# Environmental Quality and Public Works Committee on 2015-03-10 1:00 PM - March 10, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 10, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3600 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3600?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-03-10 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 13,951 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 Environmental Quality and Public Works Committee met on March 10, 2015, at 1:00 p.m., with Farmer presiding. The committee addressed five agenda items, all of which were approved. During the meeting, the committee took 12 motions and votes and heard 13 public comments. The approved agenda items included: * Streetlights – Analysis of lighting types, installation/lease costs, etc. * Safe Routes to School (Ford) * Speed Reduction on Cromwell Way (Mossotti) * UK Forest Health Research & Education Center (Gibbs) * Items Referred to Committee ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on March 10, 2015: * Farmer * Stinnett * Kay * Moloney * Ford * Gibbs * Evans * Brown * Mossotti * Lane No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included twelve votes, eleven of which passed and one that failed. **Passed Motions (Voice Votes):** - Motion to move funding mechanism for streetlights to Budget and Finance Committee for recommendation before August, moved by Stinnett [timestamp: 00:37:02] - Motion to approve resolution supporting the Safe Routes to School program, moved by Ford [timestamp: 00:58:24] - Motion to approve resolution supporting the Forest Health Research and Education Center, moved by Gibbs and seconded by Lane [timestamp: 01:08:48] - Motion to approve resolution reducing speed limit on Cromwell Way to 25 mph, moved by Mazzotti [timestamp: 01:10:23] - Motion to remove capacity analysis from committee agenda, moved by Stinnett [timestamp: 01:11:33] - Motion to consolidate snow removal and snow and ice control plans, moved by Stinnett [timestamp: 01:16:51] - Motion to remove Woodland Avenue pedestrian enhancements from committee agenda, moved by Ford [timestamp: 01:19:29] - Motion to remove Columbia Heights item from committee agenda, moved by Gibbs and seconded by Stinnett [timestamp: 01:20:01] - Motion to remove Ferndale Pass from committee agenda, moved by Gibbs [timestamp: 01:20:01] - Motion to remove West Second from committee agenda, moved by Ford and seconded by Kay [timestamp: 01:20:01] - Motion to adjourn, moved by Brown and seconded by Mossotti [timestamp: 01:21:07] **Failed Motion (Roll Call Vote):** - Motion to remove distillery district update from committee agenda, moved by Akers [timestamp: 01:14:43] This motion resulted in a 5-5 tie vote. Voting in favor were Akers, Brown, Ford, Gibbs, and Lane. Voting against were Kay, Moloney, Mossotti, Stinnett, and Evans. The motion failed due to the tied vote. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting included discussion of a capital purchase for downtown infrastructure improvements. **Streetlight Purchase** The council approved a purchase of streetlights for Granville downtown in the amount of $475,000. The purchase was to be made from KU. ## Public Comment The meeting included thirteen public comments addressing streetlight policy, funding mechanisms, and maintenance priorities. **Streetlight Policy and Decision-Making** Massadi asked about the decision-making process for streetlight styles and whether neighborhoods can petition for different styles before installation [00:11:30]. Evans sought clarity on what answer to give constituents requesting decorative lights instead of standard Cobra heads, noting that no defined option exists but a backdoor process does [00:25:16]. Akers asked who decided to allow multiple streetlight styles, noting the change occurred in the mid-80s when funding was sufficient [00:32:15]. **Funding and Policy Concerns** Stinnett expressed concern that the lack of consistent policy leads to inequity and frustration among council members and residents, calling for a formal policy and funding mechanism [00:16:56]. Maloney recalled a past meeting where the council struggled to afford expensive lights and had to revert to standard ones due to budget constraints [00:26:21]. Maloney also questioned whether the 1% franchise fee increase was intended to fund streetlights and expressed concern that the money was not fully used to resolve the deficit [00:39:41]. **Franchise Fee and Developer Input** Lane asked which utilities are subject to the franchise fee, clarifying that it applies to electricity and gas but not cable, telephone, or water [00:45:11]. Kay asked whether franchise fee money can be earmarked for specific uses like streetlights, noting that it may not be legally possible [00:47:33]. Mazzotti asked whether developers are consulted about lighting choices during subdivision planning to help avoid neighborhood disputes [00:38:04]. **Snow Removal and Tree Health** Brown suggested that school bus routes should be prioritized for snow plowing and paving, and asked that this be considered in the Safe Routes to School program [00:58:59]. Brown also stressed the need to include pedestrian pathways and parks in snow removal plans, noting that Parks and Rec did not clear Thoroughbred Park [00:17:56]. Gibbs highlighted the threat to urban trees, especially ash trees, and emphasized the need for proactive research and education to combat invasive species [01:02:16]. Lane offered to help draft a resolution supporting the Forest Health Research and Education Center [01:07:15]. ## Contested Items **Streetlight Funding and Policy** Council members were divided on whether to allow multiple streetlight styles and how to fund them. The disagreement centered on concerns about equity and long-term sustainability of different funding approaches. A vote on removing the distillery district update resulted in a 5-5 split, indicating the council was evenly divided on this aspect of the streetlight policy. **Franchise Fee Use and Earmarking** A heated discussion emerged regarding the use and earmarking of franchise fees. Council members debated whether franchise fee increases were intended to fund streetlights and whether funds could legally be earmarked for specific purposes. This disagreement created confusion about financial accountability and the proper allocation of revenue sources. ## Streetlights – Analysis of lighting types, installation/lease costs, etc. Dowell Hoskins Squier and Jeff Neal presented an analysis of streetlight styles, lease rates, funding mechanisms, and installation status [00:00:00]. The presentation covered several key topics: **Lighting Types and Styles** The analysis examined different streetlight options available to the municipality, comparing various lighting styles and their characteristics. **Financial Considerations** The presenters discussed lease rates and installation costs associated with different streetlight types, addressing the financial implications of various options. **Funding Mechanisms** The presentation included an overview of how streetlight projects could be funded, examining different approaches to financing lighting improvements. **Current Installation Status** The analysis provided information on the existing streetlight installation across the municipality. **Process Gaps** A key issue identified was the lack of a formal process for neighborhoods to request alternative lighting styles. This gap was highlighted as a challenge in responding to community preferences for different streetlight options. **Financial Challenges** The presentation noted the financial difficulties associated with funding different styles of streetlights, indicating that cost considerations significantly impact the ability to accommodate varied lighting preferences. **LED Retrofitting Opportunity** The analysis highlighted the Granville streetlight purchase and discussed the potential for LED retrofitting as a path forward for improving the streetlight system. **Outcome** The agenda item was approved. ## Safe Routes to School (Ford) [timestamp: 00:51:48] Myron Thompson and Dowell Hoskins Squier presented the Safe Routes to School program to the council. The presentation emphasized the program's multiple benefits, including health improvements for students, reduction in traffic congestion, and enhanced safety in school zones. The presenters discussed a Transportation Alternatives Program application focused on school zone improvements. This application represented a key component of the initiative's implementation strategy. The council was asked to provide support for the program and the associated application. Following the presentation and discussion, a resolution was brought forward for referral to the council. **Outcome:** The resolution was approved for referral to council. ## Speed Reduction on Cromwell Way (Mossotti) Mazzotti presented a traffic analysis supporting a proposed speed reduction on Cromwell Way from 35 mph to 25 mph [timestamp: 01:09:19]. The presentation cited several justifications for the reduction: * Residential nature of the area * Low traffic volume * Alignment changes on the roadway The resolution to reduce the speed limit was approved. ## UK Forest Health Research & Education Center (Gibbs) [timestamp: 01:02:16] The meeting included a presentation on the Forest Health Research and Education Center initiative. Red Baker, Bert Abbott, and Dana Nelson were the key speakers on this agenda item. The presentation highlighted threats to native tree species and emphasized the need for proactive research to address these challenges. The initiative was presented as a collaborative effort involving the University of Kentucky, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the Kentucky Division of Forestry (KDF). The resolution regarding the UK Forest Health Research & Education Center was approved by the meeting participants. ## Items Referred to Committee [timestamp: 01:11:01] The committee reviewed and voted on several items that had been previously referred for consideration. The discussion involved speakers Stinnett, Akers, Brown, Gibbs, and Lane. The committee took action on the following matters: - **Capacity analysis** — removed from the agenda - **Distillery district update** — removed from the agenda - **Ferndale Pass** — removed from the agenda - **West Second** — removed from the agenda Additionally, the committee consolidated snow removal and ice control plans into a single item for consideration. The committee also made staffing assignments for ongoing work: - A new lead was assigned for the urban forestry analysis - A new lead was assigned for the streetlight analysis The item was approved by the committee. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Motion to move funding mechanism for streetlights to Budget and Finance Committee for recommendation before August - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve resolution supporting the Safe Routes to School program - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve resolution supporting the Forest Health Research and Education Center - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve resolution reducing speed limit on Cromwell Way to 25 mph - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove capacity analysis from committee agenda - **Motion** — failed (5-5): Motion to remove distillery district update from committee agenda - **Motion** — passed: Motion to consolidate snow removal and snow and ice control plans - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove Woodland Avenue pedestrian enhancements from committee agenda - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove Columbia Heights item from committee agenda - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove Ferndale Pass from committee agenda - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove West Second from committee agenda - **Motion** — passed: Motion to adjourn --- ## Full transcript Just waiting for the council to assemble. We had a late evening last night and already had a two-hour meeting today. We do have just barely enough to start right now. I wanted to go ahead and get started on our summary and our motions. I would just say to you, on page 2, 1, 2, 3, the fourth paragraph, I think Kerwin Blanding is spelled differently. okay all right and then I think where it says Mulvaney stated Cooper Drive is construction only now is incorrect so I'm not sure if that meant Cooperstown Drive or something because I know Cooper Drive is not only construction right now so those are the only two changes I saw to this are there any other additions or corrections to the minutes as it tendered that's for a motion to approve all those in favor those like sign thank you all all right that would bring us up to our first actual item of business which is just kind of broadly titled street lights and street lights analysis of lighting types installation lease cost etc and I believe our director of traffic engineering director how are you good how are you doing fine welcome Thank you. You know the council member that referred this isn't on council right now but I think it's an item of ongoing interest just because of the amount of time and energy we put into lighting our community and this is another area potentially to do kind of like our pavement management study thing. Right. And I think council member Massadi also had an interest at the time to put it in committee. Very good. Please proceed. Thank you. I'll go briefly through, I'll provide some background information for some of the new council members who may not know about the history of the streetlight lighting program. And then Jeff Neal is here also to answer any questions that I may not be aware of related to the history. And some of you, some of you may have some information that I don't have, but I'll go over the streetlight styles that are available. A description of the tariff and the KU tariff, which is essentially the lease rate that we pay on a monthly basis for each streetlight. I'll explain a little bit about the discrepancy between the streetlight revenue and the expense for the streetlights, where we are in terms of LED streetlights and whether we will ever be able to install LED streetlights in the city. Also talk about the Granville streetlight purchase, which is the streetlights downtown, and then give an update on the installation status of the streetlights in the new developments. As a brief overview, the street lighting was mandated within the urban service area since 1984 in certain tax districts. So it's in tax districts 1, 4, 5, and 6. And so any other tax districts do not have the requirement for street lighting associated. And then we lease the lights from KU and Bluegrass Energy. We do not own the lights. And so we've got approximately 30,000 KU streetlights and about 1,200 bluegrass energy lights. So the vast majority are owned by KU. And then additionally, there's a private street lighting program, which has been an option since about 1990 by council resolution. There are just three subdivisions or neighborhoods that have functioning streetlights under the private street lighting program, the largest of which is Heartland. There are also several others that were approved and installed private streetlights, but those neighborhoods don't have functioning streetlights at the current time. Additionally, the private streetlighting, those neighborhoods continue to pay the ad valorem tax, but then pay the additional private streetlighting cost on top of that ad valorem tax. They're essentially paying for those streetlights twice. And then the way that that's funded, the way the HOA accomplishes that is through a private contract with KU. But anyway, the vast majority, that's only a small fraction of the streetlights that are installed. The various styles you can see on the far left is the typical Cobra Head installation with underground electric feed. The second, sorry the images aren't that great, but the second picture over is the shoebox style, which is a black, more contemporary style of streetlight. And then there's the Colonial, which is really hard to see, which is kind of a little box, if you will, on top of a black pole. And then there's the standard Cobra Head installation, which is just the Cobra Head fixture attached onto a wood utility pole. And then I haven't shown the Granville lights, but we don't lease those lights. We've purchased those lights since the last time we talked about streetlights, and they're not pictured there. And they're not an available streetlights style to install in a residential neighborhood anyway. So our methodology has been, since I've been here and moving forward, unless we decide to change that, is to go with the streetlight style on the far left-hand side, which is the standard Cobra head spun aluminum pole. Unless we're filling in gaps in an existing neighborhood that has a different type, and then we'll obviously match the type that's already there. A summary of the tariff rates. So the rates are ratified by the Public Service Commission. They're submitted by KU and ratified by the Public Service Commission. The monthly lease rates, as you can see, differ by the streetlight style. However, you'll see that the colonial light, as shown just in terms of a straight lease rate, is less than the Cobra Head or Contemporary style. But on the next slide, I'll show you it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison because you don't install the same number of colonials that you do the other two to achieve the same light levels. Additionally, these lease rates, they include the capital installation, operating and maintenance, and electric service charge. So everything's included in that monthly charge. This is just a cost comparison. I know this was an issue that was confusing the last time I spoke about street lights, about the different types and the operating costs. And so you can see that the Cobra Head-style light is the least expensive in terms of operating cost. Although the Colonial Light, the monthly lease rate is less than the Cobra Head, you need about 50% more fixtures to achieve the same light level, so in turn, you know, it ends up costing more to operate those lights. And those are based on roadway lighting standards for streets and public right-of-way. Streetlight revenue versus expense. This chart, it came from a previous presentation that the Division of Budgeting or Finance did, and we just got it updated with an additional couple of years added onto the chart, but it shows the deficit between the ad valorem tax revenue and the streetlight expense. I guess one thing to note is that although the ad valorem tax revenue has decreased, The tax rate, in fact, has decreased. The tariff rate has increased over time. So the discrepancy has grown larger and larger over time. You'll see some variation in the blue line, which is the ad valorem tax revenue. Not only has the rate changed from time to time, but the value of homes changes from time to time, and so the revenue is associated with the assessed value of homes, so that changes over time. The ad valorem tax rate for streetlights is 2.1 cents per $100 of assessed value, and it's been that way since 2006. LED streetlights. KU has no immediate plan to install or have LED streetlights available for us to install. There's no tariff that has been approved for LED streetlights. and in the end how the how the lease rate is calculated it would not benefit us to install led street lights um the the electric cost is only 16 of the tariff and so the the reduced electric usage that leds use over over the traditional fixtures you don't save that much because the capital installation cost is so much more for leds and that's how we pay the monthly leased rates. So in turn, they would be more expensive for us to lease and operate, which seems counterintuitive. One thing where we may be able to pilot the use of LEDs is in the downtown area with the Granville lights. And so we have purchased the Granville lights downtown. They're the green painted, kind of ornate streetlight style lights. Those lights were transferred to the city on February 19th. We paid $475,000 to acquire the lights. It's 390 poles. Some of the poles have two fixtures, and that's where you come up with the 455 fixtures. We anticipate to save about $200,000 a year with that purchase, and so the payback is very quick. I think two and a half years was what was calculated for our payback on that, and as those fixtures, those existing fixtures begin to fail, we will be able to retrofit those with LEDs and kind of do a pilot a pilot that way, and we will be charged just at the lighting energy rate based on the kilowatt hours used and not a tariff fee. So you're saying that's going to happen? It can happen. It can happen. We have the ability to make it happen. All right, thank you. And then finally, the streetlight installation status. Last calendar year, 416 streetlights were installed. We've tracked it on a calendar year just because the summer is the busiest time of year for installing street lights, so to split it between June and July and calculate the number that you install in a fiscal year is a little bit difficult because of the invoicing that we received from KU, but regardless, we met our goal last year, which was to install 400 lights. 757 lights remain on the list. That number may seem huge to some of you, but just to note, about 50% of those are corridor lighting projects. They're not neighborhood development lighting projects. They're the corridor lighting projects that are listed there. And some of them have a substantial number of street lights on them. And then as an update for the next residential lights to be installed, the Summerfield Development 33 lights, Greendale Reserve, and then Kearney Ridge. And then additionally, I have an updated list of all the developments that are essentially in the queue, and I can share that with you guys if you're interested. We did have a good year last year, and we were installing street lights well into January, which was surprising and good, but obviously we've had a little bit of a lag over the past month, four to six weeks due to the weather. But we anticipate that we will be able to install another 400 lights at least, likely more this coming year because of those corridor lighting projects where KU will likely have another crew assisting with that. Questions? Questions. Council members, anyone with comments to this? Council Member Masati. Thank you, Chair. Hi, Dowell. How are you today? Good. Just a couple of quick questions. Who made the determination to go to these different kind of lights? I mean, that's been a question in my neighborhoods a lot. Some of the neighborhoods have one style lights, some have others. Who makes that determination? I believe that council made that determination before I got here, and I don't. Jeff knows. Mr. Neal, welcome. Careful. I know some of the information when we back long ago had some budget constraints within the street lighting program, and we went with about 18 months not putting lights in altogether. We were looking at the cost associated with the different streetlights and just trying to make sense of what type of lights and what we could afford. We started defaulting to the Cobra headlights. So you all made a determination then, pretty much. There was at one point a presentation made where it was mentioned, but there was no formal memo or anything like that sent to the council on that. Okay. So I guess standard lights are the only lights that are being installed now. Is that correct? As Val said, those are the ones where we can define if it's a brand new neighborhood, they will default to the Cobra headlights unless we're directed differently. If it's an already established neighborhood, then we will try to match up the lights that are already there. If their shoebox will continue on with the shoebox. So do they have the opportunity before they're installed to make a decision which way they want to go, or is it always going to be standard lighting? Well, we've only had a couple of instances where we went with a different type of light in a neighborhood. And there was some outreach to the community. I mean, nothing formal. But we did get some feedback from either the council member of that district or heard back from the developer or the neighborhood representative saying they were aware of this. And some of the complaints we got were once the light started going in, there was one or two neighbors in each neighborhood that had issues with that. I just had some experience with some neighborhoods that have had one neighborhood contiguous with one kind of lights. They get another light put in saying, you know, why we don't have the same type of lights. And that's why I was wondering if there's a process for them to petition ahead of time if they know lights are coming in. Yes, I know they're going to have to pay for it, but is there a process like that put in place? There's currently no process for that. So basically it's an after the fact, after they realize it's coming in. Well, we... Yeah, I mean, I guess the installation cost, depending on, you know, the installation cost to us is the same for the underground service. It's the ongoing operating cost that's the burden. And, you know, with the expense to revenue deficit where it is, I guess the thought is to go with the less expensive light. And continuing with standard lighting, no matter if even if a neighborhood requests something different? I guess they could always go with the private street lighting. You know, to be honest, I guess I don't know. I guess we'd have to figure... I don't think we've got a mechanism for them to pay the difference. So I guess that's where we are. Because, I mean, that's what I've been told, that they can pay a difference. And that's why I'm just trying to figure out how this all works. Have any paid a difference? The only agreement that we have is with UK. They really want the shoebox-type lights on all their streets, and so they have agreed to basically front load the price of that for 10 years and pay us a check for that. Now, dealing with UK is different than dealing with a neighborhood organization since you're dealing with one entity and not, I guess, a voting body that represents a neighborhood. So right now that's the only ones where we have an example of where we give them the option to pave the difference. Okay, so there is no option then, basically. I mean, you all make the decision, and the neighborhood says, look, the contiguous neighborhood has got these kind of lights. We want the same. We have no option to say, yes, you can. You just basically, these are the lights you get, and that's it. I guess ultimately. Unless it's private, you're saying private lights. I guess that's something that needs to be figured out. I don't think it's traffic engineering's responsibility, per se, to dictate exactly what type of light they get as long as it meets the standards and is on the PSC rate. I just want to make sure I'm telling them the correct information. That's all. I mean, I'm not trying to make this decision today, but I just want to, is there an option or there's not an option? If there isn't, that's fine. But if there is, we need to know it. I would say we don't have a defined option right now. Okay. That's what I need to know. Thank you. Council Member Stenet, please. Thank you, Chair, and Dow, and Jeff. Thank you. I know, Jeff, you've been around. This is our third time seeing this presentation in a similar format before the council, and we're still no better off than that first presentation in terms of how we're funding this long term, what decisions are being made, and what policies are in place. And I think this is a strong indication that there needs to be a policy. And to Council Member Sadi's point before I ask my questions, I think it should be an option for residential neighborhoods to decide one, two, or three, or at least have more than one option. I think it's wrong to sit here and say we only have one option, that's all you get. Because every neighborhood is different. Every neighborhood may want other type of lights in here. And the rates I saw in your presentation, do you want to address that, Commissioner, before I continue? No, I don't. You jumped up. I'm not trying to interrupt. All I'm trying to do is the reason that we haven't been able to be responsive to your all's request on that is we haven't figured out a funding mechanism to allow for the ongoing paying of that. The private street is fully funded and taken care of. We have a deficit in our avalorum of $2 million now on that, and to try to figure out if you selected a version that was more expensive than what we're currently putting in, how you pay for that, how a neighborhood pays for that over a period of time where some neighbors want it, some neighbors don't want it. It's not like a private street where the Homeowner Association has done it and they're a viable organization that's going to continue. We'll try to work with you on coming up with something. We just, we sat down, tried to figure this out when this came up the last time since Dow and I have been here. We could not figure out a viable funding mechanism to allow the payment of this going forward by a neighborhood. Well, and that may be where the disagreement is. I'm not sure we should tax that to a neighborhood who's already paying a tax to get lights installed. I'm just looking at options and how this body chooses to fund the overall program long term. was a big debate a year and a half, two years ago, and the vote was 8 to 7 on this council not to go with a funding mechanism that would actually fund this program forever and never have another problem with it. So we can bring that back up in August, and I'll be glad to be the one to bring it right back up to look at the funding mechanism. But let me get to my questions for Dow real quick since my time is moving quickly. Cobra Head, Colonial Contemporary, the monthly lease rates you have in your presentation, these are not the new rates. These are the O rates, correct? Correct. Okay, because the issue... The current approved ones. Yeah, these are not the ones before the PSC. Correct. Because they jump pretty significantly, and right now there's 83 cents difference between a Cobra Head and Colonial type of light, which is the other popular light people want, and it's jumping to 91 cents difference. My question is for you, on that Colonial, what size bulb are we using? The same 5,800 lumens, and so this comparison is using the same lumen fixture for each one of those. And is there an option to use a brighter bulb for the Colonial, which would reduce the number of fixtures required, which if that's the case, it blows that chart out of the water and makes them cheaper than our Coburg Head? There is. And when you do that, you get glare, which is undesirable for drivers, and it doesn't follow the standard, as I understand. Jeff knows veiling luminance in all the technical terms. Some of the colonials that we have put in, we did go with the higher wattage light bulb to reduce the number. But after going back through some research and hearing back from some of the neighbors, it does create a, it's called failing luminance. And it gets outside of the criteria that's recommended. So there's some actual glare that is generated from that. So we're trying to get away from that. Okay. And where, where do we know where that was? Off the top of your head. I know you deal with thousands of free lights. the Tuscany area was one where at Tuscany okay so you've had complaints uh not actually from Tuscany but there was another Denton Farms okay uh there was one or two complaints over there okay because I'm just looking at how do you break out the cost difference if you go with the higher wattage bulb initially it's going to lower that monthly cost because you don't need as many lights and those lease rates are for the 5800 lumens so the lease rates vary based on on the picture But, yeah, the same scenario. Okay. And then, so with the PSC changing the rates, are you all going to go back to work on a funding solution for this and bring it back to this committee? Because I can make a couple motions now to get something moving down the path. But I think, number one, we need a policy on what type of light we're going to go with. As I said, we really did put our heads together and try to come up with some suggestions. We'll await your policy directives. Okay. We'll be glad to give direction. I've got one minute and I've got three people left, so I'll chime back in. But Dal and Jeff, this is a good presentation. It's a good start. And hopefully we can work something so everyone's on the same page so that Councilman Rosati gets the same answer if she calls for a neighborhood that I would get or any council member. Because I think that's what's important going forward is having a consistent policy regardless of whether you're here or I'm here or who's where. I think that's what's been lacking over the years. and Jeff's always caught in the middle between the neighborhood and the council member, and that makes it tough for him and everyone that works with him too. So let me ask you, KU, have we talked to KU at all about the installation, the 757 lights? Do we have an issue with getting those installed this year? Are they going to put three crews back out? Are we going to have one crew? Jeff and I talked about that this morning. We assumed that they'll have more crews simply because of the corridor lighting that's going in, but in terms of budget, we've got budget to install 400, So we can't go too much over that. That's my question, though. Where's that $400 going to fall? You said you have the budget. Some of the roads you're picking are capital road projects. Aren't the streetlight costs in those projects? Yes. Correct? Yes, we've got the underground. Step in. Yes, we've got the underground install, which is what we get charged for in part of the project. So some of the lights, they're actually just going in, pulling wire, and setting the poles. And that's part of the capital project for those roads that we looked at, Todd's, Lee's Town? That's correct. And is that part of the 400 that we have budgeted, or is that a separate pot of money? Well, that actually doesn't hit that pot of money. Okay. The project covers those installation costs. Okay, so the 400 are actually additional lights outside of those corridor projects? Yes. Okay. So how much of the 757 are we going to get all of them this year? We get 400 residential. What's the difference of corridor number? I am not sure if Todd's Road will get in this calendar year, and Providence Place is kind of up in the air, but Leestown is pretty sure, and Citation may go across fiscal years. But that's all being paid for out of the capital money? There will be some costs, but they're very minor. It's just the tie-ins to the transformers and things like that. The main bulk of the cost is by that particular roadway project. Okay, thank you. Chair, I'm out of time. I will chime back in with a couple motions to move this forward. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Council Member Evans. Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of questions. Regarding Summerfield, you said there are 33 lights. I know they started. Have all 33 been installed? I don't know the answer to that. I think they're next on the list. I don't know what the current status is. Okay. Well, my second day, I got a phone call about street lights. So, I mean, it's good that they had started. I was just curious if these were the 33 that had already been done or their additional. I think these are to be installed. Yeah, they're working on them. Some of the poles were up before all this rain and bad weather started, so they're probably halfway done right now. Okay, because just in the prep for your presentation, I didn't know where that fell in that timeline. And then again, I guess I would just echo Councilmember Stinnett and Councilmember Massadi because that, I feel like there's still kind of a, no, there is no defined option, but it's still there. And I don't work well with buts, you know, just lingering out there because, you know, our constituents will hear that and they will hear that, well, there is something out there and we want that. So I guess I'm still confused as to what is the real answer that I give a constituent that calls when they see a new development going up that has streetlights that they wanted, you know, that they're the decorative ones and not the cobra heads. Is that going to happen? How – I don't know. Is the developer involved? I'm just trying to figure out this, and I appreciate the presentation because this literally, like, my second day was a phone call that I got. So I really do appreciate it. But I don't work well with it. There's not a process, but there is, it sounds like there is a back door, a back way to get something. So I'm trying to figure out. I guess at the current time, we're only installing cover heads. And if there is an existing development that has an existing type of street lights that's not cover head, we're filling in the gaps to match the existing style. But any new installation is cover head. Yes, ma'am. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. I appreciate this presentation. Being a former commissioner of this, I know what you're going through. The problem I have is looking at these 757 lights remaining, most of these are not going to be in front of residential property. Because you're looking at Stoutation Boulevard, you're looking at Leastown Road, and you're looking at Todd's Road. There are going to be streetlights going up there that a lot of this money that we get to pay for these, they have to be property on most of these. So going back to Mr. Stenet concerned about how we're going to pay this the long term, we've got to come up with a different process. I thought this three years ago, and we came up with a minor Band-Aid fix. Now we're back in the same thing we were. the question I have when we had a problem three years ago we were picking lights out and that came to me because we were putting up expensive lights in this one neighborhood and the neighborhood beside it started being built and I could not get an answer why did we put these expensive lights up because maybe the neighborhood I don't know who was what but we didn't have enough money to pay that price to put those expensive lights up, so we had to go back and put the regular lights up because everybody wanted for safety reasons, and then it came back later. We did put some other lights back up. But is that how some of this happened? Because we couldn't afford to put some of these lights up? If I remember right, you and I and Jim sat down, and we were having problems picking what light goes where because we didn't have money. But the capital installation cost would remain the same regardless of the style of light. It's just the ongoing operating costs that's different. Well, we had this argument, you remember? Hopefully you didn't argue with her, but anyway. Not exactly. Well, Jim was in there. My blood pressure went up a little bit. I know there must have been 20 meetings on how do we fix the streetlight. Because they all wanted to put these fancy lights in this one neighborhood, And I said, do we have the money for it? And they said, no. And I said, well, if they want lights, we're going to put the ones. And they didn't ask for them because y'all wanted to be similar to what that other neighborhood was. And I said, no, if they have not come in and asked for these lights, we go ahead and put the regular standard light in there. And that's probably what happened to you is because we didn't have the money to put those fancy lights up. And no one in the neighborhood asked for those lights. and if we don't have anyone answer for the light and what we can afford for safety reason, we want to get those lights in as soon as possible. But I'm agreeing with Kevin. We have got to fix this problem. And I don't know if a motion be made in this committee or we have to bring it out in the council as a whole to redo the whole process on how we fix it because we're back in the red. Are we back in the red now? We're losing money? So that was, what, a year and a half went back in the red. So we raised the franchise fee. If I'm correct, did we raise the franchise fee 1% last time to try to get it out of the red? I believe that's correct. Okay. Mr. O'Mara, please bring us clarity and a fresh light. The decision was made to supplement the street light fund with general fund transfers each year to make it whole. So we are transferring out of the general fund as part of the approved budget every year an amount sufficient to pay for all of the street lights. That includes about $300,000 installation as well as the operational tariffs. that are charged for all the streetlights. So the current funding mechanism is property taxes, which is insufficient to cover the total cost, plus an additional supplement from the general fund, and I think it's around $2.5 million, in order to pay for the streetlight program. But didn't we raise the franchise fees 1%? Are you considering that the franchise fees be the general fund's money? Is that why I understand? We raised it two years ago, didn't we? There was an increase in the franchise fee. And it was because of this. There was an increase in the franchise fee to the general fund. One of the things that also was funded during that budget was a transfer from the general fund to the streetlight fund. There was no correlation in ordinance between the franchise fee, which is general fund money, and the streetlights, two separate actions. They weren't linked together with the increase. Well, the only reason we raised the franchise fees was to pay for these streetlights. It was not to put more money in the general fund for everything. It was to fix the streetlights. I know I'm right on that one because we were sitting out here fighting it so we could pay these streetlights. So I want the council to know that we raised the franchise fee two years ago to get out of debt. Now we're back in debt. I don't disagree with your statements. That's all I need was yes and no. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me. I don't know. Dale, I know this isn't, I mean, you can't answer it necessarily. Maybe someone else can. Why do we have four different options? Who ever decided we should have different options? And that's question number one. And then I'll ask the next. That actually was before my time. But from what I understand, as long ago we did just. Maybe Fred Brown knows. He was here a long time ago. Oh, wow. Long ago, we only had the cobra heads, and that's all that was allowed to be installed. Right. I remember those days. From what I understand, in the mid-'80s, people learned that there were these other types of lights around. We looked into the shoebox. It was pushed hard by the council at that time for that to be an option. And at the time and for many years since, we didn't think there was an issue with the funding because the ad valorem rates, all the money was thrown into one pot, and there was plenty there to pay for all the bills. And then when the rate got reduced, they started looking at it a little closer and realized we didn't have enough to pay for the streetlights. And the colonial fixtures, that came along later. We could do that actually a little bit less expensive than the shoebox. And so since we allowed the shoebox and allowed the cobra heads, for certain neighborhoods, we were allowing the colonials also. And then we were about two or three years into that, and that's when the bottom fell out of the budget. Right. Okay, that helps clear that up. Okay, so now, Dal, you might be able to answer this one. I believe that of the 757 remaining, and if you remove the 354 from the corridor projects, that leaves about 403, which is what you said that you have of residential. And so of your next to be installed list, it's about 70. So when will the remaining 330, I guess, are those scheduled to be finished by the end of December? Or is that fiscal year? It's calendar year. And we have, I believe it's, we were counting on calendar year. I guess our funding's for fiscal year. You know, it's a little bit confusing. So I guess it would be fiscal year. We can install 400 more. And we've authorized KU a bunch more lights other than those 70 whatever listed right there. So I guess Jeff could probably answer, you know, how and when they'll get to them. But sometimes we authorize lights, you know, six months in advance before they get to installing them. Right. Well, I think that would be really helpful for council members particularly because it is a hot topic. I mean, I have the Leastown Corridor, and there's new houses every day. And so there's always a request for street lights. And, like, we have the shoebox ones in a lot of areas. And now I see the Cobra ones going up too. Right. I just wanted to understand so I could also share that information back of why, you know, this street has this kind and that street has another kind. But if we could get, I mean, this is great to have this 70, but if you, I know that you don't have a timeline, but, you know, a list of at least. I can share our spreadsheet with you. Yeah, the list. The authorized date and then whether it's been marked in the field, which would be the next step towards installation. Yes. We saw that, I think, last year. That would be great for affected council districts. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, ma'am. Back to Councilmember Stennett. Thank you, Chair. It seems to me we have a couple issues, and I think we can help on one, and I think we would like to put the onus on you all to come back with the other. I think this council can wisely decide whether we want options or don't want options if we want to install the same street light going forward. And I think the recommendation from you all is to install one single light going forward. Is that what I'm hearing today? That's our current process. Is that the process you want to stay with outside of funding? I don't like to be based on funding. In terms of the financial impact on the city, I don't think that's my decision to make. I'm not asking you to make that decision because that's the second piece is how we fund it. But if the recommendation is to be consistent and to have one street light for everyone, that's different. With the exception of us putting the original ones back into the neighborhoods where there's a failure. We want to be consistent. We want the neighborhoods to look consistent. So that's why where there were the other ones, when one failed or was knocked down or whatever, we always go back and replace it with the same stuff. I'm talking about new lights going forward. Okay. Because obviously, you know, unless we start building out more in our city, we're going to have the same lights or fewer lights to put in, hopefully. But I think that policy we can make in this committee, Chair. The other policy is how we fund this program, regardless of which light you put in or don't put in going forward. I think that needs to be moved to the Budget and Finance Committee and make a decision on our tax base on the revenue. Do you want to make those motions during work session today, or do you want to do something now? I can make them now, and then we can report out. Very good. The first one, I would make a motion to move the funding mechanism on the revenue stream for Streetlights overall to budget and finance so that we can make a recommendation to the full council before August, which is when we set the property tax rates. Motion and second. Is there a discussion on his motion? Anyone? Since we have a list, if you do have, just raise your hand. All right. Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Thank you. your next one. I'm going to hold off on that one because we have two more people ready to speak, but it goes to the policy. I mean, if the administration doesn't want to make a recommendation, then this body needs to make a policy decision if we go with one light or three or four options like was shown on the slide going forward. I think that's a critical decision for neighborhoods. Very good. Thank you, sir. Council Member Mazzotti. Thank you, Chair Dowell. When you're, I would ask, I guess, does the developer have any input when they're deciding to do a subdivision or development, do you ever sit down with a developer and say, you know, talk about lighting or anything like that? Because maybe that would be helpful. Jeff says no. Well, again, that may be beneficial because, again, you know, there's some developers that put in a special kind of light depending on the subdivision that they're in, and some don't. So that may be helpful to you because, again, I guess the operative board today is consistent, and there's not a lot of consistency, so we need to kind of look at that. And I just wonder if they had any input or you discuss this with them at any time. Not on the public streets, I would assume, is the answer. I guess, you know, internal to a parking lot or a retail development, they can put up whatever lights. No, I'm talking about a subdivision. So Ray Ball builds, you know, a big subdivision. Do you go ahead and talk with him and say, Ray, how are you going to light it? I do not believe so. Okay, well, that may be something that we need to do. Because, again, he has one subdivision that has the box lights and the next subdivision next to him, who he doesn't develop, thinks they're going to get the same type of lives. They assume it. So just maybe for future use, that may be an option for us to discuss that. Thanks. Council Member Maloney. Jeff, I need a favor. Because when we did this three years ago and we were shown how much money we needed and all that, we had charts and all that. And then when we raised this franchise fee, we were able to get almost, if I remember right now, that's one of the clarification, $4.5 million new additional money coming in every year with this. How much of that 4.5 want to help bail out the streetlights? Because that was the only reason I remember that we voted on to get this 1% was to bail out the streetlights. I believe Bill's coming up to answer that. Included in the budget for the past at least two years, if not three, is approximately $2.5 million supplement from the general fund to the streetlight fund to fill the gap, the funding gap of the streetlight program. And how much money did we make off that franchise fee when we raised it 1%? I can get that presentation, but I think the $4 million range is about right. and that's why I thought this was supposed to help the street lights because we had people and that's why we passed this franchise fee because people who didn't own property who had rent property in their houses that were going around New Circle Road were helping pay for those lights and that's why we raised that 1% tax for those people to help us start paying for roads where they had no properties on there And it concerns me, I don't think, where? $4 million, how much would that help you this year or the last three years? Would you have been in the black? Can I help answer that question? Okay. We have not underfunded the streetlight program in my understanding. It was a capacity problem as far as installing new lights with our provider, Kentucky Utilities. If another $300,000 for new installations would have increased the number of lights installed, we could have funded them at $600,000 instead of $300,000. But the request was $300,000 because that was the capacity of the contractor, KU, in order to install new lights. So I'm not sure. My understanding is the transfer from the general fund to the streetlight fund has been adequate to maintain and meet the demands needed of the streetlight program. And I'm sorry, but when we raised that, I thought the $4 million, it's not buying new streetlights. It was to keep us paying, say, ahead, because we were, even if we didn't build another streetlight, we were starting to go down the red because of the fee increase because of KU. So we raised this 1%. We raised the 1%, and I thought all that money was supposed to go into the streetlight to help build new streetlights, get caught up with that, and keep us in the, and I thought that was going to be for about six or seven years to keep us there, and then we would have to come back and look at it again. But now, from what we're looking at two years into the program, we're back in the thread. I think the presentation may be the point of confusion. The property tax street fund revenue is short, and that is what is being presented in this presentation. The total program is funded, but it's from two revenue sources. One is the property tax revenue, which is the blue line there on the presentation. The difference between the blue line and the yellow line is being made up with a transfer from the general fund. So the program is not in the black. It's even. but the revenue generated from property taxes is insufficient to support the total program. I hope that helps clarify. And I understand that. That body back then did not want to raise property taxes, but they wanted to fix the streetlights, and they had problems with people who were driving on a road that they didn't have to pay for it because nobody was paying for it, and that's why we raised that franchise fee to offset that So people, and so we wouldn't be sitting here hearing that we're back in the problem, we're going down. And I don't ever remember this conversation. I thought all that money was going to go into streetlights. Now I'm hearing that only $2 million goes into streetlights. This is what I'm trying to clarify. In that year, there were two actions made. One was to increase the franchise fee, which increases total revenue to the general fund. That increase was not dedicated funds. It was general fund money. And the council decided to take that approach and the commitment that whatever the deficit was in the Streetlight program would be fulfilled by a transfer from the general fund. And that's what we've been doing each year since then. That goes back to what Mr. Stennett wants to do. He wants us. He's concerned that we're not being consistent. But now it sounds like we have enough money to continue to go on because of the franchise fee increases. Council member. I don't think we're going anywhere else here. Anything else? Because your time's okay. Council member Lane. Thank you, chairman. Commissioner, you're not so lucky to get away that quick. Here's my question. The franchise fee went from 3% to 4%, which is a 33 and a 30% increase in the tax or the fee, whatever you want to call it, but it also applied not only to electricity, but natural gas, and did it apply to cable? What utilities got taxed by that? Could you go into a little more detail? I'd be glad to. First of all, take cable and TV and telephone out. That's federally protected under the Telecommunications Act, as well as a statewide excise tax. So we no longer have the right to apply a franchise fee to telecommunications. The increase that was passed in whatever year we're talking about was for all of electric and gas. The third utility, which is water, was not up for renewal, and it did not apply to water. That water franchise, I think, is being negotiated this year. so we would have a conversation as to what the franchise fee rate would be on water in the renewal of that contract. All right. I believe that the contracts also provided that the urban county government could, by I guess the vote of the council, raise it another percent, up to 5 percent under the current contracts we have with the utilities. I believe that's right. I defer to law, but I believe that's correct. All right. Well, you know, we're talking about quite a bit of money coming in. And, you know, my preference would have been to raise the taxes on the homes that are getting the light services. But if we're paying the public areas out of that fund also, then there is some justification to use general fund money to help offset that. So it's not just falling all on the homeowners who have lighting out there. Okay, that's all I've got. I just wanted to sort of clarify that issue. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Next is Council Member Kay. Thank you, Chair. Bill, since you're right there. Yes, sir. I think there's some confusion still, and I want to try and ask you to clarify. My understanding is that the franchise fee can only be money that goes into the general fund. there's no way to earmark those funds directly for any specific use. Is that correct? I would defer to law. I don't know if it can be done, but it was not done. I can answer that part. So the only reason that I think I know a little bit about this, although I am not from law, is that when we were discussing using a dedicated fund for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, we were told that that was not allowable, that you could generate that money and you could indicate an interest in having it allocated to a certain place, but you couldn't tie those two. Well, I cannot speak as to earmarking franchise fee funds at this moment, but I can get back to you. I do know that the franchise fees are collected as part of the right to use the right of way, the public rights of way. But I will check with you and get back to the council on that. Well, thank you. So my comment. I think, assuming that my understanding is correct, I think it explains why there were two separate decisions made back when, both to raise the franchise fee and to allocate money from the general fund to make up the deficit, because my understanding, there was no direct way to do that. There was no direct way to say we're raising it by a percent, and that money goes to make up the deficit of the streetlights. I may be wrong, but I think that's the rationale for kind of the situation we're in. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think that we're going to make a referral to budget finance about the funding mechanism here. I think in our follow-up discussion on this issue, we're going to have to take up some of the policy issues or make policy and or a menu or not. And I think those are things that you're seeing different levels of frustration among different district council members over the perceived or real inequity among the lighting sources and how they're put up. So as much as this is, I think it's a council member that said, the third conversation we've had, it's going to have to be a little bit more definitive. And certainly, as we can tell, it's taken us almost an hour to get back to where we started. So and I still, as part of that next discussion, I would like to see us move towards putting the LED lights in our Granville's downtown. Would you say it could happen? That's going to be a dollar discussion, and I think it's something that would be part of this issue. Anyone else before we move on? Excellent discussion. Yes, ma'am. Please. Thank you, Chair. I guess I would just kind of keep in mind if we, if we're going to, if the council's going to set a policy, I don't know, Councilman Stenet, you can, I guess, keep it in the budget committee, but that might be putting the cart before the horse because we could decide that it would just be, I mean, would we still need an additional mechanism if the council decided it was just going to be the COBRA heads? We would? Okay. Okay. Never mind. Thank you. You're good. Thank you, ma'am. All right. Now, in terms of our next hour, we have Safe Routes to Schools who have people here, and we have the U.K. Forest Health Research Education Center, which we have people here for. So I want to forward you ahead as quickly as we can to take on the safe routes for schools. Council Member Ford, it is your turn. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. On pages 34 through 35, you have the proposed resolution that we bring for committee consideration. I'm going to ask that Mr. Myron Thompson, we welcome him from the Fayette County Public Schools Risk Management Section. and I believe we'll be able to go through the slides pretty quickly and answer any questions that the council members may have without the day. Welcome, Meyer. Absolutely. Thank you, Councilman Ford. Again, this is just to solidify a little bit about the ongoing partnership that we have with you folks here at the urban county government and on behalf of the school board and Superintendent Helm. Thank you for allowing me to present very briefly. As you know, we work very closely on various issues throughout the year and in particular it seems like lexington's two cities sometimes when uk and we are in session but when we are both going and traffic gets going that does take up a lot of time with constituents and citizens so basically the partnership that we have we've worked together for years and basically what we're looking to do is to formalize that through this safe routes to school program i want to thank some people officer burlow thanks in the audience here uh, Dow, who I've recently met with, uh, Councilman Ford, uh, one of our board members, uh, Doug Barnett as well has been working on this issue. And of course, Tiffany, who's done all the work. So I think she's back there somewhere, maybe too. So mister. So there you are. Um, basically the safe routes to school program is an international program dating to the early seventies. Uh, there was a study done by the U S department of transportation, looking at how kids get to and from school. Uh, it does provide research and resources on the safety of children walking and biking to school. And about 10 years ago, they did put a little money towards this. I think that's all evaporated now, so that can help you with your streetlights. But nevertheless, the federal government did have a little bit of money allocated towards the program. It does target both infrastructure and non-infrastructure activities, and primarily the outcome, as I indicated before, reducing traffic around our campuses and providing some health benefits to our students. And if you've been around our schools, especially during dismissal, you'll see things like this to where it does get pretty congested with all the school buses and cars and walkers. So basically by formalizing this program, we're trying to alleviate some of that car traffic, hopefully, and again, making it safe for our students to get to and from school. Basically, we have 41,000 children that we serve with the Fayette County Board of Education, and roughly 44% or 18,000 of those kids are on school buses, and the remaining students are either walking or riding in vehicles. And so that's why those pictures that I showed you before during dismissal gets pretty congested. So basically, from the standpoint that we're looking at, walking is a wonderful activity for our students. There's, you know, all types of health benefits that I won't necessarily read to you there. But the three primary things that I like with getting kids to and from school by walking, it doesn't interfere with our instructional day. We have a limited instructional day, six hours that we're dealing with students. So having the kids walk before school or after school does not impact that. There's really relatively no cost, a good pair of shoes. And ultimately, it's a lifelong activity. It's something they can do not only in their youth but in adulthood as well. So there's a lot of benefits for that program. Basically, this generated from a couple of concerns at William Wells Brown and LTMS. Basically, in those particular areas, we have a high number of walkers, and we want to see how this program could sort of help serve those kids and those constituents there. Basically, our school folks will be putting together plans, looking at every direction, north, south, east, and west, in terms of how children are traversing to the campus. We're going to have maps that are laid out and we'll work with Officer Burlisle and Division of Police, making sure that those areas are safe. We'll also hold some public forums and some meetings with the school, with the site-based council, the PTAs, those that are in the building, to sort of publicize this, to get the word out, to encourage them to take advantage of it if available. And then after the routes have been identified, we'll work with traffic engineering and other folks for any improvements that may be needed in those areas to make sure that they are indeed safe. Dow, did you want to take this part? Sure, that's fine. As some of you know, and I know Council Member Ford is aware, we submitted several different Transportation Alternative Program funding applications through the MPO. There's also a separate process and a pot of money for transportation alternatives program funding through the transportation cabinet. And the Division of Traffic Engineering submitted several different applications, one of which was a Safe Routes to School application. And what we hope to do with that is take a comprehensive look at crosswalk markings and school zone signings around elementary schools countywide. The other few projects that we submitted were specific intersection, I guess intersection-specific projects, and we wanted to take a comprehensive approach on one of the applications that we submitted, and this happened to be that one. And we just want to, we thought there was a lot of opportunity for upgrading school crossings and thought this would be a great opportunity to do that. As part of the MPO's ranking process, and I hope I'm not speaking out of turn, but we have been made aware that the project rose to the top of that list in terms of priority, and so we feel fairly confident that this application will be funded in the next round of Transportation Alternatives Program funding, and if approved, we would get those funds. I think it would be awarded late spring, early summer. It could be delayed a little bit because I know the Transportation Cabinet is currently working through their prioritization process and award process as well, kind of in parallel with the MPO effort. But regardless, I think if it's awarded, these funds will certainly complement the effort of Fayette County Public Schools and the efforts in District 1. Thank you. Basically, we passed our resolution back in the fall, and this is a joint resolution, and I think you should have a copy of that. And basically, we're just looking for your support, and we appreciate Councilman Ford's advocacy on this and sort of guiding us through it. All right, thank you very much. I believe that that resolution attached to our packet. Council Member Ford, would you like to speak? At least. Thanks, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thanks to Mr. Thompson, Officer Burlisle, and Dowell and her shop. Again, I think this is an outstanding opportunity for our government to formalize an existing partnership with the public schools. We know that the school campuses all across our neighborhoods play a vital part. For matters of efficiency, Mr. Chair, but not to limit debate, I bring forth a motion to approve the resolution supporting the Safe Rouser School program on pages 34 through 35 to send it to council. So move. We have a motion and a second. We're in discussion on that. We'll go first to Council Member Brown. Thank you, Chair. The fellow from school. Mr. Johnson. I didn't get your name, sir. It is Myron Thompson. Myron. Yes, sir. A couple of things that you didn't allude to in your presentation and it's not actually in this uh uh is this a resolution i guess chris yes sir okay uh was and i'd like for y'all to at least consider it in some way uh having uh gone through some um bad weather in the last couple three weeks before i can remember several years ago that the board of education gave us the streets that they were using for buses. And that's twofold. One of them is that to make sure those streets are on priority listing for the snow plows. And then the second would make sure that those streets are on the paving list in a routine matter. And I just wondered if you considered that in your presentation. and I certainly want to know what my district is doing as far as having the safe routes and those are two of the things that I think are important to maintaining that safe route in all kinds of weather. Thank you. Absolutely. That was not a specific point of consideration that we discussed in terms of this resolution, but it is something that I appreciate you bringing to the table and I will definitely follow up with our transportation director and others to make sure that we are in communication I feel that we are, but nevertheless, it doesn't hurt to follow up. I think if we had those streets from your direction and we gave them to IT, if I'm not mistaken, they could put those in a form that would be very, very helpful to each council member. Absolutely. And I will follow up on that. And just to expand a little bit on sort of this issue, one of the things that we were sort of in limbo about in terms of going to school is whether or not neighbors are able to shovel sidewalks. And there were some enforcement issues that came up, and we had to refer those to the non-emergency number at the Division of Police. So all that kind of ties in together. So we greatly appreciate you taking that into consideration. Thank you, sir. Good. Council Member Ford. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Just very quickly, Council Member Brown brings up a really good point, and I know we're kind of rushing to this. there will be great opportunity for council members and our various neighborhoods to be involved with the public schools lead on this. So we hope to get this resolution to council. But, Mr. Chair, we're going to leave this item in committee for an update later this fall to see how things are going. Very good, sir. Thank you. All right. If it would... Yeah, we do have a motion. I'm sorry. Excuse me. any other any more discussion on the motion all those in favor signify I'm saying aye opposed like sign thank you very much thank you councilmember Brown I was rushing on councilmember Gibbs has some has some folks here on his issue which is the second one down I've spoken customer Mazzotti if it would please this committee I'd like to reorder the the agenda to take up the UK forest Health Research Education Center next, unless there is an objection. Thank you. Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councilmember Massadi. Since I've been appointed to the tree board, I've become increasingly aware of threats to our urban forest, and so I've invited Professor Red Baker here today. He's the chairman of the U.K. Forestry Department, and he's also the founder of the Forest Health Research Education Center, and I was hoping he'd inform us some more about the threats to our trees and the work of the Forest Health Research Education Center. And there is a resolution in the packet which I'll ask us to talk about later on, but he's not going to ask us for money. Okay. Welcome in that case. Please proceed. Thank you very much, Council Member Gibbs and Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'll try to be very brief, but I would like to visit with you this afternoon about an exciting new initiative that's taking place at the University of Kentucky. Before I do that, however, I'd like to introduce a couple of folks that I have with me today. To my immediate right is Dr. Bert Abbott. He is a senior scientist with the University of Kentucky Department of Forestry and the Forest Health Research and Education Center. I also have Dr. Dana Nelson, and he is a visiting scientist with UK, but he's also a project leader with the U.S. Forest Service Southern Research Station stationed in Mississippi. Gentlemen, you honor us with your presence. Thank you. Thank you. We are embarking on a partnership between the U.S. Forest Service and the Kentucky Division of Forestry and University of Kentucky to establish the Forest Health Research and Education Center. For those of you who don't know, there are many species of trees in our forests, both the forests like the Daniel Boone National Forest, those we see on the eastern side of the state, as well as our urban forests. There are lots of threats that are largely coming from overseas and environments that aren't native to Kentucky, and these threaten any number of different species. For example, at the early part of the 19th century, about 25 percent of the Appalachian chain canopy was occupied by a species called the American chestnut. Okay, it's a very important species in our woods. That is all but disappeared from our woods. We're finding similar kinds of threats aligning against species like American hemlock or eastern hemlock, like the ash trees, like the black walnut trees. And we are in an effort to become less reactive, more proactive, trying to establish a group of scientists, both physically and virtually, at the University of Kentucky to start comprehensively and strategically addressing these threats. And the reason we come to this committee is because in presentations to the tree board recently, they expressed a great deal of interest. And we're hopeful that we can get the endorsement of the Lexington Fayette Urban County government in our efforts to try and stand this up at the University of Kentucky. We've received a grant from the Forest Service, which will allow us to continue this for the next two years. And it's important because we want to reach out to communities like Lexington and make sure that the appropriate people are aware of this new initiative, that we're providing the educational programs and conducting the research that's important to try and take care of not only our urban trees but also our native trees in the woods. And so we're asking for your support. As Councilmember Gibbs pointed out, we're not asking for any money, just a show of support. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. You have some materials that describe in greater detail what we're trying to do and a little bit about the structure. If you do have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer those at this time. The resolution gives you a standing within your community in some capacity? Yes, it does. Great question, Mr. Chairman. It will enable us to work with our delegation in Washington, D.C., work within the structure of the U.S. Forest Service, and identify the fact that we have a suite of partners and folks that are interested in what we're doing, and it will, in fact, give us some standing as we go in search of more permanent sources of funding as well as additional partners and organizational support around the country. So you all have been involved in the drafting of this resolution and its nature and style? Yes, sir. Very good. Are there any council members who have questions? I think we're all very appreciative of your work. I have one sign up. Council Member Lane. Yeah, I would be happy to help you introduce a resolution if you wanted to draft something, and then we could submit it for you by our law department. It's on page. It's on page 43. I believe there's already in there. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Thank you. And I would ask Council Member Gibbs for a motion. We need help in forestry because we have a lot of trees that are endangered in our community, particularly the ash trees that have really been attacked here lately. That's exactly correct. And we're hoping to bring the resources that we can as a university as well as those from the U.S. Forest Service and Kentucky Division of Forestry to start being more proactive in establishing educational programs as well as research programs to help maybe stem the loss of some of these important tree species. Anything about streetlights? No, just kidding. Just kidding. All right, Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Chair. Thank you so much, Red. We very much appreciate it. Thank you. There's a resolution on pages 43 and 44 of our packets, the gist of which is that we support and encourage the work of the Forest Health Research and Education Center. I'd like to place that resolution on the work session agenda. So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second. So you're, you're, you mean, I'm sorry? Just for approval, I think is what we're asking. Oh, for approval. Yes. Thank you. Good. You give the seconder? Motion and a second any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like, sign? Thank you all very much. We look forward to following along and playing along, too. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right. That being done, we'll move back to item four, which is speed reduction on Cromwell Way. Council Member Mazzotti, would you like to lead the discussion? Thank you, Chair. On page 36, there is a letter from the traffic engineering supporting a speed reduction on Cromwell Way between Claysmill Road and Cornwall Drive. Speed analysis was completed for that portion of the road. As a result, after considering the speed data obtained, the residential nature of the area abutting Cromwell Way, the fact that Cromwell Way changes classification after passing through the intersection with Cromwell and subsequently drops to 25 miles per hour, the vertical alignment of the section, the relatively low traffic count along this roadway, and changing the section of Cromwell Way to 25 miles per hour would allow for more efficient application of speed limit signs in this area. Traffic engineering recommends lowering the speed limit on Cromwell Way between Clays Mill Road and Cornwall Drive to 25 miles per hour. So based upon that analysis, there is a resolution at the end of the packet stating that the speed limit on Cromwell Way would be reduced to 25 miles per hour, and if there are no objections or concerns or questions, I would move that to be put on, I'm sorry, move for approval. Second. So motion and second. And that resolution is the very last page of our packet. Correct. Are there any questions or comments regarding this issue from staff or anyone? We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. All right, we have left ourselves ample time to run through our referrals list on the back on the second to last page. Excuse me. And all right, I'm going to ask former chair Stenet on the first item there, the capacity analysis. Customer Stenet. I'm sorry. I'm just going to ask for some leadership on our referrals list. in that capacity analysis under Dr. Blues' name, is that an active thing? Is it something we don't want to change the name of it? Is there a different way we want to herd it at this time, or is it just good the way it is? Well, I think it is something we can take out of the committee because that is an issue that comes to the full council during a work session when we pass the capacity assurance program. So I'm not sure it needs to stay as an item in committee, so I'll make a motion to remove it. Very good. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I was like sign. Thank you. All right. Then I know you're not finished with your waste management funding options, so we want to keep that in committee would be my thought. I would do until next meeting, given all the weather. We've had a hard time trying to schedule meetings the last couple of weeks. So, yes, I'll be ready to disclose that next meeting. Okay. Next up is to consolidate greenway responsibilities, which I noticed we had that on our agenda for the April meeting. That's correct. Hi, Amy. Do you have a comment? No. We'll just leave it there for that. Next is the Empower Lexington plan, which we have an annual update for the summer, so I think we leave that where it is. The distillery district update has the former vice mayor's name next to it, and we did have an update there in November. I'm wondering if someone else would like to shepherd this issue or if we want to keep it in committee in any capacity at this time, if there's any comment. Councilmember or vice mayor. I don't know. Councilmember Akers is not here. It's in our district. She may have an interest in that. If not, I'd be happy to she's not a formal member of the committee I think I better assign your name to it at this time if that's okay unless someone else wants to take Council member I was just gonna make a motion to remove it for now I think we've we've had at least six presentations on it I think until there's a new issue after we receive the money on the trails We can put it back in next year to have an update if we need to but this time there's no action to be taken on the item Vice mayor go ahead We do have a motion in a second, though. Yes, that's fine. So this is discussion of the motion. Yes, sir. So I had the opportunity to take a tour of the distillery district about two weeks ago. Okay. If you have not been down there in the last three, four months, there's a lot of activity going on, not in the section that's closest to Oliver Lewis Way, but further back where the big distillery building is and so on and so on. I think it might be useful, and this would not be an action related to the funding, but I think it would be useful to get an update for council about what has happened in the last six months in terms of activity, renovation, et cetera. That's to say, not an action item, but I was impressed. So that would be potentially for May, based on that, you're saying, because we heard it in November. Oh, no, this is 2012. Well, we heard it in November 14. Excuse me. Yeah, and again, I don't think there's a, it's not an action. I'm not asking for funding or anything, but I just think for information, it would be useful for people to get an update from, I don't know, we could figure out who the appropriate person might be. Well, we have a motion, a second at this point, to remove it. So unless it would depend on the vote, what we would do next. Are there other comments? Hearing none, if you all would. make a vote she's put a pardon me all right well I'm going to ask you all to vote electronically which is what the our system does for us this would be to remove it at this point in time the the distillery district update so we're going to we've got four people this is great and council council member Kate I, Council Member K's, the monitor's not working, so he would be a, he would be a no. So that puts us at, oh, lovely. I guess it comes down to me. I will vote, hopefully that would, oh, now we're at 5-5. Do I need to, can I phone a friend? All right, so the motion fails. So it remains in committee. we're going to assign the vice mayor's name to it. All right? Beautiful work, everybody. All right. The urban forestry management plan has Council Member Clark's name to it, but I think based on our conversation, Council Member Gibbs might want to take this up. Let's put Council Member Gibbs in there. Very good. Thank you, sir. We're supposed to hear the retention and retention detention plan sometime in the spring. I think that's good. The private streets is on for later this year. I think that's good. Here we have snow removal there, and then further down we have snow and ice control plan under Council Member Brown. I would just like to merge those two together and bring this forward sooner rather than later. I mean, this has no date down here under Council Member Brown. Under the entry up here at the top, Council Member Senate just says annual update in the fall. I think we need something. I think the citizenry would like us to take up this issue much sooner than that and to come up with an action plan that's more dynamic based on the amount of snow and the amount of inconvenience we're all about to be a part of. So I would like just to put those two headings together and hopefully have this for April if that's possible. We'll see what staff says about that. Did you have something Vice Mayor? Do you need a motion to do that? Please. move to consolidate those two. And thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any conversation? Yes, sir. Go ahead. Council Member Brown. This will be on the motion also. I talked to Kevin. I would be glad to run with this. I have talked with Streets and Roads, Albert Mitchell, and he indicated... Albert Miller. He indicated that the sooner the better. Yes. So I would say if If we could get it on no later than May. April or May. April's fine, but I don't know if they would be ready, because this is March. So I think they may be ready with May, and I want to get my act together also if I'm going to run with it. But that will be up to Mr. Chair. Council Member Stenet. All right. Did you have something? Okay, Council Member Gibbs. You didn't have anything, did you? Yeah. Oh, now I see your name. I would just say the reason why it was in there, that's our annual approval of the plan. Yes, sir. So they would make fitting merging them. And we can still have the annual approval later on. Now, Councilman Gibbs. I would just like to make sure that when we do discuss this, that we have people who can address the pedestrian aspect of it because we need snow removal not just from streets and roads, but, for example, from Parks and Rec, did not clean Thoroughbred Park and a few other areas that are their property. And so I think we need to have a broader discussion than just the roads. Very good. We can make sure that happens. We have several emails on a couple different trails there. Very good. You good there? All right. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Thank you. All right. Fiber optic technology is in the news, and we'll look for an update there because I think that was something that we had in this commission or in this committee in the fall. Streetlights we have dealt with, but we know it's going to come back. I think we need to assign someone's name other than Myers there. Council Member Rosati, could we put your name onto the streetlight analysis and types as opposed to Council Member Myers? I was just asking. Well, sure. Council Member Rosati, thank you very much. That updates us there very well. Thank you. Todd's Road widening will keep in as it's an annual update. The Woodland Avenue pedestrian enhancements are something that we are going to report out to the council today. So I believe, was there anything that was not done in that resolution being brought forward? No, my understanding is we reported out here. Yeah. Did I ask for a motion to remove? So moved. Motion second. All those in favor? Aye. Thank you very much. Columbia Heights, I think we have the same thing there. Motion removed there. Council Member Gibbs? Second. Second by the Vice Mayor. All those in favor? Aye. All right. We took care of Ferndale Pass already, so I have a motion to remove that, please. So moved. Council Member Gibbs, second. Second. Vice Mayor Kay, all those in favor? Aye. Thank you. West second, we took care of and asked for a same motion to remove there. So moved. Second. We have Council Member Rosati followed by a seconding by Vice Mayor Kay. All those in favor? Aye. All right. Council Member Ford, do you want to keep safe routes in? Yes, sir. Please. They plan on coming back this fall. Follow-up. You said so. Very good. Thank you. pavement management I think we're just underway on that I think we should keep it in committee to wait and see what our what the what the data points are there council members are you want to keep Cromwell way in for the time being to a pass or you want to pull it motion to remove council members I'd a second by council member Brown all those in favor opposed like sign thank you all right councilmember Gibbs on the last one there where you come you want to keep it in or motion to remove then and second by councilmember Lane all those in favor opposed like sign any other issues to come before the committee at this time very productive meeting thank you all very much a motion to adjourn please motion in a second all those in favor I was like sign we are adjourned Thank you very much. I just want to be mad for a while.