# Council Planning & Public Works Committee - September 13, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 13, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2170 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2170?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-09-13 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 11,634 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Planning & Public Works Committee met on September 13, 2011, at 1:00 p.m., with Farmer presiding as Chair. The committee addressed four agenda items during the session, hearing seven public comments and taking one vote. Two items were presented for informational purposes: an update on the Downtown 2-Way Street Study regarding downtown traffic management and revitalization efforts, and an update on the Planning Commissioner position. Two additional items were deferred for future consideration: the Comprehensive Plan Goals & Objectives Update, which included a summary of public comments and the latest draft, and Items Referred to Committee. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on September 13, 2011: * Farmer, Chair * Ellinger, Vice Chair * Gorton * Kay * Ford * Blues * Lawless * Beard * Martin * Henson * Corden * Larson No members were absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The committee took one action during the meeting. **Motion to Remove Rear Yard Parking Residential Areas from Committee Referral List** [timestamp: 01:05:42] Henson moved to remove rear yard parking residential areas from the committee referral list. Gorton seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote with no recorded objections or abstentions. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting approved funding for a Downtown Traffic Management and Revitalization Study, commonly referred to as the Downtown 2-Way Street Study. A grant in the amount of $465,000 was allocated for this project under Resolution 0073-26. ## Public Comment The meeting included comments from both community representatives and council members addressing economic development, land use, and downtown planning. **Economic Development and Land Use** Bob Quick from Commerce Lexington spoke at [timestamp: 01:18:48] about the need for more available industrial land and flexibility in zoning to attract large-scale job creators. He noted that Lexington faces a competitive disadvantage due to limited usable land within the urban service boundary. Knox Van Noggle of the Fayette Alliance addressed [timestamp: 01:23:06] farmland preservation and rural stewardship, advocating for stronger language in the goals and objectives to protect farmland, affirm the Rural Land Management Plan, and recognize the economic importance of the equine and agricultural industries. **Downtown Development and Infrastructure** Council Member Beard spoke at [timestamp: 01:01:45] about retail and parking challenges in downtown, arguing that retail decline was due to mall competition rather than street configuration, and stressed that parking is the critical issue for downtown viability. Council Member Martin raised concerns at [timestamp: 01:50:35] about traffic management and downtown livability, specifically addressing traffic congestion, loading and unloading logistics, and the need for underground parking. He suggested that two-way streets must be paired with broader infrastructure improvements. Council Member Kay shared observations at [timestamp: 01:58:17] from a visit to Greenville, South Carolina, highlighting a successful two-way street with on-street parking and pedestrian-friendly design as a potential model for Lexington. Council Member Blues commented at [timestamp: 01:53:19] on balancing downtown goals and street design, emphasizing that the debate over two-way streets is secondary to the broader goal of creating a vibrant, economically and residentially desirable downtown. **Road Funding** County Judge Executive Larson attended at [timestamp: 01:15:49] to observe the committee's discussion on repaving and paving warranties, noting that fiscal court handles substandard road funding from state gasoline tax. ## Appointments Mr. Emmons was appointed to serve as Planning Commissioner. ## Contested Items **Downtown Two-Way Streets** The proposal to convert downtown streets to two-way traffic generated heated discussion among meeting participants. Opinions were sharply divided on the merits of the conversion. Opponents raised concerns about potential traffic congestion, impacts on parking availability, and effects on the local economy. Supporters of the proposal argued passionately that two-way streets would improve walkability in the downtown area and enhance retail vitality. The discussion reflected fundamental disagreements about how to balance traffic management with urban livability and economic development goals. **Farmland Preservation vs. Urban Expansion** A split vote occurred over the appropriate emphasis on farmland preservation relative to urban expansion. Stakeholders disagreed on how much weight should be given to rural stewardship in the meeting's goals and objectives. Some participants argued that the draft proposal downplayed the importance of the Rural Land Management Plan, contending that farmland preservation deserved greater priority. Others apparently favored a different balance between rural conservation and urban development. This disagreement reflected competing visions for land use policy and the relative importance of protecting agricultural areas versus accommodating growth in developed areas. ## Comprehensive Plan Goals & Objectives Update: Summary of Public Comments & Latest Draft [timestamp: 00:00:00] The committee reviewed the status of the 2012 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives during this discussion item. Staff reported that the Planning Commission is preparing for a work session to finalize the draft before forwarding it to the City Council. **Key Speakers and Presentations** Chris King, Knox Van Noggle, and Bob Quick participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Issues and Concerns** Stakeholders emphasized the need for balanced language within the plan that addresses three competing priorities: - Protection of farmland - Support for economic development - Addressing demographic shifts **Outcome** The item was deferred, indicating that further work or discussion is needed before the plan moves forward to the next stage of review. ## Downtown Traffic Management & Revitalization Study Update - "Downtown 2-Way Street Study" The committee received an informational update on the Downtown 2-Way Street Study, presented by Chris King. [timestamp: 00:37:44] **Project Overview** The study will be funded by a $465,000 grant and will assess the feasibility of converting one-way streets to two-way traffic in the downtown area. The study scope includes traffic modeling, cost estimates for necessary infrastructure changes, and collection of public input on the proposed conversions. **Key Speakers and Discussion** Chris King led the presentation, with participation from Council Members Beard, Martin, and Kay, who raised questions and concerns during the discussion. **Concerns Raised** Council members expressed several concerns about the proposed study and potential conversions: - Traffic flow impacts from converting one-way streets to two-way operations - Parking availability and how conversions would affect downtown parking - Integration of the 2-way street study with other ongoing downtown revitalization initiatives **Outcome** The agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal action taken. The committee received the update on the Downtown 2-Way Street Study and the planned approach to evaluating the feasibility of converting downtown one-way streets to two-way traffic. ## Update on Planning Commissioner Position The committee received an informational update on the hiring process for a full-time Planning Commissioner position [timestamp: 01:03:30]. **Presentation and Status** Mr. Emmons provided details on the recruitment efforts for this administrative role. The mayor is leading the hiring process, and the position has been placed on the council docket for approval. The Planning Commissioner role is expected to serve as a key administrative appointment under the new administration. **Outcome** This agenda item was presented for informational purposes, with no formal action taken at this time. ## Items Referred to Committee [timestamp: 01:05:42] The committee reviewed the referral list during this agenda item. Key speakers included Henson, Gorton, Blues, Corden, and Martin. The committee took action on two items from the referral list: - **Rear yard parking**: A motion to remove rear yard parking from the list passed. - **Fencing issue**: The committee voted to retain the fencing issue for further work. The committee also discussed potential partnerships regarding Valley View Ferry, specifically exploring collaborative opportunities with Fayette County Schools and Madison/Jessamine Counties. The outcome of this agenda item was deferred, indicating that further action or discussion on these matters will be scheduled for a future meeting. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove rear yard parking residential areas from committee referral list --- ## Full transcript I Good afternoon. Let me welcome you all to the September 13th meeting, the Planning and Public Works Committee. We have three active items on our agenda as well as our referral list. The initial item is our Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives update, and we have this is posted as a summary of public comments in the latest draft. And I was just going to ask Chris King to give us an update, and then we have, I think, a couple of folks who may want to make some presentations to us, but I just want to get our footing about where we are and where we're going, sir. Very good. We'll be very glad to do that, Mr. Chairman and committee members. Since we last met with you, which was back, I believe, in early July, and engaged in the process on where we are on the comprehensive plan goals and objectives for this update process, we actually, as a staff, went back to the Planning Commission based on some of the comments this committee made and made a couple of suggestions in the draft to the Planning Commission. We spoke to the issues that you as a group raised about the urban service area and the rural activity centers as being something you had some concerns about. There were a lot of comments, yes, sir. Yes, and we took that under advisement, and we made a proposal to the commission, which the commission accepted, and the draft, as it worked, was reworked. rework. Since that time, that draft went out for public viewing, and the Planning Commission has held their public hearing on the draft goals and objectives. That was held about three weeks ago. The Planning Commission received comments from about a dozen citizens or representatives of advocacy groups in the community about the goals and objectives. They received written suggestions for revision, some very small and some rather copious. And I do think, though, that the Planning Commission was very respectful and receptive to take in all of that input. And what the Commission decided to do at that public hearing, after they closed the public portion of the hearing, was to take all of those comments and suggestions under advisement. and the Planning Commission has scheduled a work session this coming Thursday in which they are going to look at the current draft, the suggestions made by various entities, and talk amongst themselves about possible revisions to the draft that they are considering. So the Commission could do that, and then they will come back at some point, perhaps as soon as their meeting in about a week and a half, and make a final action on a recommended version then to formally forward to Council. Remember at this point, it's still all being worked and tweaked and vetted in the Planning Commission arena. At some point, they will take action on a certain set of goals and objectives, and then it will be forwarded to you, to the Council, and presumably posted to this committee. Will there be any more public comment given to them then? Or was that one hearing and that closure? So the hearing has been closed. The commission, of course, has the authority to reopen the hearing if they so choose. And I think to some degree that may depend on how extensive changes they feel they might want to make after they work their way through the public comments and suggestions they have received. I was unable to attend that or watch the entirety of it. I did see some of the input. Anything surprising in your estimation in terms of the few people who did give input? No, I don't think so. I think the themes that we usually hear, you know, staying to the floor, you know, economic development and preservation and things like that. And I don't think necessarily in any kind of a hostile type of environment. We also heard for special advocacy groups such as the handicap constituency and groups like that. So, again, what we are trying to do and what the commission is trying to do is achieve balance. What people keep telling us is as long as they feel that the language is balanced, they will generally feel happy, although some might want more, some might want later. And, again, a lot of items and thoughts that are being brought up. We had people come and advocate perhaps even for expanding the urban service area and things like that. And those kinds of comments will be more appropriate, not at the goals and objectives, but later in the land use element and the other elements that will follow. Any commentary about the dramatic difference in style over the last goals and objectives? Oh, I think so. I think definitely there, just like everyone, there is a looking at that and a general feeling that we might need some more language. That was definitely certainly a theme in one or two of the things we received, and I would say fair that would probably appear also on both sides of an issue, if there is two sides of an issue. But that's something that the Planning Commission will also be considering. So overall, I'm hearing the ball is almost in our court. Almost. Right, and we have, in my opinion, we've been kind of ready, and we're not trying to rush anyone along, certainly. But we hope that if we do, through the combination of commitments of what will be looked at and other elements of the plan, tweaking of the goals and objectives and the language by the Commission, if the effort at the Planning Commission level carries most of the heavy lifting and a product is referred to you that people, by and large, do feel comfort for, We will certainly advise the Planning Commission to try to do that. Very good. I would just ask the committee, if you will, if any of you have any comments or questions for Chris at this time. And if you don't, then I would ask for your all's consent that there are a few stakeholder people here who may want to make some what I would call plenary statements to us at this time if we want to hear from them. because there are other things on our agenda. None of them add up to that much time or perhaps even as much importance as this issue. But just as we begin, I have a couple people signed up. We'll go with Doug Martin first, Council Member. Thank you, Chair. Mr. King, thank you for coming, and thanks for the work. And for you, Mr. Duncan, are we free to sort of delve into this at this point? because I didn't go to the open session. I understand that we have a particular role. Could you maybe help us understand, help me understand, since this is my first comp plan process, whether we are under any limitations as far as what we read and what we receive because I understand it. Council could best speak to this, but in my opinion, this is considered in the legislative realm, and you are free to take comments. You know, if people start talking about things on their specific property that may come to you as a zone change, you might want to shy away from that. But in terms of the big concepts, I wouldn't think that would be a big problem. But we're free to delve into it and go to all the meetings and all that stuff. I think so. Now, I would say one of the things I would comment on as far as delving, again, remember that you don't have anything officially before you yet. So in my thought, certainly being educated and watching and hearing the comments from folks I think is a good thing. But at this point, your calories are better spent probably on that education part and not worrying so much about what the Planning Commission might send to you yet because that will come when it comes. I have a lot of calories to spend. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. one thing i failed to mention that before the next period that we have been following up with some groups for instance the rural land management board appeared and made some comments and as an official arm of the urban county government we wanted to make sure everything was uh copacetic we had a great meeting last week with billy van pelt and a number of representatives of that board And I think now there's complete understanding about what's coming now, what's coming later, and how all that works together. Well, I think part of what we're doing is just reassuring folks as we go along. And I appreciate you taking time to meet with those folks, too. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Chris. And I know that eventually we'll dig into the meat of all this and have detailed discussions. I did have one question about the document that's in our packet in relation to the public input. I was curious about item B, protecting the environment, on page 2. and what the thinking is about including the EPA consent decree, which is, of course, by law, and urban county government is required by law to comply with it. So what was the thinking in terms of including it? because the consent decree does not necessarily include, spelled out in it, the other items in this protecting the environment. I mean, is it just to put emphasis on something that we're required by law to do? I think that's well put. And I know that might seem a little odd, but let me give a little bit of background. At the time the last comprehensive plan was being done, that whole background conversation about the issues that were involved in the consent decree were all boiling. We're right up there at the top of the community's interest. Because of that, the Planning Commission was advised to not even get into it, not even talk about it, not even recognize it. So if you look back to the 2007 updated of the comprehensive plan, you just kind of have this void when it came to those issue areas as they related to the environment. So as we were putting this together, since that is now resolved, we just thought as the staff and the Commission agreed it would be good to acknowledge that and recognize that because of the number of things that that will mean to the environmental protection for our community. And then when it goes away in 20, 30 years. Job done. Yes. Okay. Well, I was just curious about that because we are required to follow it. So thank you. Unless there's other questions for Chris right now, if you'll stay with us. I appreciate your time. I certainly will. Thank you. Now, unless there are other comments from committee members. Peggy. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Henson, excuse me, please. I did, and I have read through this briefly. I don't, I was just curious as the baby boomers start to increase within our community that I think that's something maybe we should be looking at. So maybe it's in here and I missed it, but how long is the plan for? Is this an annual? Five years. Every five years. Every five years. Okay. So I was trying to get, for instance, Parks and Recreation and other divisions of government thinking along those lines because as, you know, when we talk about securing employment and all that is very well and good, but there's also a huge number of people that will be retiring and needing facility uses in parks and rec and housing and so forth, as well as services, to maintain, to keep those people in our community as well. Very important, and in terms of demographic trends, it is the overarching one, and it is even somewhat reflected in here. But any time we start talking about facilities or housing or other things that involve all citizens, as we move through the next phases of the plan, the community facilities elements, the land use element, that inevitable fact of that demographic change will inform all of those conversations and all of those parts of the plan. So I'm very comfortable that as we get into those details, you will see a lot that deals with that issue. Because it does suggest changes in transportation, changes in housing, changes in all kinds of styles as we all try to maintain a quality of life through our aging years that the numbers of people we're going to have, myself included in that number for a long time, I hope. Me too. I was also, you know, I know accessibility is mentioned in here, which the Commission for Citizens with Disabilities suggested that be included, and that would also be a factor with the aging population. Yes. So thank you. Very good point. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also hope to be included in that aging population moving forward. Chris, my question really is what is our role here in, I know this is a work in progress. are we being asked to not to sign off but to make suggestions, observations? Right, and if I may speak for the Chair, I think in our conversations, because of the importance of this and because the goals and objectives is the one element of the comprehensive plan that the Council takes formal action on, you, in a sense, are very much the Planning Commission's customer in this process. And so we've been having this conversation, particularly since there had been a desire on the Commission's part and others to downsize and streamline and make a little more point at the goals and objectives. There's a certain area of getting comfortable with that that involves the Council as well as everybody else in the community. So that's being worked on. I think right now, again, since you don't know what the final version that's coming to you is, delving down into details is probably not best use of Council Member's time at this point. However, I think any general guidance that you can give us that we can take back to the Planning Commission about what you as a group would hope the product would be or your expectations for it, we will take it back and communicate that to the Planning Commission as the Planning Commission works through these last stages of drafting a version that they will then officially forward to you for action. Thank you for that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My pleasure, sir. Other comments for Chris? And that does encapsulate it. Our work is just beginning, and it will be different than what's been done previously because of the stark contrast between the current goals and objectives and those that are going to be proposed to us. So we will take some time as a committee and then as a council to look at those differences and weigh the benefits and the differences within the community and come forward with a set of goals and objectives that the entire council, I believe, will in the final analysis vote for. Thank you. And for today, there may be a few people who want to give us some commentary, and I don't want to cut that off. We are still on the front end, so kind of following the lead that Chris gave us, we don't want to get too technical. But I think it's a good time for stakeholders to come forward and give us some overview comments about either the goals and objectives, as they may well be proposed to us, or versions of that narrative that you may want to provide and or are providing already. Bob Quick. Welcome, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We had heard some comments about having us come down and just give an update of where we're at, what we're doing, and why. I think it's good. We wanted to help advise you all. Thank you for allowing Commerce Lexington to come and participate today. My name is Bob Quick, President and CEO of Commerce Lexington. And our staff, along with your staff and the University of Kentucky's forum, what we call the Bluegrass Business Development Partnership. The team works very closely to recruit new industries and businesses to Lexington and the Bluegrass region, as well as working with startups and existing companies, existing businesses. It's a three-pronged, balanced approach to job creation. Today we're actively working with several of our existing businesses, in addition to several new prospects, many new prospects, which are looking to come here from outside of Kentucky. Having access to readily affordable sites and buildings is key. To address this point, in 1998, Commerce Lexington acquired and developed the Bluegrass Business Park. It had just over 100 acres, and today there are just around 20 acres or so remaining. We sell the land in minimum 5-acre tracks, and it costs. Tiffany & Company was our last groundbreaking. And today they employ nearly 100 employees. And I might just throw in here a little plug. The ribbon cutting is on September 26th. It's the official ribbon cutting for their opening. And we would love to have all of you there. Also, the Bluegrass Mrs. Park is home to Obosta Roof Systems, Big Ass Fans, Sumitomo, and Keto USA. And all the employees They're totaled right around 1,000. And again, part of our mission of getting involved with this is providing land, but for the sole mission of helping create and expand our job base and of having very good paying jobs, and each of our tenants out there do. At the start of the current update process, our staff did a fairly extensive review of available industrial land for sites of five acres or larger, and we found less than 75 acres currently zoned and usable within the urban services boundary, not including the available acreage within the Bluegrass Business Park. This puts us at a competitive disadvantage when recruiting large-scale job creators. So we need more privately owned industrial land, more flexibility within the current zones to encourage just this. Just a few weeks ago, I was in Los Angeles at the American Chamber of Commerce Executive, meeting, and I met with several economic development site consultants. As a matter of fact, I led a panel of four of the top folks on the West Coast that, quite frankly, we had interaction with as well. And they were briefing a group of about 100 key economic developers, as well as I met with these folks all individually. And one thing came, they made this one point over and over and over, and that is you have to have land readily available, complete with infrastructure. So when you get the call, we have to be able to tell them how quickly we can turn their project, let them know that we have the land and we have the infrastructure. The Angelou economics recommendations also pointed out the need for Lexington to address the lack of affordable available land to large job creation prospects as well. Overall, we are in agreement with the streamlined version of the goals and objectives. However, as we move forward with you in the comprehensive planning process, we hope that you will work with us to find creative solutions and offer some flexibility in regards to current zoning requirements for underdeveloped or underutilized land in order for us to meet our economic development goals. We have provided written comment, and you may have seen those too, Jim Duncan and Chris. And I would also share with you, we've been meeting with Chris and Jim, our economic development team, for quite some time, and they have been fabulous to work with as we've been scrubbing through the maps and looking at all the different land available. So it's been a good process, and again, just want to say thank you for how you've worked with us. Thank you for providing this comment and for the background work you all have done. I appreciate it. We appreciate it very much. Any others? Knox, if you would, that would be great. I would hope five minutes would be good. It seems to be working so far. My comments are about seven minutes, but I've got two people here in the audience that would be willing to yield their three minutes to me if that's needed. Just please start. Okay. Fair enough, fair enough. Thank you, Chairman and Council Members. As you know, my name is Knox Van Noggle, and I'm here on behalf of the Fayette Alliance. The Fayette Alliance is Lexington's only land use advocacy group dedicated to promoting a sustainable growth model that benefits all of us for our town, our farms, and our future. In furtherance of our work, we distributed our proposed vision, goals, and objectives draft with cover letter to you earlier this week for your review and consideration. In the interest of brevity, I won't address the entirety of these materials today, but will highlight a couple of important points. First, the community's vision must be written in a way that balances a vibrant downtown, healthy neighborhoods, farmland preservation, and environmental work with the development of our resources to accommodate growth. This is a proven recipe that will continue to produce an unparalleled quality of life here in Fayette County. In this time of economic recession and uncertainty, our quality of life is our biggest calling card for economic development and job creation. As 70% of workers today pick city first and job second, where the workers choose to live is where the companies choose to go. So a balanced and sustainable growth strategy is instrumental to becoming a destination for a strong, creative, and recovering economy. The goals and objectives must speak to this opportunity and expressly point out how we can responsibly develop the roughly 12,000 acres of available land inside the urban services area. Small area planning, good design regulations, development incentives such as the land bank, the EPA consent decree, greenways, affordable housing, transportation, commerce, and aging in place are all policies that should be brought to the fore. And the second point that I would like to make is that the goals and objectives must expressly address the stewardship of our rural area through affirming the current principles and recommendations of our Rural Land Management Plan. This plan was adopted roughly 10 years ago after a diverse cross-section of our community, including leaders from the home building, real estate, business, neighborhood, equine, and ag sectors, met for nearly two years to determine how best to manage and promote our irreplaceable bluegrass landscape and its various economic, natural, and cultural resources. Their work led to our nationally acclaimed PDR program, the 40-acre minimum rule, one of the largest national historic districts in the United States, and countless other land-use policies designed to preserve and enhance our precious farmland and $3 billion ag economy. While the statistical information of the Rural Land Management Plan needs to be updated, the importance and continued relevance of its goals and objectives cannot be overstated and should be affirmed. Like Toyota and Lexmark, our equine and general ag industries are major economic drivers that, too, have a factory floor of their business. Instead of bricks and mortar, our signature industries exist not in a physical building, but on our precious bluegrass soils and farmland. Any sound business plan manages and leverages its facilities or factory for purposes of economic growth, and our farms are no different. Although our entire economy is in a state of contraction and shifting paradigms, from finance and home building to the horse industry and agriculture, we have even more to lose if we don't mine the store in our rural area. Here are some key facts about our farms and what they mean to our local economy. Lexington Fayette County is the capital of, as you know, a regional $3 billion ag economy. Our rural services area supports over 21,000 local jobs from farm laborers, suppliers, and tour guides, to lawyers, vets, animal science researchers, and sales agents. Vet payroll alone contributes over $17 million a year to our local government and demonstrates just one facet of our equine cluster. Kingland and Fasig-Tifton are respectively the largest thoroughbred sales agencies in the world, last year attracting international investors to our city from 49 different countries and selling over a billion dollars' worth of thoroughbreds. The thoroughbred industry, as reflected by the current and recent Fasig, Saratoga, and OBS sales, seems to be stabilizing. Projected full crops will continue to decrease in an effort to reduce supply, but therefore to increase demand. And this approach is working, as the average and gross sales prices of horses have increased 20 to 40 percent from previous years. Lexington and the state of Kentucky are still the epicenter of an international industry and breeds foals and raises more thoroughbreds than all other states combined. And as you know, Fayette County is just not about thoroughbreds. We're the largest beef-producing state east of the Mississippi River. The Bluegrass Stockyards, located in downtown, is the second largest stockyard in the United States. Last year it sold roughly $144 million locally and $350 million statewide in cattle. And food is a very big deal. With grocery prices, transportation costs, and populations reaching record highs, Fayette County farmers are growing more food to satisfy demand, with crop receipts totaling over $14 million. With improved processing, distribution, and marketing systems in place, food could become an incredibly powerful Fayette County industry in the near future. Other cities have taken advantage of this opportunity and created a major business. For example, Madison, Wisconsin is the capital of a $9 billion local food industry. Fayette County could follow in Madison's footsteps as Lexington is located a day's drive within 70% of the U.S. population, creating an ideal market condition for this emerging industry. And tourism is huge here. The World Equestrian Games, as you all know, had over a $200 million statewide economic impact and jump-started a growing and documented sport horse industry in Fayette County. The Kentucky Horse Park is home to 35 national equine operations, which contribute over $260 million to our local economy. And nearly 2 million tourists came to Lexington last year to visit the horse park and Fayette County farms, investing needed money in our hotels, restaurants, and local business. Tourism generates an annual $15 million in local tax receipts to LFUCG every year, and many tourism initiatives are ongoing. In fact, a young program is underway at the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association to aid in booking public horse farm tours. And in fact, more than 1,200 tours were completed in 2010 alone, and they hope to build on that success. This fall, the mayor is convening a committee to examine the challenges and opportunities for agritourism in Fayette County. In light of these facts, the goals and objectives must address the stewardship of our farmland, beyond answering the question of not expanding the urban services boundary. While answering the expansion question was an incredibly important first step, we can now seize this opportunity and spend more calories on the goals and objectives so they provide a clear, thematic blueprint of how we grow and manage our most important community assets over the next several years, from housing and neighborhoods to the environment and farms. Our economy depends on it. The 2006 comp plan had over 40 goals and objectives addressing the rural area. The 2012 draft potentially has one. Even in light of the new shortened format, we hope that our bluegrass brand, farm, and signature industries and other community-important interests will be given their due. The 2012 goals and objectives must be both concise and pointed. Otherwise, the comp plan will be subject to unnecessary legal confusion and wrangling as we adopt land use policies in the future. We appreciate your consideration of our comments here today and our submitted letter. We look forward to participating in the process moving ahead, and thanks so much for your dedication. That seemed like five minutes to me. Is that okay? Or was it longer? No, I don't know. Did it go on and on and on? I'm still here. Okay. That's good. What I hear you and Bob Quick both saying is we need factory floor room. We have different types of factories, though. Right. We both need room for them. But further, yours really went to what is in the goals and objectives as it relates to really the essence of what the alliance is all about, to make sure that there is enough verbiage in the goals and objectives to make sure that areas are protected and that the ag and all the ancillary businesses that go along with it have opportunity to flourish too. Sure. Is that a good sum? No, I think that's a good sum, and I think that there's a lot more common ground amongst all the various community stakeholders than one would think. I mean, I think there's no question that we have a lot of opportunity within the city, even as it relates to the ED land. I think we have over 400 acres of land zoned ED, and we all have to work together to figure out how we can better zone and manage that asset to do just what we need, which is to bring factories and jobs here, while also conversely protecting to the factory floor of the rural area and the industries that depend on that as well. Well, I think, and you alluded to it too, moving aside what is generally the initial part of the update discussion that has to do with the boundary has given us the opportunity to burn calories somewhere else. Right. At the same time, the Planning Commission has put the goals and objectives on a diet. So they look different. So we will have to spend some time on that. And that's part of the reason for trying to have your all's presentations today, to set the stage for the council, to understand we're looking at a different model than what we've gone after before. And it may work and it may not, or we may arbitrate to something in the center. But it is a different type of goal and objective package that's being pondered and ready to send to us than what we've dealt with any time recently. So I appreciate yours and Bob Quick's comments today. Great. Thanks so much for the opportunity. for Knox while she's up? Thank you so much for being here. Thank you very much. Other stakeholders are... All right, we're good. Okay, then, council members, what I would ask you to do is to look at the handout that Paul Schalmacher did for me pursuant to our last meeting. And it's not... And this is a lot of work. All of our staffs work very hard, and Paul did on this one. I asked him to go back and contrast what was at that time the proposed goals and objectives with the adopted goals and objectives. And, Paul, if you would just give us a couple of comments here. This document has a lot in it to be absorbed, and I just want you to give us a background for it, if you would. I'd be happy to, Councilmember. You have attached a document in front of you that this is all of the goals and objectives from the 2007 plan. Those that are in bold, I don't believe were carried forward to the draft 2012 plan. Understood. In many cases, just because time, the five years have passed, some of these that are in bold might not be appropriate. For example, the 2007 plan called for some infill and redevelopment work. It's already occurred, so there isn't really a need to put it in the 2012 plan. But several others, for various reasons, weren't carried forward to the 2012 plan. It didn't appear. This is a great document, and I appreciate it. I know members of the planning committee will, too, especially as we move forward after we really receive the goals and objectives from the planning commission and the planning staff. And at this point, I've spent some time with the vice mayor privately about how we will handle this. And I think we're going to spend some time with the committee to bring them further up to speed about what we have and what we're going to get into. We're going to bring some stakeholders in and work on this in not an ad hoc committee fashion, but probably in a couple of fifth-floor committee passions where we won't necessarily be here. We will be working on this each month as we meet from now on, but we will be kind of threading through what is formally sent to us to approve, reject, amend, change, and then as a committee I think we will have a product to present back to the council that they will then understand because we just want to keep everyone involved as we move forward because it is a community issue and this is a community event as we work on it. Unless there's other questions or comments, which I'm glad to take any of, we'll move on to our next item of business. Thank you very much. Thank you all for coming for these very important beginning conversations. Next up on our agenda today is the Downtown Traffic Management and Revitalization Study Update. And I love the, in quotations under that, Downtown 2-8th Street Study. and I don't know here's who to present on that. Chris, you're back in the well. I have never, this is so interesting. So many people stop me and say, why do people want to change the streets back the two-way? And it strikes fear into some people's hearts. I find that so interesting because we've talked about this for at least 10 or 15 years now. We've just taken some action on it more recently. Please update us. Well, what this is is the next logical step of things that were put in motion. Gosh, going back discussion-wise on the idea that consideration and actually converting our one-way pairs to two-way pairs could make downtown a much more livable, retail-friendly and pedestrian-friendly and much more vibrant type of downtown community. And many places in the country have gone ahead and done those kinds of things. Lexington fell into those discussions. It came up in the Lexington DDA's downtown master plan process. It was identified in the last comprehensive plan by the Planning Commission as an item that warranted further study. And in 2009, this council actually adopted a series of resolutions which drove into motion the concept of moving forward incrementally to do that. And in the previous administration, that process began, and the Division of Planning was charged by then Commissioner Mike Webb to lead the public input process on talking about and exploring the conversion of second and short. So through the very extensive public review process that we had, we learned a number of things. We learned a few things about cost. We learned a few things about process. We learned a few things about what the state transportation cabinet was going to do. and we learned a few things about encountering special problems, such as management of the extensive dropping off of school children, many of them from out of county, and special logistics problem around the Lexington Children's Museum, the Children's Theater, and the Opera House. It was something that we weren't particularly tuned into. All of those combined with items that the state transportation cabinet was interested in. led to the fact that we need to have a study. We need to have some more study. We need more cost information. We need more logistics information. And as we moved into last fall, some funds were identified that had been around for a while that had been earmarked by Congressman Chandler, and it appeared that that made a good opportunity to start, to use that to tap into those necessary adjunct activities. With the coming of the new administration, and as we were moving along with that, the interest in this even accelerated more, and a decision was made to actually use all of this earmarked money to put out a study and to get the required computer modeling, cost estimates, preliminary design estimates, so as a community we can finally just move ahead. That's well put. And this council, you did authorize earlier this year, we discussed with you, and you did authorize applying for the grant, trying to finalize getting that money, which initially was about half a million dollars by the time the federal takes their slice, the state takes theirs. The net to us is going to be about $465,000. And going through all the hoops that we'd have to jump through to get final approval, to get that grant money and to begin to execute this study. The good news is a couple of weeks ago we finally got the green light, the official notice to proceed from the state transportation cabinet. So we're very enthused now that we feel within the next very immediate time frame we will be able to begin the procurement process. We have draft RFPs. We will put our final couple little tweaks on there, get that out there, and start then to go through the process of entertaining proposals and consultants to do this study. So that, I hope, it's rather a broad brush of a lot of history, But I hope that gives you an idea of where we are and that it is about to move forward. It was an excellent presentation because it's generated several questions from Council members. You would hope that the questions would be answered by the presentation generated. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chris, there is another activity that's taking place, the Arts and Entertainment Task Force. This gets to be a chicken and egg kind of a situation in relationship to especially Vine and Main Street. how are we going to integrate or are we going to integrate and who goes first i mean it's it's a very it can get very complex right that's a very good question and i'll be honest stan harvey and i had a number of conversations you know stan is kind of the quarterback from that standpoint of the that task force. There is, and we all recognize as professionals, there may be an opportunity to cross-pollinate some of that information. The question is, their time frame is so aggressive, moving ahead, they're ahead, and whether when this study comes on, if there are opportunities that our study can help inform information that that process needs, there will be every attempt to make that integration occur. to the mutual benefit of both studies. And that's basically all we can do at this point because we don't. I mentioned May and Ryan. Actually, I and Maxwell would be involved in all probability in the same situation as part of that 46 acres. It's a boundary for a lot of that. I agree very much with what you're saying, Council Member Beard. And we are cognizant of, again, the possible ways that could work together, and we're trying everything we can to make that work. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Chair, Council Member. Vice Mayor Corden. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Two questions. You and quite a few Council Members will remember that prior to the last administration, there was a study done, and it highlighted many problems with converting main and vine. And so I would like to request that all of those, do you remember that study, Chris? The Chan Krieger study, there have been a number of different types of studies. Well, it had them spelled out why it could be problematic. And I think that it would behoove counsel to look at those and to have some answers from the administration as to why they're no longer problems, or if they are still problems, because I would not want to move ahead with Maine and Vine until we have answers to those challenges. And my say, I think the point of this study is to provide those answers. This is what we encountered on even Second and Short and others. And even if you look at the way the Council's resolution structured a logical study of those, what we're able to do, I think, with this funding is to compress all that into one process so that we're not biting it off in little pieces. And hopefully then the answers will be there in terms of, well, what needs to be done? What's doable? What are the costs? But again, I think with an eye towards doing it, because that is the directive that was inherent in the Council's action. So will it directly address those things that were in the previous study that were highlighted as problematic? Certainly, because one of the things that the RFP will call for is a review and alternatives and options on how to address any problems that may be created. Of course, as you know, on Main and Vine, the initial thing is they're not under local control. Both of those facilities are directly controlled by the part of the Federal Highway System, so the Federal Highway Administration and the Transportation Cabinet have final say. Of course, they also have final say on where all our, quote-unquote, streets cross their, quote-unquote, streets. But the idea is that they will be very much involved. They will be stakeholders in this process as well so that everyone's questions can be answered. So we will eventually see those things highlighted in some sort of report back from the consultant. We suspect that the report consultant will be an extensive effort. We're talking about almost a half a million dollar study. Yes. My second question, well, it's not really a question in response to Councilmember Beard. I thought that I heard the mayor say the other day that the arena arts and entertainment is a 25 to 50 year plan. So I don't know that, you know, I just put that out there because it might be that we're on a quicker time frame with our two-way streets and that we would prefer not to wait until that is all complete. You know, I appreciate that the vision is long-term for that. and so I just wanted to say that in relation to what Councilmember Beard had brought up. Thank you. I was going to let Councilmember Beard comment. He did say that and I agree with that when you talk about the total situation. There is a linchpin in all of this though that is a lot closer to Maine and Vine or will be a lot closer to main and behind, and that's the Rupp Arena versus the new arena situation. And that timeline can be, I would say, 2016. The contract on the present Rupp Arena is 2018, and if either we and or the University of Kentucky are going to build another arena, it can't start in 2017, November of 2017, for a 2018 completion. It'll take some time. So that's kind of the window I'm looking at. The distillery district conversion into arts and entertainment venues, Multiple venues probably will flesh out over time into whatsoever it will become, and hopefully it will become a multiplex of various and sundry entities. and then of course there's our end of the things can still happen down this way on Main Street and Vine Street also that it happened once or twice so maybe it can happen the third or fourth time anyway that was the rebuttal thank you sir next Council Member Martin thank you Chair Yes, sir. Thanks again. We're going to talk about this quite a lot, but very few issues I hear more about, a few, but very few, than two-way streets downtown. There are some folks who are ready to bring out the Second Civil War over two-way streets downtown. And many folks have a belief, and I think the belief is not unreasonable, that a single Pepsi truck, beer truck, garbage truck, person unloading their kids will shut down downtown, like on Short Street, by stopping to unload and load. I mean, the fact is that the way we've designed downtown and failed to anticipate this through the years, that it's a freeway downtown. And until we figure out where we're going to send that traffic, I think folks are not okay with worse. They want traffic downtown to be better. And I understand the economic impact of having two-way streets and walkable and being able to get around. but we also have to look at the larger issue about how we're going to get traffic out of downtown. The Newtown Pike, great place to start, but we need two or three Newtown Pike projects in order to really turn downtown into the kind of place where you can drive downtown, park on the street, and get out and go to the store. There's just too much traffic going downtown, and so the concern that many folks have, and I hope this study helps address that, is if we convert to downtown, How are we going to manage loading and unloading? And how are we going to handle the traffic that particularly comes east-west through Main Street? So I look forward to getting in this. I'm sure we will have many, many, many more conversations. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. And last on the sign-up list right now is Council Member Blues. Doctor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm following on what Council Member Martin said. As you know, I've been pretty much involved in these discussions, the public meetings and the conversations with folks in planning and traffic engineering and engineering and so forth. And we know it becomes a really complicated issue. and sometimes, as in the public meetings, a pretty fierce debate. Are we going to have two-way streets or are we not and so on? And I think that the two-way versus one-way debate is secondary to the real goal, and that is to bring more people downtown, to improve the climate for business and retail, to increase residential capacity and desirability. And I'm hoping that the study will look at that broader picture, there is, as Council Member Martin was, I think, suggesting as well, to look at what our goals are and to consider whether two-way might work here, some other mechanism might work elsewhere. So I just wanted to add to that notion because I think that we're all aware that what we really want is to create a more economically and residentially and commercially vibrant downtown, no matter what way the streets are going. In maintaining traffic and maintaining that and improving the livability, in the comment about downtown being a freeway, it's difficult to make that a very attractive residential and retail environment. So again, like everything else, it's a combination of that balance. You know, what levels of congestion and slowing down and calming things in our downtown will help our goals for downtown without hindering the other needs of the downtown in our somewhat unique street pattern that we have that contributes to that as well. And we hope to get expertise from folks that have done this in other places, seen the impacts of that as we move forward with the consultant selection process and who will be ultimately chosen to do this project, which will also have an extensive public input component because we know there are a lot of people with extreme passion on both sides of this question out there in our community, and they all will be heard. Well, thank you very much. I'm certainly looking forward to this study and the discussions. and, you know, actually doing something in the foreseeable future. So thanks very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Thank you. Council Member Martin had one follow-up. Just briefly. Yes, sir. You know, you go to a bigger city, and Lexington is just now starting to look at underground parking. We don't have really any underground parking here, but you go to Louisville or Cincinnati or Chicago or places like that, And it's a permanent part of what they do. And so I hope that this is sort of considered because, you know, for trucks that want to come and unload, if they've got a place downstairs or in to do that as opposed to doing that on the street, I think as we grow we're going to have to look more toward underground parking, things underneath existing structures, and given the age of downtown, they didn't have parking structures 100 years ago or 50 years ago, at least here. And so maybe that's a piece of this. Thank you, Chair. About how long do you think will it take to spend this half a million dollars or to do this study? About how long will it take to do this study, do you think? We would hope that the study itself, and given that we want to have a public input process, I think it would be reasonable 10 to 12 months. You know, another month or so, you know, well, we've got to get it out. We've got to evaluate. We don't know how many people will respond to the RFP. But certainly we would hope you'd have a lot of significant information within a year. Well, I think the underlying commentary here is just for you to be dynamic in what the opportunities are. Because, yes, the work is going on with the arena and arts and entertainment district. But truly, until the Newtown Pike extension is complete, I think logistically it would be impossible to two-way some of these streets because we have to move some of that traffic around downtown rather than through downtown. I think past numbers have shown particularly that's critical for Main and Bind. Yes, sir. Because of the amount of traffic that we would anticipate. And that's what some of this new state-of-the-art modeling will hopefully help us quantify to a better degree than has been able to be done in the past as well. And now another Councilmember, Councilmember Kay. Thank you, Chair. Yes, sir. I wasn't going to weigh in. I think we're going to have plenty of opportunity, but I couldn't resist because I was part of the group that went to Greenville, South Carolina. And what we saw there was a main street that is two-way, one lane each way, head in parking. That's one of the most attractive main streets that I have ever seen and incredibly vital in terms of its business community. Lots of restaurants, lots of shops, plenty going on. They did it somehow. They have businesses that get deliveries. They have traffic that moves through. They also took out a main highway and built a pedestrian bridge, replaced it with a pedestrian bridge. And they're not the only community that's done that. So I believe that there is a tradeoff. and we have to decide as a community what we want our downtown to actually look like and feel like. If you see the pictures of that downtown, of that Main Street in Greenville, and you compare it to what we have, it's a street that begins with the same width. And instead of having a highway through their downtown, they have a tremendously attractive pedestrian area. So their Main Street is the same width as our Main Street? Same width. Check it out. Well, I mean, I appreciate it. Yeah, have you seen that? I mean, who went? I forget who was on that trip. Who has actually seen that with their own eyes, who's on this committee? Okay. Yeah, someone else wants us to speak. Yes, that would be correct. Yeah, so I think I would pick up on Council Member Blue's comment. It's a values question. There's technical questions to be asked and answered about how we balance the competing needs, but finally it's a values question. It's a decision about policy and what we want our downtown to look like. We will not get the downtown that I think we need to have and continue to be able to move traffic through it the way that we do now. Those are competing interests, and I look forward to the extended conversation. Thank you. Thank you, sir, for weighing in. I appreciate it. And that has brought Council Member Beard back on our list. Council Member. Thank you. I think, I don't know this for a certainty, but Jim Gray and I went to Greenville three years ago to take a look at it. That street is not the same kind of main street that we have because there are no banks. There are no high-rise buildings. They are all small one, two, three-story buildings with a lot of restaurants. It's a very nice and attractive thing, but it's not the same thing. It's like we would go to Maxwell Street and start doing the same thing on Maxwell Street or Hast Street or something. It's not, you know, large commercial buildings are on our main street, and some are on some of the adjacent streets. One other comment which bothers me, I guess, because it's a sad situation, but it's how we got here to begin with. The feeling that retail will come if we go with two-way streets. We lost retail and it didn't have a darn thing to do with the streets. It had to do with Fayette Mall, Turflin Mall, and that type of competition where somebody could go and park and go to one place to shop. Parking is the critical issue that we have downtown if we're going to do anything downtown. We've got to find some place to put the cars because people are not going to give up the cars. I'm sorry, but they're just not going to do it. As much as we might want it to happen, it isn't going to happen. especially when they may be coming from, and we'd like for them to be coming from Mount Sterling and Winchester and some other places here to shop. So that was my rebuttal, Council Member Kay, to the extent that I was there when we had two-way streets, and we lived with them, and we were used to them, and then when they went one way, we all loved it. So this should be a very interesting study. It will be very, very interesting because I ain't going away. Bye. I doubt we'll be asking you for an update until you're done. But if you want time before us for that study in the meantime, please let us know. As you can tell, there are a lot of thoughts, pro-con and otherwise, on it. And I remember going with my family down Main Street in our Super 8-millimeter camera, driving what is now the wrong way to take pictures before it went two ways. So it's a part of a lot of people's history. Thank you for your time on it today. I appreciate it. Last on our agenda, our active agenda today, is an update on the planning commissioner position, which is something that in the budget process the council changed some of the funding around for the potential opportunity for a planning commissioner position. Mr. Emmons, welcome, sir. Thank you for being with us. Thank you, Mr. Farmer. Appreciate it. Quick update for you. First, some good news. Hiring the planning commissioner is in good hands. The mayor has taken that upon himself to use some of the knowledge that he's gained in the past. But a little bit about where we're at. Human Resources and the mayor have put together a draft job description with some good points. And actually, the mayor has already started working his networks to try to find potential candidates and having conversations almost daily to try to find some of those people. This week, you will find on the council docket the position of planning commissioner to officially approve it, and it will become eligible after you're approved. Is it really on a work session docket? It is. Okay. Good. It is. Sorry to interrupt you. It's okay. Okay. I think the timing there came from budgeting because there was only about $110,000 budgeted for it. Right. salary and benefits, so we're almost to that point now where we can hire a full-time planning commissioner. This strikes me as an opportunity for the mayor to place a signature on the administration of his own with the creation of this position and the opportunity to fill it. I think we were just trying to do a little check-in, look over the shoulder, make sure everything's good with you all, and if it is with you, it is with us too. It seems to be going very smoothly, and I'd be happy to keep you guys updated as we go along. I think that would be just an occasional e-mail of summer if you wish to come back. whatever is convenient, but I think it's something that provides some interest on both sides of the aisle, if you will. So we'll look forward to staying involved. Very good. Are there any questions among council members on that issue or on that update? Thank you all for working on that, for all of us. Now, the committee referral list is on page 5 of the packet, and I would indulge any comments or changes there. I expect that between now and our next meeting we'll have some other things referred in and try to pull some things out. But if there's anything, Council Member Henson. Yes, ma'am. The first item listed. Yes, ma'am. If I'm not mistaken, we had a motion, but with all the changes in our council committees, it may have gotten lost. But there was a motion made to remove that from committee items. So I'll make another motion. I'm loving that. That's great. We have a motion and a second. Council Member Henson and Vice Mayor Gorton to remove the issue of rear yard parking residential areas. All of those in favor, second time saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Thank you, ma'am, for bringing it up to our attention. Any other comments on any of these? If anyone has, Dr. Blues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the fencing issue, the council sent a proposed text amendment to the Planning Commission, which in its wisdom bounced it back to us, along with some very helpful suggestions for a revised version. And I haven't found the time to work with Chris on another version, but I'm hoping that before the snow flies or ends that we will get to this and bring back another version for Council to consider and possibly to send back to planning. So I'm hoping we can keep this in. Absolutely. We will just shepherd it at your convenience. Great. Thank you so much. On the right of entry and administrative warrants, and Paul, staff to the committee, would this issue now be covered by our private property issue working group that we have impaneled in the last couple of weeks? Or are these different? I think this is very, very different. Okay. I think. Well, then we will not take any action on that then. Unless there are other comments, I need others down through here. Yes, Vice Mayor. Yes, thank you. I just had a question about the partnering with Fayette County Schools to sustain salt services. Is the administration working with Fayette County Schools, which seems to me to be a place where that could start? We've lost our administration attendees. This came out of our environmental quality link as an opportunity for the schools to work with us monetarily to make sure that on days when they want there to be school that we have the resources out there for them to have school. Would you like for us to make an overture on behalf of the committee to the administration on this issue? It seems to me that would be the appropriate thing to do rather than to go through some sort of policy discussion unilaterally. Very good. Yes, if the administration could follow up. Thank you. We won't do that accordingly. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Beard. While we're talking about partnering, the one right above that, the partnering with Madison and Jessamine Counties regarding Valley View Ferry, I thought that always was the case, that we had partnered and we each put up some money to run that. I think you're correct. I think this is part of a group of things that were preferred from the Environmental Quality Link. I think what we're trying to do here is just have discovery about what is the nature of that partnership. Do we all put up equal amounts? Or what are the costs and opportunity involved? I know that in one conversation I had, we needed to be involved in the partnership because we were the only ones who were members of the Kentucky League of Cities who could provide an umbrella for insuring those who worked on the ferry. So I think we just want to kind of look into what that relationship is and make sure that it's good for all involved, is the way I would put it. I know at the time there was some discussion that we were going to pull out our involvement. dollar-wise in contribution, then we reversed our field and didn't. Yes, you're right. The mayor's proposed budget went one way. I think if there's more discovery about it in conversation, it went another way. This is a chance for us, as we've seen in other committees, for us to look back over some budget issues and kind of take them one by one in the meantime before we get back down to starting another budget. A new budget. Yes, sir. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Okay, I wasn't sure exactly where this was coming from. Well, in my opinion, and I talked with Paul about who to kind of bring forward to talk about this and some of the background information to go into it, and we'll have that in one of the upcoming committee meetings. Thank you. You're welcome, sir. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Chair. Yes, sir. We're a month and a half into the fiscal year, and we have a substantial increase in our repaving funds for this year. if it suits the chair and the committee. We might want to hear the repaving coming up fairly soon. We all have a long list that we're going to be preparing. We put this in, I guess, in April. It also came from the Environmental Quality Link. Is that the one you're referring to here? Yeah, I guess it originally came from. Or and below that. I'm sorry. It's related. Yeah. Reexamining paving warranties and repaving program. I didn't mean to interrupt you twice. Excuse me. and um and so don't do it again no no so no so but but the concern is number one you know this is my third year on council and there's precious little crack and seal going on in the 10th district i don't know about other folks district but this is how we stretch and make our pavement last longer and what's happening is is through the winters you know the water is getting in freezing in the cracks and it's starting to buckle up at the seams and and by not taking preventative steps to to make our existing payment paving last longer we're making our our list much longer so we're taking shortcuts where where we might be able to to help stretch our dollars the second thing is that uh you know i've had some opportunity to discuss with our paving contractors about the the thinness of the paving that's been laying down. And I would like ATS to come and talk to us about what are best practices for paving because we're about to spend a lot of money on it. And if we're putting down a half an inch or three-quarters of an inch of paving that's going to be flaking up in a couple of years, that's maybe not a good source of our money, the way you're spent. So I think before we spend three times what we did last year, it would be good to have them come in and to develop some guidelines that our streets and roads department should follow about best practices as we spend this money and try to make our streets last as long as we can. Help me just focus then. Reexamining paving warranties and repaving program are different conversations but part of the same genre kind of? I'm looking at the repaving program, but the paving warranties, I mean, we're having streets that have to be repaved again probably shorter than they should. Part of that is whether we're, for example, meeting federal or state guidelines on repaving. You know, if we're only laying down a half an inch of paving and that's just basically going to flake up in a couple years, is that really a good source of our money? So I think it would be good to have the administration come in, have the ATS folks come in, and present to us, first of all, whether we're following best practices, but if not, what are best practices that we should institute into some sort of a formalized policy. What's the experience of other council members? Are you guys getting crack and seal in your districts? It's open mic night. Go ahead. I just have a quick comment. And in 1999, my first year on the council, I went out with the crack and seal people, and they guaranteed it to last seven years. It's not doing that today. No, and I'm not seeing it. And the other thing is I went out. What prompted this is in April 2010, I went out with one of our directors and looked at every street on my 65 and below list. And we wrote down base failures and things like that because we wanted to get the base failures fixed before we repaved it. Not one base failure was fixed last year. They just paved over them. So that is a problem that's going to come back because when you just pave over a base failure, it's just going to keep sinking. And so I think it's time to hear about what best practices are and try to make sure that we're using our money wisely. And when we repave a road, how long should we reasonably expect that that road is going to last? We'll arrange for some sort of presentation, hopefully for next month, which according to this is three weeks from now. But if not, then shortly after that is possible. because I think you're right. The quicker we can have the conversation, the more we will know. Yeah, because it's time. Are we paving? The asphalt plant closes sometime in late November, and we're running out of the paving year, and if folks are going to get anything done, they will be using maybe last year's standards. It'd be good to take a look at it. You've brought clarity to this for me and for us, and we will work on it between now and our next meeting. Thank you, Jerry. I appreciate it very much. Are there other comments or questions? Yes, sir. Yes. County Judge Executive Larson is here. Would you like to approach and... Speak to anything at all. Well, I hesitate to say speak to anything at all, but make a presentation of some sort, sir. I didn't intend to be here, but I... We're glad you are, sir. heard the discussion about roads, which is the fiscal court responsibility to return state gasoline tax money and apply it to roads, in particular to the roads that have been determined to be substandard or below 65. I was just curious and I just wanted to be here to observe your discussion about that because it is exactly what the fiscal court deals with. So I don't have anything to add. I was just here to observe and be a part of this if I could. We will make sure that when we have this discussion, which will probably be at our October 4th meeting, that you're invited. How's that? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Yes, sir. Thank you. Unless there's other business to come before the committee. I ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Seconded. All those in favor? Aye. We are adjourned. Aye.