# Planning & Public Works Committee - August 12, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 12, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3427 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3427?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-08-12 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 17,444 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Planning & Public Works Committee met on August 12, 2014, at 1:00 p.m., with Farmer presiding. The committee addressed six agenda items during the session, including approval of the July 1, 2014 Special Committee Summary and Items Referred. Two items were deferred for future consideration: the P-1 Text Amendment for Mobile Food Vendors and the Municipal Aid Program (MAP). The committee also received informational presentations on the University of Kentucky Master Plan Update and the Streetlight Installation Plan. One motion was voted on during the meeting, and the committee heard three public comments. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on August 12, 2014: * Farmer * Mossotti * Gorton * Ellinger * Kay * Ford * Lawless * Beard * Clarke * Henson No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions A motion to approve Alternative 2 for the P-1 text amendment regarding mobile food vendors failed on a roll call vote [timestamp: 01:26:47]. **Motion Details:** The motion, made by Kay and seconded by Akers, proposed to allow mobile food vendors as accessory uses if located 500 or greater feet from residential zones. Under this alternative, mobile food vendors located less than 500 feet from residential zones would require conditional use approval. **Vote Results:** The motion failed with a 4-4 tie vote. **Votes in Favor (4):** - Kay - Ford - Henson - Gorton **Votes Against (4):** - Ellinger - Beard - Clarke - Lawless ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed funding for a streetlight installation plan. No financial allocation was approved for this initiative at this time, with the funding amount recorded as $0. ## Public Comment Three members of the public addressed the council during this meeting. **Beard** [timestamp: 01:43:24] questioned the legal use of MAP funds for trails. Beard noted that the statute specifies roads only and expressed concern that road funds are being diverted from their intended purpose. **Henson** [timestamp: 01:56:06] raised aesthetic concerns about food trucks in the city. Henson expressed concern about the unattractive appearance of some food trucks and the placement of tables and chairs on major city corridors, suggesting that zoning could be used to regulate signage and outdoor furnishings. **Gorton** [timestamp: 01:27:30] addressed food truck zoning and neighborhood protection. Gorton raised concerns about a loophole in Alternative 2 that would allow appeals to the Board of Adjustment to bypass the 500-foot setback requirement. Gorton also questioned whether P1 zones could maintain their integrity as buffer zones between residential and commercial areas. ## Contested Items **Use of MAP Funds for Trails** Council Member Henson challenged the legality of using MAP (Municipal Aid Program) funds for trails, arguing that the statute restricts these funds to roads only. Henson expressed concern that road funding was being diverted from its intended purpose. This procedural dispute centered on whether the current use of MAP funds complied with statutory limitations on eligible expenditures. **Food Truck Zoning and Neighborhood Impact** The committee was divided on a P-1 text amendment regarding food truck zoning regulations. The dispute focused on concerns about a 500-foot buffer loophole and the potential for food trucks to disrupt residential areas. The disagreement resulted in a tied vote, and the motion was deferred, indicating the committee could not reach consensus on how to proceed with the proposed zoning changes. ## July 1, 2014 Special Committee Summary [timestamp: 00:02:00] The committee unanimously approved the minutes from the July 1, 2014 meeting. Key speakers on this agenda item included Farmer, Clarke, and Kay. During discussion of this item, Council Member Akers requested the postponement of the mobile food vendor text amendment item. The outcome of this agenda item was approval. ## University of Kentucky Master Plan Update Judy Needham from the University of Kentucky presented an update on the university's master plan [timestamp: 00:03:06]. The presentation was informational in nature and covered several ongoing and planned initiatives across the campus. **Key Projects and Initiatives** The update highlighted multiple construction and development projects underway at the university, including: * Ongoing construction projects * Housing expansions * Academic building projects **Campus Mobility and Pedestrianization** A significant focus of the presentation was improving campus mobility and pedestrianization efforts. The university outlined plans to enhance walkability and transportation across campus. **Washington Avenue Transfer Request** A notable component of the master plan update included a request to transfer ownership of Washington Avenue back to the University of Kentucky. This request was presented as part of the broader campus development and mobility strategy. **Outcome** The agenda item concluded as an informational presentation with no formal action or decision required at this time. ## P-1 Text Amendment for Mobile Food Vendors Council Member Akers introduced a proposal to allow mobile food vendors as accessory uses in P-1 zones. [timestamp: 00:45:24] **Proposal Overview** The proposal presented four alternatives for regulating mobile food vendors in P-1 zones: - Unrestricted access for mobile food vendors - 500-foot buffer requirement from residential areas - Conditional use permit requirement - Restriction to designated professional office projects only **Discussion and Concerns** The committee discussed several key considerations related to the proposal, including: - Aesthetics and visual impact on P-1 zones - Potential neighborhood effects - Administrative feasibility of implementation Key speakers in the discussion included Council Members Akers, King, Henson, Gorton, Kay, and Ford, who engaged with various aspects of the proposal and its implications. **Outcome** The matter was deferred, indicating that the council did not reach a final decision at this meeting and postponed further action to a future date. ## Municipal Aid Program (MAP) [timestamp: 01:34:01] Council Member Stinnett introduced a discussion on policy direction for the Municipal Aid Program (MAP) funding administration. Staff presented a five-year financial overview that detailed revenue fluctuations and changes to the fund balance over the review period. **Key Discussion Points** Several concerns were raised during the discussion. Council members questioned the use of MAP funds for trails projects and expressed the need for greater transparency in how projects are allocated and funded through the program. **Speakers** The discussion involved Council Member Stinnett, along with staff members Farmer, Beard, and Henson. **Outcome** The matter was deferred, indicating that further discussion or action on MAP policy direction will take place at a future meeting. ## Streetlight Installation Plan Dowell Hoskins Squire presented an update on the streetlight installation plan. As of the meeting date, 214 lights had been installed against a goal of 400 for the year. [timestamp: 01:49:29] The installation process involves field marking followed by installation work performed by KU crews. Despite progress to date, a backlog of 450 lights remains to be installed. The committee was informed of efforts to improve forecasting accuracy using Acela software, which is intended to better predict and manage future installation timelines and resource allocation. The presentation was informational in nature, providing the committee with a status update on the streetlight installation initiative. ## Items Referred [timestamp: 00:05:00] The committee voted to remove four items from the referral list during this agenda item. The speakers involved in the discussion were Farmer, Ellinger, Gorton, and Kay. The four items removed from the referral list were: - Maintenance of Major Roadways - Fees to Offset Historic Preservation Services - Examine Fee Structure for Planning, Preservation & Development Services - Leaf Collection Review The committee's action to remove these items from the referral list was approved. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — failed (4-4): Motion to approve Alternative 2 for P-1 text amendment allowing mobile food vendors as accessory uses if located 500 or greater feet from residential zones --- ## Full transcript . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I ask that you all take your seats and let's come to order for our August 12th Planning and Public Works Committee meeting. We have a regular agenda that has plenty of things on it, first of which is on pages 1 through 4 of the packet are the notes from our last meeting, which was on July 1st. and in asking you all to approve those, please note that item three comes with a motion that we'll be asking the full council to take up in work session about amending the residential parking permit program. But other than that, I just was going to ask the committee, were there any additions or corrections to the minutes? Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like sign. Thank you very much. Next up, University of Kentucky master plan update. This is an issue that the vice mayor placed in committee. On your behalf. On my behalf. On your behalf. Thank you. Because I thought, I think each of us received a complete workup of the plan. Did we not somewhere along the way? That's correct. When we put the plan through our board, we made sure each of you had a copy and a letter from the president kind of describing what our goals are going to be over the next couple years. Would you kindly introduce yourself to us? Yeah, sure. My name is Judy Needham. I'm the facilities planning manager at UK. I work for the vice president for facilities management. And I have been working on this master plan. Well, it took a little over a year for us to complete the master plan. In October 2013, our board accepted the plan, and we have been in the implementation process since. So I'm here today to kind of give you an update on what's happening on campus, what those cranes are doing out there, and maybe some good news as to the expansion. Before you begin, just one question. Sure. So did this planning process then start before President Capilouto began his tenure? No, it started actually summer of 2012 when we started our housing initiative. that kind of actually got rolling so quickly that someone said, let's take a step back. We need to really do an entire master plan, update our master plan. It had been done in 2002. It's time to update our master plan. And so then it ran along congruent with the housing initiative. Very good. So summer of 2012, and then our board accepted it last October of 2013. Well, I'll just ask you to proceed as you like, and then we'll take some questions at the end. All right. Well, as I said, I'm sure all of you are seeing cranes and movement and lots of construction on our campus. And summer is our busy time, but it's also very busy because some of the things we're doing. But just a little refresher on the master plan itself, as I talked about the timing, but just in your package you do have these principles, and these principles were used to put together the plan as well as we use them as we implement. And I'm going to talk about just a couple of them today. The community. Those of you, several of you, and we thank you for being participants in our planning process, especially Vice Mayor Gorton, Council Member Kay, Council Member Beard, Council Member Lawless, who wasn't here, was very involved in the process. But we looked at UK. Let me find my place on the pointer here. There we are. UK in the center, and we really looked at our borders. And so as we went through the master plan, we not only thought about what we needed on our campus, but how our borders affect Lexington. So to the north here, you have downtown. To the south, you have the stadium and the arboretum. And this particular map shows kind of the differences as you transition. This is limestone. As you transition up Limestone and up Tates Creek Road, you can see how our campus changes. The yellow are single-family owner-occupied homes. The red and pink are either multifamily or non-owner-occupied homes. So you can kind of see the density change from a suburban feel up to, as we get towards downtown, a much more urban feel. I want to screen back there so the council can see what you point at. Yes. Just a little edit there. I didn't know that. Well, it's a new day. That's good, because now I can feel like I'm talking to both of you. Well, it's perfect. We're all here, yes. So as I was saying, this is the south end of campus where the stadium and the Arboretum are, and then this is the north end downtown. Those, like I said, we took our borders into account as we planned the interior of our campus. And just to note, those of you who hadn't really been involved earlier, we had over 70 meetings in that little over year that I talked about. We had all kinds of stakeholder groups, local, the university, LFUCG. We just went around and tried to include everybody we could possibly think of. We had charrettes with the LFUCG staff and the neighborhood representatives. Our charrettes were mainly geared towards the spaces between UK and downtown. And even now, we are involved, and we're happy to be involved, in the commercial corridor study that's going on right now. That includes Euclid, Avenue of Champions, and then Limestone. So we're trying to keep our relationships going, which for us is very, very natural to keep our relationships between UK and LFUCG going. But a couple of things I want to talk about in terms of what's being implemented on campus are the academics, the modern classrooms and research space, our student experience and enhancing that, mobility, which has been a topic all along through our master plan, and cohesive campus, some of the things that we've been doing recently with the green space. So academics, our goal to have 21st century classrooms, 21st century research buildings, so that we can educate future leaders and future experts in their field. Some of the current academic projects that you see happening around campus right now, an obvious one is the Gatton Building, the expansion, which is along Limestone. That is due to be finished in April of 2016. It's a renovation and an expansion. So a piece of the building will be renovated, a piece of it will be expanded, and you can kind of, as you go down limestone, you can see that construction and you can see that some of it has come down. That is moving along really well. We were able to use the property that we bought from the Lexington Theological Seminary last year to move the Gatton School into. Most of their dean's office, most of their faculty, and a lot of the grad students are now housed in the buildings over at the Lexington Theological Seminary, which is almost directly across the street. And so that was a really good use of that property. The University Lofts at Bolivar is a project that we are, where we are expanding. We're renovating this building on Bolivar, and we're going to move the art studios and the fine arts programs that are in the Reynolds building into this building once it's complete. It's supposed to be really nice. I'm kind of anxious to get in there. haven't been in there and that should be be done next spring and then the academic science building which is our very large project 112 million dollar project that's happening on rose street that is in the final design tweaks the site work has begun on it and we hope to open that in fall of 2016. where is the site that is that will be on the corner of rose street and huglet there's part on if you're on rose street there's parking garage number two and then it will take up the space between there and hugel it will be the academic science building and it sits behind it will be the new hagen hall which is actually one of the dorms that are open in this fall what becomes of the chem physics building is it just remain yes yes it will remain it will be different type of use we'll have our more advanced obviously technology in this building up to the date laboratories and research space, and so the chem-phys building will be used more for the first and second year programs and classes. Thank you. So as we update our academic space, of course, we want to make our student experience even better so that we can keep people who are coming here for the academic experience also have a great student experience. And the most notable construction on our campus right now are our housing. We have an open house on Thursday that anyone is invited to. I don't know if with the city schedule, anyone here would be able to make it, but from 3 to 6 on Thursday, we have an open house in Champions Court 1, which is this front building that is on Avenue of Champions right next to Memorial Coliseum. And so we're just taking tours through there if anybody has the opportunity to break away and see that. But we have five new residence halls opening next week, basically. We're moving in next week. We have Champions Court 1 and 2, which front on Avenue of Champions and Martin Luther King Boulevard. We have Woodland Glen. Two of the buildings at Woodland Glen will be opening this fall, and that is located on Woodland Avenue, kind of directly across from the W.T. Young Library. There are also three more buildings from Woodland Glen that will be hopefully opening next fall. So altogether, Woodland Glen will have five residence halls. The other one that's opening this fall, I don't have pictures, is the new Hagen Hall. And it sits right on the site of where Hagen Hall was. That was demolished last year, and we've got a new Hagen Hall. As well as K-Lair, we're going to put K-Lair back in there. and hopefully it'll have a little bit of the same feel as the old K-Lair. And the project we're in design phase right now is Limestone Park, and that will be at the corner of Avenue of Champions and Limestone. And so there will be a few new structures there, which will round out our housing for this point in time anyway. How many beds will you have added? Let me see if I have that number. That's a... Six, seven, eight dollars. As of fall of 2016, when Limestone 1 and 2 opened, it will be 5,733 beds. That's not an exact number added because we do, we're not, that doesn't include the ones that, like Hagen, that came down. But it's approximately. If you remember early on in our discussions, UK was, the original goal was to get up to 9,000 beds on campus so that we would attract a lot of our students to stay on campus, not only for the experience it provides academically, but also, you know, hoping to alleviate some of the pressures on the neighborhoods that we've had in the past if we hopefully attracted students onto campus. So that number is all of the new beds. It's not really a net number. As well as housing, of course, we're trying to make the student experience even better by adding just study space. There's classroom space. We needed a revamping of our dining, which you've read about recently. And so we have a total renovation of our student center, which will hopefully be done December 2017, $175 million project. That will include renovation of the 1937 portion of the building, and then the rest of the building will be rebuilt. That should really, we're trying to have a street presence on Avenue of Champions with that also. So in about three years, you should really see a difference in the street presence on Avenue of Champions. I think for the good, it will fit into the urban character of that end of our campus. As well, one of the other missions we've always had is to have some better space on the southern part of our campus And so this new student commons is being built across from the library, basically at the corner of University Drive and the library there. That will serve the southern part of campus. Both of these buildings will have a lot of study spaces, open spaces, and of course our dining. And the map you see here is the map that the UK Dining Transformation Project put out. These are some of the dining improvements over the next few years. One highlight is that student, the New Commons, which should be open next fall. It is a fast-track project. It's fun to watch something happen that fast, but it is so needed that I think it's going to happen. Normally, in the beginning of any construction project, I would be surprised, I would be surprised, but I think this one's going to happen. And the other thing to note on that map is all of the green. Those are improvements that our Aramark partnership is providing immediately. We really just needed a revamping of our dining system, of our options for food service throughout campus. And so those are the green areas are places where you see immediate changes to the dining and then some of the larger projects that come along behind that. And so mobility, that's something that we have really been concentrating on throughout the entire process through the master plan. And this, I'm thankful for this point in time to come and update you about what's kind of happening on campus, but also to, as a reminder of this discussion, because I hope to be back in the future and to continue working with you on this mobility issue. But basically, what we have is our campus has expanded so much over the last several years that we are really looking towards making it safer for all of the modes of transportation that come through our campus. Vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, we've got them all, and we're trying to find ways to kind of make that a better experience and a safer experience. We're trying to maintain access to and around the campus. We hope to pedestrianize the core of campus with lots of future discussion on that and then enhance our transit options, which are kind of a key. The two key points to making this work are things we're working on right now. One is access around campus, and the other is the transit. Number one on the slide up there, you see the new road, the Cooperstown Loop. No matter what happens with our pedestrianization issues, we will go forward with this Cooperstown Loop. And that will start, construction on that will start next spring. That will take people up Woodland Avenue. Woodland Avenue, you'll go around the Cooperstown Loop, which will link into Sportsman Center Drive. There will be a few improvements on Sportsman Center Drive, and then there will be some major improvements here along alumni. So we're trying to kind of strengthen that access around our campus to make it easier to get around for those people who are now cutting up and through campus. A note here, I have some more information on alumni in a minute here, but a note that, you know, the improvements, the safety improvements along alumni are a big part of this, and of course we feel this is a big part of our vehicular access around our campus, to and around the campus, actually. And so we're going forward with that. The transit, we are going from a loop system that we have right now to a point-to-point system, and I think this year we have started one of those point-to-points, the one you see in the kind of light blue up here, from the stadium area where we hope to eventually have a parking garage and a transit center, but right now we have additional parking here along University Drive, and we have a point-to-point kind of system of busing into the center of campus so that people can get quickly, they can park their cars out in the exterior of campus, and they can get quickly back and forth into campus. As time, as the year goes on and time goes on, we will expand that point-to-point system to go to several other key places around campus. In order to try to even get to the point of pedestrianizing campus, we need to improve our transit system. We need to improve our regional connectivity with things like that Cooperstown loop, and we need to do some more study. We have CDM Smith working on studies right now. They've done some traffic counts spring of last year, and they will follow up. Right now we've had to close a portion of Rose Street, which most people are aware of in front of that academic science building construction project. So we're hoping that throughout the academic year when traffic is high, we can do some more test counts to see how that will work and come back with discussion on our options for Rose Street. That's quite a slide. Back up a second. Yeah, sure. Because everything that's a dotted line there says service vehicle. Yes. Which I don't think I drive a service vehicle. Well, actually, most of our sidewalks on campus are made for service vehicles. Obviously, we have trash pickup in the center of campus. We have our grounds crews and service vehicles all through. So that's what we talk about with service, and we also include emergency vehicle access, which we need throughout campus. So instead of saying that we're going to close a road, we really, in our terms, we think of it as making the only vehicles that would be accessible to our service and emergency vehicles. And then it would be pedestrianized. That's what we mean when we say pedestrianized. That's a great term. And so as you see, rows looks a little different than those dotted lines, and that's because our earlier concepts show different options that we think we could do with rows. And like I said, we really are in the middle of still studying, doing traffic counts. We have CDM Smith, which we're very confident about their abilities to work with. They've been working already with LFUCG and the MPO and their abilities to work with them to try to find our best solution for Rose Street. But I hope to have lots of further discussion with all of you and with full counsel on that. It's just a great discussion right now, but I think it tees off for many great opportunities. Well, and I don't want to dwell on it right now because I know you want to get onto the food trucks. I've heard that. But I will, while we're talking about it, I will talk about the one thing. This is all exciting stuff, but the food trucks are really. Anyway, we have put in a formal request to transfer ownership of Washington Avenue back to U.K., and I will talk about that piece of our pedestrianization quickly right now because that is something you will see soon. This is limestone here. We've got Washington Avenue that crosses. That's parallel to the new hugelot that we put in when we closed this portion of Rose Street. And then here you have Rose Street. Along Washington, we have these areas where we had the greenhouses. This is our biological science building. This is the quadrangle that people are aware of. and Funkhauser Building, another building that kind of gives you a cue to where you are. And so we have this area in here that we saw as an area that we could reclaim as green space. These greenhouses are kind of a domino effect. The biological science is going to use these greenhouses here, and agriculture is going to move greenhouses out to Coldstream. So we are able to, over time, some of these are already gone, and over time we're able to clear out all of these greenhouses. A couple things in here have been this building was just taken down last week, and there's a little park here that our early childhood lab uses, and they're moving. We're doing a really nice renovation, another piece. I think it shows up on this map right in the corner here. Here's the Lexington Theological Ceremony and Seminary. That one does not roll off my tongue very well, but our property now, U.K. property, but here is your reference point as to what you see when you look off limestone. Well, there was a building on that campus that was an empty shell space they never used for housing. And so we saw that as an opportunity to give our early childhood lab a really nice space to work at. They have been in this building here, Erickson Hall, which floods and has some real serious issues for 10 years. They've been looking for a new place to be located. So we're fitting that up, and they'll get their playground over there. They won't have to walk to their playground anymore. So anyway, all in all, we saw this as green space that we could reclaim, which as we grow, we need to keep as much green space as we possibly can. And so this is a conceptual of what we could do with that green space. Here is the site of the proposed academic science building that's just getting started right now. And behind it are all of the housing that I talked about, Woodland Glen and Hagen Hall. And so you can imagine the pedestrian traffic that comes in through here into the core of campus. And so if we can reclaim this green space, we can try to keep that pedestrian flow moving through and eventually accentuate these areas a little bit so that we can aid that even further. But we have put a formal request in for this. We met with the Commissioner of Environmental Quality and Public Works last week, as well as Commissioner Paulson, the Director of Traffic Engineering, and the folks from the fire department to talk about it. And one thing I want to note is this particular slide you're seeing is just an early conceptual that we did in order to find out if we had any support on campus to go forward with this. We brought it to our administration to see whether they thought this was a good idea, whether they would support it. And they said yes, they would support it and back it with some money as it moved forward. And so then last week when we met with the folks involved here at LFUCG, we showed them a different conceptual. My point to all of that is that we have not refined this plan, But after discussions last week, we've talked with fire, and we are, the next step we're going to do is refine it so that we can make sure that the fire department has access through here and that they're comfortable. The one thing that is noted, which is very important, is that this quadrangle is some of our oldest buildings on campus to make sure that we keep fire access to that. And so we will come through to them first with a new plan that's not just conceptual, that's a little bit more refined, that will make sure they have access from here, our Graham Avenue, and from Washington Avenue into here. The other thing to note on this whole thing is that we are not proposing that we close the entire Washington Avenue. We still need access into our campus. We have, this is Gladstone and this is Graham, and this is an access that we use for service into our campus. This is the Aztec building that has service in and out often. And so as far as our plan goes, we're not asking to close that entirely. We're looking to close the portion of it. And we have CDM Smith also looking at the numbers on that. But that's just a preview of what you will be seeing soon if you haven't already. Just quickly, another two transportation projects, the alumni drive improvements. Representative Kelly Flood came to us and asked us about making safety improvements to alumni drive. The time is right. and for UK we jumped on that opportunity because the timing is truly right for us because we have the expansion of the stadium going on out there. We have the FEMA project going on out there. If we can get this road improved at the same time we can kind of get that whole end of campus improved all at once. She was able to get that through the legislature this past session and so we got $5 million on July 1st to go forward with it. It is a joint project between us, LFUCG, and KYTC District 7. And so we've put it out for design right now and hope to have it completed in a year. But we're really excited about that opportunity to be able to have that money behind that. It just really needs some safety improvements at this point. And then those of you who have been following the FEMA project, We had some good news last Sunday in the storm event. We had people out there about every hour checking on the largest drainage structure in the state, and it was working great. The flows were slowed down to where they were supposed to be. There was no flooding out on limestone. They were just constantly out there on Sunday checking, and it was all good news. They were all in a very good mood on Monday morning. So that's an update on that. And then lastly, I just want to say that in our plan, we talk about a cohesive campus, and the way that we can go about that is through the connections between our buildings. And so as soon as we finished up our overall master plan, we started a landscape plan where we took 16 sites on campus and looked further into how we can connect them, how we can make our campus have a really nice feel, as well as making those pedestrian connections. This is a picture of the LA of trees outside of Kerwin Blanding, which is just kind of a good example of the simple, cohesive look that we're going for moving forward. Those of you who drive limestone may have seen the new trees that we've planted on the main lawn. What Sasaki did for us was do plans for 16 different sites around campus. This was site number 11 and showed us things that we could do, like I said, to enhance our landscape and really enhance the experience between our buildings. Just one thing to note here is that here's the main building, and we've kept that beautiful view from limestone up to the main building. The trees will be a nice grove as they grow here, but yet they don't impede on the area of the main lawn that is being used right now. Just another example on campus that we've already started to improve is the connection between two of our iconic buildings, Memorial Coliseum and Funkhauser. There's a walkway there that we have gone in, and it's hard to see what's new here, but if you look for the little tree bags, you can see the new kind of creating an alley of honey locusts. This is Lafferty Hall here, and you're looking down towards Memorial Coliseum. You can kind of see where that alley of trees will... I'm sorry, I'm pointing at the wrong thing again because I'm facing you guys. But anyway, you can see where the Alley of Trees, Lafferty, going down, will really create a nice connection once that's complete. And we're also replacing these railings here to match our kind of standard black railing. But that's my update right now. Like I said, we've had a great summer. We've had a lot of good news. And if you have any questions, I can answer those. Thank you very much. Excellent update. and that your comments did generate a couple of questions. First up is Council Member Beard. Sir. Thank you, Chair. You all have been busy everywhere I turn. It's been fantastic. There's something new sprouting up. A very few years ago, there was a lot of discussion about moving the law department to law area over on the Scott Street. And Scott Street intersects about where Upper and Limestone mingle. Right. Is that still? The plan that we have, they're fundraising now. As you know, the legislature approved their project to move forward, but they do need to fundraise before they can actually move that project forward. but it would actually be in place. The plan they have right now is to expand and renovate, similar to Gatton where they are expanding and renovating portions of the building but in the same location that they are now. I just didn't know whether there was enough room behind there for you all to go because you've got Memorial Hall somewhere in that mix too. Right. Well, like I said, there is a conceptual design that was done a few years back. I forget the architect that did that. should they get to the point where they've raised the money and we can go forward, we'll do another in-depth look and really look at that again. What they're working off of was a preliminary study. I'm not proposing we need more lawyers, but they keep on coming. I'm not really quite sure. I think all the lawyers we have studying don't fit in the building. I'm not really sure what the impetus for that is, but I'm going to guess that. Well, of course, the alumni drive situation, which I've kind of been in the middle of to a certain extent, it's good to see that that's going forward, and it's not conceptual anymore. It is going to happen. Yes, it's great news. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Next up is Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Judy, thank you so much for your presentation, and thanks to you and Tom for being here. Well, this is really good stuff. Thank you. For some of us, it's a walk down memory lane. I'm thinking that Limestone Park is where Holmes Hall was. That's correct. Which is where I lived as a freshman, so that's gone. I mean there are a lot of things that you know they're kind of following me around but I think yes but I think these are good changes you know Holmes Hall if any of you were ever in it we had three students stuffed into a little tiny room so it was not the greatest my previous boss Bob Wiseman also lived there and he was always glad to show people the little tiny room where he lived Yes. I like on your page about regional connectivity, and I've actually had some discussions with some folks at the university about Rose Street, and I like how you're thinking about different possibilities for Rose Street to allow more. let's see, what's the pedestrianized? Pedestrianized, right. Pedestrianizing the concept, and I think there's a lot of really good potential there. Thank you. So I'm very interested in that in a positive way, and I'm curious about on your slide about the second Washington Avenue slide about what, I know the Winter Grand facility's been in the news a lot, and there's a brown block there. Is that programmed at all yet, that bottom? Yes, they're actually doing site work out there right now. This is conceptual of the building itself that will go out there. They're doing the last details of the design of this as they start the site work here. And so that will, here's the parking garage that I talked about, biological sciences. And so that will extend from there to Hugh Gould. It will contain academic space as well as research space. Okay. About the Washington Avenue transfer back to UK, The question came up a couple of years ago about the streets on the university. And so does that mean that the streets within the university space are actually city-owned streets, or what does that mean? It actually depends, and I think most universities, I've talked to people, it's just a little bit of each. You know, in our case, we've got Limestone State Street. We've got Rose, which is a city street. We've got private. I'm trying to think of an example of a U.K.-owned street. So, you know one? Because, I mean, that legal. Coming to me. Okay. But this particular street is owned by the city. We have for several years talked about transferring it to U.K., especially since hugo drive was created a few years back or expanded and made really viable road we talked about transferring the ownership and so this green space recovery initiative really kind of gave us the timing to come forward and say hey let's let's look into that we've always something that probably six years or so uk lfucg has been talking back and forth about so we have one more thing I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt but then we do have CDM Smith looking at that and then we have just introduced our Tim Sorenson who works for us from CDM Smith to the to the new director at Al Hoskins Squire so that they can talk some more about this she's back there yes I knew she was here okay so and I've always I've been curious about that about who actually owned the roads and so it's we have a map somewhere that shows who owns who owns which one they're very each one is okay all right well I'm I'm thrilled about the I believe it's a proposed roundabout it alum there too aren't there yeah I think those will be wonderful for moving traffic through there and I'm anxious to see those completed I think that'll be really good and I appreciate the university's work to protect the arboretum in this alumni drive improvement. That was a very important thing, I know, to the city also. So thank you so much. And the lane of trees were planted when I was a student. Oh, really? Yes. So they're getting big. They are. Thank you so much. And we are protecting those. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Next up is Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Chair. I was going to pick up on the alumni that Vice Mayor Gordon mentioned. So there's two roundabouts. Do you know where they're at on alumni? Proposed roundabouts are at University Drive and then another one at Commonwealth Drive, which is actually where Sportsman Center Drive connects to alumni right now. We would actually move that intersection a little bit to make space for our new baseball stadium that will eventually be out there. and also to make the alignment, better alignment, make it safer. So it's just we're calling it Commonwealth Drive right now for lack of any word or any name, but so it's right about the same place where Sportsman Center Drive connects. So they're going to be built immediately with the improvements to alumna? If they go through now, we just have a conceptual plan. CDM Smith, again, had put this together for us so that we could put this through the state. And so those, as we go into design very soon, the end of September, we will explore those in depth, make sure everything works. There are a few alignments near the entrance to the Arboretum that need to be refined even further to make sure. So this alignment might change. We are hoping that the roundabouts go through on our end. But as that goes, you know, that needs to be vetted still. So construction will be more than likely next summer on alumni? We're going to hope to. We're trying to start construction early spring so that it will actually finish up at the same time as our stadium construction. Very good. And then the improvements for the stormwater, I assume that the U.K. will maintain all that property and the stormwater systems, or will the city maintain the stormwater system? I don't know the answer to that. I can get that for you. Okay. I do not remember whether that's being turned over to the city with alumni drive one of the things that we are going to right now it's UK owned land the city is maintaining it as if it were a city street so once these improvements go through we're hoping to turn the right of way over to LFUCG it's a good timing with all these improvements to kind of do that officially and make it officially a city streets and kind of maintained as a city street all along So with the FEMA project, I can get those answers for you if you like. So the right-of-way along the entire alumni? Yes, from Nicholasville to Tate's Creek. We're hoping to transfer that to the city once the improvements are complete. Well, how far would that right-of-way go? You're talking 15 feet from the curb to the road? Because obviously you have a lot of property along there. What would we be maintaining? That has not been discussion yet. Okay. Yeah. All right. We will definitely work with LFUCG. Like I said, this whole project is really we have basically offered to manage the project, but it's definitely a joint project between us, LFUCG, and then the district. Well, I will throw in. We have a nice little property on alumni that may be on the market soon, so you may want to save some money in this plan. It could be an opportunity for you. I'll keep that in mind. Just saying. Speaking of price tag, how much a dollar amount on all the improvements going on campus-wide? What are we looking at? Okay, well, the figure I know is a billion dollars in improvements if you talk about projects that began within the last three years to what we have authorization for. And when will all this conclude, ideally? All the major improvements by the end of 2017 or 2018? Yeah, but about that time frame. We still have, after 2017, we'll probably still have a little bit left to do. A billion dollars in seven years is a lot of money. A billion dollars. It's crazy, and it's very exciting. Good. It brings us up to the 21st century, I think. I hope so. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Next is Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the presentation. Chair. I am grateful to UK for these improvements. I think it's exciting for the cities, exciting for the students and the staff. And I just wanted to mention, not in the presentation, is the economic impact this has on our community. So I don't know if you have a dollar figure for that. But in addition to all the improvement, I know there are a lot of people over there that are working. We're really proud of that. I do not have the figure, but we're really proud of the fact that it's creating so much work here. So thank you very much. Thank you. That comes to the end of the committee questions. I just had one follow-up in terms of you talked about how much Alumni Drive would change. I guess that's principally around the two roundabouts and then not really any widening of it or just some repositioning, I guess, from your commentary based on where the roundabouts would be. Right, right. A slight realignment of it. In all cases, the realignment is to make it safer as well. It will be two lanes with a median in certain places, left turn lane in others where needed, and then bike lanes on both sides. Certainly the city has taken real well to the double diamond, which I'm still astounded by. But I think the one traffic circle that we have has, well, the one on Reynolds Road is too narrow. The diameter is too narrow. I think the one that is out Old Frankfurt Pike is broader and a little bit more usable. And I just think you all should consider the width of whatever that circle is to make it usable. Well, in our case, too, we really have to consider width because we have got trucks coming in and out of there, and especially for our stadium events, we have media trucks as well as others. And so, and our buses. The University Drive roundabout, our transportation director is really pushing for, he's hoping for, that that'll work out because that will really help his bus loop. And so in our case, that is something really to consider. I think we're all great supporters of roundabouts like that. Further, I think any time you create one is a great opportunity to follow that with public art, which is something else that many on the council and at the university take to heart. Good idea. I appreciate your time today and that of Mr. Harris to come and join us. We appreciate the update and look forward to more conversations in the future. Thank you very much for inviting us. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. All right, that concludes the first item of business, and it's really very fruitful. I appreciate the time we spent on it. Next is our P-1 text amendment for mobile food truck vendors. This was placed in committee by Council Member Akers, and I would just, do you want to talk about this first, or do you want Mr. King, or Director King? Well, I'll just, I guess, introduce it. Please, please. We'd talked about it. It's been a few months, I think, in May, perhaps, when I first brought it forward. So basically, I'm bringing this on behalf of food truck requests and businesses. Several businesses located in P1 zones have requested to have food trucks come and serve their employees and have been unable to do so because the zoning ordinance doesn't allow them. And so I am suggesting a change to the zone ordinance, a text amendment, that would allow food trucks to operate in a P-1 zone. And Chris King in the planning department has prepared, I believe, a presentation with some maps that were requested at a previous meeting to show where food trucks are currently allowed and where they would be proposed to be allowed. Take it away, Chris. Nice to see you. Always good to hear from you via letter, especially sometimes. Good afternoon. Welcome back. Thank you. I'll just go ahead and kind of set the table a little bit again, because it has been a few months since this was discussed. First thing I just wanted to kind of do is bring you up to date again on where we stand on food trucks. And again, remind you that in this instance, we're talking about food trucks as a business on private property. As you recall, there was a lot of discussion and some ordinance changes related to those types of activities related to mobile food vendors. And then you also had the one on public streets. This is entirely different, separate from the one on public streets. So it helps to kind of keep that in mind. So where we stand now, mobile food units, food trucks, those types of operations are principal use, like any other business, in the zones that we have listed there and in the areas that are represented on the map that you see before you. So there are a number of places, all the standard business zones, shopping center zones, downtown zones, highway service zones. You can actually just set up a food truck on a vacant lot even as a business. The ordinance also allows them as accessory uses in the same zones that you saw. You could have an operating business and then have a food truck as an adjunct. But in addition to those traditional business zones, these warehousing and industrial zones and P2, which is basically Coldstream, is the only P2 zoned area that we have, they're allowed as an accessory use. And that was piggybacking on the provision of the zoning ordinance that says that businesses, for instance, like a factory, can have an area where they can serve food to their employees and guests. And basically, we made the same kind of provision back with the Texas Amendment some time ago to allow a food truck to serve that same kind of purpose. So, again, you can't just pull up on a vacant lot and set up a food truck and go into business as a restaurant in these zones, but if you do have the operating business, you can set up to serve guests and employees. So when you combine all of those areas, you can see there's quite a bit of area of Fayette County in the business areas that do allow these food trucks presently one way or another. so what was proposed council member acres asked us to draft a text amendment which was presented to you and discussed back in May to extend allow again the mobile phone units as accessory uses in the professional office zones we had a discussion about that this map shows the location of professional office zoning in Fayette County and this was the text that we talked about again we'll just avoid the legalese but you get the picture you couldn't just set up on a professional office and start running a restaurant but as originally proposed any professional office business on that lot could set up and serve food to employees and visitors and when you had the discussion back in May there was some concern expressed and the fact was pointed out that there is a very strong relationship between professional office zoning quite often and residential zoning. In fact in many cases historically professional office zoning has been used as kind of a buffer transition between residential and higher intensity commercial because again it's generally lower key generally an office environment generally eight to five type of operation so a lot of times Sometimes neighborhoods would work with developers to have P1 as a buffer between them and the business type zones. So you discussed that, and when we discussed in May, you asked me to come back with some alternatives for you to consider. And I have. on pages, I think it's what, it's in the packet. You have the actual proposed zoning text on pages 26 through 29. But basically to paraphrase those in layman's terms, the four alternatives are, one, an unrestricted accessory use, which is what you reviewed in May, and asked us to come back with some alternatives. The second alternative basically says it can be an unrestricted accessory use when 500 feet or greater from residential zoning. So again, it would go back to all the blue areas on the map, but you would be at least 500 feet from any residential zone. Otherwise, you would have to go to the Board of Adjustment. Third alternative that was put in would be just to make it a conditional use in P1 anywhere so that any location would have vetting by the Board of Adjustment and notice to neighbors. And the fourth one would be an unrestricted accessory use in designated professional office projects. Now, a professional office project is not a separate zone, but is it a separate designation that an owner of a P1 development that is at least 10 acres in size can come to the Planning Commission and ask for designation as a professional office project. And they get some privileges that go with that. they are allowed to have a restaurant in one of the larger buildings. We have had very few businesses actually do that. It's been tried a couple times. But again, it's a highly restricted restaurant. You can't have outside signage other than pedestrian signage, things like that. But at least it is an area where you can have a restaurant. Examples are Corporate Center, Paragon Center, Perimeter Park, Beaumont Office Park. those kind of large-scale identified professional office projects where generally you do have a larger concentration of employees, larger buildings, and that type of thing. So this map kind of shows what it would be like combined with any of those in terms of where all those locations are. And again, those were the alternatives that we talked about coming back and are represented in your packet, and I'll be glad to answer any questions, entertain any observations. Perhaps before we go on further, I probably should say where you are procedurally and what this means. This is just right now a proposal. If the council actually initiates a text amendment, since it's a zoning ordinance text amendment, whatever version you pick, if you do pick one, will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. And within 60 days, the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing. Notice would be given to all neighborhood associations. And the Planning Commission can recommend back to the council approval, disapproval, a different alternative, but it would come back to you. So, again, it's not a direct route from where we are a day to an ordinance being enacted by council. But if you do initiate one of these alternatives or some theme and variation of these, it will go to the Planning Commission before it comes back to you. Thank you for the critical path analysis, too. All right. I'll go back to Councilmember Akers. Does none of this have signed up? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chris. I think this is very helpful. I just had one question about number four. If a food truck operator wanted to make sure they, you know, abided by the, only went to the appropriate locations and businesses in those zones, Is there a way to look up a business and know that it is a professional office park or project? We don't have a complete inventory of those mapped. That's something we could probably do. Look for those and go back historically. I think we did a few years ago kind of did an analysis of those. But this goes back even into the late 60s, and we didn't have the mapping techniques. But remember, each one before they come in will have to follow the law, which requires that they come to our counter. We review the development plan. We designate a location, and then they can operate from there. Because I think, I mean, from what I've heard, most of the locations probably fall into number four. but I'm not sure like Sullivan University I don't know that it would and that's one of the locations that has requested and I know that they you know that they're P1 so I like number two I think that number two is reasonable and no one I mean and like I said most of the locations are like on Alumni Drive the office park or in Beaumont Center the blood the Kentucky blood center so no one as I was mentioning Councilmember Kay no one is interested in setting up or operating a food truck right in the middle of a neighborhood at a small business. I mean, they're going there to serve large amounts of people in a short period of time, generally. So that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chris. I actually don't have a problem with food trucks setting up anywhere. I think, you know, the property owner would, if they wanted one, I think, so I don't know which alternative or which option we would necessarily need. But I do have a problem with food trucks that I wanted to bring up. And as we go forward and allow them in more and more zones, is how controlling the appearance of them. You know, the food trucks that you see on Main Street are beautiful. But I have food trucks setting up in my district on a major corridor that, you know, it was an old camper that's converted to a food truck. and it's the 1970s model or something along that line. And so I guess, is there any way possible we could address that? And then there's also tables and chairs set up outside the food truck, like it is a restaurant. And to me, it's not appropriate for, you know, I guess maybe it is appropriate in some areas, but not on a major corridor of our city. So do you have any ideas? I can't help you there, I don't think. To be honest with you, I think you just have to accept that some of them will be very attractive and some of them won't. Right. Some of them that may not be attractive may serve great food. I mean, you really don't know. And as far as the table and chairs, I think you just have to also accept that probably that's an adjunct. Not everyone will eat in their car or take it away. And, you know, having some tables and chairs as long as they don't displace parking, as long as they don't block circulation aisles is something that the community has pretty much accepted as being part of what goes on with allowing a mobile food vendor. Right. You know, I guess I just see that as you've got some that don't use any signage and then you have some that use cardboard signs with a marker. and it's just very unattractive. It's not what we want people to see entering our city. So I think you could restrict signage. You could prohibit signage through the zoning ordinance and things like that if that's an issue. But as far as the quality, the aesthetics, I just don't think there's anything. You don't address it at all. Hours of operation, again, I don't think that's something you can address through zoning. And I do know that in the previous ordinances, there was a lot of discussion about restricting next to a residential property, and that was removed. And it got by me somehow. I don't know. It was a surprise. But I do know that we wanted a 100-foot buffer between a residential property and a food truck, and that was removed from our ordinance. And I'm not sure I want to refight that battle, but I do have some issues in my district that I may address later on. But thank you. It was removed for a reason, I believe, at the time. I think it had to do with some of the legality of what we were trying to legislate. But I see your point. Well, then you might want to consider not changing the zoning ordinance then. All right. Next is Council Member Kay. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Chris. As always, a very clear presentation with clear options. And they're clear enough in my mind that I will not make the motion. I'll leave that to Council Member Akers. But it seems to me that Alternative 2 does the two things that it really needs to do. One, it allows the food trucks to go in places where they really want to go, and it provides protection for the people who may be in residence next to those areas. So I would be in support of a motion for moving number two as a recommendation to the planning commission. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Next is Vice Mayor Gorton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much, Chris. um well councilmember henson just made the argument for me that it does matter where we allow them it does matter and um i guess i wanted to be sure that i understand um alternative one is basically unrestricted in any p1 zone in any p1 so okay Your local real estate office, your local doctor's office, a food truck can set up in the parking lot. Well, my doctor would have something to say about what they serve. But so alternate two is basically unrestricted as long as they follow the 500-foot rule. Correct. That's in NEP1. In NEP1. And regardless of, I mean, as long as it's 500 feet from residential, they can be there. Correct. Alternate three would have to go to the Board of Adjustment, and would neighbors be notified? Yes. The first two don't require a Board of Adjustment hearing? Correct. unless in under number two if you were less than 500 feet where you wanted to locate the truck from residential you would have to go to the board of adjust okay and then number four is that does not require board of adjustment is that correct that is correct and it is basically those areas that were listed the professional office project areas? The bigger, larger office parks are generally the ones that are involved in that. And I should say, I didn't, you know, you can spin variations endlessly, but you could combine some of these as well. And, you know, I knew you all being legislators would understand that. For other words, you could make them conditional in a professional office park, or you could make the distance restriction in a professional office park. So it's not like there are only four alternatives, but these give you the basic ingredients that I think the council could work with. Okay, I understand. I think there are things that, well, just I'll relate one experience. I had this summer when some of us were walking down Main Street. and a food truck on private property across the street, the Chase Building, had run its electrical cord down the sidewalk. The cord turned the corner onto Esplanade, and the generator was in front of Natasha's. Now that's wrong, because Natasha's patrons complain. That's just wrong. And those are the kinds of things I think that are possible when a food truck is not paying close attention. And they can happen and impact people who aren't on that property. So it is very important that we consider which of these alternatives we have. I think they all don't necessarily work. so I wanted to know Councilmember Akers more specifically who you mentioned in the beginning some of the P1 owners were requesting this I mean my thinking is alternative four is the better the best because it gets away from residential and not all residents want a food truck near them especially if there's a generator running and so I guess I wondered what what the depth and breadth of the request is can you give us a little more detail do you know what I'm I think so asking so back to some of the examples well let's take alumni drive for example that's that is a large office park there's lots of buildings so So a food truck operator could go there at lunch, set up in one of the central locations, and serve a few hundred people. Or if the blood center has a specific event when they want to do a big bash drive. And again, the food trucks would set up and serve lots of people. It's not in the food truck operator's best interest to set up and serve four people in a small business. So, yes, they prefer, and like Sullivan University had asked for food trucks to come and serve their students because they don't have a cafeteria on campus. So those are some of the examples. I don't, I'm not opposed. I mean, I was, you know, I'm leaning toward two or four. My only concern, and that's why I asked Chris about number four, is if that's not a specific designation that they can't easily look to or identify those properties or businesses as being specifically under a professional office project, then it just becomes somewhat gray. And so that's my only concern about four. You know, I mean, if we want to do number two and make it 1,000 feet, you know, I mean, I don't think I'm definitely in support of protecting the neighborhoods and residential areas. Right. Well, that helps me. I guess I wondered if, I mean, is there any way to make four more inclusive of some of the parks, the professional parks that Councilmember Akers mentioned, without going all the way unrestricted, you know, up to the number one. I mean, those that you mentioned are perfect examples, Sullivan, for the alumni drive. So how do we, how could we do that? I don't see any easy way other than us as a staff going back through history and figuring out which ones have achieved that professional office park designation. That would take a little bit of effort and time, but it's not an impossible task. We could do that and have a map and have it available for the operators to know where to look. My time is up, so I guess the other thought I had just as we go on to discuss is putting some kind of size limit on the professional office entity, if we could legally do that. And I'll leave it with that question. In other words, if a professional office zone is more than, I don't know what it would be. Like a P1 with more than 25 employees. Employees is very difficult for us to ascertain. You know, you have to know before you issued the permit, and that's a thing that can change as well. Or space. You know, you could base it on. Square footage. The one thing about the professional office project, the project itself, even though individual lots can be broken up and smaller, the area itself has to be at least 10 acres. So you're talking about a larger scale project generally anyway. But some of those do have proximity to residential as well. So, you know, at their edges. I know the logic would say I would locate in the middle, but if the owner of the middle building says I don't want you there, but the guy at the end says I'm fine, come down here, well, it might be next to residential or something. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, ma'am. Next is Council Member Stunwick. Thank you, Chair. Chris, how are they operating now in the P-1? We see them in a lot of P-1 office parks. Illegally? I would assume so. Okay. They would have not gotten a permit. And who issues the permit internally here? The ordinance that the council passed, set up this way, set up a very streamlined process. Any owner that wants to allow a food truck on their property in a zone where it's allowed, They come to our office, to the counter, with a site plan. You don't have to go to the planning commission or anything. We designate the area, and we issue a zoning compliance permit that's good for two years, and they can bring in food trucks, as many as they want within that space, as often as they want different ones. Again, subject to the Board of Health regulations in terms of you can only be there so many days before another one. And, you know, there are rules that we don't, those state rules that we don't apply to. Right. As far as the permitting process, it's a very, very simple, no-fee operation to get a zoning compliance plan. So you could easily look and see how close that property is to a residential area. So if someone came to our office today and said, I've got this P1 zone and I want to do it, we'd say, no, the zone doesn't allow it. You can't do it. Okay. So it's the property owner, not the food truck vendor. Correct. And are we issuing a vendor for the food truck itself on private property, a permit? We don't issue it. For any specific property. The business is licensed. So the truck has a license, and they can move from one location to another. Unless it's the public spaces, then we do issue the permits. Right. You have a whole other regime for when they're on the street. Okay. Because I know that Councilman Henson's point, the aesthetics, obviously, we can't control. But on public space, we can't control if they put a table and chair on a sidewalk that's public right away. That is a violation. You can't do that. But if it's on private property, we really can't control if they put table and chairs out. I wouldn't think you could put a generator on a public sidewalk either, but apparently we've heard an example where that happens. So Chase across the street, that property owner has got a permit for that food truck to be there? Yes. Okay. All right. And so the other zones, this is just conforming with the other four or five zones you mentioned. They already have the exact same ordinance and wording as a principal use. This would be exactly the same. Well, we're talking about accessory and professional office. In some zones, you know, you can have it as the principal use. You can have a vacant lot in like a B1 zone. They could come in. Right, B1, B2, B2A, B2B. So why would we want this one to be different than those? Well, again, because you're talking about a zone, per se, that does not allow retail activity, does not allow that intense type of use as a principal permitted use. I don't think you would want to allow any professional office to just set up, just because they happen to be on a busy street, just set up and have a 24-7 restaurant business operating out of a food truck. You don't allow a brick and mortar. Why would you allow someone on wheels? That's what I was hoping you'd say. So in any of these other zones, is there a timetable on when they can operate hours of the day? No, zoning does not restrict hours of operation except in rare conditional uses when the Board of Adjustment might impose a condition of that nature. Okay. We seem like you put a lot of work and thought into this. Which one is your recommendation? As I have said, this is Council Member Aker's proposal. We have worked, as we always do, to facilitate her desires to get some legislation before Council and through the appropriate process. Personally, I think either two or four are a good starting place, and perhaps the more I've thought about it, you know, maybe a four with an element of two might be the safest. But again, two does guarantee that distance from residential. You know, what we hear, of course, you hear the usual activity, traffic, aesthetics issues, which, you know, you really don't control if you accept the use. But what we hear, you know, odors and noise from generators are oftentimes when folks are inquiring about food trucks or what they find of more concern or more of an aggravation. Distance requirements helps with that. I can definitely agree, you know, in some of the P1 areas that are very close to residential, the generator at 2 a.m. would be a problem. Correct. And you're saying there's no way to write that into the zone. No, unless you require, and I don't know if this would be a zoning or probably more of a code of ordinances thing, that you require that any electrical service that they get not be provided by a generator, but somehow connected to one of the buildings or something. Yeah, that's going to be tough. Some of them have built in on the wagon itself that provides power, too. So they definitely wouldn't be able to operate. We could say a standalone generator or something possibly. But wouldn't that violate the noise ordinance, though? I don't know. I just don't know what kind of decibels you're talking about. And, yeah, I'm not that familiar with the noise ordinance per se. And I know it has some exceptions for businesses and things of that nature. All right. We'll keep working. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. You know, some of the best memos are written and reflect that sometimes the best thing to do is nothing at all. But that's just one of the things. All right. Next up is Councilmember Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chris, you just mentioned something that caught my attention in regards to P1 zones, is that right now in that zone, it does not allow any retail. Did I hear you say that? Other than as an accessory in a medical building, you can sell prescriptions, you know, drugs and things like that. And small sundries to employees in larger buildings. cafe, you know, a hospital cafe, a cafe for a large office building. Right. Can we go back to the zones that we have now that allow for food trucks on private property? Yes, sir. There you go. That's what is this? That's the combined one. These are the ones as a principal use where they can go just like any restaurant could set up and build. You could bring a food truck in on any property in these zones and operate the business. These, you have to have an otherwise operating business, and the intent has to be to serve the guests or to regulate, but the employees and guests. and when you combine those that that gives you a picture of the area of the community in which they are allowed today that's a lot of area that's a lot of area let me ask this question I know we're talking about private property but do we still have a pilot program for foods trucks in the on public streets I know we dedicated a great deal of energy to that and are we still in the, where do we stand with that? Let me make it plain. I can't apologize because we work with the private, not with that public program and the pilot program. And although I was in those meetings, I really don't know who is in charge of that. In December. We reauthorized it in December, I believe, for another year. This past December, excuse me. It's extended for a year. Anything else, Council Member Ford? Yes, sir. I'm trying to ascertain the demand. I would like to know, and not to put anybody on the spot today, but if somebody can tell me the level of utility that we've gained from the pilot program for the public streets. I know we, again, spent a lot of great deal of time in that. And then if somebody to pivot away, not to mix apples and oranges, but they correlate. But then to also see in regards to how the allowable zones now are being used. I have a difficult time thinking that if the current principle and accessory uses that we have in the zoning ordinance right now are not being used, why we would want to infringe upon another area. All right. Two people ask. Excellent question, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Bringing us to Council Member Clark. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chris. This is very helpful. And a couple of questions. Go back to your final slide there, if you would, where the options are, I guess is what I'm talking about. Yeah, and let's say we approve number two, why would then we need to combine that with four? Wouldn't two take care of four? Well, two would be a much broader area. Yeah, right. That's what I mean, but it would include. If you were concerned, if the only thing you thought distance solved all issues, two would be the way to go. So if you were still a little concerned and wanted to restrict it to the larger areas, you would do four. But if we did two, that would include four, would it not? Yeah. That was my first question. Second question. If the request that we've had that we've then reported, if it's not widespread, how would three work? In other words, to get Board of Adjustment approval, who would ask for that approval? Would it be the owner of the property? The owner would have to have at least authorized a mobile food vendor to file because the property owner has to sign or give written permission. So it could be the food truck owner that would request that. They could be the applicant. The applicant. But underlying, you know, authority would have to be with the owner because all enforcement's against the owner. I understand. Okay. So how widespread do you think that would be then? I'm not sure three is the answer, but I'm just thinking if we want some real control and yet give the owners the possibility, then that might be where we could do both. Right. I think three is certainly preferable to one, but my gut tells me you could probably craft this to where you really don't need to send everybody to the Board of Adjustment. That was kind of my concern. You don't want to... I would almost think if you're that worried about it... Don't do it. Just don't go there. Okay, good. That answers my question. Thank you very much, Chris. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chris, do you think that there would be some sort of alternate that took the best of two and the best of four and took four down in size so that a five-acre professional building unit could do this? Or, I mean, five acres is still pretty big. Sure. And, you know, some professional office projects have reasonably small two- and three-story buildings. They're not all, you know, the great big ones. I mean, it seems to me that maybe a compromise between those two might, if you felt there was something that you could bring back to us that might incorporate protecting the neighborhoods, but yet giving access to the sizable professional office areas. So just help talk it through with me, if you don't mind, Vice Mayor. Are you more concerned that the individual lot that it would locate on have a very large structure and be a fairly large lot? or are you more concerned about the area and the context? Well, I think the ones in four, if I understand correctly, are large. They're at least 10 acres, which gives them some automatic protection, and it gives what Council Member Akers was wanting, which was a mass of people who might patronize the food truck. And even within that 10 acres, you know, they could be, and we don't see this too often, but theoretically could be 10 one-acre lots. Yes. Okay, with fairly small buildings. Yes. And you have, if you think of corporate center at Harrodsburg Road and New Circle, you know, certainly you have a larger high mid-rise type building or two in there. But most of them are two- and three-story buildings on lots. and that's the more typical environment for a professional office project, St. Joe Office Park, you know, that kind of thing, just to help you visualize the kind of environment you'd be talking about when you're looking at a professional office project. I mean, I think that might be what food truck owners might want is a mass within that professional zoning, and then we would want to protect neighborhoods with the footage requirement. I mean, I'm wondering if there might be some kind of fifth alternative that would incorporate the two of those. Again, you could take four and say even within four, you'd have to be so many feet from residential, and that would prohibit the situation. if you, I'm trying to think of the Paragon Center along Alexandria Drive. You know, you start up at the front by Harrodsburg Road, and that office project extends all the way back, and then at its edge you have a residential neighborhood where the houses begin on Alexandria. It would mean that some of the locate would have to be more in the middle. Yes, they could be at the edge. And not at the very end on the last office next to the first house. Right. If I understood correctly, though, number four is those office projects, those designated properties are at least 10 acres. The project itself, when it was brought to the Planning Commission, was at least 10 acres. Right. So my thinking on the compromise is make it so that a five-acre, for instance, professional development could qualify. Does that make sense? Well, the problem is for us to identify those because sometimes you have three or four smaller projects all located next to each other. And in the end, the net effect in terms of the environment is the same. And I just hate to create odd little technical loopholes that just make it hard for the public to understand, the food truck, and for us to administer fairly. Okay, I get that. But, you know, the professional office project, you have come to the planning commission. and you have asked to be that, and your development plan says on it, I am a professional office project. Well, I think I could easily go for number four today, but that's just me. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well done, Vice Mayor. Thank you. And Councilor Kay. Thank you, Chair. Well, having listened to the various pros and cons, I'm afraid I come back to where I was before. It seems to me that the difficulty with number four is we have to identify and designate and basically privilege certain developments because they're larger or they aggregate, but it does not provide any more protection for a neighborhood than the 500-foot designation would. Number two is much easier to administer, much easier to understand, very clear. It protects the neighborhood, which is a primary concern. So in the interest of moving this forward, I'm going to make a motion that we approve number two and forward that to the council, full council, for its consideration for forwarding to the planning commission. So move. Second. So we have a motion by Council Member Kaye, seconded by Council Member Akers, for alternative to mobile food unit vendors as accessory uses if located 500 or greater feet from a property zone residential, conditional use if less than 500 feet. So there's a motion and a second. We're in discussion. First is Vice Mayor Gordon. I'm sorry. Just procedurally, I'm sorry. Chair, I think the Siobhan's Council Member Acres seconded and she's not a member of the. Procedurally, you're exactly right. So I need a second. Council Member Ellinger, thank you all for that. Now, Vice Mayor. Thank you. So, Chris, with number two, you said there would be unrestricted access if it's 500 feet or greater from residential. But if they go to the Board of Adjustment, they can get closer than 500 feet per mission. And that's what I don't care for, for number two. It's really unrestricted access. And, oh, by the way, you can go ask the Board of Adjustment to be within 150 feet or 100 feet. Do I understand that correctly? And that's an inherent right that goes with the distance setback requirement like that. You do have the right to appeal to the Board of Adjustment. Yes. So with number two, in number two, if I understand the intent of the zone, there's no retail, retail sales are prohibited except where directly related to office functions. and then there's listed the principal uses, and we would add in if this passed, this accessory use, if 500 feet or greater from residential. So any P1 property could apply if it's 500 feet or greater than close to a residence. I can't support it knowing that a business can go to the Board of Adjustment and get closer than that to a residence. I think it's a loophole that may or may not get used, and we wouldn't know, and we would have no control over it because we don't control the Board of Adjustment. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Next is Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chris, I have just a quick question. P1 uses. they're generally office-related. You know, their hours of operation are generally morning to late afternoon. Is that correct? Generally, when you think of most offices, although there are exceptions like hospitals that are, you know, full-time. Okay. In a P1 zone, and this we're talking about an accessory in a P1 zone. If this were granted in an accessory use, I think you mentioned it earlier, we wouldn't be able to then further regulate the operating hours of the food truck vendors in these zones via the accessory use. Is that correct? Yes. We could not regulate. I would have an issue, and this is going to get into a gray area. Let's say if somebody set up at 11 o'clock at night, stayed open until 2.30 in the morning on an office site when the offices were closed. Right. I would debate whether they were there to serve the guests and employees. I don't know how far I'd get in court, but we would certainly look at that zoning enforcement-wise, because that's what an accessory use is supposed to be. And I agree with you, Chris, but I just foresee abuses of that. And I agree with Vice Mayor Gordon at this time. I wouldn't be able to support it. You mentioned that P1 zones are buffer zones primarily. Oftentimes. Explain just very briefly again why you say that. A lot of times, and particularly in the 60s, 70s, and other times, I think of cases where a commercial use wanted to go next to a residential. Right. And the neighborhood said, we don't want those retail and tents, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, the things that could go in that zone close to us. The developer would offer, well, what if I put a strip of office P1 between the business, the higher intensity business and the neighborhood? The neighborhood thinks and says, you know, I can live with that. You know, it's mainly going to be, you know, 8 to 5. It's quiet at night. It's, you know, usually well-maintained, usually, you know. So we had a lot of situations like that. Thank you, Chris. And Mr. Chair, for that reason, to me it seems like such a move on our part would violate and stand contrary to the intent of the buffer zone for residential neighborhoods. So I want support. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, sir. Next is Council Member Kay. Thank you, Chair. About this question of going to the Board of Adjustment, Chris, would that apply to all of the four alternatives? If you had any distance requirement at all. So if any one of them contains a distance requirement, the applicant could go to the Board of Adjustment and ask for less than. Because that's basically a setback requirement. That's right. So it doesn't just apply to number two. You know, I could explore with law whether there's any way you could write that it's an unvariable condition. but I think we have looked into that before, and I think it's questionable under the provisions of state law that govern what we can do with zoning. Okay, so under any of these conditions, we'd have to rely on the Board of Adjustment to make a sound judgment about whether they would vary that distance requirement. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Yes, sir. Thank you. Unless there's other comments to the motion, which is to adopt alternate number two. Following the same procedure, there are only eight of us here who are part of the committee who would be able to vote on this, and unless there are other comments to it, I would move to a vote. All those in favor signify by saying aye, oppose nay, and mark your ballot accordingly. so we are we have tied so that that fails all right is there another motion or direction we would like to give staff before we move on to the next item from anyone see we'll leave this item in committee for further discussion but hearing no more at this time we'll move on to our next item of business which has to do with the municipal aid program as placed in committee by our guest today, Councilmember Stenet. Would you like to tee that off a little bit, sir? Be glad to. Thank you, Councilmember Farmer. I put this item into committee because I think there's an opportunity for council to give some direction in terms of a policy on how we administer our MAP money. Usually, depending on the administration, I've been part of three different administrations, it changes. It changes as to the amount that we designate to personnel, the amount that we put towards projects, the amount that we keep in fund balance. I think today is a good opportunity to give a review and a snapshot of where we're at today and possibly take some recommendations from our current commissioners as to how we administer this going forward so that when all of us are not sitting around this horseshoe, it's a consistent method for not only the council members to understand rather than just seeing it appear in a budget, but also for citizens to expect and have expectations about future road projects and how this money will actually be spent because it's tied to our gasoline tax. And I think, obviously, the consumption of gasoline fuels the amount we get each year. And I think that needs to be used wisely and needs to be put on roads, in my personal opinion, more so than some other things that could have been spent on in the past. So I'm looking forward to this discussion. I think we – Mr. Mayor, are you up first on the overview? Mr. Welcome nice to see you. Thank you. Welcome back everyone. I'm going to go over just the basics the 10,000 foot on the map. Excuse me program. As was alluded to, these are the guidelines. It is a state distribution of funds collected at the state level and then distributed to the different counties. It's based on the state gasoline tax and then within that, based on the population within each county. Listed there are the uses related to construction of roads, maintenance of roads, planning, locating, surveying, mapping related to roads, and roadway plans, acquisition of right-of-way, relocation, utilities, lighting, elimination of hazards. And I guess I'd like to point out how well I like this program. This is great for the city because it is money rolling downhill instead of expenses rolling downhill. This is a distribution of state funds to the local community to decide how to use to support their roads. What makes it even more appealing to me is much of the dollars are related to matching grants from the state. Traditionally, we put up 20%, and the state puts in another 80. So not only are these dollars dollars that come into it, we then get to leverage those dollars and buy 20-cent dollars for 20 cents. We get to do dollars' worth of construction with 20 cents of their money invested in it, and then they put another 80 cents in. So this is a great use of funds and a major financing source for roads in Fayette County. So I'll move on from my paid political announcement and move on to five years' worth of history. There's a lot of information on these two slides. So first of all, the blue line is showing five years' worth of funding levels. This is the amount that we did receive from the state. As you can see, it is not a progressive increase. 9 and 10, there was actually a slight decrease, and then we had increases from 10 to 11, 11 to 12, and then a slighter increase from 13. And then this slide shows the spend each year in total as well as by division. So a couple of things I would point out. Some years we spend less than the revenue taken in. Other years we spend more than the revenue taken in. So there is more than a single year life cycle to the projects and the spending plan for this fund. Unlike the general fund where each year stands alone, this fund is looking at the current year as well as future years to come up with the level of funding that's needed. The major users are streets and roads and engineering, and that is basically where the capital spend usually occurs through those divisions. Traffic engineering and planning are listed there. They're so small it's kind of hard to see on the graph. And then the second way to take the exact same information, the blue line is the revenue for the same five-year period. The total spend is the total spend for each of the five-year period, but instead of looking at it by division, we showed it to you by account number. So the blue line is resurfacing. Red is personnel. The grayish or green is grant match. Construction is the blue, and then some of the others, again, become more de minimis in that year. So that kind of gives you a five-year history of how the revenue has come in, how the expenses have been both by which division was controlling it, the projects as well as the account number. So it's quite a few slices and dices of the same information. To give you more information on the transfer to general fund, We showed that in those five years as personnel, but starting in 14, we put out a $13 million general obligation note for resurfacing with the intent that future MAP funds would pay the debt service for that $13 million. And 14 is $1,295,500, and 15 is scheduled to be $1,294,700. So that would be part of the total transfer from MAP to general fund. For the budget, I'm showing you 14's budget because 14's actual are not closed, But we budgeted $6.9 million in revenue, a $5 million fund balance for a total funds available of $11.9. You see there the different expense lines with a capital spend of $3.4 total appropriations budgeted at $6.359. In 2015, we budgeted the same revenue. Unfortunately, we've now been contacted and that revenue will be $151,000 less than what we budgeted. So we saw a flattening of those revenues from 12 to 13, and now we have a slight decrease between 14 and 15. Fund balance was budgeted at 5.1. Total funds available at $12 million. And you see the spin down for the other items that we've talked about with a capital spend budgeted of just a little under 7.7. That would leave a budgeted fund balance of 174. We now know that that's $151,000 lighter than what we budgeted and approved in June. So I think I've gone over these points. We had a $5 million fund balance. The revenue was slightly below what we had anticipated, and 14 actual, which will give you the actual fund balance carryover, would be available in October. And then to address how budgeting looks at MAP funds is we approach this year looking at debt service first, the personnel supporting the project second, and then the project spend. And again, this is a collaborative effort from each one of those divisions. We talk about what their needs are. We talk about what their commitments were two years ago or one year ago, looking at what kind of grant match we would be called upon in order to get that 80% additional funding from the state, as well as what their project list is. plus kind of the overview of five-year history, our current budget situation, and an approach we used this year in doing the budget for the MAP funds. Hopefully that gave a context to your discussion. Comprehensive in my estimation. I have one other sign-up, and then I'll come back to you, Council Member Sen, if that's all right. First, Council Member Beard. Thank you, Chair. Bill, why, based on population, as opposed to gallons of gasoline pumped in Fayette County? I would defer to state law on that. We had no input as to how the state decided to divvy it up. I'm not familiar with the discussion, so I don't think I can comment. It just seems, if we're talking about gasoline, it seems like that ought to be where we're headed as opposed to all of the people who live elsewhere. in our population but use our roads and streets. So that might be something that some enterprising individual might be able to take to Frankfurt, I guess. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Back to Council Member Senate. Thank you. Bill, under the personnel tab, you mentioned that the dollars that are transferred to the personnel and the general fund is for those people who work on these projects. Is that 100% of their pay for one year, or is that a portion of their salary that we're transferring? We get percentages from the division directors as to how much of someone's time is estimated to be dedicated to these projects. We take that during the January through March budget and use that as the basis for the transfer. Okay, because I know it fluctuated from $892,000 to a high of $2.2 million, now back down to $1.5 million. But yet, I guess it coincides with the amount of money going towards the project. But, you know, from $11 to $12,000, we doubled the street resurfacing money, but the personnel costs went down. So I'm just trying to understand that correlation there. I would defer to the individual divisions. And it's which divisions is it? Streets and roads? Streets and roads. Engineering? Engineering. Traffic engineering. And planning. Those are the only four getting personnel costs out of this. Let me confirm. Traffic engineering, engineering, and streets and roads. Not traffic engineering is what I'm hearing. Okay. Excuse me. All right. So you're taking a percentage from that commissioner or director each year and just applying it to the MAP funds. Yes. Do you have a list of the projects we're using out of the map money? The individual divisions do. Yeah, for each year that we spent the money on. Can we get a copy of that? Because it wasn't in our packet. I was hoping to see that. You went for the same five years? Yeah, just to see what we actually spent the dollars on. And then also, were any map funds spent on trails in the last five years? Again, I don't know the individual projects. So, and I guess for our law department, can you use map funds on trails? Does anybody know that answer? Because what Paul Schoeniger did some research, and nowhere in there does it say you're allowed to do that. It just says for roads, and I'm not sure if we have or have not. Yes, sir, we have, and I believe you can. Wow. Very strong. Very strong. My understanding. And who says we can? I mean, I know we've done it, but I'm not so sure of the state statute. And it's in our package. You can read it to us if you want to put it on the overhead. You tell me where it says or who's interpreting that we can use it on trails when it says clearly roads, period. From my understanding, when I come into office, that it was being used for trails and it can apply to trails. As far as the full verification on what the KRS or KAR makes that description, I can't quote that. The only one that could probably get that interpretation to us would be the ones that would be in charge of that and the Rule Secondary Fund. Those would be the individuals that can go ahead and produce the full verification of what you can use it for. But that was to answer your question, sir, when we had talked about that. And since I've been there for a year and a half, since it was already in motion like that, it can be used for that application. Well, I'd like to get an opinion from our law department and also the state appeal to them because I'm not sure that it says that. And I think, and the point I'm getting to is we set up here, back there in the budget, and we scrounge money for $5 million, which is barely a tip in the bucket for our roads. And this money is supposed to be for roads. Trail's a great program, but to me it should be funded out of another pocket. And we're funding it out of road money, and we're still 20-plus million behind in our road needs, just for resurfacing, not even building new roads. So that's why I like to see the project list, how much money we spend on trails, but also what kind of projects are we really putting? And a lot of that, too, will also be on the federally funded ones as far as through the SLX and the match. I'm not talking SLX. Just MAP only. Right. Well, but the MAP is a component of that because that's the only way we can get the SLX is through that 20% match. So that's why I said that. And that didn't say we have to use MAP for match. We can use general fund for match. So that's what I'm getting to. Just a better way of planning this to make sure we're putting as much money as we can on the actual roads themselves because that's what it's intended to be used for. I believe we're going to get that answer from the Department of Law, and we'll have it, see if you want to address it, Madam CAO. I asked Mr. Barberi if he knew that answer, and he does not, but we will get it for you. Very good. Yeah, that's fair. Yeah, that's fine. If we can get the list of the projects as well. Projects and then answer. Yes, sir. Yeah, that'd be great. So with a couple of information points, would it be your preference to keep this in committee and have a follow-up on it? It would be, sir. We will do so. Thank you. And as you were the person that brought us the next item of business, and it is just a report, I was going to act in a deferral mode and go ahead and move for adjournment because that gives us a few minutes before our 3 o'clock meeting. We can take that issue up at our next meeting. I know I wouldn't want to short Mr. Neal, who's been sitting here for two hours, or maybe Dow, just give us a five-second where we're at on installation. So the last item on the agenda. Just so the public watching, because we're getting a lot of calls about where we're at, how many we're at, just a three-minute, hey, here we're at, here we are. The streetlight installation plan. Yeah, sorry, go ahead. Go ahead. No, go ahead. I apologize. This is a streetlight installation plan, and introduce yourself to the viewing public, if you would. Sure. My name is Dowell Hoskins Squire, and I haven't even met everyone that's sitting up here, So I apologize for that, but hope to shortly and look forward to working with each of you. In your post, what do you do? Director of Traffic Engineering. Well said. Go ahead. I'll try to be as brief as possible. I know that Charlie Martin presented on this issue last February to the Budget and Finance Committee. I don't know if the PowerPoint is coming up, but it doesn't matter. Our goal this calendar year was to install 400 streetlights. As of yesterday, we're at 214. So I think we're on track. KU has three crews that are actively installing lights. They're two-man crews. We can install approximately 60 to 90 lights per month, and so that puts us on track to install the 400 this calendar year. As of 214 lights today, we've got 186 remaining this calendar year. A couple of things you have in your packet. you've got a streetlight installation projection spreadsheet that shows the estimated number of lights in each development and the status as far as whether it's been installed, whether we've marked it in the field, whether it's scheduled to be marked in the field, or whether there's basically no action taken on it to date. What else would be pertinent? In terms of action items, you know, we're continuing to monitor the process on a, I can't say a daily basis, but certainly on a weekly basis. We've got a guy that's out in the field actively marking locations, KU. Then the next step is KU to install the lights. The total time from marking to installation is approximately two months, in some cases longer, depending on the conditions. But basically, we will work to accomplish a couple of the action items that were on Charlie Martin's list, which are included in your packet, which is basically to develop a clear approach for how we add additional developments or streetlights to be installed to our list of backlog of lights. Currently, there are 652 lights on the list with about 450 remaining to be installed. And then, you know, we struggle a little bit with predicting installations for the coming year. And hopefully with the Acela software implementation, hopefully that software will help us better predict having the development review process information online, and hopefully that will streamline the process for us as well so we can better predict how many lights we will be installing in the coming calendar year. And I apologize for the presentation not coming up. I don't know whether that was something I was supposed to activate or. We'll just call it first time out and it's all good. Okay. Thank you for that very much. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate it. Any other questions? Okay. No questions? That qualifies as a success for your first time out. Well done. Thank you very much. Welcome to Urban County Government. Any other items of business to come before the committee? Move adjourned. Motion to adjourn in a second. All those in favor? Aye. Pose like sign. We are in adjournment. Thank you. Thank you.