! Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Let me welcome you to our October the 16th Planning and Public Works Committee meeting. We have a complete agenda and a couple of interesting items within. First, I would ask for your all's consideration and a potential motion about our September 18th summary. Motion to approve. We have a motion to approve. We need a second. Second. Second by Council Member Beard. Any discussion? All those in favor, sign up saying aye. Aye. Those likes aye. Thank you very much. With the summary dispensed with, that brings us to pages 6 through 13 of our packet, which is an extraordinary discussion of the municipal aid funds and its consistent income over the next group of years and what we might do potentially to bond some of those funds to add to our poor paving situation. Our paving isn't poor, but our situation is. And I was going to defer to Councilmember or ask Councilmember Stinnett if he would just, this was a background opportunity that you had brought to us. I wanted you to shepherd it if you would. Thank you, Chair. Yes, sir. I appreciate the opportunity to bring this back again before the committee. As you recall, the last committee meeting, we had an extensive discussion on our repaving needs. Those are about $27 million citywide of currently roads rated under 65%. A couple weeks ago at a work session, we produced an opportunity, three or four different scenarios that we could look at to maybe put a larger dent into our repaving needs this year. And at the end of the discussion, scenario number two, which is the $13 million bond, which would be issued immediately and be available in the springtime for the spring paving season, would be the preferred scenario. That would take about $1.4 million a year from the municipal aid money budget for the next 10 years going forward. Now, each scenario in here, keep in mind, assumes we're only getting $3 million a year towards paving going forward. As you know, last year we got $6 million. So this is assuming a minimum of $3 million from the municipal aid fund, which is the gasoline tax going forward, of which $1.4 million would be used to repay the bond over a 10-year period. And then, obviously, in 10 years, whoever's here can make the decision on what to do going forward. But this $13 million would put basically $16 million on the roads this year, given the $3 million we're actually spending right now, plus the $13 million would be $16 million towards our $27 million deficit. So it would put almost a two-thirds chunk towards that goal, which is what we've all talked about our infrastructure is crumbling. One caveat to this discussion is, and the scenarios, and one item that probably needs to stay in this committee is how we're going to deal with municipal aid funds going forward. in terms of large capital projects, how we are going to expend those, who gets first dibs on them. As you know, by looking at our packet, some of that money is paid towards personnel now, and that's been a fixed cost the last couple of budgets, but should the decision be made at any time to increase that, that will eat up some of the municipal aid money, as well as our large capital projects. We have four major ones going on in Fayette County right now, Lee's Town Road, Todd's Road, Clay's Mill, and then the Polo Club extension that we approved Thursday night. So those have got to be computed into our funding over the next five years and getting those projects completed. So, again, I think we need more discussion on how we're going to be spending municipal aid money and talking to some of the commissioners. We may need a road plan. And that's a bigger discussion than today, I know. But today's need is just repaving just the roads that we already have. And we're not talking about using the money to extend roads or widen them. This is just repaving dollars that we're talking about allocating today, again, to put a dent in a large deficit that we're currently facing. So that's where we're at, Chair. I know Councilman McCord brought up a couple points last meeting about the quality of the work of the roads getting them down. I know Kevin Winty's here. I don't see Sam Williams. But I think some of that has to do with our contract and what we're asking our pavers to do, as I understand it. We're only using a mill of one inch. And Kevin Winty, you can go into detail on this. But I think that can be addressed, too, so I don't think that's necessarily a concern. That's the original issue, as it was in committee, I think as referred by Councilmember Martin, was kind of to the specs and how they work, so to speak. From your presentation, I think you're more or less advocating what I would call or what is labeled scenario two that is on page 10 of our packet. That's correct. Okay. Other members of the committee or the council have questions, and I will come back to mine after we have done those. But first would be Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. I guess my questions would be how we address paving moving forward. And I know Council Member Sennett mentioned really looking at that in committee. But my question would be maybe for Kevin. and hopefully you could answer how many in dollar amounts of our roads fall below the 65% annually. A number of roads, I'd actually have to look that up. Council Member Henson, I can't recall offhand. I'd have to get the spreadsheets to know. Like in the dollar? We actually ran an exercise where we were breaking down roadways based on their road ratings to show you that allotment. It was actually, I believe, the second or perhaps the first page of the packet. We were breaking those down as far as linear miles, linear feet, and then the estimated costs based on those breakdowns. If you see that, as far as the specific roads, I could get you a list for how we calculated these figures. What I was looking at is to make sure if we put a dent in where we are as far as our deficit in paving, going forward, are we going to continue to increase or decrease our deficit? I believe with what we've discussed in prior meetings, if we were to have an allocated amount in what we discussed at the last Planning and Public Works Committee meeting of around $7 million, which is something that we could accommodate from streets and roads as well as our contract with ATS. We would be able to handle that as far as the actual construction, and we'd also be seeing in years moving forward a decrease in the number of roads that we currently see now. I think I have calculated 14% of the roads that we currently maintain fall below the the level of 65 or rating of 65 or less. And you would see that percentage shrink if we were to continue to dedicate that amount roughly every year. Okay. If that helps to answer your question. Well, I just wanted to make sure that if we use the MAP funds to pay the capital expense or the debt service payment, that money couldn't be used for paving. and then the rest of the money would come from the general fund to continue. If we did $7 million a year. And that's really more of a question I'd have to defer to finance for an answer to that. I guess I would like to see what the average is, dollar amount, that falls below the $65 annually and make sure that we have that much money annually to keep us from falling into this situation that we're in currently. You know what? I'm a little confused. Okay. Right now we have a deficit of $27 million. So if we invest capital funds, $13 million, there's $14 million left. But there will be additional roads that will move to the list next year. Correct. So I just want to know how much we would need annually to get caught up and to stay caught up. Well, it's not just as a function of throwing money towards it. It's also the allocation of what we're able to manage as far as that money that's dedicated to it. And that's where I feel that we've basically determined that a $7 million figure is probably right at that point where we could manage that and also see us trending forward in years moving forward if we, over a period of time, allocated that $6 million to $7 million allotment towards resurfacing, where you'd see that percentage decrease in this overall $27 million moving forward. Correct. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, ma'am. Next up is Councilmember Blues. Well, I just have two questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the first is, can we count on that MAP money on an annual basis going forward? I see Commissioner Driscoll. But what we averaged, Councilman Blue, so you understand how we came up with these numbers, we averaged $3 million a year of the matling we've been receiving towards paving. And that's been a comfortable average. It hasn't dipped below that in years. So last year we got $6.5 million almost. So we can predict that we'd have a sufficiency for a debt service over the decade. That's correct. Now, keep in mind, you don't have to pay this bond back when the 10 of us are not here anymore. You can pay the bond back from the general fund because it's a general obligation bond. We're just saying the plan is to pay it back from municipal aid money. But a next council can decide not to do that in the budget. When they balance the budget, they can pay it back from the general fund if they wanted to. That was my next question about whether we're, in a sense, encumbering obligating future councils to a program over time that they can change any way they want. Well, this is a one-time bond, so you're not. Anytime you bond something on this council, you have to pay it back. Whether we do a pension bond for $31 million that we all voted on to do, You have to pay it back. So you are binding them, but this is a one-time plan, one-time bond. Now, how they pay it back, that's balancing the budget in the future, but we're asking to pay it back from the municipal aid money as a safer route than the Hurt General Fund. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Next up would be Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to ask of our Commissioner of Finance, Jane, if you would come forward. She's been sitting on the back row for a reason. I wanted to know about if you could, I think, I'd like to entertain this idea, and I think that some of our council districts are getting hard-pressed to have roads resurfaced. and my only question and concern is how this bonding looks in context of our overall bonding and what it does to our debt service levels and that sort of thing. Have you taken a look at that? Well, it does, as Council Member Stennett mentioned, it is a GO pledge, so it will come off the top. It adds about $1.4 to $1.5 million of debt service a year, approximately $13 more million of outstanding debt. So from that perspective, it is GO. So as was mentioned, it is an obligation that will come before other obligations, but it's $1.5 million. What we did for you on the back, if you all have the handout that we had, we did just want to make a couple of points from the financial perspective that it would be geo-debt. But we have looked at the, from a bonding perspective, it does meet the test in terms of the ability to bond the road improvements. So that many times when folks look at our outstanding debt, it's what the purpose is for. So it meets that test. So there's not an issue in that regard. And what, in context of our total bonding and, you know, our percentage? I need to, I'll bring you that, I'll go get that number. I think Bill just put up the scenario too. But we'll get you what percent that would be of our total outstanding debt. And are there debts, I mean, I know you've done extensive presentations on our debt service and bonding levels and all of that. And I guess I'm wondering, are there debts rolling off anytime soon that would offset this? There are, when you look at the curve, the debt service, it is a downward sloping curve. So, yes, some is rolling off as we go through. But I'll go get that actually for you while you're having that discussion, if that would be helpful. Thank you. I appreciate that. Because there are some other financial points that we can make as well. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, if you'd like. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll have you back then after the question. Let me go grab that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up would be Council Member Beard. Thank you, Chair. Kevin, could I ask you a question, if I might? your chart of estimated cost of resurfacing. If you look at the column, total of 50 and less, are we on the same page? Yes. Okay. Yes, sir. And that's $8,462,000. and you say that you can only manage to $7 million. So there's going to be a million and a half dollars of 50 and less streets that would get resurfaced. Correct, so far? Yes. And then next year, we're going to move some more into that category. Correct. But the 65s, by the time we work our way from the bottom up, by the time our 65s work down to beat us, so to speak, we're going to have a whole other stack. I just somewhere along the line we've got to we've got to drive a stake in the ground and go after I guess the low hanging fruit and the low hanging fruit would be all of the 50 and below maybe with an exception or two in there if there's some other reason why we might want to do that and work our way from the bottom up as opposed to look at it from the bottom down And I understand your point. And the one thing that I'm glad you make that comment, because what you see before you is simply a snapshot in time of where these calculations were made as of the first or second week of August to provide these numbers for you. We could have a very severe winter this year, which is going to completely alter what you see before you. but that at least gives us some percentage base in order to move forward with the questions that Council Member Stenet had. Well, help me a little bit. If, in fact, ATS is going to do the work, the difference between the $7 million you referenced and the $8,462 million that's on this list, what would it take from a management point of view to be able to level the $50s and less? I think that's where we want to weigh into our cooperative arrangement with the council for each district to see what your constituency feels is the greatest need. We could see that attacking everything at 50 and less would make sense if you're just looking at the numbers. But if you're looking at traffic counts and traffic volumes and roads that are of 65 and less, that's where you would want to allocate those monies, and rightfully so. So it's a weighing game or a weighted game based on what you feel is of greatest need within your council district. I know last year, for instance, I had a street, a complete street from one end to the other that was a 30. So somebody had missed that somewhere along the line for a long period of time, me included probably. that we hadn't addressed it when it was a 40 or a 45 or a 50 or whatever. It was. It didn't get to a 30 in one year, however. And I think, too, when you're looking at this data in a tabular format, there are going to be times where you may overlook something, whereas if we can get this modified to where you're looking at it graphically throughout your district, each individual district, you can focus on those areas that may be more reflective of areas where you want to target those funds. Well, it's an interesting math problem, if nothing else. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you, Kevin. Sure. And we're attempting to make it new math all at the same time. Customer Senator, would you mind waiting until after Council Member Martin and Lawless go through? Sure, I just want to clarify something on this chart. Go right ahead. Well, capital projects line, that's where we need to continue to have discussions in this meeting. Right. Those are placeholder numbers. Those may or may not be real numbers. And regardless of what we do today, if you hold those numbers to be true, it will bankrupt us no matter what in this fund. So we need to have a serious discussion about, and I know Commissioner Paulson is working very hard to figure out what the real numbers are for capital projects line and how much we really need from year to year. The other thing we haven't discussed today is what the fund balance is in the fund currently that goes towards that. That's not on that chart. So there is a fund balance currently that can go towards those numbers. So I'm not sure that chart is the best to represent what our real balance is. Well, all we're asking today is, based on our upcoming revenues, we know we're going to get $3 million a year for paving in this fund. A piece of it will go towards a debt service to do a one-time bond. That's all we're asking. We're not asking to cut into the capital projects line or anything today going forward. And one other issue if Kevin Winty could clarify. You said we only can do $7 million a year in paving, But we actually contract this out, and in 2007 we did $40 million in one six-month period. So I'm trying to figure out why we're saying we only can handle $7 million. Repeat those numbers one more time. In what year we did what? In 2007, before the previous governor election. In 2007, we did $40 million in Fayette County with one contractor of road resurfacing. So I'm trying to figure out why we only can do $7 million. When we don't do it in-house, we contract it out. I'd have to look at those numbers. No, I'm not sure. But that would probably be more likely. I mean, that wasn't all dedicated to urban county roadways. I would say that was a combination of what the city, under our current contract at that time, as well as the state was allocating for their maintenance. From that $7 million, that's what basically from discussion with streets and roads, that we would feel that our staff would be, effectively, we have only two inspectors that are state certified to oversee that construction. So that's where we felt like as far as the allocated monies, with the amount of volume that would project to be as far as work is concerned, that we would be comfortable in dealing with. So it's the inspector piece. From the standpoint of just the management aspect of overseeing the contract as a whole. The contractor wasn't telling us what they couldn't do anymore. No, that's really more from our end than just the management end of things. Okay, thank you. Sure. Thank you, sir. Next up is Council Member Martin. Thank you, Chair. Keith? Come join us. Kevin. Welcome. It's only been four years. Hey, so help me on this municipal. If you guys could put up the map on the municipal aid fund, annual estimated cash flow with the projects. And this is on page eight of my copy. so help me understand what's going to happen to these projects because I'm a member of the MPO the Metropolitan Planning Organization and so getting Clay's Mill Road done the Harrisburg Road to New Circle is a huge priority and I know probably is for Council Member Henson now as well since she inherited a good piece of that but what will this allocating the map funds due to these projects because I know the purpose is a Clay's Mill. I mean, that's a heavy education corridor. We've got folks in the mornings and afternoons when school's coming in and getting out. We've got Lafayette near that corridor. We've got Clay's Mill Elementary. We've got Lexington Catholic there. We've got Mary Queen is there. It's just a very busy corridor. And between making the roads safe and repaving them, as much as I love paving dollars. I have to say that we need to get that thing widened. So to help me understand, what's going to happen to these projects if we adopt this scenario? Kelsper, I'm not sure if I'm the one qualified to really answer that question as far as the dedicated MAP funds. I would actually like to potentially divert to Bob. Would you like to address that? Bob would love nothing more than to come up and talk about it. He also answers to Keith. Welcome, sir. Thank you. We've actually kind of have two scenarios, one near-term, one more long-term. The Clay's Mill scenario is the long-term one I'm thinking of. It will require, at this point, the anticipation is that it will require several million dollars' worth of local match. The section of Clay's Mill that we've been doing has been toll credits applied, which means that it's 100% funded out of SLX federal dollars. Also in the near term, we've got Todd's Road, which is a state route, which will again apply toll credits, use 100% SLX. The next section of Clay's Mill will have toll credits. Leastown Road is a state route. We'll have total credits applied. Citations is another big one that's going to be entirely state monies. So what would we lose, though? That's what I'm trying to understand. I understand there's a lot of them that's solely funded by the federal government or by the state. What would we not be able to do if we allocate these funds, annual map funds? Would it have any impact on the projects? The near-term impact would be negligible in terms of projects because all the ones we have near-term aren't going to require local match anyway. And unless the capital program really takes a hit, we shouldn't really be getting into things like handicap ramps and bridge repairs and some of that kind of stuff. I would like to try to see this program money for those in any eventuality. Thank you. Thank you. I wanted to just hit a couple things in my remaining time. One is we should focus on the most needy roads, but we had a sort of glitch the first year I did paving. We ended up paving the sections that were only below 65 but not above or near 65, And so we left two blocks in between three blocks unpaved, even though they were like right at or right in that area. And so when we look at these, we want to make sure that we're not spot paving, because any seam that you put even between two lengths creates a place for water to get into. And this was Waco Drive, and obviously we finally got it fixed. But we do have to sort of make sure that we look at lengths and obviously the corridors as well. The other thing is that during the budget time and when we first got back from the break, we had a discussion about the property tax. And we're not currently meeting the needs that the city has. We're borrowing the money to contribute to the pension fund, or make our annual required contribution, and now we're looking at borrowing the money because we haven't been keeping up with our paving funds. So I've got some concern about, notwithstanding my district has the most paving needs in the county, some concern about looking solely toward borrowing and not the revenue side of things. If this is a true need, then we should also look at our revenues. And so I hope that going forward we try to, particularly with the current financial climate, to stay away from borrowing as much as we can until we know more clearly what the extent of the future, that the future holds for it. So I've got some concerns about this. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Next is Council Member Lawless. And then I'm going to skip over to Vice Mayor and go to Steve Kay after that, and then we'll come back to you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Chair. The discussion about roads going from a high number to 30, and I'm sure it's not unique to the 3rd District, but in the older neighborhoods, the bulk of the money I had last year or the year before, went to roads that were rated 80 to 100 who had trolley tracks that had collapsed and it had only been paved six years ago, had base failures because they were built over something. An example of this is not about roads, but the parking lot in Woodland Park kept getting holes in it, and we were able to get funds to redo that parking lot with pervious surface. But when they dug it up, they found there was a basement under there that had been there 200 years. So that's why in some of these very old neighborhoods, those roads that were paved were rated very, very high, that they were like you couldn't drive a cattle truck over them. They were so bad. So I think we need to kind of take those things into consideration also. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Next would be Council Member Kay. Thank you, Chair. I'm not sure who the question is for, but this is back on the chart that's on page 8, Estimated Capital Improvement Plan. the bottom line from 2013 to 2018 goes up substantially and i can see that projects are added and they are cumulative but i don't quite understand why that why that works the way it does and whether that's all capital improvements that local government is responsible for. Can someone just explain a little more about this chart and what it means? You're on page 8. All right. Very good. Excuse me. I can tell you just about the chart and then I'll let the engineers, the professionals tell you about the content. This is from the capital improvements plan, so it's what we use as our assumption in building our scenarios 1, 2, and 3. So this was pulled directly directly from what agencies submitted to us in the capital improvement planning process. So in that process, we've asked them to estimate out the current budget year that will be coming up plus five additional years. So it's really to be used as a planning tool for us as we go through the budget process. What we simply did to build some assumptions into the scenarios was to take the projects that they had indicated they would use MAP funding to complete the projects. So what we did determine, I think everybody would agree from a meeting we had recently, and I think Council Member Sennett mentioned this in his opening remarks, is that we really need to do a comprehensive road plan, if you will, of our own so that you can see the different sources and the potential state funding, et cetera, for all these projects. But I'll let them speak to how they put this CIP together in particular. But we needed something to put in to build the model, so we took the information from the most recent CIP process that the agency had indicated they'd spend MAP money on. Okay, so then the question is, why is the capital in 2012 at $1.1 million, and the estimation for 2018 is at $9.7 million? What is that? I mean, does that help me understand that? It's kind of a pushing out process. typically in capital projects under the municipal aid fund, engineering has gotten $1 to $1.5 million worth of capital expenditures. What this chart is intended to show, and this is kind of the way that I've set it up year after year, is trying to anticipate what we could do in the future in terms of good projects and what kind of funds it would take to do those. We know we can't do them this year. We know we can't do them next year. But if something were to change that we could do a project, when could we do that and how much would it cost? Okay. So is it fair to say that these are not specific plans? It's a projection. but that if we took this chart and advanced it five years, the likelihood is that when we got now, if then we're going from 2018 to 2023, we'd still have a relatively smaller amount in the far left-hand column because that's all the funds we have. Right. And the projects would continue to be delayed, and it would look like the obligation is greater in later years. And I think a prime example is the fourth one down on this list, Citation Boulevard through Newtown Springs and Winburn Drive. This is the section of Citation Boulevard that finishes up from Newtown Pike to Russell Cave. That has to cross through property controlled by the University of Kentucky. They really don't have any intention of giving it to us to build a road across, but in the event that something were to happen, were to change, I've put money in those out years to kind of cover the ability to extend that roadway. Okay, one other question. Are there either do we know or are there assumptions about what the present obligations that are related to plans that are in process for development, what they will require in terms of supportive roads? and I see Chris King in the back, and he might be able to, he didn't want to get near it. Okay. I mean, where I'm going with this question is if people have submitted plans that have been approved, but they haven't built yet, but in order for them to build, they would need road capacity. Are there some roads that will have to be built that are on this list? No. The one in that category that comes to mind, which I was going to address later, is pillow club. That's obvious in everyone's thinking, I guess, but with the school coming online in August 2015, that's something that we've just got to get done. So that is the one road that's going to have to be built, but the rest of them are, we have the option of delaying. Right. We were in a similar situation with Starshoot Parkway a number of years ago when the elementary school went out there. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before we go to the bonding questions, I did want to also ask about the, in every scenario, the unaudited fund balance of the ending unassigned fund balance, $5.4 million. Do you all know if that was purposely left as a cushion or if there were projects that were supposed to have been done that didn't get done and so there's a fund balance? Again, I can tell you from the financial perspective, on other funds, not general fund, this would be the ending fund balance. So there may be some planned projects. Again, I'd rather the engineering folks speak to that. Okay, thank you. But just from a financial perspective, that's how it works in the other funds. Right, okay. So, Mr. Barrett, the question that I was wondering about is whether that $5.4 million represents projects that were planned to be finished and were not completed, or whether there was a purposeful effort to keep a fund balance in there. Some of what would carry over in minutes played from year to year does represent projects that were anticipated to have been done in the previous year or a match that was anticipated to be applied in the previous year that it just didn't happen. Are there any examples? That's 5.4 million would represent a significant project. Yeah, I couldn't give you any. I'd have to get my list to see some specific examples, but I can get you that. I'm sure it's not going to be anywhere near $5.5 million worth. So you don't purposely plan a $5 million fund balance. You would prefer to spend this down and complete the projects. Right. I was just curious about that philosophy of whether it was planned or unplanned. unplanned? Our goal is to try to expend the funds that we program each year, the one and a half million dollars or whatever it is, in municipal aid capital projects. When some of those carry over, that's not planned on our part. It's just something that we haven't been able to complete yet. Okay. And then, Mr. Chair, would this be a good time for the Commissioner to answer the bonding questions? Please. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to, this is from an earlier presentation that we did for you, but what it illustrates is the downward sloping curve, which is a good thing. Rating agencies like to see that over time, but it does show you how debt service requirements decrease. They kind of bounce a little bit those first couple of years, but then they continue at a downward slope. That does include the short-term note that you included in the budget, and it did include the most recent pension bond. I will tell you from the CAFR, and again, we're finishing this year's CAFR, But when I look at last year's CAFR, there was approximately $306 million in outstanding principal. This would add approximately 4% to that in the general fund, GEO. So when you look at the $13 million compared to that. I've got a tiny little spreadsheet that does show, if I can read it, So just to give you, if you can't see the numbers there, this is our debt service schedule over the next several years, and it does, it's like almost $29.6 million, $31.9 million, $28.8 million, $29.9 million, $27, $27, $27, $26, $25. So you can see it follows that graph. So I've forgotten, apologize. In terms of who asked the vice mayor, I know you asked the majority of these questions. It does decrease. So there are some issues that are rolling off. Okay, very good. Okay, thank you for getting that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. While you're there. Yes, sir. Just in terms of our. I'm sorry. Just in terms of our general budgeting thought process, for the upcoming four or five years, are we anticipating some growth consistently, moderate growth, any growth? I may let our revenue guru answer that question. Perfect. But I did, I was listening to some economists recently that said they felt like we were not going to see significant growth over still the next few to several years. But there would be some growth. I don't know what Bill, I'll let Bill chime in here. Is he the revenue guru? He is. I really don't have anything to add. We think at this point there will be very modest growth. I think we're slogging through a long-term stale economy. Yes, sir. A lot of things can go south depending on how national and international events happen, which we do not have control over. We've been very lucky to have a very stable workforce, very high end on the health government and not-for-profit, but they are not immune either, as we've seen pressures on governmental spending. So the crystal ball is pretty fuzzy right now. It was just a background thought process for this discussion. I appreciate you trying to bring some clarity to it. If I could add one thing. Please. Our goal is for our debt to be 10% or less of our annual GO revenue. Starting when? Well, as you can see, our goal is for it to diminish. So if we continue to add, we will be above that 10% threshold, that is our goal, until at least 2017. You were doing so good to write that. I did want to make the point, too, Mr. Chair, if you will, as you talk about the whole planning process, the county road aid money, commonly known as crap money, but the coal severance, the mineral severance, are also funding sources that we use for paving as well. So it's known throughout the state that way. You learn some crap every day, it turns out. But we do have those other sources. So I think when you, Council Member Stenet's point about a bigger issue of planning, we need to look at, again, all those sources that we're able to use in the future. Thank you. Anything else there? Good? I didn't know if you wanted me to talk about any of these points on the back. I think you've covered most. I know Council Member Stenet talked about that it would be a GO debt. These are things on page 13. Yes. Yes, ma'am. We did explain where we got our numbers regarding the projects, which I think is critical, because if you see in these scenarios, we go negative in every scenario, but that assumes those large capital expenditures in the out years. So we know that we need to go through and do a better planning process. and last year was really the first year for the CIP, so we are working with the agencies to give us realistic projections for the out years so that we can do better planning to present to you in terms of these scenarios. That's appreciated. We already mentioned that the amortization, that it is appropriate to use bonding if we choose to do so, that meets all the tests as well as the approval of local government, Department of local government had indicated that we could use MAP money for this purpose. What did you think of Council Member Senate's supposition of a 10-year amortization for this? I think that's the longest, and we had talked about this, and we think that's the longest that you should go out in that regard. And you've already mentioned the paving capacity analysis, the ongoing maintenance needs, the future capital needs are obligating the future MAP money. You also addressed, which was one of our points, that the commitment of future MAP monies, that is based on a formula, based on the gas tax. So we've done an estimate of revenue on each of the scenarios. It's the same, obviously, but we've shown a little growth in the MAP revenue that this government will receive. So I think those were our points that we wanted to make. I appreciate them all. Thank you. Back to Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Commissioner, for making those points. I think we need to, if we could, Chair, keep the MAP money in committee, because I think there's a lot of issues today's discussion has brought to surface. One is when we can get good numbers on the capital projects going forward because they need to be scrubbed, and I think Commissioner Paulson is working on that with Bob and Andrew. The other issue is do we still use map money for trails? If you can see here, we have some important road projects, but you also have trail money coming out. Is that what the council as a policy wants to continue to do with map money? Other issues are personnel. You're paying $3 million or $1.5 million in personnel out of map money. Do we want to continue that practice? So there's a lot of things we probably need to create a policy as well as a road plan. Because in fairness to Bob and Andrew and now Commissioner Poulsen, they've been working with a box. They haven't been able to work outside of that box. And we know that box is going to break apart. And as Steve Case, Council Member Case said in 2017, we're going to have a major road clog in Fayette County on projects. So we've got to be able to plan with all the pots of money, coal severance, all this, and see where this plan is actually going to take us. So with all those things combined, if Commissioner Paulson can get us some good numbers, working with Commissioner Driscoll and others, I think we can come up with a road plan, and this committee can endorse it and move forward. Again, it will be a changing plan each year, obviously budgets, but we've never put in our own dollars, very small amounts of our own dollars, into our own roads in capital projects. We're all only dependent on the SLX money. only and that's probably not a fair thing to do to the citizens and to the to the folks trying to manage it because where our needs are much bigger than that i mean much bigger as you can see in the in the upcoming year so if we can keep that into committee chair and really have a thorough discussion on our road plan and on the map money and how we spend the map money and developing a road plan i think that'd be a wise given the infrastructure is our number two priority agreed These are big discussions. But you're not raising objections. You're raising considerations, it strikes me. Absolutely. How we want to consider all these things. Right. Then are you envisioning that we need to have a couple different kinds of policy discussions before we would take action on this potential bonding opportunity? Or do you think we're ready to move? No, I think this bonding just isolates the repaving need. and the $3 million we're currently putting towards that, a million and a half going towards a bond that catches up. The bigger discussion is the rest of the money is in MAP on how we're allocating those. And the outcome of that bigger discussion could turn those red numbers black, I guess is the point. Potentially, or if we use other sources for those big projects later on. It would just not have the realm of opportunity either. And I agree we're trying to get our bonding capacity down below the 10% threshold, but given in 2017, who knows what general fund revenues will be. I mean, they're almost at $300 million. We're $11 million shy this year, and we have a $306 million outlay now. So we're getting close, Bill, to balancing that 10% if revenues continually steady increase. I appreciate the depth of the discussion. Next would be Council Member Martin. Thank you, Chair. It wouldn't be a money discussion if I didn't throw some voice of doom in the proceedings. And I'm going to miss that. Oh, I'm going to miss that. I know. So we have to provide for the possibility that the state and federal funding is going to be significantly less than it is today. Because we've seen that the state funding and the state is short, what, $24 billion on its pensions. The federal government is looking to really substantial belt tightening at the federal level with all the political talk that's going on. And so I support and I appreciate Council Member Stenet's efforts in this. I agree that we should look long term and start providing a rational process for keeping up with our roads and not letting them sort of go stale like bananas on your countertop. So that's my... Wow. That's my... Bananas are always my... For perishables. It's a perishable. Brad. If you let them go long enough, the roads will get bad and you have to keep them fixed. And so you have to keep at them. Yes, sir. But we don't know that we're going to get SLX in the same level we are currently, and we don't know where all these funds are going to be sometime in the future. So as we do this, we have to sort of keep a watchful eye sort of on the other possibilities that the funds won't be there. And so I think it's important to sort of look at the whole picture. I appreciate the commentary. Voice of doom completed. It wasn't that bad. No, it wasn't that bad. It was realistic. Are there other council members that would like to opine, make comment, or motion? Then I want to ask Council Member Allinger to take the chair so I might address this issue. Certainly. Mr. Farmer? Thank you, sir. I haven't really talked individually with a lot of people about this. It's one of those things, I think, if you're a district council member and you've had to, we've all had to make do with less in so many situations, public and private and personal. And part of this discussion sprang from a commentary that I, as I love to indulge the mayor during work sessions, to talk about the fact that in my district alone, which had 10 more miles of roads added to it, the amount of paving budget for the 5th district was less than half this year, what it was last year. And I like to be a student of opportunity. I also like to be a good steward of every dollar that we have at our disposal here. In looking at the scenario 2 that is on page 10, And the area of potential problem there is the revenue over expenditures, at least as outlined in this snapshot, between 2014 and 2018, which has to do with how we do or don't do the capital projects in that line three or four above there, because you go from 1.4 to 2.2 to 4.2 to 3.6, 7.9, 9.7. I mean, there's millions of dollars' worth of money there that represent allocations and decisions that we haven't already completely made, but we've made a nod towards them. And I'm mindful of the point that Council Member Stenet made, that we don't really have any skin in the game, if you really get right down to it. We depend upon these funds coming to us for nearly all of the paving, all of the work that we do in this whole area. and even though it's something completely different than what we've done before and it does butt us up against some standards in terms of the amount of obligation that we would have outside, what I didn't hear from any of the staff or anyone giving us any of the answers that we so desperately needed was no, don't do this. I heard great information delivered to us with as much precision as can be delivered today. And I see this as a policy decision for us in terms of what we see as most pressing now and where we want to get to in years 2013 to 2018. And much as we have dealt with other issues in this committee and other committees where we take care of some part of the issue and keep other parts of it in committee for further work, for further focus, for further outcomes, I would dearly love for our city to have a whole lot more maintenance done on a whole lot of streets than we're currently able to provide. So given the background of that discussion and the opportunity that's been presented to us by virtue of it, I would like to make a motion that we move forward with Scenario 2, as outlined on page 10, that would allow us to use half of our so-called $3 million base or $1.5 million per year so that we can bond a total of $13 million to pay over the next, I think it would take us two years to get that down myself, based on our time frame now, but it would be a motion to accept Scenario 2 as outlined in the packet. So moved. We have a motion and a second. Do we have discussion? Mr. Stennett? Thank you, Vice Chair. I appreciate Councilman Farmer's comments. I will give you one other bit of information I left out. These are some of the lowest interest rate environments we've seen in a long time. So another advantage to doing it now versus waiting may also be used in the discussion on the rest of these capital projects line. Councilman Blues and I were having a sidebar. Can you imagine if we're projecting out, actually it doesn't go negative until 2017, given the fund balance we have now. But look at our need across there. What if you did a one-time bond of $25 million and pre-funded these projects, started paying it off today at 2% interest, versus waiting until then and paying five or six. It's a big difference to taxpayers. So as we think about the bigger picture up here, the low interest rate environment can come into that discussion as well. So thank you. Mr. Martin. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Driscoll, are you still here? Welcome back. Without, obviously, divulging private conversations with our rating agencies, what is this going to do in your best professional judgment to our bond rating? They've given us, they've affirmed our, during our recent short-term note, and the pension, most recent pension bond, they have affirmed our rating because of financial management practices and given us a stable outlook. They know that there's a potential of the pension bond. That's one of their factors, the potential bonding in the next short period of time. So they knew of that. This will add additional bonding from that perspective. I can't speak for them, obviously. Which is why I asked for your judgment. Right. This will be something we hadn't talked to them about because they always ask us the question, what do you anticipate? So we will have to explain that process of why we're coming. Well, it depends on when we go back as well, if we combined it with other debt, et cetera. So I think we're kind of status quo, quite frankly, with them right now, unless something significantly changed. with, again, I can't speak for them, but I don't think this would put us in a position of being downgraded. Do we have any additional issues coming for the rest of the year, the rest of this fiscal year? Any requests from the administration? Well, through the budget process would be the next time I would think we would, if we propose something that would come during that time period. Again, it would be the difference in what we have told the rating agencies versus what we do, and that would be a conversation. We build relationships with these folks, so it would be a conversation about here's what the council, it's an initiative of the council, etc. So we would talk them through that process. So, you know, there are lots of other capital needs. that we all know about. And so they might ask, you know, why picking this over? Because we've talked about our capital needs with them, so that would probably be one of their questions as well. Because there are, as you know, endless legitimate capital needs of this government. Thank you. I guess Vice Chair, As much as I have focused on repaving, I have trouble supporting this at this time. I think that the MAP funds, to me, my personal priority is getting Clay's Mill Road done. And I think it's a dangerous road. I think some child is going to get hit there. And I'm concerned that borrowing these funds with the prospect of taking them from the MAP funds each year calls into question our ability to get some of these important safety projects done. My district will be by far the recipient of a lot of these funds more than any other district. There's no question about that. The 10th district has, I think, 17 percent of all the bad roads in Lexington. And that's two and three times some of what some of the other districts have. And I made the motion during the budget to do this very thing, but tying it to the MAP funds gives me some level of discomfort that I guess I'm just having trouble overcoming. And so I appreciate the efforts with it. Obviously, if this is successful, whoever succeeds me on the council will hopefully put that to excellent use. But I think at this point, I'm not going to support this. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion presented by the Chair that deals with Scenario 2 on page 10 of the annual paving of $1.5 million per year and bond $13 million, vote aye and say yes aye all those opposed that passes 8 to 1 with that I'll relinquish the chair back to you thank you sir very much I think it will be the property of the committee to keep this issue aside from what we just made the decision on to work on some of the issues as raised during our deliberations about decisions during these out years and how to make them properly or make them in the best way possible. Any other comments there before we move on? All right. Thank you all very much. Next would be our Newtown Pike Extension update. This has Council Member Blue's staying next to it. I know staff is here. Council Member, did you want to make any comments or just hear from staff? I think it would be good to hear from staff. Very good, sir. I know there's been some movement on this project. Mr. Runn-Wall, welcome. Thank you very much. Yes, sir, there has been some considerable movement, primarily on our Phase 1 of the project. In September of 2012, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, they released a contract to Central Bridge to work on a major portion of relocating the lower town branch box covert. This section is about 1,000 linear feet, starting from McKinley Street going back to Versailles Road. This is not the major town branch box. Does everybody know the lower town branch where I'm talking about? Where's your map? My map? You didn't bring a map? No. I can get a map. You can see part of this culvert if you drive down there because it surfaces, and you can see the top of it along some of the streets down there. Yes, sir. This was the box culvert that was evident in the South End Park. I'm familiar with it. So I just wanted to make sure everybody knew I wasn't talking about the town branch that ran down Ryan Street. but we're going to relocate approximately a thousand feet of that and that construction is scheduled to begin in October we had one last vacant house that needed to be torn down I think I checked my email yesterday and we've actually begun demolition of that house so they should begin work on that before the end of the week how big is that? How big is the interior of that culvert? The interior of that box culvert is, I want to say it's 8 feet by 12 feet. And will we replace it to the same standard? Yes, sir. It will have the same capacity as before. Please proceed. Just different alignment. Okay. It was not anticipated. We did not want to rebuild this box culvert, but given the redevelopment of that neighborhood, The amount of fill that we're going to put into it, it was decided that it's 60 years old. It wasn't designed to sustain in some places 10 feet of fill on top of it. The amount of money to retrofit the box culvert was going to be approximately 90 percent. Of brand new. Than to rebuild it. So why not rebuild it and put it in a better location? Will it align closer to the road work that we're doing or further away? It will be directly underneath what will be new to Rudy Street. Okay, very good. But let me encourage you to bring a map sometime. Okay, I'll bring a map next time. That might help. Thank you. On April 5th, AU and Associates, it's a woman-owned business enterprise, was selected to be the developer for financing and construction of the rental housing units in the new neighborhood. this will basically house the the temporary dislodged tenants once the housing is completed it will be turned over to the Lexington Community Land Trust and that will be the extent of the housing that the Newtown Pike Extension project will oversee the Community Land Trust will then take take it from there and oversee the rest of the housing Fitzsimmons Office of Architecture has completed design for the renovations for the Carver Center. The KYTC is reviewing the procurement documents and plans. We should have authorization back from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet before the end of this month. We'll put that out to bid. It's approximately $1.4 million of renovations to the Carver Center. That will begin, I would say, probably in January or February. The design plans for the mitigation area are approximately about 85% complete. The KYTC is preparing to bid the Phase I plans for the construction, which will consist of new storm sewer drains, a portion of two sanitary sewer trunk lines, new curb and gutter, as well as the new Rudy Street portion of it. They wish to have that out to bid before the end of this year. Good news, the noise wall that we started construction last year about this time is now complete. That noise wall runs from Versailles Road all the way down back behind Harry Gordon Steel. For the Community Land Trust, they're still working on their 501c3 application. Apparently the IRS is overwhelmed with applications, and it's anticipated that they'll have at least six months before their application even comes up for review. And there'll be another three months, assuming there's no problems. So it could be up to a year before they're actually, I guess, approved as a 501c3. We are trying to look at ways to help expedite that process. I don't know how successful we'll be. The IRS is a pretty hard organization to work with. Of course, the COT is also working on preparing its annual audit. They have to do that every year. For Phase 2 of the project, this is from Versailles Road to South Broadway. The design plans are approximately 60% complete. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet is proceeding with acquisition of the 21, what we call total take. parcels, and what that means is that parcels that we are going to acquire the entire piece of property. They've begun that process. This would include parcels like the Nathaniel Mission, Harry Gordon Steel, the rest of the residential properties in the area, as well as some property owned by the Norfolk Southern Railroad. With that said, we've also held a series of meetings with the Nathaniel Mission and representatives from both the Federal Highway Administration and the Transportation Cabinet and the Lexington CLT were looking at different scenarios for the permanent relocation of that organization. The estimates of the utility costs are estimated at about $5.4 million for this phase. This is Phase 2 for Sales Road to South Broadway. And the construction costs are estimated at about $16.1 million. And the funds are programmed, but they're not authorized. For the Phase 3, this is the Scott Street connector. Final design has not actually begun. Of course, we do know where the alignment is. We do know what parcels we're going to be taking, but the actual design of the roadway has not started. Those utility costs are about $3.5 million for that section, and the construction costs are about $8.7 million. And funds are programmed for beyond 2014. Very good. Council Member Blues, did you have questions before I took Council Member King? No, I don't. Well, maybe one. Has there been any progress on relocating the mission? I'd say there's been progress. There has not been any resolution. There's still a negotiation over their final destination and then what the terms would be with not only the community land trust but with the acquisition itself. So they haven't finalized anything. It's still under negotiation. Is this still a two-stage process where the mission would have to move to a temporary location during the construction phase and then to a permanent one following that? No, sir. However, it is our intent to have the Nathaniel Mission remain where they are and then construct on the property a new facility, a property that we have bought for the project. But the temporary relocation was found to be, it was not considered to be a viable option. So the project team basically said that we need to make allocations for them to stay, construct a new facility, and then move to that facility. For instance, the temporary move was going to cost as much as constructing the new facility. I think that makes great sense because I know that's been a difficult kind of move to negotiate. So if you can eliminate that middle step, I think that's a real advantage. Yes, sir. We agree. So thank you, Andrew. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. Councilmember Kay. Thank you, Chair. My questions all have to do with timing. I think it's hard for people to understand why this project has moved as slowly as it has. And frankly, it's a little hard for me to understand. So I'm going to ask you, I think, three questions that all have to do with timing. The first is the community land trust and the IRS application. The community land trust has been in existence and staffed for a year, a year and a half, give or take. Yes, sir. Correct. About a year and a half. Can you help me understand why now they're getting to this application since I presume they knew they would need it all along? They actually filed the application, I want to say it was last January. And the IRS, apparently the IRS is going through a backlog of 501c3 applications. Every nonprofit organization, at least I think, has had to reapply in the country. This is how it was explained to me. If not reapplied, they all had to send in an update or some type of reapplication. So according to the IRS, they have 10,000 applications in front of our application. And then once it actually comes up for review, they say it will be about three months. Okay, so your understanding is that this was submitted almost nine months ago. Correct. which would have been timely, I think, but that it's held up because of circumstances beyond that control, which I understand. The second question has to do with the kind of related to Dr. Blue's question with the Nathaniel mission, and it goes along the same track, and that is it's been known for years. I don't know how many, but certainly three, four, five, that that would have that relocation or some accommodation would have to be made. Can you help me understand why now, as we're close to actually beginning work, that that's still an issue? When we originally laid out the project, the original intent was to leave the Nathaniel mission in their original location. there were quite a few assumptions that went into that one of the major assumptions was that the box culvert was not going to have to be relocated when we evaluated the box culvert we realized that we were going to have to move the box culvert at that point that internally amongst our project team generated a discussion well we need to expedite the Nathaniel mission What we wound up deciding to do was to cut the boxcord short, build it in two phases so that the Nathaniel mission could stay. The Nathaniel mission themselves have been very good negotiators and have lobbied for the best deal that they can get. and they have a very complicated move. Their organization has three parts, so it doesn't surprise me that their acquisition is difficult and will take some time. We could not actually even begin the negotiation until the money was authorized approximately a year ago, And we've been discussing with them for almost a year the idea of this move and their relocation. So it just takes a considerable amount of time for their organization. Do you anticipate that there will be a resolution one way or another before their present location becomes an issue in terms of actually holding up the construction? Yes, sir. I would assume it would. We do have legal means to help expedite those situations. If we can't come to a resolution, of course the courts can always step in and mandate what we do and what they accept. But we would prefer not to go that route. Okay. I've got 18 seconds, so I'll ask my third question. And really, it's the third phase where design has not begun. I presume, again, that that's some reason why you don't begin the design until you absolutely need. Can you help me understand more about why that's not begun? If you take a set of construction drawings, at least prepare to the standard of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, if you go through and you spend the, and I'm going to throw out a number here, just the $400,000 to prepare them, if those plans sit dormant, a rough estimate would be 10% per year will be lost in their accuracy. So if you went ahead and designed that entire portion today, God forbid it wasn't built for 10 years, I'm not saying that, but I'm just using that as an example, pretty much the entire set of plans that you have before you, the situations, the circumstances, everything would have changed to the point where you're going to have to spend that money again. So the general thought is that you don't want to design anything that's much farther than two or three years out. So therefore, it's a minimal amount of money each year you have to spend to keep the plans current. Okay. I appreciate your explanation. I think it's a great project, by the way. And I know it's very complex. I don't mean to be asking difficult questions, but I think it helps people understand why it's proceeding at the pace it is. But thank you, and thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Next would be Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to amplify on Andrew's responses to your question, he's absolutely right that the difficulties with attaining the 501c3 status have been much greater than I think anyone anticipated. I know that the Land Trust Board has requested the assistance of our congressional offices, and even with the best efforts there, it's been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to expedite this process and move it forward. even though there's a great justification for doing so because the land trust depends upon that nonprofit status. With reference to the Nathaniel mission, that too, as you can appreciate and you do appreciate, is extremely delicate. As you know, this is not only an engineering project, it's a social engineering project. And while building a road, also necessitates in that area keeping a fragile neighborhood whole to the extent possible. and the mission is sort of the glue of that community. And so the mission has a lot at stake, and of course the project engineers are trying to respect that and to work with the mission. and it is just a difficult, lengthy process, but I think, as Andrew indicates, it is moving forward in significant ways, so it's going to get there. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. I was going to ask for the committee's discretion, since the next item, the Todd's Road widening, is an update, if we might take it after Council Member Martin's presentation about Article 17-7E, permitted signage in professional office in mixed-use zones, since he's wanting to ask us for some consideration of potentially a motion, and the update is just an update that would not have a motion with it, if we could go ahead and take item 5 first before item 4. unless there's any objection. Mr. Martin, please proceed. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. This is a request to initiate a zoning text amendment for professional signage and professional office and mixed-use one zones. And just to, I've got a small presentation. The current ordinance allows one freestanding sign per building and one wall-mounted sign per street frontage. Two wall-mounted signs are allowed for buildings with one street frontage If a freestanding sign is not being utilized, that's one of these kind of marquee signs. Signs must be on different building faces. A third wall-mounted sign is allowed for buildings with two street fringes and a professional office project. And all wall-mounted signs must be on different building faces. The request is to initiate a zoning text amendment. And for those at home and those not familiar with the process, the council is able to initiate a zone text amendment. It goes to the planning commission while they hear it like any other request for a text amendment, and they have their process and their hearings. At that point, it gets sent back to the urban county council, and we have our opportunity for our process as well. So this sort of just puts it in motion. What the proposal is, is a third wall-mounted sign for buildings with two street frontages that are three stories or higher and with the following restrictions. The signs must be on different wall faces, and the signs may not face an adjacent residential zone unless located on a street frontage. Basically, what this does is it extends this third sign exemption for professional office projects to buildings that are three stories and higher. And I've got a little, I just found some property that sort of fits this a little bit. Let me see if I can get this thing to work. I'll put my eye out here or something like that. Placer's on the bottom. Placer's on the bottom. There we go. Okay. All right. And so if we could go back to the technology. I'm not sure it really helps us. So this property here is on two streets, so it has two street frontages. It is not next to a residential area. And so currently this building has, and this is an example, has a sign on this side and a sign on that side, but nothing on the front. and similar this parcel here which at the moment doesn't have to be built on but it is across the street from undeveloped property but which is designated I think R3 in this example across the street here is commercial I think and this is catty corner to this and so under this proposal both these parcels would be allowed a third building sign if the building were three stories or higher because they're on, in fact, an intersection of two streets. And the side that's not on a street isn't a residential side. And so, again, this is just a zone initiation. There's time, obviously, for public comment at the planning commission. And so if folks have an interest in this, not only would they hear about it today, but they'd have a chance to hear about it and talk about it and weigh in on it at the planning commission. And similarly, if and when that came back to the council, the public would have an additional opportunity to comment and weigh in at this time. So I'd be happy to take any questions. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Are there any questions on the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment that he would like to initiate at this time? And this would only be in which zone? I'm still looking here. And it's on the cover page, I guess. It's professional office, and there was one other. It is. Signage and professional office. And mixed-use one zones. And I know that Mr. King is here. Do you have anything to add, Mr. King? I know that this was drafted by my council aide in coordination with the planning staff. I think they are fine with the language. In fact, it was their suggestion and ideas to add the restriction that the sign that was not on a street couldn't face a neighborhood. And so areas, particularly out in a busy professional area like Beaumont or like the alumni drive area in New Circle, would be sort of examples of the types of buildings that these would affect. If there's no comments, I see Council Member Gordon. Yes, Council Member Gordon, our primary vice mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Excuse me. That's okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chris, could you just give me some examples, locations that you think of that would be the mixed-use zones? Excellent. The mixed-use zones, they would be in locations where you have collectors meeting each other. Many of those are in areas that are residential, so they would not qualify to use this signage. Most of those would be a smaller business with a residential unit up above, that type of thing, and mixed-use one, very small scale. Okay. Do you think of any mixed-use one that would qualify offhand? Not off the top of my head because we haven't had many requests for that zoning, but it is allowed for. It has a locational criteria inherent in the zone, and I could see this working in an area where you had a commercial type of situation primarily. And you're comfortable with this. You've looked at this. I mean, I like the part about sort of protecting residential areas. Do you have any concerns with it at all? No big concerns. It's really, I think you all know generally we're not big fans of excessive signage. We've looked at this. We don't think it would necessarily be excessive because you're talking about commercial locations. You're talking about protecting residential. You're talking about larger buildings. and basically you're taking it out of the realm. It's still going to be in areas that are largely commercial because of that requirement regarding the residential, and it avoids the technicality. It is currently allowed in what's called a professional office project, which is an area of 10 acres or more that has sought that designation from the planning commission. So, again, we don't see this as making any huge expansion, but it would allow for a little additional identification sign on larger multi-tenant buildings. It does seem would be reasonable, particularly with the residential protection. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Chair. At this time, I will make a motion to approve the initiation of the zoning text amendment and send it to the Council for approval. So moved. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing or seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir, for your presentation. Then we'll go back to the Todd's Road widening update, which has Council Member Sennett's name next to it. He has stepped out, and Bob Barrett is here to give us the update. Did you bring a map? Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. No, just overhead, baby. I'm on the overhead. It's people who aren't here that I'm thinking about. I'm sorry. Did you have any comments before he speaks? All right. Mr. Barrett, if you proceed. Yes. Welcome back, sir. Thank you. There has been a design change order approved by council that resulted from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet review of this thing. They call that a practical solutions review. There were certain things they wanted or suggested done differently to keep the cost of the project down, nothing real substantive in terms of the cross-section that's to be used on the street. Those design changes are proceeding now. Once we get those to a certain point, we will be able to submit right-of-way plans, which will allow us to then ask for the right-of-way money so that we can start making offers on and acquiring the rights-of-way and easements that will be required to construct this piece. I mentioned in the write-up that it may be necessary for this Section 2 of Liberty Todd's to be done in two pieces, as has Clay's Mill Road been done in smaller manageable pieces. As we are looking at the municipal aid program and the expenditures year by year within that program, we are also looking at the SLX program, the federal funding dollars, to see if we can get this all to work to where Liberty Todd Section 2 can be done in one piece or if it must be done in two pieces. So that evaluation is ongoing. I mentioned we will be requesting right-of-way funds in the fairly near future, probably sometime shortly after the first of the year. Utility relocation, we've estimated $2 million that will be needed for utilities there. Hopefully that's conservative. and then construction funds thereafter. Again, with the need to expedite at least a portion of Todd's Road in conjunction with the opening of the elementary school in August of 2015. Thank you for the concise nature of your presentation. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Chair. Bob, when will we have a better cost estimate on this whole project, Section 2? Let's see. I'm trying to think where we are in terms of that design. It will probably about the first of the year would be my guess. So we won't start on right-of-way before then? I thought we were going to speed that up and ask the state to go ahead and let us get going. Yeah, we are. But all the cost elements don't have to be completely pinned down, but the right-of-way does in order for us to ask for right-of-way and get those funds. And when were you asked to move forward with the right-of-way? When? Have you already asked? No, the plans aren't to that point yet because we had to stop working on them pending the change order. And that change order has already been through council? Yes, it has. So we're ready to go back? They are. The part they're in limbo on right now is whether it's one set of plans or two. So that's the piece we're trying to fit together right now. Right. So would the right-of-way wall be done for the entire section at once? Yes, sir. But you are contemplating splitting up the construction phase into two separate phases? Right. And because of that possibility, of course, we're going to try to expedite the section that will be needed first. And what's the rationale for splitting those up? it's purely a cash flow scenario in the slx balance so this is obviously another bigger conversation in how we're budgeting our projects but this is a project that's been promised for several years now and you get an elementary school wanting to open up now you want to split up a project so i think it needs some serious discussion consideration of keeping it in one project for the biggest reason i think we've learned a lot from clay's mill and when you split it up into so many sections, your costs go up because you're bidding a project three different times, four different times. In this case, it could add a million dollars to this project. So I think, Bob, if we could do everything we can to see what the true cost would be to do it all at once and let's get it done all at once and come back to this council to help find funding if we need be. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Any other questions for Mr. Barrett? Thank you, sir. And thank you for your map also. All right, this brings us to the last item on the agenda, which has our committee referral list. I want to see if anyone had any questions, comments, or motions on that. Before, I had a couple of suggestions. Anything? Anyone? Yes, sir. Yes, Councilman Beard. Yes, sir. It looks like about halfway down Chapter 4, about harboring animals. That issue, I think, now has been laid to rest. and was laid to rest in August, and I think it can come off. So there was a motion to remove, followed by a second. Second. From the vice mayor, any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like sign. Thank you. Anything else, Council Member Beard? All right. Next, Council Member Gorton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, the fifth item down, and I don't know that there's anyone in the room, perhaps the CAO could answer, working with Fayette County Public Schools to sustain road salt services. This was put in in June, and we're rapidly approaching the winter salt season. And I don't know that we've had any answer to the question of whether Fayette County Public Schools is willing to share some of the costs on the streets that they require or ask to be salted. We have had that conversation. As of right now, they're not going to share any costs. We're still continuing to work with them. And Kevin's going to come up here in the next couple weeks or next month to bring you all the snow removal, and he'll probably have some additional information for you on his discussion with the school on where we work. The last conversation we had, they were not going to add any costs. I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. I think that would be important information to have. And I would also like for us to see the list of roadways that the Fayette County Public Schools ask that we salt. Why don't we make that part of the committee for next time? And whether, you know, it would be a good thing to see how those interlace or interface with the roads that we would automatically salt and how many are outside that list. We have some presentation value on that. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Anything else? No? Not right. All right. Next would be Councilman Blues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And regarding the design excellence periodic updates, we're preparing to update the committee on November 20 if there's adequate room on the agenda. I think so. And I think that will be sufficient for this year, so we won't need the 11th of December. All right. Very good. So if you can give us 15, 20 minutes on the 20th, we'd appreciate it. We'll take care of it. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. Yes, ma'am. Itinerant merchant is on this list, and it is in the Economic Development Committee. Do we need a motion to remove it from? That'd be great. So I would move to remove itinerant merchant from the planning committee. And seconded by Council Member Ellinger. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Anything else, ma'am? Thank you. Council Member Tennant. Thank you, Chair. The right-of-way of entry and administrative warrants, about seven items down, that has been discussed and already brought forward to Council and already passed. So I'm not sure why that's still in here. then a member of the committee might make a motion to remove it. That would be great. We have a motion for Council Member Kay, second by Council Member. I know. She still seconded the motion, Council Member Henson. And we have a late closing. It's a point of education. The committee can do what it will. But that part of the text amendment package that went through that set up the administrative courts was separated out by the council and was not passed, and it was put into committee for further discussion. So it still is an open item, I believe. It was put into this committee? Yes. Not under my name it wasn't because I'm not on the committee. So this item for me has already been passed out of the committee. So I'm not sure the right of entry issue. I remember that being split, but this was different than that. So someone else may have put it back. I don't know. But you can take my name off. Understood. I think we have a motion that will do that right now. I think we have a motion and a second to remove it. I can spend some time with staff afterwards. We may see if we want to bring it back in another capacity, but we have a motion and a second to remove it in its current form if there's any other discussion. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like, sign? We have one no from Council Member Martin, and it has left with your name on it, Council Member Stenet. And then who else was on our sign-up sheet here? Let's see. The council, we're coming back to it now, on the floor is Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple of items. Now, today we voted to forward on to the council to initiate the text amendment on this very last item, and the normal process is that that will come back to the full council from the Planning Commission as a ZOTA. and so I think that we don't need that in committee anymore, Council Member Martin, since it will come back to the full council. So with your blessing, I would move to remove it. That would be fine. Okay. Motion to second by Council Member K. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Those like sign? Thank you. And then the other item, which is also Council Member Martin's, I see that the large utility poll issue is coming. Is it coming on our November 20th? We were going to have it today. We pushed it back a month so we could take up his other issue. Okay, very good. All right, thank you. And, Council Member Stenet, is that name just remaining? Or do you have something else? Anyone else? That's excellent work on our committee list. I think we've reached the appropriate time for a motion to adjourn. Second. Motion or second? Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Like sign. Thank you very much. Very productive meeting. Thank you. All right.