# Planning and Public Works December 11 2012 - December 10, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 10, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2791 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2791?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-12-10 - **Last revised**: July 16, 2026 - **Length**: 9,181 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 and Public Works Committee met on December 11, 2012, at 1:00 p.m., presided over by Bill Farmer. The committee addressed eight agenda items during the meeting, including approval of the previous meeting's summary, updates on infrastructure and maintenance programs, and reviews of municipal ordinances and policies. The committee took three votes during the session. Four members of the public provided comments to the committee. In addition to public input, the committee received six informational presentations covering topics including a re-paving program update, road salt services coordination with Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS), vacuum leaf collection operations, and a Design Excellence Task Force update. Two agenda items were deferred for future consideration: a discussion on erecting large utility poles in the right-of-way and a review of street tree and street tree protection ordinances. The committee also received updates on items previously referred to the committee. The November 20th, 2012 meeting summary was approved. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on December 10, 2012: * Bill Farmer * Chuck Ellinger * Linda Gorton * Steve Kay * Chris Ford * Tom Blues * Diane Lawless * Julian Beard * Doug Martin * Peggy Henson No members were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of November 20th, 2012 Meeting Summary** [timestamp: 0:01:00] A motion to approve the meeting summary from November 20th, 2012 was made by Chuck Ellinger and seconded by Steve Kay. The motion passed unanimously with no abstentions. **Amendment of Article 5-1(a) Right-of-Entry Referral** [timestamp: 0:06:00] A motion to refer the Amendment of Article 5-1(a) Right-of-Entry back into the Planning and Public Works Committee was made by Linda Gorton and seconded by Steve Kay. The motion passed unanimously with no abstentions. **Adjournment** [timestamp: 1:01:22] A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Linda Gorton and seconded by Diane Lawless. The motion passed unanimously with no abstentions. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed funding mechanisms for a repaving program through the following financial actions: **Repaving Program Bond Issuance** The body approved a $13,000,000 bond issuance to fund a repaving program. **Debt Service Appropriation** An appropriation of $1,500,000 per year was approved for debt service on the repaving bond, to be funded through MAP money. ## Public Comment Four speakers addressed the council on December 10, 2012, raising concerns about utility infrastructure and emergency preparedness. **Utility Poles and Oversight** Doug Martin spoke at [timestamp: 0:39:27] about utility poles in the right-of-way, emphasizing the need for stronger oversight of utility pole installations. He cited the Euclid Avenue example and recommended several policy changes, including requiring more stringent review of installations, notifying property owners, and establishing aesthetic guidelines. **Underground Utility Reliability** Julian Beard raised questions about underground utility reliability at [timestamp: 0:37:21]. He noted that repairs of underground utilities take longer than repairs of above-ground systems and that fault location is more difficult, particularly in limestone areas. **Underground Utility Funding** Vice Mayor Linda Gorton spoke at [timestamp: 0:46:42] about underground utility funding. She recalled past council decisions to allocate funds for burying utilities downtown block by block and suggested that future funding could be prioritized using a similar approach. **Emergency Preparedness** Diane Lawless addressed emergency preparedness at [timestamp: 0:56:39], noting that the committee should clarify whether Lexington is prepared for catastrophic events and whether citizens know how to respond. She suggested the issue be referred to her for follow-up. ## Appointments Steve Kay was appointed to the Design Excellence Task Force. ## Contested Items **Utility Pole Regulations and Aesthetic Guidelines** Council members engaged in a heated discussion regarding utility pole regulations and aesthetic guidelines. The debate centered on balancing three competing priorities: public safety, aesthetic considerations, and cost implications. A key concern raised during the discussion involved utility companies' ability to pass infrastructure costs to ratepayers through the Public Service Commission. Council members grappled with how to establish standards that would address visual and safety concerns without creating undue financial burdens that could be transferred to consumers. **Underground Utility Costs and Feasibility** The council experienced a split vote on the question of whether undergrounding utilities represents an affordable and feasible approach. Council members expressed divided views on this issue. Some members highlighted the substantial costs associated with undergrounding utilities, citing figures ranging from $4 to $18 million per mile, which they characterized as prohibitively expensive. Other council members countered by emphasizing the long-term benefits that undergrounding utilities could provide, suggesting that the initial investment would be justified over time. This disagreement reflected fundamental differences in how members weighed immediate fiscal constraints against potential future advantages. ## November 20th, 2012 Summary [timestamp: 00:00] The committee reviewed and approved the minutes from the November 20th, 2012 meeting. Bill Farmer and Linda Gorton were the key speakers during this discussion. A clarification was requested regarding a statement in the minutes about a planning easement inside the sidewalk. Following this request, the statement was corrected to clarify that it is not a true easement. The minutes were approved following this correction. ## Re-Paving Program Update [timestamp: 04:26] Staff presented an update on the re-paving program during this informational agenda item. The presentation included details on financing and implementation timeline for the upcoming paving work. **Financing and Timeline** The program plans to issue a $13 million bond in March, with paving work scheduled to begin in late March or early April. **Key Discussion Points** Staff emphasized the importance of early submission of recommendations to ensure timely execution of the paving program. Capacity and scheduling considerations were discussed as part of the presentation. **Speakers** The update was presented by Bill Driscoll, Kevin Wente, Brian Billings, and Sam Williams. **Outcome** This agenda item was informational in nature, providing the body with an update on the re-paving program status and timeline. ## Erecting Large Utility Poles in the ROW [timestamp: 00:18:49] Council Member Martin's staff presented a detailed analysis of utility pole regulations in Lexington and other cities. The presentation examined current policies governing the erection of large utility poles in the right-of-way (ROW). **Key Speakers:** - Jonathan Hollinger - Doug Martin - Linda Gorton - Diane Lawless - Julian Beard **Discussion:** The presentation included a comparative review of how other cities regulate utility pole placement and aesthetics. The staff analysis explored several options for potential reform of Lexington's existing regulations. **Options Discussed:** - Stricter review processes for utility pole placement - Property owner notification requirements - Aesthetic guidelines for utility poles in the ROW **Outcome:** The committee agreed to defer the matter and keep the issue in committee for further work. No immediate action was taken on the proposed reforms. ## Items Referred to Committee The committee reviewed and updated several items on its referral list during this agenda item [timestamp: 00:50:56]. **Actions Taken** The committee moved the Oliver Lewis Way Project to a new chair and updated the design excellence referral to a new chair as well. Additionally, building permit extensions in ND1 and HD1 were removed from the agenda following a motion that passed. **Key Participants** Bill Farmer, Tom Blues, Chris Ford, and Diane Lawless participated in this discussion. **Outcome** The referrals were updated as discussed, with the committee successfully reorganizing leadership assignments and removing the specified building permit extension items from consideration. ## Review of Street Tree and Street Tree Protection Ordinances David Leonard from the Tree Board presented a comprehensive review of the city's street tree and street tree protection ordinances [timestamp: 00:01:00]. The presentation highlighted several significant challenges with the current regulatory framework and tree management practices. **Key Issues Identified** Leonard outlined three primary concerns driving the need for ordinance revision: - Low canopy cover across the city - Poor overall tree health - Lack of enforcement of existing regulations **Recommended Actions** The Tree Board proposed a multi-faceted approach to address these issues: - Revising zoning and code provisions to better support street tree management - Improving planting conditions to enhance tree survival and growth - Enhancing public outreach and education efforts **Discussion Participants** The agenda item was discussed by several council members and staff, including Karen Angelucci, Bill Farmer, Steve Kay, and Tom Blues, in addition to David Leonard's presentation. **Outcome** The matter was deferred, indicating that further review, discussion, or information gathering is needed before the council takes action on revising the street tree ordinances. ## Working with FCPS to Sustain Road Salt Services Kevin Wente led a discussion on coordination between the city and Fayette County Public Schools (FCPS) regarding snow removal and salt usage services [timestamp: 0:03:00]. **Key Discussion Points** The committee addressed the operational relationship between the city and FCPS for road salt services. Two primary issues emerged during the discussion: - **Authorized Requesters**: The need to clearly define which individuals or departments within FCPS are authorized to request snow removal and salt services from the city. - **Service Valuation**: The importance of clarifying and documenting the value of services being provided to schools, ensuring transparency about resource allocation and costs. **Participants** The discussion involved Kevin Wente, Linda Gorton, and Bill Farmer. **Outcome** This agenda item was presented as informational, with no formal action taken. The discussion identified areas requiring further definition and coordination between the city and FCPS to establish clearer procedures and documentation for ongoing road salt and snow removal services. ## Vacuum Leaf Collection Rob Allen presented on the city's leaf collection program during this agenda item. The program currently serves 90,000 residential addresses across the city. **Key Discussion Points** The presentation addressed the scope and operations of the existing leaf collection service. Diane Lawless and Tom Blues participated in the discussion alongside Allen. **Concerns Raised** Members raised several concerns about the program: - **Stormwater impacts**: Questions were raised regarding how the leaf collection program affects the city's stormwater systems - **Program costs**: Concerns were expressed about the expense of maintaining the service - **Program necessity**: Some members questioned whether the program was necessary **Outcome** This agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal decision or action taken. The discussion served to present information about the leaf collection program and allow members to raise concerns for consideration. ## Design Excellence Task Force Update Tom Blues provided an update on the Design Excellence Task Force's progress. [timestamp: 59:48] **Status Report** The task force has issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a consultant. Two firms responded to the RFQ, and interviews have been scheduled with the respondents. **Governance Structure** The Design Excellence Task Force will serve as the project steering committee moving forward. **Outcome** This item was presented for informational purposes. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of the November 20th, 2012 meeting summary - **Motion** — passed: Motion to refer the Amendment of Article 5-1(a) Right-of-Entry back into the Planning and Public Works Committee - **Motion** — passed: Motion to adjourn the meeting --- ## Full transcript Interesting items on the agenda today. We can turn that off, I'm sure. No, no, these are the old ones. We're not there yet. I know Council Member Martin has placed the issue of the erecting large utility poles in the right of way in the committee, and we're going to hear that second. He is not here yet, and I know that he wants to make some commentary, and his staff person wants to make a presentation. Before that, first on our agenda is the November 20th summary, which I think the full council has already voted on this, but I don't think this group has actually had the opportunity to act on it independently. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes as they've been tendered in the packet? We have a motion for approval, but we had a commentary from the vice mayor I would take up at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On page four, the last paragraph, where I was asking about the comment about the easement. Yes, ma'am. So I think that Kevin Wente, did you refresh my memory on that easement? I think at that meeting we more or less clarified that there is not an easement inside the sidewalk. This is a follow-up from our... This is a... Previously we had discussion to review the street tree and street tree protection ordinances. This is in commentary at the end of the vacuum leaf collection, and she's asking for some clarity. To be sure, I'd ask staff to try to highlight this correctly, too, so I want to make sure it's correct. Vice Mayor Gordon asked for clarification on Andrew Lucy's comments. She told committee members that she asked Wente about the easement extending five feet within the sidewalk. Allen said it is a dedicated planning easement where the developer would choose to put the street tree behind the sidewalk. Allen said that it is a designation, not a true easement. The tree planted there would be regulated like a street tree. Gordon asked if Wente would follow up on her question. I brought it up, Mr. Chair, because I think it's a little unclear here. Yes, ma'am. The statement, the tree planted there would be regulated like a street tree, and yet we were told it's not an easement and it's not a place that street trees would be planted. So it's a little unclear in the minutes. Do you have suggested language in mind at all? Well, you confirmed, I believe, that beyond the sidewalk toward the house is not an easement. It was a recommendation and is not a requirement of the developer. But that's what I think the tree board is looking to facilitate. And I think Rob Allen addressed that fairly well when he was here to discuss the leaf collection program. So I think the point of the paragraph is this was discussed, but there is no easement for planting street trees inside the sidewalk. All right. Can we just alter that paragraph? There is between the sidewalk and the street. I'm sorry. That's no problem. I'm sorry. But I think it needs to be real clear in this paragraph. We'll make an adjustment on that and replace it into the. And I can work with Jennifer with language if we need to for clarification as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Would you mind to withdraw your motion? Is that all right? You need to make a motion? All right, then we're good. I'm sorry. Julian, you'll remove. Thank you. Then we'll take up the issue of the reissue of the November meeting minutes at our January meeting. Thank you both for that. All right, the next up is the repaving program update, which this kind of takes on a little bit of a logistical nature since this committee and its wisdom and the council as a body voted to issue some bonds for paving based on some of our annualized monies that come from the state. And I think that we're trying to have a conversation here. The name is next to this, Commissioner Driscoll and Mr. Wente again, because we're wanting to kind of hear, I think, a little bit about the critical path of when the bonding would take place and then what opportunity we have in terms of how quickly can we do something positive with those resources. So, Commissioner, if you'd like to enlighten us. Appreciate your being here. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We just wanted to update you on our work thus far. Thank you. And I think in speaking with Mr. Wente, how it fits with their thoughts, and I know working with some folks that are in the business of paving, how that fits with their schedule as well. So I think timing dovetails really well. We've had initial conversations with the financial advisor, and we were looking at the timing, taking several points into consideration. One of those, obviously, is when we will actually spend the money, so when the money needs to be available. Looking at and thinking about the market, looking at the current national situation, all the conversations there in terms of borrowing and when it might be best to borrow. Also looking at the job outlook and also how that might affect rates. So our financial advisor is working up some scenarios for us, but we have looked at at least the initial borrowing in the March timeframe, again, which fits, I think, well with Kevin and his folks, and I'll let him speak to that. We are also looking at the financing structure in terms of, again, looking at the cash flow needs and when we would borrow. Do we need to borrow the total amount versus maybe stretching that out? And looking at our other bonding potentials for the year moving forward on any other financing that we might have. So, again, how all of this fits together. So we are awaiting different scenarios from our financial advisor. But, again, I think you're looking at March in terms of the proceeds to begin work. And, Kevin, do you want to add in terms of that timing? So you'll set that in motion before you're? We are going to have a schedule. Okay. And then after that, everything won't happen before I'm gone. Right. There will be a schedule in terms of when things are supposed to happen that will be distributed to the distribution list, and those are the people that ensure that those things happen, like our bond council, financial advisor, obviously the programmatic folks, the budget folks, et cetera. So, yes, that will be available to everyone that needs to have that happen. Thank you for setting that up and doing that background beforehand. Okay. Forehand. Did you want to? Mr. Fuente, I think that in the same way she was talking about the logistic of when the funds are needed, I think we also have the potential for a conversation about can you bring those funds to bear and in what timeframe in terms of how much can we pave and when, or what would be your recommendation for this endeavor? We have both Director Williams as well as Brian Billings with ATS that could actually addressed that issue, and I didn't want to speak on their behalf, so they were gracious enough to come and attend today. In fact, I would just like to turn the mic over to Brian if you'd like to address that issue as far as capacity with respect to $13 million bond. One thing I will note prior to Brian taking the microphone is that we will continue on our path using the same information that was allocated to Council back in August. We have not gone through another pavement management cycle in the pavement management system, so those numbers that you have as well as cost estimates and tonages would be the same as what we would typically report to ATS so that we can continue along that line. So your aides or yourselves, if you're reviewing that, it would basically be the same information. The one thing that I would like to stress is the amount of time that we would like to have this reported back to our department from Council once you've had time to review because we will begin, according to what time frames that the asphalt production will begin, which would typically be late March, early April, we would like to have a list at least, in my opinion, two to three weeks prior to asphalt plants under production and turning that information over to ATS for their work. And that's in March. So it would be critical to have the response back from Council, I would say, by the end of January, maybe first week of February, as far as your recommendations to our department, so that we can convey that back to ATS. So with that, I'll turn it over to... One more question for you. Have you done the alchemy of the 12-way split, so to speak? I will actually be working on that during the course of the time as far as the amounts that would be allocated based on what we've currently paved this year, this calendar year. I think that's an important part of it. Yes, sir. Thank you. I agree. Billings, welcome. Always nice to see you, sir. Good day, Councilman Farmer and other council members. I was asked specifically to speak on our ability to be able to perform a larger bonding project that you all may have for next year. In asphalt, we talk in the nature and the world of tons and the ability to be able to get an amount of tons produced in a year or a specific period of time. We have three asphalt plants currently in Fayette County. The tonnage this year has been so low because of the economy downturn and other factors that we've only ran one plant. Two plants have actually been closed, similar to a lot of businesses. So in terms of production, a plant can do 250,000 to 350,000 tons a year. We've produced 200,000 tons this year. With that capacity, we can do around 800,000 to 900,000 tons in a given year. With that said, we would be glad to open those other two plants back up. We'd be glad to put some people back to work, and we can, without any question, handle the size of the project that you all are talking about. If we were inclined to do all that paving in one year's time, or one season's time, Yes. Then would we have the ability to inspect that in a season's time if we were so inclined or delighted? Thank you, sir. I'll let Sam. I appreciate it. Thank you all. Thank you for your question, Chairman. We wouldn't have a problem at all gearing up for that. We've got two full-time inspectors now, and one of them probably spends 50 percent of his time on other items. So that's there, and then we've got the availability to pull from other areas to do that. I would anticipate probably three inspectors would probably be more than adequate to do this effort. I appreciate that. I didn't look down. I see Council Member Beard had signed in. Another thing, Brian was talking in tons. Of course, we're looking at dollars. A good rule of thumb, our contract now in place asphalt ranges from like $91 down to $80 and change. I forget the exact numbers, depending on the size of the volume of the asphalt that's applied to the specific street. So, you know, and then with milling and that, you're probably estimated about $100 per install ton, so that would give you a feel for that. So we're probably looking at 130,000 tons, I think, is the number that sticks in my mind here as far as about $13 million worth of asphalt. Nicely done. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Driscoll, maybe you could help me with this. As long as we're all on the same page, we're talking about a $13 million bond specifically for this purpose. Is that correct? Yes. All right. We also had monies, general fund monies in the budget also of a number. I've forgotten what the number is. My district was so low, there was more numbers to the right of the decimal point than there was to the left. Pardon me? Three in municipal aid money, I think, but there were some other sources. Okay, so a total of $16 million, is that good? There were some other sources. I didn't bring that with me, but there was coal severance, mineral severance, the MAP money, the county road aid money. Help me. I think those are the sources. Those add up to more than three. Okay. I just want everybody on the same page about what we're doing before we go. Yes, this money is in addition to what was budgeted for paving. Right. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next up is Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. Yes, ma'am. Sam, I guess for you or Kevin, either one, but what kind of interruption, I mean, I guess I want to picture it in my mind, having a huge amount of streets paved in just a few months is what we have available, right? and would there be a lot of traffic impact? Would you do it 24-7? How would the paving occur? Most of the paving that we do is not major thoroughfares. The major thoroughfares are maintained by the Kentucky Department of Highways. So what we're probably looking at is a lot of subdivision-type streets, a lot of collector streets, and we have always worked with our contractor. Any specific area that we feel that needs to be sensitive to the traveling public, we will look at doing those at off hours. Of course, we always work with our traffic folks to schedule paving between the hours of 9 o'clock and usually around 3 o'clock so you don't hit the peak hours there. So, you know, as we get into this as far as managing it, we may do some night paving if necessary to accommodate. And then I guess I was thinking also around Fayette County Public Schools and doing the paving in those areas on the off season. So it would take some coordinating efforts. Yeah, any areas that would be close to the schools, we would want to get those finished prior to start of school and also get the pavement markings back down in place before school started. Yes, we would look at that. That's one reason we want the lists as early as we can so we can schedule that with our contractor. Because I know, you know, I guess I was concerned that are we really prepared to go from $3 million to $16 million in one year? Yeah, you know, it sounds like a lot, but, you know, we've gone through a couple years here that we haven't done a tremendous amount of paving, and the folks that have been involved in that management have been doing other things during that period. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. I think the commissioner had a little more. I did just want to follow up with the council member's question. You all determined that we would use MAP money for the debt service, so a portion of the debt service will come out of that money. So I didn't want to mislead you. Depending on the timing and the structure, it will depend on that amount for debt service. But moving forward, we plan in future years approximately $1.5 million would be debt service out of the MAP money. So I just wanted to clarify that. That's good by me. Are there other questions? Yes, sir, you're good. All right. Mr. Billings, I had one more. It's kind of a little off topic. Bless you. The state has announced some plans for New Circle Road. Are you familiar with those at all? Yes, I attended the public meeting on that a couple weeks ago. When would that take place logistically? They said on the news broadcast that it would be around 2013, but I worked for transportation for 10 years, and I can tell you it would be very surprising to see it prior to 2014. They have a right-of-way process to go through utility relocation, and they're still working on the final design of the plan. So they still have some work to do before they put that out for bid. I appreciate your insight there. Thank you. I will say this. It's a very good improvement for that side of town. Is that and then one of the double diamonds there at Leastown? Leastown, that's correct. That should be right. And widening of New Circle Road to six lanes and improving some intersections. Very good. Thank you, sir. Any other questions on this topic? Anyone? Appreciate your thoughtfulness. Next is the item placed into committee by Council Member Martin about utility poles in the right-of-way, and I would ask him to frame this for us if he would. Council Member. Thank you, Chair. Today we're going to talk about utility poles in the right of way. And my council legislative aide, Jonathan Hollinger, has put together a really nice presentation. He's done the vast majority of the legwork on this. And so being the smartest guy in the room and the guy who knows more about this than anybody else, I thought I'd just let him sort of walk us through that. So with the chair's permission, I will turn it over to Jonathan Hollinger. Thank you. Today I just have a brief presentation on utility poles in the right-of-way. And this issue really came out of these large utility poles that were placed on your left at Euclid Avenue and Rose Street, and on your right on Cooper Drive. There's also other utility poles throughout town. Lansdowne Drive, for example, on your left has had very large utility poles for many years. And this is just another picture of Euclid Avenue, which has large structures extending the length of it. Today I just wanted to do a quick summary of how LFUCG regulates utility poles, also go through some policies in other cities, and finish up with some possible ordinance changes and the establishment of aesthetic guidelines, which is something that is mentioned in our current ordinances. So the first place you find utility poles regulated at LFUCG is in Chapter 17C of the Code of Ordinances, which regulates our right-of-way generally. And this section of the ordinance refers to the annual general permit, which is essentially just a permit that's given to utility companies so they can complete maintenance work within the right-of-way without having to apply for individual permits. And one important thing to note is that they are allowed to replace utilities with something that's up to 20% larger in size without applying for an individual installation permit. And things that are not on this list do not require an installation permit, which is a separate and higher level of scrutiny. The next section is the criteria for denying the installation permit. And this is basically just a list of things that the government can use to say that we're not going to allow you to place that utility pole in our right-of-way. The first item there talks about something that has size that presents significant public safety concerns or violates guidelines or procedures pertaining to aesthetics that have been adopted by the council. Utility poles are, however, exempted from that requirement, so it does not apply there. There is additional language that talks about aesthetic guidelines, which is something I'll touch on later in the presentation. They've never actually been adopted by council. They are mentioned in the ordinance, however. There's another section that deals specifically with utility poles, and that essentially just says that you should try to use existing utility poles if possible, not to run multiple sets of poles down a given street. It also requires that any additional adopted regulations have to be complied with and that the utility poles shouldn't interfere with the normal use of the right-of-way or the adjoining property owners. An example there might be you're not allowed to put a utility pole, for example, in the middle of a sidewalk because that's obviously an ADA issue, and there's also other reasons why you might deny that. There are some other places in our regulations where you find utility poles. The subdivision regulations, as many council members are aware, were amended several years ago, and all subdivided land has to have utilities installed underground, with the exception of very large facilities, transmission facilities. And also, those underground utilities are not allowed to conflict with future right-of-way and tree preservation areas. This does only apply to newly subdivided land and does not apply to the existing right-of-way, but it is certainly a place where utility poles are mentioned. The zoning ordinance in the P2 zone only does refer to site utilities having to be underground. This is actually the only place where I could find any mention of underground utilities in the zoning ordinance as a requirement, and this is a fairly basic ban on overhead utilities. It does exempt the major utilities as to the subdivision regulations. This does not really apply to the right-of-way, but it is another place where LFUCG has regulated overhead utilities. Now I wanted to go through some comparable cities and see how they had regulated their utilities. Boulder, Colorado is sort of the extreme. They have completely banned all overhead utilities. All new replacement relocated utilities have to be underground, and they just simply don't issue any permits for above-ground utility structures. Ann Arbor, Michigan takes a less severe approach, and the council can create underground utility districts by resolution. They do have a public hearing process and notification of affected property owners, which is much like our zone change process. The utility companies are responsible for installing the underground service, but the property owners are responsible for converting their individual service drops, which is not an insignificant cost and can be several thousand dollars. This policy does exempt the very large transmission lines, so it does not apply to all utilities. Madison, Wisconsin has a unique policy in that their local utility companies have already adopted policies for converting overhead lines to underground. So the only thing that they address is entrance facilities, and they have banned entrance facilities, and those being from the utility pole or underground line to the building. They have banned them in their downtown area and on specified corridors. The placement of those insurance facilities also has two cost threshold requirements. When the building is being renovated and the cost of that remodeling exceeds 50% of the assessed value, then it has to be placed underground. However, if the cost of placing those utilities underground exceeds more than 5% of the total remodeling cost, then that requirement is waived. Nashville, Tennessee has all of its new residential developments have a requirement for underground utilities. It does exempt distribution lines on major streets and transmission lines and any residential plot greater than 40,000 square feet. The property owner, the developer, is responsible for all the costs of that undergrounding. Raleigh, North Carolina has a very similar policy to us in that they ban it in subdivisions of land. The one difference, and what's unique about their policy, is that they do not allow ground-mounted transformers to be installed within the right-of-way, which is somewhat related to this issue and has come up, I know, in a few different council districts with the large boxes being placed right next to the street. So considering how we currently regulate our overhead utilities and those other cities, there's a few options for how you might address the issue of these very large utility poles. One of the options is to just require a more stringent review of the proposed overhead utility structures by amending our code of ordinances. Another option, which is common in some other cities, is to require notification of property owners when somebody applies to install major utility infrastructure. And the third part is to establish aesthetic guidelines, which are already referenced in our code of ordinance but just have never been adopted. So one of the ordinance changes to make this process more stringent that would be possible would be to simply remove the language that allows structures that are 20% larger in size to be constructed under the annual permit without applying for an individual permit. This would not ban larger utilities. It would just require that the applicants go through a more stringent review process than simply being allowed to do it under their annual permit. You could also amend the criteria for denying an installation permit to remove the exemption for the utility poles from the requirement that it can be denied if its size presents significant public safety concerns. that would just make it a little more stringent and give engineering at LFUCG another option to deny an application to place a very large utility structure as I mentioned before you could also require applicants for installation to notify property owners that would be similar to our zone change process where there's requirements to notify people in the area and one of the other things that was mentioned in the ordinance is aesthetic guidelines that can be adopted by the council and there's a variety of ways you could structure those aesthetic guidelines one way would be have location based restrictions and this is how Ann Arbor Michigan obviously has creates underground utility districts based on geographic boundaries and you could do that by street classification that could also be done by geographic area established the council. You could also have requirements to examine alternate paths that are not within the right-of-way, and that could be those that are not visible for major roads, or that could be those that would require the purchase of private easements to run those utilities. In the vein of Madison, Wisconsin, you could have cost threshold requirements that overhead utilities could only be constructed when the cost to place them underground is a certain percentage higher than the cost to place them overhead and on the other side you could have a requirement that if the percentage of the total project cost is is if it's above five percent to do the undergrounding then that requirement would be waived um also there's a priority installation areas is something that came from berkeley california has a guide for telecommunications towers and they have established a priority list of land use types where they would like for these certain utility structures to be. They would first prefer they were industrial, then commercial, then residential. And you could obviously order that list in any way you wanted to. You could also do it by street classification and prefer expressways first, then arterials, and collector roads. And the last thing would be purely aesthetic guidelines, which would be to define size and material and landscaping requirements of utility poles in certain locations. You could find standards for those materials and also landscaping and screening requirements. Obviously, with any regulation that was done with regards to height and diameter and things like that, it would need to take into account all the national standards for the safe delivery of electricity, but it is something that could be adopted. One thing I feel like I should note is that, as the Council is well aware, where utility companies throughout Kentucky often go to the Public Service Commission for rate increases to recover the costs of infrastructure upgrades. Undergrounding utilities is a very expensive thing to do. Transmission lines like those installed down on Euclid Avenue can run between $4 million and $18 million a mile to place underground. So there could be a situation where if a local policy was too restrictive and required a utility company to incur a large amount of additional costs, that they could request a rate increase based upon those additional costs that were mandated on them by the local government. so i fully understand that this is the last meeting of the year of this particular incarnation of the planning and public works committee so i i will this is just a suggested timeline uh if the committee wishes to move this item forward in the future but some direction in terms of where the what ordinance changes would would be palatable for the council and aesthetic guideline components that the council would like to explore would be the first step in drafting a firmer document that we could bring in the stakeholders and eventually move it forward to the full council. At this point, if you have any questions, I'm happy to try and answer them. There's also some other people here who may be more knowledgeable than me in certain areas. If you have any questions, I could direct that to them as well. Very thorough, well-ordered. Thank you for that. I appreciate it very much. Do you want to follow up first before we turn to council members? Why don't I let some other council members ask some questions? And I get them all the time. Very good. First up is Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jonathan, thank you very much. That was sterile and specific and helpful and discouraging. On page 18, you refer to entrance facilities. What is an entrance facility? The entrance facility is simply just where the utilities come from the pole to a business or home. So in Madison, they had already adopted policies their utility companies had to convert their overhead distribution and transmission lines. So their ordinance only really had to deal with from the pole to the home or business. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. Jonathan, thank you for putting this together. And I agree that, and we have all agreed in the past, that I think this is something we should move toward. I know when we spoke, we had a workshop on utilities, and this item was in that workshop. we talked about a possible way of funding or assisting with funding, maybe through one of the funds that pays for street lighting or something along that line where we would increase it. And so I would like to know, in one of the cities that you gave us an example, the property owner, the resident, or whatever, has to pay a portion. Do you, through your research, do you know how much that might? That's in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Again, the utility company has to pay to do the distribution lines to place them underground, but the homeowner has to pay to convert the line that runs from their home to what was previously a utility pole. And that cost, according to KU, is usually somewhere in the $2,000 range, so it's not insignificant. And that's obviously per... Right, and for many property owners, I guess, if we planned it correctly. So I think if we have a really good plan, this is something we could accomplish. But preparing a property owner several years in advance or sharing the cost or doing something, especially in the lower income area. There was one other question. Oh, is there any data available that shows, because I think there's a tremendous cost to utility companies for power outages. Is there any comparisons from above ground to underground? Well, there's a lot of literature on the reliability of underground utilities versus overhead utilities. one thing that's important to remember is that even if the utilities in your neighborhood are underground at some point that power probably comes out of the ground and goes overhead and so if if there's damage that line anywhere along the line it can knock out power so it's not a perfect solution to get rid of power outages altogether and another thing to remember is that overhead utilities while they may be less reliable are quicker to repair than underground utilities so power outage with damage to underground service usually takes longer to repair than an overhead utilities but there there is a lot of sort of back and forth in the utilities community about the reliability issues versus overhead versus underground but there are certain it's a trade-off really between the two it's not a perfect solution but it's certainly you know i I guess I would think if it's underground, you would have much far less outages than by it being overhead. So I was just wondering about the cost comparison of the power outages and, you know, the cost. If we have an ice storm, it's devastating. If you have a hurricane, it's devastating or a tornado or whatever. But a car accident can put them out, electrical storm. So it just seemed that the possibility of the outage is much greater with overhead. So if you go underground, then the power outages are going to be minimal compared to above ground. I could certainly try and find some better data than what I currently have on that and let you know. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Next up is Councilmember Beard. Thank you, and I'll fill in one little hole here that I heard back during the ice storm days of 2003. The, I guess, determination on the value of one system to another. One of the big problems with underground also is they may be able to tell that it's within limestone and Broadway. So they don't know where in there that the break is or the problem is. And it is, you said it takes longer, it takes significantly longer to be able to shoot that rabbit. I was curious about your choice of sample cities. Do you know off the top of your head if all of those cities deal with private utilities or are some of them owned by the cities? To my knowledge, all those cities have private utility companies. I can certainly double-check. I know when we went to San Antonio last spring, San Antonio owns all of their utilities and is guaranteed by the utilities a 14% return, which we could sure use a 14% return on something anyway here. It sure helped things. But things like doing the river walk and all that was essentially funded by the utilities, ultimately. Thank you again, Jonathan. Very good presentation. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. And then we'll return to Councilmember Martin. Thank you, Chair. So at this point, obviously, we're about to change councils and new folks coming in. But I think it would be helpful to sort of get a feel for where folks might want to take this because there's a lot of different options, and we've had a number of meetings on this topic. I'd like to sort of leave the staff with some sort of marching orders, something to bring back to the new council and new committee in January or February when it's the pleasure of the new chair. As for myself, I would like to see a number of these things. And just kind of looking at the various policy options that Jonathan has outlined, my bottom line is Euclid can't happen again. What happened on Euclid? There we have these large transmission lines and yet another set of distribution lines going down an old historic corridor. The same thing happened out in Winchester Road where you have these large distribution lines or transmission lines and the smaller distribution lines and multiple sets of lines coming up. And what I wonder is, you know, what's next and what right would we have to stop it? if the utility company decided it wanted to put these large lines down Pasadena. But that's the whole point, is that what notice would we have and what right would we have to stop it or in any corridor in any of our districts or in the city? And I think that we need more ability to plug into the process and to negotiate an acceptable solution at the time. I think clearly banning overhead utility lines is not affordable at this time. It's an immensely expensive thing. but i think there are circumstances where we would want the ability to say no and to try to find another way and to and in order to have that i think where there's a few legislative changes that we could make uh that that might help us do that uh and the policy options on page 21 of the presentation and i don't know if you can put that up up there one was require more stringent review a proposed overhead utility structures by amending Chapter 17C. Well, that's the elimination of the more than 20% larger in size requirement. I tell you, the ones on Chevy Chase and Chevy and Euclid were significantly more than 20%. But I don't have particular heartburn over that change. On the next page, removing utility poles as an exclusion for the various circumstances that the government can deny an installation permit. I don't have heartburn over that change either. And so the requiring of a more stringent review process of the proposed overhead utility structures, I guess I'm okay with that. Requiring notification of property owners upon application to install major utility infrastructure. Jonathan, I might ask you to follow up. When does it become a major utility infrastructure? Is there a differentiation? That would need to be defined. There's a couple other places in both the subdivision regulations and the zoning that references major electric and telephone distribution. So you would have to have someone with more engineering knowledge than me to define what major was. I guess to have a pole that's larger than the leg of a space alien destruction thing from some movie, I think that might be a guideline or something, because the ones over by the U.K. hospital look just like that. They look like something out of War of the Worlds. You could measure it in kilovolts also. That's another option. Kilovolts or square miles in circumference or something. Well, thanks. So that's a blank we would need to fill in. And so at some point, you have something that's big enough to matter. And at that point, I think it would be nice for residents to know, hey, we're getting ready to put in a utility pole in your front yard that is six feet in diameter, or six feet in, I guess it would be diameter. And then the following question is whether the council would like to establish aesthetic guidelines. And aesthetics becomes a difficult thing because sometimes beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But nonetheless, there are types of sizes and materials of utility poles. But I think we would like to minimize the industrialization of our neighborhoods and our corridors. And we don't want to end up being surrounded by industrial-size electrical facilities. facilities and to the extent that we can minimize them in our community at a reasonable cost because it'll cost something because obviously what they're doing now is the easiest cheapest way to do it so it'll have some cost but balancing that cost with uh you know the the i guess the quality of life of our neighbors, neighborhoods and streets and things like that, I think is important. So I would look forward to hearing from other council members, but I think the policy options and ordinance changes are something worthy of consideration. and I think the aesthetic guidelines, there are some things in there that would be helpful in reducing the impact of these because no one wants to see this pop up on their road. Thank you, Chair. You've laid a good outline there. I think we'll follow up on it after further discussion here. But first up is Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with much of what you said, Council Member Martin. And I was remembering, as far as the underground utilities, and Mr. Farmer was also on the council at the time when Pam Miller was mayor, the council made a decision to systematically put money into the budget for burying the lines downtown. And we did a block at a time because it's very expensive. but there were a few years in a row when we made that a council priority and i i think we put a hundred thousand or 150 thousand in and we would bury a little bit and that's why this block out in front of the government center for example has no overhead utilities we did some of these blocks on maine and it is something if the council decided it was a priority, we could allocate money to that. Thank you. You're welcome. If there are no other comments, I would just say that we could use the outline of Council Member Martin's commentary about some of the changes here. I know that I kind of consider this a beginning discussion on this, what I would now call a group of issues. And we really didn't reach out to KU to be here or make comment today. I don't know if anyone from KU is here or would want to make any comments. But we'd want to have them to be part of this discussion as it moves forward. But I think you've got a really great staff report here with some really great recommendations that staff can take care of some of this, but policymakers are going to need to sit down in a little bit of a working group, in my estimation, to see what bubbles to the top. although I think kind of the three or four things you outlined there would be the ones that I think we'd go for first. Those would be, in my opinion, reflected in the minutes from the meeting when they're produced. So I think we could use that and then some time with KU or others that would be involved and see where the council wants to take this after we get input from all sides before we move forward. But I want to thank the council member and his staff for bringing together what is a great group of policy initiatives, all under kind of one heading that really would, in its sum and total, change the quality of life in Lexington as we move forward because some of these are quite invasive. And, yeah, you can drive down the street and you forget you see them because we drive down these streets every day. But it's the people who don't drive down these streets every day who turn and go, oh, what happened? And I think that's where we're trying to do. We owe it to Lexington to have a long-term outlook and to move towards that on the horizon because we're a beautiful city in so many ways, but there's a couple places where we're not. And this group of issues will give us that opportunity as we move forward. So unless there's specific committee action, I think we'll just keep the issue in committee, let staff work on it a little bit over the break, and then look forward to having more discussion about it with the new committee at the first of the year. All I have now are Doug Martin. I just might add that perhaps when a new committee chair is identified that they could invite Kentucky Utilities to come and to maybe have a discussion with the committee about their expertise and their take on some of these suggestions. We met with them a couple times early on several years ago when we first started working on this. And what we get from Kentucky Utilities is they're happy to work with us on this and let us know what they need. I think they are. I agree. But they are sort of more in a passive role than an active role, and I think it's going to be incumbent on this committee and the council to decide what it wants and what it wants Lexington to look like in 20 years. So, Chair, thank you for the time to address this today. I'm sorry it took us all the way until December to get you there. But I think it's a great conversation and a great one for you to leave, knowing that we'll continue to work on it and look forward to having your input, whether it's on this side of the microphone or the other. Vice Mayor, can I ask you a question? In looking at committee referrals, we have referrals here from a couple from Councilmember Blues. Do we change the referral on there? Do we keep the issue in committee? How do we handle things when we come to the end of a tenure, so to speak? What we used to do historically is a council member would offer to pick up that issue if they were interested in that issue. Okay. So it could be renamed, potentially? Yes, it could be renamed, for example, the... Oliver Lewis Way Project quarterly updates. Yes, and then the council member who wanted to pick that up for following. Okay. Since there's time, I want to run through these individually and get some input from you all and make some decisions potentially. The Oliver Lewis Way Project does have Council Member Blue's name next to it and also status as quarterly updates. are you satisfied that we need to continue having quarterly updates on the Oliver Lewis Way project? Well, the project, of course, is both the road project and that will be moving forward from Versailles to Broadway in the near future. Also, as you know, it's a social engineering project with regard to the West End Village or Davis Bottoms. So I think it would be in the planning committee's interest to keep track of that. Very good. And so I'd recommend it remain in there. I hate to see my name go off. I understand. I completely understand. Yeah. All right. All right. I think we'll wait and do the reassignment part of this once the new committee has been seated. but I wanted to work out the policy part of that. I would expect that Council Member Stenet would have the same commentary about the Todd's Road widening Phase II. We've taken up this issue of large utility poles in the right-of-way, and I think we will keep that in committee because we've engendered a pretty good discussion. I think the same would hold true for the repaving program. We had an update yet today, and I think we're looking forward to working with both finance folks as well as the streets and roads people to make sure we get that done as quickly and utilizing as much good work as possible. Working with the Fayette County Public Schools to sustain Salt Road services, I think, is an ongoing beginning or trying to have a beginning conversation. I don't think we've really had a set down with folks at Fayette County Public Schools to say, here's what we would like to ask for you to help us with, because we've never quantified what it is we're trying to ask them to help us with. The downtown traffic study appears here with no referral by or date, but says quarterly updates. And I guess there's a little too much openness about this. Yes, ma'am. I believe that's the two-way street issue. It is. Yes, it is. Okay. So when is that study to be finished? Or begun. It's begun. I think it's within the first six months of next year that that will be completed. That's correct. It is underway. Does it need a quarterly update? I mean, I don't know either. Thank you, Chris. Merry Christmas. We do want to keep it in. We have to keep it in committee. I think as we're doing reassignments at the first year, we might want to attach someone's name to this other than just a blank box there. Last month we spent some time on the review of the Street Tree and Street Tree Protection Ordinances and kind of ask the tree board to kind of get back with us, which I think that they will do that. Article 16 of the zoning ordinance off-street parking requirements and stormwater management was placed in committee by Council Member Lawless. I don't really think we have any follow-up there yet, but I think we can look forward to that in the future. Building permit extensions in ND1 and H1 also placed in committee by Council Member Lawless, and we look forward to some follow-up from yes. Yes, ma'am. I have correspondence from Council Member Wallace that needs to be removed from committee. She's worked with David Barbary, and her concerns are taken care of. Motion to remove. Second. We have a motion and a second to remove the building permit extensions in ND1 and HD1. Any comments, discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like sign? Thank you. We have removed that one. All right. Emergency preparedness as placed in here by the public safety link. I don't remember the basis for that. And I'm not rushing to take it out. I'm just asking for, yes, ma'am. I remember having the discussion about the emergency preparedness. Okay. And I know that Pat Duggar did a presentation at a work session. Okay. I'm not sure that I was exactly clear on how we're emergency prepared, but what we were wanting answered is, I guess, if Lexington had a catastrophic event, tornadoes or whatever it may be, are we prepared and do our citizens know what to do? Would you object if we changed, referred by Public Safety Link to Henson so that you could kind of shepherd this a little bit? I would be glad to. All right. Excellent. Thank you. You are most welcome. Thank you. Next was a referral. I have made it, and this is kind of like, you know, no one's worked on the signed ordinance with any specificity in many, many years. and it's kind of one of those things that's out there that I know will take a working group with some background, and I'd like to leave it in committee to try to look forward to the opportunity of working on the sign ordinance. The sign excellence update, again, I'm sorry, go ahead. I was just going to say Council Member Kay will be the co-chair of that, so I would think he might take that over if he's so willing to shepherd it. I would be willing. So you want to take Farmer off and put Kay on there? Is that what we're saying? Oh, on. I'm sorry, you moved faster than I did. All right, fine. I thought you were taking me off. I would never do that. I might remind the chair that we worked on the commercial sign ordinance last year or the year before. So there's been some work. There's been some movement on it, but I still think in the example I gave about how we get used to looking at some polls, I think we also get used to looking at some signs that have been covered over or otherwise left in place for an arcane reason related to the sign ordinance. So I think it's something that still needs some focus. All right, so we're going to put Council Member Kay on the design excellence update. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that very much. We're still exploring the use of alternative fuels for Fayette County, and we have actually some committee work. We're working on that in the background right now, so I'd like to keep that with my name on it. And I've forgotten, adult daycare centers, we're waiting on something else. But we've returned it to committee most recently, and we're waiting for the report out maybe of the mayor's commission. So I think we'll just leave that as it is, if that's all right. And then last is amendment of Article 5-1A, the right of entry. This is one that we had solved most of it, mistakenly took everything out of committee. We have returned this single part back to committee based on the vice mayor's input. So that's just a run-through. We actually knocked one out and changed the name on one or two, so I think that's probably good work there for the day. Any other comments or questions about the referral list itself? If not, there's nothing else to come before this group at this time. We have a motion to adjourn. You had asked for just a brief uptick on design excellence. Oh, yes, I'm sorry. We had talked about that. Yes, sir. Very quickly, when we last visited this a few weeks ago, I reported that the RFQ had been published, and we were waiting for responses. We received responses from two firms, and the working group will meet with both of those firms next week to ask some questions which we did not think were fully answered in the RF, in the proposals. and then we will go from there when we're more fully performed, when we're more fully informed about their qualifications. So that's where we are right now, and as Vice Mayor Gordon reported, Council Member Kaye will co-chair the group and the task force, and we'll be reporting back to the committee on a quarterly basis if that's still. I believe that's fine. It's worked well. I think it serves the issue very well, too. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir, and also for your service to this committee. We appreciate it very much. Council Member Martin, you're in the same boat. We appreciate your commitment to the committee. Comments? This is a mutual admiration society. I was just going to say, Chair, that we appreciate your service for these two years as chair of the committee. I thought you've done a great job and a very orderly discussion of some important issues. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. All right. Any other compliments that come before the House? Move adjourned. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, opposed, like, signed. We're adjourned. Thank you.