues with working on partial mortgage releases, and we're trying to get these all completed by next Friday. That's our intent, depending on how the banks work with those partial mortgage releases on where we stand there. Council members, do you have questions? No questions. I just received the news that Mr. Lacar may be retiring. Is that true? Yes, ma'am. Well, let me just say from my many years of working with you, thank you very much for your service. You have been terrific in helping our citizens, and we appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. And then on your packet, Council members, pages 9 through 12 are the Liberty Road update, and are you also on for that? I'm still on for that one also. This is the section 1B, which is from the Todd's Road, Liberty Road corridor out towards Forest Hill Drive. We have eight out of sixteen agreements that have been signed. Six of those have been closed on. We are currently working on those other eight property owners, but we've got heavy opposition with them. So I don't have a real time frame of when they may come to a conclusion. Okay. Are there any questions from Council members? I thought we might hear from Council member Stennett. Thank you, Chair. Leigh, I too want to thank you for all your work and dedication to the city. I know we've only worked together about three years now, but it's been a wonderful experience, and I appreciate your dedication, especially on the Liberty Road project and moving it forward. So thanks to you, that's why we're starting today, and your guys that work in your area getting us going. That being said, who's going to take your spot? We have about eight properties left for the Phase 1B of Liberty Road. Who is going to fill in your shoes for next week? Who do we call to? Mr. Barrett, would that be yourself? He is my supervisor. Yes, I will be the primary contact to keep you apprised of things, questions you have. Who will be doing the right-of-way negotiations, acquisitions going forward for all projects, not just this one? The vacancy will be advertised, interviews. It will be refilled. Presently, Mary Bennett in our section is the other person who does some of our minor acquisition reviews. And do we anticipate a lengthy process to fill the vacancy? Not sure. We have tried to get it fast-tracked as much as possible. Don't know that it has been advertised. We have not received a list of names, but we're wanting to get somebody in quickly. I know from a council member's standpoint, I know Council Member James and Council Member Crosby and Council Member Cord and Mr. Blues also have projects that require right-of-way right now that are pretty much an emergency project, getting these things done. Any support we can lend to you to get this fast-tracked would be welcome from our end. So, let us know on that. One update on Liberty Road, Bob, or Mr. Barrett, what is the status of the sanitary sewer line relocation? The sanitary sewer line construction is basically done. We have the connections to do on the 24-inch line. They've been filling that with water, preparing to do the pressure test and the exfiltration test. We should know by the end of this week the results of that and that we're ready to move on with the connection and the abandonment of the piece on the school site. I know you mentioned the school site. That's obviously a big concern that we have in the district. And if we don't get that sewer line moved fairly quickly, it could postpone the opening of that school. And that's the last thing we definitely want to do. I know, especially in your department, we want to see it happen. But I want to thank both of you. Obviously, Liberty Road is well under construction now. There's been a lot of grubbing work. I believe I saw KU out there yesterday starting to relocate their poles, which is a welcome sight. I know we had a brief hiccup last night with the gas line. But I think they did get out there and get that repaired. And they're back out this morning at 7 a.m. moving those poles. So thank you all again for your work on the project. And I look forward to working with you, Mr. Barrett, going forward. Thank you. Are there other questions? If not, again, Lay, thank you so much for your dedicated work for Urban County Government. And next, we have Andrew Grunwald is sitting back there. We'll have our Newtown Pike update. Welcome. Hello. I'll try to be real brief. I'll try to keep it at three minutes. We had, last month, I don't believe that you all got to me because of all the discussion on the water lines. So included today, there were two handouts which I hope you received. The first one basically had a paper clip on it. This was the handout from last time. It was the same handout that I handed out at the NPO last month. Essentially, basically a one-month snapshot and a project schedule for phases one and four. A little bit more importantly is the handout with the butterfly clip on it. That is this month's handout. And included with this handout is a project schedule for the entire schedule, for the entire project all the way through the end of approximately 2014. Also is included with this is the financial plan for the Newtown Pike extension which will be included in the record of decision. And I'm going to go over that here in a minute. Some of the things I'd like to say about the record of decision, that's our final piece of our environmental impact statement. We have two outstanding issues. One of them is the financial plan which you now have a copy of. It's considered a draft until the record of decision is finalized. We were asked by the transportation cabinet to look at inflation. So what we have done is we have adjusted the numbers at 4% with a baseline year of 2007, the year that the environmental impact statement will be approved. Basically what this does is it does affect our bottom line. The overall cost of the project with inflation included, the dates at which the money will be utilized takes us to a total project cost of approximately $87 million. With that said, the bottom line that we need in additional funding in the next six year transportation plan is approximately $40 million. Now this is depicted in the financial plan. The financial plan is coordinated and matches the overall project schedule as money is available or is made available in the six year plan. Hopefully we can stay on track with that schedule. If money is not available, that schedule will begin to slip basically and just move back as the money becomes available. Again, I'd like to basically make everybody understand that that financial plan is not final. It's still under review by the Transportation Cabinet as well as the Federal Highway Administration. I wish I could have gotten this to you all a little bit earlier, but even up until last Friday, it was still being amended. And it's still being amended now. Basically you're getting a snapshot. I don't necessarily think the cost will increase a significant amount. The inflation was the big key issue. That request did come from the Transportation Cabinet. It was something that was done for the Louisville Between Bridges project. And they felt that this was such a large project that it also should be analyzed and inflation taken into account. For the Phase 1, the temporary housing area, we are going to recommend wood all construction for the construction of that temporary area. They're going to do the site work. Construction hopefully will begin in mid-October. This contract hopefully will be to you all on October 4th for dual reading. As far as the Phase 4, this is Main Street to Versailles. The Transportation Cabinet has been working in cooperation with us. We have not totally ruled out the idea of a design-build project, but at this point we are going to proceed with that project in our traditional manner, at which point we do right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, and then the construction of the project. We have broken up the right-of-way acquisition. The District 7 Office of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet is going to oversee that for us. And the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government Division of Engineering will manage the utility relocations. Construction management probably will be decided at a later date depending on workloads of the two departments. It's kind of a lot to absorb in a really short time, but I can entertain questions if that would... Well, I don't know if there are any... there are a couple Council Members who have questions, and you may get questions later after Council Members have had time to read this, but Council Member Beard. Andrew, if for funding reasons we're stalled at any point along this timeline, the costs will go up, will they not? The ultimate costs? In all probability. Yes, sir. In all probability they would. The 4% was the recommended number to use. The Transportation Cabinet actually provided that number. The inflation factor? Yes, sir. Thank you. Council Member James. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Section is equal to phasing, right? I just want to make sure my terminology... Is phase equal to section? So where you're referring... Okay. So on... I can't find the page I was looking at, but there was one that said Section 2, and there would be some additional right-of-way that would be necessary at that time, or some purchase of right-of-way. Let me find the page. You might have to give me a page number. It's a lot of paperwork. Andrew, it's the page that starts, I think, with the topic phrasing. One of the first... I think that's the same page you're talking about. It talks about Sections 1 through 4. Yeah. It's about halfway... There's no numbers on it, but it's probably halfway in. It's the one that... It's where you've done the costs for inflation at 4%, where you've made your changes based on 4%. The page that's up on the screen now? Yes, ma'am. And I was looking at Section 1, where the additional right-of-ways will be needed for the year 2011, and I just wondered, you have listed that Section 2 is the area where the current Nathaniel Mission, and there's another company that's listed there as well. I wondered, is there housing in the Section 2 where residents are living right now? No, ma'am. The Section 2, or Phase 2 of the project, essentially that's from Versailles to Broadway. It will encompass the rebuilding of the South End Park, which is down there now. The Nathaniel Mission lot will be included in that. This also includes the... We have a commercial portion of the Community Land Trust. That will be included in Section 2. Basically, you'll have the site prep for that commercial relocation, or that commercial business as owned by the Community Land Trust. Okay. But there is no residential housing in that section. Okay. So the money that you have allotted for right-of-way, who is that going to? Who will we be purchasing right-of-way from? Well, that money will be basically essentially the Norfolk Southern Railroad Line. There are numerous properties that we'll have to buy in that area. Is that listed here in some of this information? Who we actually are going to buy it from? Yeah. I mean, if you do the cost estimates, well, you must know for right-of-way, you must have the property addresses that you need to acquire. Do we have that information? It's not contained in that packet, but I can make that available to you. Okay. I'd be interested in having that. I don't know if other council members would like that, but if there's going to be right-of-way needed to be acquired, I'd love to have that list for reference. The total right-of-way purchase for this project will encompass about 50 acres of land that we're going to buy. We have broken it down per section, and I can get you that list if you'd like. So, will the South, and maybe I should know this, but will the South End Park then become just part of the land trust? It won't be part of Urban County Government and parks that we... It will actually be donated back to the City of Lexington. The land trust will not own the park itself. Okay. So, we will own the park. Thank you. If you would get that right-of-way information to me, I'd love it. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. You're welcome. And actually, Andrew, other council members might want to see it also if you want to get it to Paul, and he could distribute it to council members. Do other council members have questions? Yes, Council Member James. I just have one other question I forgot to ask. How are the neighborhood meetings going with the community land trust? At the Carver Center? Is that where you guys hold those? We hold those meetings. Basically, the project team holds a meeting once a month, every third Thursday, and those meetings are going fairly well. Okay. We have one, as a matter of fact, this Thursday. Okay. At what time? Usually, I get there about 4.30, and I think they begin at 5.00. They meet at 5.00? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much, Andrew. Appreciate the update. I will be giving out the same packet of information at the MPO meeting. Okay. All right. At the next MPO meeting. Okay. Thank you. Council members, if you'll turn over to the back of the Planning Committee packet, we have several items on our outstanding items, and next month we want to look at our let's see, Downtown Development Authority Land Bank will be on the agenda, and I wanted to ask if council members felt we could have our Liberty Road, Newtown Pike, and Loudoun Avenue update, if we could skip a month, or if you would want to have that information for information only in the packet, so that we can attend to a few more of these items. What's your pleasure? Well, Loudoun Avenue is only quarterly anyway, so. Yeah, it's quarterly. So, Liberty Road and Newtown, can we schedule those for November? Okay. And then we'll work our way through some of these other issues that might be ready. How does that sound? Okay. If there's no other business, then do I hear a move? Thank you. The meeting's adjourned. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...