# Environmental Quality and Public Works Committee - June 16, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 16, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3684 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3684?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-06-16 - **Last revised**: June 16, 2015 - **Length**: 19,250 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 & Public Works Committee convened on June 16, 2015, at 1:00 PM with Farmer presiding as the committee chair. The committee addressed five agenda items during the session, focusing on traffic management programs, infrastructure systems, and water quality projects. The committee took four votes throughout the meeting, with two items receiving approval and two others serving as informational presentations. No public comments were heard during this session. The committee successfully approved the committee summary and items referred to the committee, while deferring action on the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and receiving informational reports on the Traffic Signal System and Division of Water Quality Projects. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on June 16, 2015: • Farmer • Stinnett • Kay • Moloney • J. Brown • Gibbs • Evans • F. Brown • Mossotti • Lane • Akers • Bledsoe • Lamb All 13 members were in attendance. No members were reported as absent or late for this meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The committee took action on four motions during the June 16, 2015 meeting, with all items passing unanimously. **Meeting Summary Approval** The committee voted to approve the April 21, 2015 Environmental Quality & Public Works Committee Meeting Summary. The motion was made by Mossotti and seconded by F. Brown. The motion passed unanimously. **Bond Proceeds Reallocation** A motion was made by Stinnett and seconded by Moloney to reallocate the remaining balance of bond proceeds set aside for the Distillery District to the Economic Infrastructure Fund. The motion passed unanimously. **Speed Limit Reduction** The committee approved a reduction of the speed limit on Jouett Creek Drive. Stinnett made the motion, which was seconded by Moloney. The motion passed unanimously. **Adjournment** The meeting was adjourned following a motion by Akers, seconded by Stinnett. The motion to adjourn passed unanimously. All votes were conducted by unanimous consent, with no recorded roll call votes, individual vote tallies, or dissenting votes on any of the items considered by the committee. ## Approval of Committee Summary The committee reviewed and approved the summary from their April 21, 2015 meeting. Committee members Mossotti and F. Brown participated in the discussion of this agenda item. The committee examined the written summary of proceedings from the previous meeting held on April 21, 2015. Following their review and discussion, the committee voted to approve the summary as presented. The agenda item was successfully approved, allowing the committee to proceed with the remainder of their June 16, 2015 meeting agenda. ## Neighborhood Traffic Management Program The discussion on the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program was deferred during this meeting due to time constraints. This agenda item, listed as Item II, was scheduled for discussion but was not addressed during the session. No speakers presented on this topic, and no debate or concerns were raised regarding the program during this meeting. The item will need to be rescheduled for a future meeting to allow for proper consideration and discussion. The deferral means that any planned presentations, policy discussions, or decisions related to neighborhood traffic management initiatives were postponed. Community members or officials who may have prepared to speak on traffic management issues in local neighborhoods will need to wait for the item to be placed on a subsequent meeting agenda. ## Traffic Signal System Commissioner Holmes presented updates on the Traffic Signal System during agenda item III at the June 16, 2015 meeting. The presentation focused on the Snow and Ice Control Plan, providing details on current equipment inventory and discussing potential improvements to the system. **Key Presentation Elements:** • Equipment inventory review • Snow and ice control procedures • Potential system improvements The presentation was informational in nature, with Commissioner Holmes serving as the primary speaker. The discussion covered operational aspects of traffic signal management during winter weather conditions, including how snow and ice control measures impact signal system functionality. This agenda item served as an update to inform attendees about current capabilities and future planning considerations for the traffic signal infrastructure, particularly as it relates to winter weather preparedness and response protocols. **Outcome:** The presentation was received as informational, with no specific action items or decisions recorded from this discussion. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available for this agenda item.* ## Division of Water Quality Projects Report The Division of Water Quality Projects Report was presented as agenda item IV during the June 16, 2015 meeting. This informational presentation provided an overview of various water quality projects, including both completed initiatives and ongoing work. The report detailed the status of multiple water quality projects under the division's oversight. While specific project names, locations, and budget figures were not captured in the available meeting documentation, the presentation covered both projects that had reached completion and those still in progress. No specific speakers were identified for this agenda item in the meeting records. The presentation appeared to be a routine informational update provided to keep meeting attendees informed about the division's current activities and project portfolio. The agenda item was classified as informational in nature, meaning no formal action was required from the meeting participants. The report served as a status update on the division's water quality improvement efforts and project management activities. No concerns, questions, or debate were documented regarding this presentation. The item concluded without any formal resolutions, votes, or follow-up actions being assigned. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item. Detailed project information, speaker names, and specific discussion points were not captured in the available meeting documentation.* ## Items Referred to Committee The committee reviewed various items that had been referred to them for consideration during this agenda item. The discussion was led by key speakers Stinnett and Moloney. The primary focus of the committee's deliberations centered on a proposal to reduce the speed limit on Jouett Creek Drive. This traffic safety measure was among the items that required committee review and recommendation before potential implementation. During the discussion, committee members examined the details of the speed limit reduction proposal, though the specific current and proposed speed limits were not detailed in the available materials. The committee appeared to give thorough consideration to this traffic safety initiative. Following their review and discussion of the referred items, including the Jouett Creek Drive speed limit reduction, the committee approved the items under consideration. This approval would allow the matters to proceed through the appropriate governmental channels for further action or implementation. The committee's handling of these referred items demonstrates the standard process by which local traffic safety measures and other municipal matters are reviewed and evaluated before moving forward in the decision-making process. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the April 21, 2015 Environmental Quality & Public Works Committee Meeting Summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Reallocate the remaining balance of bond proceeds set aside for the Distillery District to the Economic Infrastructure Fund - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Reduction of Speed Limit on Jouett Creek Drive - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Adjournment --- ## Full transcript Oh ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Okay, good afternoon, everyone. We'll go ahead and get started. This is the Environmental Quality and Public Works meeting on June 16th. First item on our agenda is approval of committee summary. Do I have a motion to approve? A motion to approve and a second. Any discussion, corrections, additions, deletions? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, that passes. Next item on our agenda is the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. This was put in by Councilman Maloney, who unfortunately can't be with us today, but I understand we have plenty of speakers lined up on this topic, so who's going to take this one, Dow? All right, Roger, come on up. If you'll introduce yourself for the people watching and take it on. Thank you, Chair. My name is Roger Mulvaney. I'm the traffic engineer manager of the Science and Neighborhood Traffic Management Program section in the Division of Traffic Engineering. The Neighborhood Traffic Management Program was created in about the year 2000 to help set standards for traffic calming in neighborhood and residential settings. In about 2012, there were some minor revisions made to the NTMP and that was some additions including the addition of speed tables and then some revisions to the thresholds for which those devices traffic calming devices were warranted with the 2015 revisions our main goal is to help reformat the document making sure it's better organized it's clear for everyone to read whether it's council or citizen or even us in traffic engineering we removed a lot of redundancies from the program or from the document itself that is we clarified some policies one example is we wanted to make sure that this document only applied to roads whether it was local or collector a local road or collector road that 75 percent of that road is residential during the revision process traffic engineering reviewed the policies of neighborhood traffic management or traffic calming in other communities throughout the United States and compared our standards to theirs and then looked at what national standards there were in general through the Institute of Transportation Engineers and other such agencies. Traffic calming techniques. The NCMP program will still have three layers of traffic calming. Type 1 are your typical signs, pavement markings, education through neighborhood meetings, speed enforcement by the Division of Police. Some of those things that give you some cost ideas for type 1 installations. If we install a multi-way stop at an intersection ballpark figure, that's going to cost around $3,000 for the new pavement markings and the new signage. A flashing speed limit sign with LED lights in it is about $1,000 per location. Type 2 traffic calming techniques are speed tables, chicanes, bulb outs. These are physical techniques to change the roadway. It helps drivers slow down. It creates sort of an obstacle for a driver to slow down and navigate around. and overall just keep traffic levels at a minimum if possible. Some costs associated with that. Speed tables generally run around $5,000 per location. Chicanes and bulb outs can run anywhere from about $7,500 on up to $25,000, depending on how big of an installation we're talking about. and then certainly the number, that value will increase as more of those devices are installed. Type 3 traffic calming techniques are street closures and cul-de-sac conversions. This is something that has rarely been done, if at all, through the NTMP process. Costs for such closures cost anywhere from about $10,000 to $60,000, depending on location. And again, those numbers are ballpark figures. Generally, few changes were made to the traffic calming options. One of the most significant changes, if any, that should be pointed out is that there no longer will be speed humps. Rather, there will be speed tables. Speed tables are longer than speed humps. They are less impactful to the larger equipment used by the Division of Streets and Roads or the Fayette County Public School buses. whereas speed humps, those sorts of vehicles would have to slow down significantly to go over those devices on a speed hump. Speed tables are less impactful, so that's why we're going to go with those going forward. There was some signage in the Type 2 traffic calming techniques. We put all the signage techniques in Type 1 for consistency. I want to go over some of the major changes made to the program. The first major change is we're instituting deadlines on petitions. For initial petitions, whether it's for a multi-way stop, a speed limit change, speed humps on a street, or speed tables on a street, excuse me, the deadline for the turnaround will be 90 days from the day that it's mailed. This is consistent with our policy on petitions for removal of parking and handicapped parking. Those have always had a 90-day turnaround time. We're going to apply that to the NTMP as well. Should a traffic calming installation be warranted and we get to a ballot petition, the second layer of petitions, and for a type 2 or type 3 traffic calming option we would give the residents or citizen or property owners three weeks to return the postage paid ballot cards that we sent to the neighborhood we wanted to make sure that there's a clear deadline on that is that we would give them three weeks there have been some concerns in the past it was not long enough we want to make sure that we have three weeks for the property owners to respond another major change includes the reevaluation time for a study if the Division of Traffic Engineering completes the study we like to not have to repeat the same study for at least a 12-month period unless if there was some sort of drastic change to the roadway or intersection in question this helps us with staffing levels and just workload in general but you know we can only look at one location so many times and really come to the same conclusion so Another major change includes no longer will there be cost sharing for type 2 or type 3 traffic calming options. In the past, there had been a graduated scale based on property value or median household income data that would share the cost between the neighborhood traffic management program and the sponsors or the citizens in question, the property owners in question. Going forward, traffic engineering recommends that these costs be borne by the sponsors of the neighborhood in question. These sorts of devices are amenities, really, type 2, type 3. They're not necessarily anything prescribed by the Federal Highway Administration or the manual and uniform traffic control devices. They're there to help calm traffic, but there's no set federal standards saying that speed tables or chicanes need to be installed at any given location. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Roger. Council members, if you have any questions for Roger in regards to the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, just log in. First, we have up Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Chair. Hi, Roger. Hello. This last part about the neighborhoods bearing the cost I find disturbing. I know I've asked you point blank in the past if you guys could like some more money for this program. Because as a Council member, I'm willing to advocate for more money. and I got the impression you guys weren't interested in the money. And then several weeks ago, Council Member Akers doubled the $25,000, which I view as paltry to begin with. I don't understand why you want to pull the plug on this. Am I correct that a speed table costs $4,500? $4,500 is the price contract. Close enough. And we had a presentation sometime recently where it was said that these things work best when there's a series of them. So you're looking at $9,000, $13,500 for a neighborhood. I just had a neighborhood association meeting over in Penn Moken Park last week, and they're interested in investigating it. If I tell those people that it's going to be $9,000, it's not a poor neighborhood, but it's not an affluent neighborhood either. And I drive some of these poor neighborhoods, and it's completely out of sight. I don't understand why you guys would recommend this. I'm sorry if this sounds like an attack. I'm just kind of baffled by it because I know a lot of my colleagues, particularly in the districts, we want more money put into this that people are really concerned about in the neighborhoods. And your recommendation is to pull the plug in any funding. I'm just wondering, where's the origin of that proposal? Thank you for your question. Thank you. Sorry. No, please respond. Yeah, please respond. Okay. And hold on. Before you do, I think one side note, and I agree with what you're saying, but they're not recommending pulling funding. They're just saying we're not going to do the cost-share program, which used a formula based on home value and all that. Absolutely. a lot of these programs. Well, that's what I'm talking about. Yeah, the funding for that. Okay. Go ahead, Roger. Thank you for your question. The reasoning behind that is, as I said in the presentation, the speed tables and the Type 2 and Type 3 traffic calming options are amenities. They're not necessarily prescribed by a federal agency or a state agency. They're useful for traffic calming, that's for sure. other concerns that traffic engineering has about speed tables, for example, is that they do slow down emergency vehicles, slow down response time for fire trucks, et cetera, responding to calls. And that's kind of a concern that we have in traffic engineering. At what point is safety balanced out with the concern for speed? I mean, there's arguments that, you know, for both pro and con, but generally speaking, we don't want to slow down emergency responders. and another case that may happen is if we put speed tables on a road and there's several parallel roads next to it, we only move a potential problem. If there is a problem to another street and we kind of fall into a domino effect of the street has it, we want it, and then just on down the line. And it's expensive for both the neighborhoods and also the urban county government to fund these options. Okay. Can I follow up? Absolutely, yes. I mean, to pull all the money, I understand you like speed tables. I think if people in the neighborhood like the speed tables, they can balance the potential for a lot of four-year-olds being run over in our community, and it just horrifies me. In the neighborhood I live in, there's just kids everywhere. And I think if you give the people the choice, getting the emergency vehicle there three seconds later for an old fart like me who's had a heart attack versus having my neighbor's kids run over, I think that's a decision the neighborhoods have to talk about. But chicanes, I like chicanes. I like narrowing the ends of streets. That's fantastically expensive. I don't see how a neighborhood can even come to dream about supporting those things. Has any neighborhood ever done a chicane by themselves or narrowed it? The only location I'm aware of chicanes having been installed was on the front end of the development on Pleasant Ridge Drive, I believe. I don't know if it's ever been instituted after the fact. Okay, I'll stop talking. I'm almost out of time. And I just want to say that I'm really disturbed that the city may cut off funding for something that many, many neighborhoods really, really want. But thank you. Next up, we have Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Council Member. Thank you, Chair. I guess a couple of questions. There's in your in the program there's the talks about local residential street and residential collector street. Can you tell me the difference between the two? That's part of the roadway classification system. And I believe the division of planning actually classifies the roadways. Now, I can answer a little bit of the science behind how one road is classified as a local versus a collector. But generally speaking, it's related to access and traffic. A local street is meant for access. It's meant for driveways and think of a cul-de-sac, a street in a residential area that doesn't really go anywhere. And then as you move up the roadway classification system, those roads all connect to collectors. Collectors may still have residential access points on them. Most of them do, and that's why they're residential collectors. It's more of a balance between access and getting traffic to go through. And then beyond collectors, you have arterials and then free weights. So there's a system where as you go up the classification, access goes down and mobility increases. So hopefully that answers your question. Okay. And just curious, when do multi-way stops become overkill? Is there a certain practice that traffic engineering uses that they choose not to ever use a multiway stop? One of the revisions made in 2012, I think, considered overkill multiway stops, and that was basically trying to look at the location of a new multiway stop in relation to any other existing ones in the neighborhood. But if it was, I'm pulling these numbers from my memory, but I think if, like, an intersection was 1,000 feet or less than 1,000 feet from another multi-way stop on that same road, then that might be a strike against that new location. However, we always do look at federal criteria in the manual and uniform traffic control devices, whether it's speed, crash information. If two intersections 200 feet apart from each other have to have multi-way stops, we'll look long and hard at that and determine what we need to do best. But if it's a case where it's borderline or doesn't even meet the federal criteria, we're probably going to come out against it because it may be so close to another installation. Okay. And then the other question, I've got two elementary schools, Glendover and Lansdowne, who they, you know, have to pick up and drop-offs and, you know, and creates serious traffic flow issues. and I was just curious if Fayette County schools, if you all ever work with Fayette County schools regarding the traffic flow around these elementary schools, do they ever reach out to you guys? At my level, with signs of neighborhood traffic calming, sometimes we do come together and meet, but I wouldn't say they come to reach out to us so much. Maybe at the development side of things when we review plans, I'm not the best person to answer that question, But I think there is maybe on the front end, but after the fact, it's usually we're reacting to a problem the best we can. Okay. And I guess, I mean, I have to say we have some major through traffic issues connecting from Tates Creek to Nicholasville Road, especially right now with alumni closed. And I want to commend you guys for working so hard trying to get the streets, the timing worked out for the different paths for while alumni is closed. But I have some concerns, too, with not having the sharing of cost as well because my whole goal is to try to help calm traffic. And if these neighborhoods have to come up with the whole cost, I think it could be a deterrent to be able to try to manage the cost of traffic in their neighborhoods. And thank you for allowing me to have input today. Thanks, Chair. Thank you. Councilmember Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Roger. We've talked a lot about traffic, a lot about traffic calming. as a parent of small children who run outside and you're constantly wondering, why is that person not stopping at that stop sign? Why is that person not looking and at least perceptionally moving more quickly than the roads and we want them to move? And I know we have higher density. We have higher number of cars in our residential areas. There's definitely a perception, if not a reality, that's the case. And so my only rationale here is thinking that you don't want, you're trying to discourage neighborhoods from using type 2 and type 3 options. I wouldn't say try to discourage, but try to make the point that they're more of an amenity. While it may be expensive for them, it's also expensive for the city to maintain and install. There are amenities, there's justifications for them, and they're warranting criteria in here. But because they're not something that's mandated by the Federal Highway Administration, That's why it's more of an option or amenity than it is something we have to do. I'm going to add one thing. I think, you know, we've only got a couple installations of speed tables, speed tables, not speed humps, in the city. And I think one of the things that we've talked about internal traffic engineering is do we want to have speed tables all over the city? And I think the answer to that question is no. are they effective at reducing speeds i think the answer to that is yes but i think there's other things that we can do to reduce speeds without putting in speed tables we can paint white edge lines which is relatively inexpensive we can also and what we need to do more of is work with the police on enforcement you know it's not only a traffic control device issue i think it's an enforcement issue as well so so those are the those are the what we looked at in making this recommendation. Okay, I'll follow up with two things. One, I think you're exactly right that it's a traffic, that's a police enforcement as well. Because I can send a speed trailer over, and for a week everyone slows down, they get tickets, and then that trailer goes away and the problem comes right back. And they call me and say they're back again, they're speeding again. I said, I know because the cop's gone. Because there's other areas in the district that also have the same problems. So I'd like to have more enforcement. I think, too, we need more at least I guess the question would be if if type one actually is more effective than type two and three. If we don't want speed tables everywhere, and I would share that concern, that's not helpful to a certain degree. And we want people to focus on type one. Are they as effective in traffic calming as twos and threes? It's kind of tough to answer that question, I think. You know, there have been studies about the effectiveness of various traffic calming measures, and we could get you some data on that. Obviously, it wouldn't be specific to Lexington or Fayette County, but I'm sure we could draw some comparisons. But I don't know, Roger, if you I think there are studies that say, you know, you may see a three mile per hour reduction with such and such type of traffic calming device. But I don't know those numbers off the top of my head. OK, I'd be interested in seeing, you know, as we tell neighborhoods, hey, we want you to use more ones. I'd like to be able to show not just because they're an amenity or because they're cheaper, but because they're actually just as cost-effective and just as effective at reducing the traffic. And I think that would be an important thing to show if we're encouraging them to do that, I guess. I have lots of other thoughts. I'm going to restrict them for now, just for that. Thanks. Thank you. Next up, we have Council Member Massadi. And then after her, we actually have Council Member Akers, who actually keeps getting knocked off, so I apologize. Hey, Roger, how's it going? On these petitions, what's the difference between a bailout petition and a regular petition? Okay, a regular petition is what we would send out initially. If a citizen contacts us for some traffic calming device, we'll send them a petition to fill out that would request the Division of Traffic Engineering to perform a study. If it's for a Type 2 or Type 3 study, we would do our analysis. And upon the completion of the analysis, if that type of traffic calming is warranted, then we will let the neighborhood or the citizen know that their device met our criteria, put forth in an NTMP packet, and then we will follow up with the ballot cards. Traffic engineering sends ballot card petitions to each of the addresses listed on the initial petition, whether they signed or not. And if we get 65% more of the carts back, then that's another green light to move forward with the installation of those traffic calming devices. So most everything has an initial petition. It's one and the same, and the bailout petition follows up the regular petition, obviously. Okay. Do you send this registered mail? Yeah, we send it USPS. But not registered? Not registered, no. Because I know I've had neighborhoods that said, well, you know, I never got it. you know they had a you know a request for something and some neighbors will call and say i never you know i never got the letter or whatever and i just wondered how they would receive these whether it was via just i guess you're saying first class delivery as opposed to registered and i'm assuming it's the cost is that i would say yeah probably the cost but that that's something that's been in part of the program going back to its beginning i can't answer why they chose first class versus registered i think it's a homeowner because i know there's a of folks that that rent that you know wouldn't be considered i guess in the petition correct or would they for a type two type three would be the property owner homeowner for type one the multi-way stops speed limit changes since it it's not as likely to affect property value the traffic calming in question we'll send it to the actual home address whether it's rented or not okay we're good thank you thank you chair council member acres you were up next i believe thank you chair Thank you for recognizing me as a non-member. All right. Yes. Am I on my? I don't know, actually. Okay. First of all, about the petitions, can you tell me what the previous deadline was for the initial petitions? Did that change? There really wasn't one. That's why we kind of wanted to establish it. Yes, ma'am. Okay. And then returning the ballots, is that the same? It was open-ended, and we wanted to close the loops and make sure we had all of our T's crossed and I's dotted. Okay. And as far as cost sharing for speed humps, I agree, of course, with Council Member Gibbs. I would like to know what your average budget has been for the past few years for speed humps, for the cost sharing. Sorry to interrupt. The past few years, the NTMP budget has been $25,000 a year. And how much of that have you spent each year? I think we've spent most of that, and usually that goes towards signs and other materials that we can put in residential areas. The NTMP program and Type 1, you know, for you putting in signs and no parking signs, stop signs, speed limit signs in residential areas, all of that really falls into the NTMP, so we can use that funding for those sorts of signs in addition to our regular budget. So how much of the $25,000 budget has been used for type 2 or 3? In the last fiscal year, I would say none, or very little, because we haven't installed any speed table or speed humps since I've begun working with the Urban County government in 2013. Okay. Okay. So going back to, I mean, I completely disagree with the policy to not cost share, and I don't know if Council Member Senate was saying that you all will still have funds for it, but you just won't do the sliding scale based on neighborhood income, or will there still be a cost sharing? There won't be any cost sharing. Now, there may still be an NTMP fund, but that, like you say, could be used for other type 1. Type 1 only is what you're proposing. Type 1 only signs and markings even type improvements. So what my concern is, as you know, we have been working on trying to get speed humps on Ash Street, which is off of Georgetown Street corridor. There's a church. It's a very long, long residential street, and people drive very fast, and there's lots of children. So when we remove the cost sharing, that neighborhood and that street will never be able to afford a speed table. Never. So what I think, if you set this policy, what we are saying as a government is that if you're a wealthy neighborhood, then we will slow down traffic in your neighborhood and protect your children. And if you're in a low-income neighborhood, we won't. And so I'm not comfortable with that. I don't think that that's a statement or anything that we need to be saying as a government. So I would oppose that change as well and ask you all to just reevaluate that. I mean, it's not like we're doing them, you know, every other week anyway. So, and we don't have a lot of money, but we did increase the funds recently. So I think that that needs to be reevaluated. thank you thank you chair thank you council member acres councilmore evans i'll try not to reiterate um other things that have been said by council members because i share the same concerns and kind of going along with um council member acres it just mentioned just from my background, I'm more concerned about if a study comes back and we validate a type 2 or type 3, what's that going to say when we're still requiring a neighborhood to pay for it? I mean, isn't that the government then saying, yes, you have an issue, and are we not then, or when do we become responsible for rectifying that? So that's just a question that I put out there for thought. And then just kind of a different question I don't think anybody's asked yet. When we talk about neighborhoods that already have the speed humps, are there thoughts or concerns or plans to replace the speed humps, existing speed humps, with tables? Or how does that play into or does it at all? I mean, has that been thought about existing neighborhoods or streets that have that, if that's not now the most appropriate method of traffic control? Or is that just you've got it and you're kind of stuck with it? So I'm just curious about that. To answer your first question about if a type 2 or type 3 traffic calming device meets warrants, There is really no obligation necessarily that we have to install that or the neighborhood has to install that. The type 1 criteria for multiway stops, speed limits, those are put forth in the manual and uniform traffic control devices of the Federal Highway Administration. There are no guidelines mandated by the government saying we have to install speed tables or chicanes or bulb outs anywhere. Those are amenities. you know if we say that there meet our warrant criteria that means we're not opposed to those going installed we may even recommend that they get installed because they met our criteria but it's not something that legally we're bound to having to install your second question question um replacement yes i don't have the specific answer i have a pretty good assumption but let me get back to you on that and i'll i'll look into that because i think we are going to replace but i want to give you a solid answer thank you council member brown thank you chair I'm probably coming from a little different perspective on this in that I'm concerned with traffic flow. That doesn't mean it has to be fast or anything of that nature because we've got speed limits. I'm concerned with, when you're looking at just type 2s and type 3s, do they affect any collector streets? No, sir. That was one of the changes I failed to mention. Type 2, type 3, traffic calming options, I think we're clearly saying will not affect collector streets. Okay. May not be used on collector streets. And getting from the collector down to the residential street, you know, we've got a lot of residential streets that people might call them collectors, but they're not based on, I guess, the width of them. But certainly there's some lengthy ones. And I think that's probably where you're getting a problem with traffic flow, and we're looking at speed tables and traffic calming because of the nature of the street. and I think that always should take place. If you've got a straight street and they're not parking in front of the houses and it looks like it's just a boulevard or it's a way to have a drag race, so to speak, I think that definitely lends to traffic calming and to these type of things. And I would hope that that would be one of the criteria. If a roadway is not classified as a collector, that is, if it's classified as a local, regardless of how wide it is, how long it is, et cetera, if it's a local street classified by the urban county government, these techniques can be applied. Okay. And my other concern there, I've got two other concerns. The other concern is that what's the percent approval that you need on a particular street? You know, there's people on that street that don't necessarily want speed tables or even a 25-mile-an-hour speed limit. What's your criteria there? To initiate a study for the initial, the petition that would initiate initial study for any traffic calming option has to have 65% of the signatures of those properties listed. For a stop sign, it's within 500 feet of a multi-way stop, proposed multi-way stop intersection. If it's a speed limit study, it would be the whole length of the street where the speed limit would change. And the other traffic calming options would kind of vary depending on the scope of where they would want the type 2 or type 3 traffic calming. So you're just actually looking for a response from those on a particular street, not necessarily those other streets that go into that street that the people may not like the idea. So I don't know how you, I guess you'd have to have some people objecting to it. In the case of, let's say, a street wanted to have speed tables installed, and there was a street, a cul-de-sac came off that road, we would include the folks on that cul-de-sac because that's obviously their only way in and out. We always have done that. So anyone who would be definitely impacted, we try to include in the petitions. Where we do have definite ranges for everything are, like I said, the multiway stop petitions and the speed limit petitions. That would be a given street or a radius. My other concern is, and I'm not so sure that this is a, I know it's traffic calming to some extent, but I don't know how it lends into the individual residential areas, but certainly the residential areas that go out onto arterials. And my concern is right-turn lanes. I didn't see anything in this policies and procedures. Do you address that in this particular plan, or is that something else? Right-turn lanes on arterials would be addressed somewhere else. I'm talking about it could be a collector street onto an arterial. In most cases, it is. That's not necessarily something related to traffic calming. Those requests would probably go through either traffic engineering or engineering, but not within the scope of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Those are things we can look at, but that's really not going to slow anybody down or calm traffic. Those are more congestion management type issues. We'll look at that through another scope. Thank you. Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you, Chair. First, let me apologize for being late and apologize in advance if I'm asking questions that have already been asked. But to follow up on what I just heard, on the initial petitions, the requirement to institute a study is 65% of, is it residents or is it owners? Sorry. If it's a type 1 traffic calming option, it would be residents. since speed limit signs or stop signs, those going in or being changed don't impact property value as much. It would just be the residents. If it's for type 2 or type 3 traffic calming options, speed tables, chicanes, whatnot, where property owners may perceive that affecting their home or property price, then we would go to the property owners. So type 2 and 3 property owners only. Yes. Type 1 residents, whether they're owners or not. Who's ever actually living in that. And when you do a petition, actually I'm looking at the ballot petition. So if a study has been done and now you want to find out if people are really going to support this proposed change, when it's 65% now of the owners, how do you determine whether you've got 65% of the owners? When we do the ballot petitions, we go to the PVA website, and the information of the owner, whether they live at that location or not, is listed there. So we make sure to send the ballot cards to the actual owner's address. And the cards that are not returned, how are they counted? They're counted as no's. That's part of the problem, I think, for a variety of reasons. It kind of weights it pretty heavily towards no to begin with. And I would just want to reiterate what I've heard from other folks since I got here, and that is in terms of the funding, I think it would be a mistake to remove the government's support because there are neighborhoods that cannot afford to do that, and they should not be penalized for it. And more generally, the kinds of streets that I'm familiar with where people have petitioned, They tend to be streets where for a good part of the day or the week there's not a problem, but that at specific times there are people who, for whatever reason, are coming and going from particular events or places, and they create a real problem. And the type 1 remedies don't seem to, so far anyway, be very effective. And so for the people who live on these streets, they have children, they have concerns, I think we need to be supportive of their interest in changing the traffic pattern. Thank you chair Thank you vice mayor. I know everyone has had a chance to speak at least once I have a question and comment before we get to our second round of questioning from council members One on the maintenance issue that councilman Evans brought up Do you not have any maintenance budget for these traffic calming measures that are in the type 1 2 and 3 now? Not within the division traffic engineering. I think if they're maintained that would be maintained by a division of streets and roads since most of our speed humps and speed asphalts or speed tables are asphalt construction so painting on the road it paints off or the speed cushions i know on deer haven three are missing pieces who repairs all that who repaints it streets and roads what when it comes to the speed cushions the temporary speed cushions on deer haven lane we are traffic engineering is maintaining those as far as the pavement markings go that that is all budgeted by a division of streets and roads. Okay, I think we need to get that clear, though, when Council Member Evans asked what the maintenance budget is and be clear on all these things. If these are installed, who's going to maintain them? The second point I want to make, I know a lot of people have concerns about the change to the cost-sharing program. Being one of the authors of the current cost-sharing program back in 2005 when we created it, I'll be very frank with you, most of the poor or low-income neighborhoods can't afford a cost-share anyway. They're not saying we're not going to fund it. Keep in mind, if you have a speed table you need installed, we can fund it 100% up here. That's what they're saying. Or sponsor party. We would be the sponsor party as a council. We can also put $50,000, $100,000 in the budget and have them utilize it for all districts. So they're not saying the government's not going to fund it 100%. They're just saying they're going to do a program as it stands because, again, some of the neighborhoods can't afford the share piece. So if there's a council member that wants to put it as part of their district budget or a budget amendment throughout the year We can do that. So keep that in mind They're not saying the government couldn't fund it 100% if this council votes to do so Or if a neighborhood wanted to fund it 100% they could do so too So it's not just for rich neighborhoods or people who have the means to do it. We can fund it 100% up here So they're not saying we're gonna do away and they can't prohibit us from doing that anyway So I love you all but even if you wanted to we control the budget so So, you know, so that's I just want to make that clear. We can fund these. But the current cost sharing program, when we created it back in the current version in 2005, it was very difficult because we based it on percentages based on home value. And it still was extremely difficult to administer. I put in speed humps based on a request of one neighborhood that now Councilman Evans gets to maintain. But they came to us and they couldn't afford it. So I funded it straight from the council budget 100 percent at the time because they couldn't go door to door and get everyone to chip in. And that's another problem. That's why they're doing away with the program. One is logistics. And two, they're asking us that if we want them, we need to fund in the budget. So I just wanted to make that point. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Council Member Stennett. Also, you just mentioned something about speed cushions, which leads me to ask you about speed cushions. I didn't see any reference anywhere in your program literature about speed cushions. Do you all not use them? No, we typically don't use them. I can't speak to the genesis of why they were put in on Deerhaven Lane. I wasn't the manager at that time. But going forward, we would really like to not use temporary speed cushions because of the maintenance issues. They come up, you know, and we have to go out there and put them back down, and it tears up the asphalt where they come up. So we want to go all or nothing. If we're going to put in something in the road, we want it to be asphalt or concrete or something substantial, not plastic. Okay. So are speed cushions, can you explain a little bit more about what a speed cushion is? Think of a speed bump in a parking lot, and they can be bolted down. They're similar in size to those more so. Oh, okay. Maybe they can be as large as a speed hump even, but they're bolted down. their plastic triangular shape. Okay. Okay. I see now. Okay. All righty. Because we, Craig had done some homework or research this morning that was talking that said that they were a little bit more friendly to emergency vehicles even, but I guess that doesn't matter though. So, because I understand what you're saying about that. I'm just trying to think of methods to help our neighborhood because one of the biggest complaints i heard last year was about traffic calming so um so i'm that's why i'm here and trying to learn more about what what what we can do to be more effective so i appreciate all the information thank you thank you chair thank you council member council member gibbs thank you chair i'm back roger uh you guys have got a really tough job i know that when i walked virtually my entire district when I ran for this position, and the two most common things I heard were people want traffic to move faster on the major arteries, and people want traffic calming in their neighborhoods. And I know that's difficult to balance. And you guys, your whole department has been excellent to work with, and I really appreciate it. I didn't mean to be too harsh with you guys. But I still have problems with it. I just want to reiterate, I'll keep it short, that I don't like the part about no funding, and I do appreciate the chair's comments that we could fund it out of the budget if we had to, but I think this gives the perception that we don't care about traffic calming, and the people in this community really care about traffic calming. If anything, I'd like to see a lot more money put into it, and I would advocate for that. I like chicanes. I like bulb outs. They can be done in a way that they're very aesthetically pleasing. If you look, for example, at Madison Place, and I'm not sure who maintains that, probably the Neighborhood Association, But that's an amenity for the community, not only in a traffic calming sense, but in an aesthetic sense. I don't know if you ever travel. I travel around the country. Well, I travel every chance I get, and I do look at traffic calming the places I go. Probably the best I've seen is in Vancouver, British Columbia. And if you've not taken a look at it, they do some very interesting things there that, again, slow traffic down. I don't think they slow down an emergency vehicle to the point where it risks very many people's lives. and they're very aesthetically pleasing. And I know these things are expensive, but I'd be willing to advocate for that in the budget to go in the direction of doing that. But I guess you could comment on that if you like, but that's all I have to say. Thanks. I don't have a comment. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. And I appreciate the Chair's comments as well. I would be interested to know more about our district budgets that you mentioned, because I don't know that I have one. But again, I guess my concern is if we just put it in the budget or if that's where the request should come, is then are we circumventing your all's process for even getting these? I mean, then are we just going to do away with the petitions because the neighborhood wants the speed tables? I mean, so are we setting up, you know, creating policies that council can then just do away with them if and when we please? I think the intent is that the policies basically remain the same with the minor revisions that Roger talked about, just simply that cost-sharing language changed. So the policies haven't changed. Right. So if we recommend or see that a speed table is warranted on a given street and there is interest from the neighborhood, but it's 100% cost share on them. If council wants to come in then, you're not circumnavigating. You're just helping facilitate the process. And so if Ash Street, for instance, returns their ballots, and they actually have a church pastor or person that is actually wanting to do the cost share, so it's not the residents who can't otherwise afford it. It's a church that's there is also concerned about the speeding. So if they wanted to cost share or whatever, and if we do away with cost sharing, so the church wouldn't have to spend any money. So then I would just do a budget amendment to take all of the money for the speed tables from your $25,000 budget or $50,000 that I created. Ballot process. I mean, it would still need to pass the ballot process. I said after that. So assuming that they return all the ballots and everything passes, then I could just take, I mean, because then you all are going to lose half of your $25,000 annual budget for these. So then you're not going to have money for no parking signs or painting or other speed calming measures. Is that a problem? Are you all okay with that? I mean, I guess, and what Roger, I think, is being kind, not saying, that ballot failed. So speed tables, I guess, wouldn't be eligible on Ash Street. And how many were returned for that one? I don't have the exact number, but I want to say it was in the ballpark of 20, and we needed 34 in response saying yes. And how many of the 20 said yes? All of them. Okay, we'll talk about that later. Thank you. Councilor, I was referring to the list we spent eight hours on last week, the individual council member list during the budget. You could request it that way during budget season, or you could do a budget amendment at any time and take it either from fund balance throughout the year. I wouldn't necessarily want to go in there and take the $25,000, but I think the council really needs to consider increasing that $25,000 in the budget, and we probably should have done it last week. Councilor Evans. Yeah. Councilor Evans. Okay, I think we probably need to have more conversations about that, but I guess, still new, still trying to figure all that out. But I guess my concern is if we have this program, and you all know I'm a process person, and if we have it, we've set it up, I would think the whole point is so we don't have the squeaky wheel getting the grease kind of scenarios on something that should apply to every neighborhood across the board. That's my concern in any kind of changes in a program like this that apparently two-thirds of it is just about amenities, things that are not required by federal guidelines. So, and I, it might just need to be a discussion that we have later on. So I'm just voicing this to, to counsel that, you know, that, that is my concern when we start talking about, well, we can just do this or we can do that. As long as we do things across the board that will apply to the poorest neighborhood, to the richest neighborhood. But again, if we're talking about amenities, what, what do we need to change when we talk to our constituents? What do you all need to do to differentiate amenities versus real safety concerns? Because I guess I'm certain that if a child is injured at an intersection, that we're not going to have to have a neighborhood petition, and we're not going to require them to pay for speed tables. So I guess I'm trying to figure out just how all this plays in together and how it fits in. And, you know, speed tables probably just might be one of the answers in a situation like that. So, you know, that scenario that we use, I don't know, I'm starting to babble, but I guess I'm just trying to figure out how it all plays in together when we're talking about amenities versus real safety issues versus how wealth plays into it or doesn't play into it and just making it an even playing field for everyone. And if that's what you all believe these changes are or do, then I'm appreciative of that because, again, it needs to be even across the board. So thank you. Anyone else have any questions or comments on this issue? All right, seeing none, Roger. Thank you. Next up, we have our traffic signal system. I was actually the council member that put this into committee. I don't think since I've been on council we've really had a true update on our total signal system. I know there's been a lot of technology added to our system as of late and a lot of changes, and I asked our director of traffic engineering to come and give us that update. Thank you. Director, if you want to introduce yourself for people watching, so let me know. Absolutely. My name is Dowell Hoskins-Squire. I'm the director of traffic engineering. Before I get into the presentation, I would like to say that there's a couple people in the audience. Jeff Neal and Steve Cummins are here today in an effort, hopefully, to answer some of your more detailed questions that you may have on the presentation itself. But also, I just wanted to give you a little overview of the organization within our division. Steve runs the computerized traffic signal group, and he has 10 staff members underneath him. He's got four administrative staff members, three of which are professional engineers, and he has six technicians, including an electronic supervisor. Jeff has eight staff members under him. He has three administrative staff members, one professional engineer, and five technicians, including a construction supervisor that manages all the construction projects in the city. And that's in addition to Rogers section, which is the Neighborhood Traffic Management section. I'll also talk about signal infrastructure and the ownership, because I think that's what a lot of people get confused about. You know, does LFUCG own the traffic signal, or does the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet own the traffic signal? I'll talk a little bit about signal structure types, mast arms versus span wire, signal installation costs associated with those structure types, some signal maintenance costs as well as typical issues that we see on a routine basis. And then I'll give a brief overview of some new technologies that we've implemented over the past few years as well as a list of our fiscal year 16 proposed capital projects that were included in the mayor's proposed budget. As far as ownership goes, we've got 377 signals in Fayette County. 137 of those are owned by LFUCG, 240 by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. And just so you guys are aware, the signals that are owned by the Transportation Cabinet is anything that's on a state route. So Richmond Road, Harrodsburg Road, Nicholasville Road, and then LFUCG owns all the signals that are on city streets. So that would be Manowar, Clay's Mill, Limestone, et cetera. However, all of the signals, regardless of ownership, are maintained by LFUCG. So all 377 are maintained by us. we get an annual amount of money from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to maintain their signals. We get $330,000 on an annual basis for routine maintenance. Additionally, something that you may find interesting, how the signals communicate back to our traffic management center. The majority communicate back by fiber optics, which has been a phenomenal program in the city of Lexington, funded primarily by CMAX, so Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funding. um jeff neal has has led that program and then about 70 or 80 intersections communicate by least phone lines as that's phone drops from wind stream 45 use wireless radios and no communications this was just a snapshot in time so that the number is actually not exactly accurate but 10 intersections have no communications permanently so at the point in time that this these numbers were taken 13 didn't have calm for one reason or another so three of them likely the least phone drops weren't communicating back. But 10 on a regular basis do not communicate back. We don't necessarily need communications to those locations. Obviously, it would be great to communicate with every signal, but those aren't critical intersections where we need communications on a daily basis. As far as signal structure types go, the two main methods of constructing a signal are either with strain poles with span wire, so either steel strain poles and wood poles with span wire or mast arms. We've got about 75% of our intersections are span wire, and then about the remaining 25% are mast arms. The span wire intersections, they have various span configurations, diagonal spans, box spans. There's very little boring or underground trenching work that's required for those installations because all the wires are overhead. However, the wiring is exposed to the elements, which I'll show you guys some photos as we move through the presentation, where there's maintenance issues associated with those wires being exposed to the elements, the wires rubbing against each other in the wind. Additionally, the signal heads sway in the wind if there's no tethers, which would be the wire that goes underneath the signal heads. If they don't have tethers, they sway in the wind and leads to visibility issues. And from some people's perspective, there's aesthetic issues with span wire intersections in general. We have enough overhead wires. We don't want more wires from traffic signals. This shows just an example. Obviously, it wasn't a photographer taking that photo. But that's our new signal installation at Sir Barton and Manowar. It was a full rebuild. We did go back with SpanWire at that location. And we also installed what's circled in red as a double cabinet. So basically, the signal cabinet's twice as big as a typical cabinet. Due to all of the technology that we have there, we've got cameras. We've got the adaptive running. Lots of signal heads. We've got the illuminated street name sign. So a lot of cabling has to go back to the cabinet, and a regular-sized cabinet just wasn't adequate. This shows a comparison. On the right is a new strain poll that meets current structural standards. On the left is an old strain poll that was under the previous structural standard, likely from the 80s. The reason for the beefier poll today is AASHTO, which is the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, has structural standards for signal supports that we have to follow. The one reason why this supports are so much beefier today is the wind map for the entire United States changed. So Kentucky is now in a 90-mile-per-hour wind zone where we used to be in a 70. So it's actually less significant. The change is less significant for us here in Kentucky than it is for people in coastal areas. If you're in South Florida, their design wind speed used to be 110, and now it's 150. So it's significantly beefier structures that are being required. So that's one reason why the newer poles look so much bigger than the old poles. In terms of mast arms, typically they're galvanized steel. Obviously the ones downtown, some of the ones in Sir Barton are painted black. They're actually not painted, but they're powder coated. So they should not peel, and I understand there's one that has chipping paint on Sir Barton, but that shouldn't happen. For mast arms, all of the wiring infrastructure is either inside the cantilever arm, inside the pole, or underground, and so the wiring is protected from the elements. The signal heads are rigidly mounted, so they do not sway in the wind, which leads to better visibility. You may require fewer poles. You have the possibility of using dual mast arm poles, so one upright support supports two arms, so there's less visual clutter, I guess, at the intersection. However, there are some maintenance issues associated. Conduits and junction boxes can fill with water. One example of that happening, which happens rather routinely, is at Shinawi and alumni. And so we are going to be rebuilding that signal this year because it goes into flash every time the junction box fills with water. So that's one reason why we rebuild signals. This shows a dual mast arm installation, just so you get a visual on the mast arm. There's nothing particularly interesting to say about that intersection. In terms of the costs, you know, I guess it all depends on your perspective, but I guess the mass arm intersections aren't significantly more expensive than the span wire, but I will note, you know, I've got $110,000 to $130,000 for a typical span wire intersection. Sir Barton and Man of War was not typical, and that cost us about $160,000 to rebuild that with span wire, and it was going to be almost 200,000 to rebuild with mast arms. So in particular locations, very wide intersections, intersections with a lot of technology, a lot of equipment, that's going to be more expensive than the typical. But typically we see about 110 to 130 for span wire, and typically we see about 150 to 190 for mast arms. The transportation cabinet, their standard is span wire, so if we want mast arm intersections on a state route, typically we pay the difference for the mast arms. And any new signal construction on LFUCG roadways, we typically use mast arms. And like I said, for rebuilds, we use it if it's feasible. And if it's feasible, meaning if the roadway approach is a proper width, if it's not too wide, we don't like to do mast arms that are over 60 feet in length. And then also just the cost in general. Additionally, getting back to the structural standards, you'll see the mast arms are a lot beefier, the newer ones than the old ones as well, and there were additional structural standards that required that. And due to those structural standards, they cost more. So they cost typically about 25% more today than they did maybe five years ago. Signal maintenance. On an annual basis, we receive $330,000 from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. They also give us materials. So if we are rebuilding an intersection on Nicholasville Road, for example, they will give us the poles, they'll give us the signal heads, they'll give us the majority of the equipment, anything that's not specialized technology that we want. They give us the vast majority of the material, so that's not reflected in that $330,000. I know you probably tried to divide out the $330,000 by 240 intersections, and it does not come out to $1,062, But that's because I took out salaries. So about $75,000 comes out of the 330 for salaries for our employees that are doing work on state routes. And so all of that labor comes out of the $330,000. In comparison, we received about $49,000 in the general fund last year for signal maintenance for LFUCG signals as well as fiber optic maintenance. So a fairly significant difference between the state's signals and our signals. We requested more money this year, and it was included in the mayor's proposed budget, so we're very appreciative of that. We are going from $49,000 to $85,000 if approved. And then on top of that, we also requested specific funding for fiber optic maintenance, and that was also included in the mayor's budget. So all of those things, I think, will be tremendously helpful moving forward. One thing that I should note that you may find interesting that's not included there is insurance recoveries. So when a pole gets hit by a car or there's storm damage, we recoup some of that funding through insurance recoveries. Maintenance priorities. Right now we operate solely on a reactive basis. We'd like to move to more of a preventive maintenance program, but at this point we're not there yet. we do keep track of maintenance calls. We keep track of maintenance hours spent on individual intersections. And so this year, we undertook an intersection prioritization process where we included that maintenance call data. So when we look at prioritizing intersections based on safety concerns, maintenance concerns, operational concerns, a whole host of criteria, that maintenance concern was included in that prioritization. So that was an overall prioritization. Aside from that, Walter Hall, who is our construction supervisor, keeps an ongoing list of signals that have significant wiring and infrastructure deterioration, whether it be strain poles that are bending because of the weight that's on them or wiring deterioration or whatever it may be. So we've got a list with over 40 intersections with significant deterioration. What our goal would be to reduce the number of emergency repairs. We've got guys going out in storms in the middle of the night in a thunderstorm, and it's not safe, and frankly, it's not good for the traveling public, and it's not good for our technicians either. So the goal would be to reduce the number of those emergency repairs where guys have to come and fix stuff in the middle of the night. Additionally, we'd like to reduce diagonal spans. It's an initiative of the Transportation Cabinet to eliminate diagonal spans, span wire intersections due to signal head visibility concerns, and we would like to undertake that same initiative. This shows, and it may be a little bit difficult to see, but when Steve Cummins was reviewing this presentation, he told me, well, that was a really great day for a picture, but you know that that emergency repair splice was not done on a sunny day. It was done in a rainstorm, and it could have been done in the dark. And so these types of repairs are what leads signals to go into flash and need to be fixed. I will take this opportunity to commend our traffic signal technicians. They do a great job. They work in all weather conditions, all winter when it's freezing outside, all summer when it's hot, at night, in the rain. And they do an incredible job. So I would like to take this opportunity to commend them on their work. I think it often goes underappreciated when they're out there in traffic because the signal is malfunctioning. The public is honking and making hand gestures at them. But really all they're trying to do is help the situation. This shows another emergency repair splice up close where you can see that it's been taped over to protect the wiring from the elements. This shows squirrel damage. We've got rodent damage constantly on wires. I'm not sure what tastes so good about the wires, but squirrels tend to like the cabling. This is probably particularly hard to see, but this, a mouse, made his home in an Ethernet switch. It was in the winter, I believe, and so it was warm inside the switch, and he took out all the insulation and made his home inside the switch. That particular piece of equipment cost us about $2,000 to replace. This shows just an example of some of the wear and tear on cabling. We've got intersections that were put into service in the 70s, maybe some even older than that. So that's about 45 years that a signal could be in operation and with minimal repairs or replacement of cabling or infrastructure. And so this just shows general wear and tear on cables where they're lashed together or rubbing on an entrance point to a pole or something of that nature. And I'll try to go quickly because I know I've only got a few minutes remaining. This just shows some of the issues with the older signal structures, how many wires have to go into that one pole that feeds the traffic signal cabinet. So if you've got a span wire intersection, all of the wires have to go inside the pole that's next to the cabinet. As you can see in this example, not all the wires go inside the pole, so some are on the outside of the pole, and this will be another reason why we need to rebuild some of our signalized intersections. Additionally, the access point on the pole for the guys to do maintenance, they've got to stick their hand inside a hole that's about the size of this pen. And so, I mean, you can see my hand is bigger than a pen. And to stick your hand inside that hole and find the wire that you need to find is incredibly difficult. So with the newer signal structures, it's much easier for the technicians to get the job done that they need to do. Hold on, Dal, one second. Well, a committee member would like to extend the presentation. The time is up, so unless there's a motion to extend it, we would have to. All right, there's a motion in a second. Keep going. Thank you. I apologize. I knew I was going to go long, and I was trying to talk fast, but obviously not fast enough. This just shows a signal control cabinet. Obviously, a ton of wire is going in. It's also sitting on the ground. The newer cabinets are on a concrete base, which keeps the wiring off the ground. I'm getting wet. This shows an example of a new signal pull. It has extra conduit space. You'll see the three extra conduits in the base of the pole. They have watertight sealant on them, so no water intrusion will get into the conduits. This shows an example of a new cabinet. It's neatly wired. It's off the ground. Also, you can see the conduits in the base with the yellow conduit plugs, so there's room for new technology and new wiring in the future. As far as new technologies go, I'll talk a little bit about our adaptive signal deployment, as well as our Bluetooth, which those are Bluetooth travel time readers. and also our traffic camera video distribution to the Internet, which is one of our initiatives for fiscal year 16. We're currently converting all of our CCTV cameras to IP from analog, and we're about probably 60% complete with that. This map shows where we currently have adaptive signal control, which means that there is an additional piece of equipment in the signal cabinet, a processor, that is vendor-specific. Our vendor is called NSYNC or Rhythm Engineering, and they provide us with that controller or processor that goes in the signal cabinet. We also have some additional detection needs that are needed at each intersection. That's the make-ready work that's referenced on the slide. But typically it costs about $35,000 more per intersection to run adaptive signal control. What the adaptive signal control should do is help traffic conditions that aren't predictable. You know, we can make signal timing plans all day long if we know that the traffic is predictable. And those likely will be better than the adaptive can simulate. But what the adaptive helps us with is unpredictable traffic conditions. So it seemed that the Sir Barton Corridor and Man O' War would be a good application of that technology, specifically Sir Barton. If you think about a shopping corridor, there's unpredictable peaks that happen along that corridor. and it seems to be working reasonably well on Sir Barton. On Winchester Road, there's four intersections that have been running adaptive for a couple years now, and although there hasn't been significant operational improvements, so travel time reductions, there has been a crash reduction, and we're not really sure what that's attributable to, but the University of Kentucky did the study and demonstrated that there is a crash reduction on that corridor. There also, just to note, there is an ongoing maintenance cost associated with the adaptive. It's $750 per year per intersection. So at this point, we've got 19 intersections, which costs us about $14,000 a year. The blue toads, the toads part stands for travel time, origin, and destination. And these are Bluetooth travel time readers that are getting MAC addresses from cell phones and vehicles that have Bluetooth on the roadway. And so that's where all the data comes from. This data has been tremendously helpful for us. We can evaluate the impacts of collisions on traffic flow. This shows one example, and this may be kind of hard for you guys to interpret, but if you go along, the x-axis is time, so 4 o'clock, 4.35, 5.30 in military time. And on the y-axis is travel time. So you can see the typical travel time from Richmond Road and Manowar intersection to Manowar and Todd's Road is about 3 minutes and 20 seconds on a typical day, basically during the peak hour. So the Green Line on April 15th, tax day, there was a collision on Manowar. That collision, the impact of that collision on travel time, first of all, increased the travel time from 3 minutes and 20 seconds on average to almost 13 minutes and 20 seconds, so an additional 10 minutes. But not only that, it extended over 2 hours. So the collision likely happened sometime right before 4.30, so the 17.30 that's shown there. And then you see, you know, it peaks around 5 o'clock, but truly it doesn't dissipate until almost 7.30 at night. And so that just shows the impact that collisions, lane closures, for whatever reason, have on traffic. This slide shows what we hope to move to this year. So we want to have our traffic camera feeds on the Internet. We want to have what's called a virtual video wall concept. So that's what this is. This is Louisiana Department of Transportation's website. But basically, it would allow users, it would allow first responders, the media, to pick specific camera feeds and create their own video wall. So basically simulating what we have in our traffic management center, but you could do it on your own desktop. And that's what we hope to accomplish this coming year. We're currently working with IT on refining our RFP, which we've basically got nailed down at this point. So I think we're almost ready to advertise for consulting services to help us identify the plan and integration needs and equipment needs. Okay, real quickly, this is my last slide. I wanted to give a quick overview. I know the council members that were on our link knew what our capital projects are for this coming year, but I wanted to let everybody on the committee know. We have six signalized intersection rebuilds. That's double what we requested last year. We were able to do three last year. We requested double the amount just because of the deferred maintenance that we've got the list of significant deterioration on some locations. Those six were determined to be priorities. And, you know, that list could change, but at the point in time that we submitted the budget, those were our six top locations at that time. Adaptive signal control, which would continue at down man-o'-war. Pedestrian safety and ADA improvements. That's an initiative of mine specifically, and we developed a pedestrian safety working group internal to LFUCG back in late October, early November. We've included representatives from LexTran. We've included representatives from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to identify specific areas where pedestrian safety is a concern. And so that funding is specific to address some of those, the highest priority issues. The traffic management center upgrades is related to getting the camera feeds out to the internet. That will help us. We're not sure exactly what equipment we need to purchase yet, but it could help us with video servers or whatever we need specific to that request or initiative. And then finally, operational spot improvements is related specifically to our intersection prioritization process. And we've identified some relatively low-cost improvements that we think can tremendously help operations at some intersections, and that funding will be used for those. That's it. Thank you so much. We have two council members signed up. Councilor Masati is first. Thank you, Dowell. Wow, a lot of information. Thanks for all the info. My big thing is the pedestrian safety. You've got $200,000 allocated for that. I mean, do you think that's enough money? I mean, I know you're studying it, but we're trying to promote walking. We're trying to promote cycling. And, you know, I walk every day, and I take my life in my hands when I try to cross an intersection, especially like a busy intersection. What do you guys have in mind? Yeah, this is a starting point. This is the first time that money has specifically been requested for pedestrian safety separate from other funding. So what we would work towards, it would not include sidewalks. So what we hope to accomplish is install ADA ramps where we may have a marked crosswalk into a curb. We may have a marked crosswalk into a curb with no PED signals. And so we're prioritizing locations where we can make pavement marking changes, so we can add crosswalks, we can add pedestrian signals, and ADA ramps. How about increasing the amount of time when you have to cross a busy intersection? We can do that any day. You can do that, so that's not a biggie. Not a big deal, no. And you can make those drivers yield to these pedestrians all the time. I can't do that. I didn't think so, but I thought I might ask. But one of our initiatives, I will say, and I hate to take up any more time, but Mayor Gray accepted Secretary Fox's Safer People, Safer Streets initiatives, and I know several council people came to the kickoff meeting for that. And one of the seven initiatives that are associated with that challenge is enforcement and education. And actually, this coming Thursday, we've invited the police to watch a webinar on pedestrian safety and enforcement. And so hopefully that'll spur some additional interest on their part. Maybe even a good idea to go to the neighborhoods and kind of go forward with that because, you know, again, we're trying to promote healthy cities and walking and cycling. And, you know, again, it's difficult when you try to walk and no one's paying attention to you out there. So that would be great if we could maybe try to promote that. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair. I will be very brief. I echo Council Member Sadi's, you know, thoughts and sentiments. And you all have an incredibly difficult job. You and Roger, and I don't by any means wish to be critical. I'm curious. For instance, on Fort Harrods and Harrisburg Road, that light is so short. I mean, it's like five seconds or less. And people, they speed quickly to get through the light. In doing so, there's been a lot of accidents right there. I know by increasing it, there's all kind of domino effects. So I'm just curious, when we have an issue like that, what's the best way to articulate that to you? We receive requests like that routinely in an email, or it can be entered directly into LexCol either way. But we get signal timing complaints or requests all the time on a daily basis. And if there are a specific number of incidents where there's maybe several of them, do we look into that proactively? Look at crash data? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, some cases where we may have a permitted left turn movement and there have been angle crashes at that location, we look at protecting that movement. so basically it wouldn't run with the opposing through traffic. But, yeah, there's certainly things that we can do to look at safety-wise. Okay, good. And my last thought is the virtual feed concept. I had a lot of people during the snow call and say, why can't I see what's going on on the roads? You can see it on Channel 3, but you can't see it on the Internet. So I think it's great. I think it would be very, very helpful for a variety of reasons. And I'm just curious if you could maybe in the RFP add the app to it so that you could – I don't know how that works with live streaming, but if they could do that in a 311 app or something where they could quickly look and get immediate feedback might be something to consider. It is something that we have considered, and I think we'll get consultant advice on that too. What our IT department has suggested is we go with a mobile website, so the website is adaptable to using on a mobile device but not going with an app just simply because of the maintenance costs associated with the app. But we can certainly look at it. No, that makes sense. I was just curious. Thanks. Councilmember Lamb. Thank you, Chair. Two things. One, I'm just curious, the statistics you shared today, are those specifically just the stoplights or do they include the flashing lights and then all the other lights that are up and down? The 377 number? Yes. That does not include flashing beacons. Oh, so it's just the stoplights? I don't think it includes lane use controls either and doesn't. Do you all maintain those as well? Yes. Wow. Okay. The other thing is, on these projects, the six signalized intersection rebuilds, do you all have those set out as to when you expect those to be completed? We will have the money encumbered by the end of this fiscal year, but it's kind of tough to say. I don't know in the prioritization which ones will come first, but regardless, we hope to have them all in some phase of designer construction within this year. Is there, I don't know what your normal protocol is, but do you all normally reach out to the districts and let them know ahead of time so that we can make our constituents aware of the project forthcoming? We will do that. Okay, thanks. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Thanks. Thanks, Chair. You're welcome. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Dow. This was actually really informative. I learned so much about traffic lights today and the types of signals and the problems with rodents and such. So thank you. And on this slide where you have the blue toads map, can you go to that one? So since I represent that top left side, I guess my question is, can you tell me why, you know, I guess, or when these will be expanded or? This year. And thank you for bringing that up because I had a note on that slide to talk about that. And I was trying to go too fast. So this year we will be expanding the Blue Toad application specifically to the south and to the west. I do, though, believe Leastown Road is on the list for inclusion. So basically to the west we will be expanding it. When you were talking about them, you mentioned lane closures. And, you know, we've been dealing for two years now on Leastown with lane closures and now New Circle Road and lane closures. And so I just think that, you know, that information that you mentioned, the timing and all that would be very helpful to know. And as you know, I hear about signal delays and all that as well from the neighborhoods, and we talk often about that. So I just wondered what the timeline for that was. So thank you. For this fiscal year, we will expand that. Thanks a lot. Thanks for bringing that up. Okay, anyone else have any questions or comments? I had a couple now. I know you and I had a chance to talk Friday and go over some of this. But I guess for the public viewing and for my benefit as well, we talk about the difference in pole or the steel traffic signals and the string signals and the cost. Is there any type of methodology that says that for every one we put in, this is how much we save in the future for maintenance cost? Because you're spending 40 to 50 percent, in some cases, more to put in the poles versus the string. So is there anything out there that says if you do this, you'll save this much going forward or later on? I think there is. I can't tell you specifically, but I will be happy to get that data. And certainly we've got historical maintenance data on all of our signals, so we should be able to pull that. And then what about the adaptive traffic? For every light we put $35,000 into, how much money will we save on drive time for motorists and gasoline costs? I mean, how will we make that money back? In other words, why should we do it? That's what we're working on. Is it just convenience? No, that's what we're working on. And on the Winchester Road corridor specifically, like I said, we didn't see a lot of operational benefits. So simply not a lot of travel time savings. We did see crash reduction. So there's some costs associated with that that's clearly beneficial to the public. But, you know, the goal would be to see both. So safety improvements as well as operational improvements. And that's what we're kind of in the test phase on Manowar to see what the results will be. Yeah, I think, you know, most of the district people, and I can relate as well, is your main calls are a lot about traffic and traffic movement, flow, signal timing. I mean, if I've heard it once, I've heard it twice, you know, why can't we time our signals better? Because I get through three and then I have to stop. And, you know, so that's what I'm looking at. And we do all these things. We're spending a lot of money on technology. But does it benefit us on the bottom line, on the average commute daily, and allows that commute to go faster, or not necessarily faster, but more efficient? Right. And that's what the blue totes will really help us with. I mean, specifically on Man at War, we'll have before and after data. So we'll be able to see, do travel times, are travel times faster with the adaptive or not? Okay, so you're working on that? You can get some hard data? Okay, thank you. Anything else for anybody? Okay, we'll move on to our next item. Thank you, Dow. And thank you, Steve and Jeff, for coming as well. And Roger, thank you again. Division of Water Quality Projects report. I see Mr. Martin making his way to the podium. Do you want to hit on any highlights, or do you want to just open up to questions? Typically, I'll usually cover a couple of highlights and then open up to questions if that's okay. I assume that everybody has the 11 by 17 copy, which is a little bit easier to read. If not, I do have some extras if anybody needs them. I wanted to highlight, well, first of all, just to remind everybody how the format is set up here, is that we've got the green section, which is the top of it. That's the projects that were completed in the last six months. Yellow are all the projects or contracts that we have ongoing right now, And then the salmon is what's coming in the next six months. And so this is kind of the snapshot of, you know, past, present, and future for us. I'll focus, and also that the red font projects are ones that are consent decree related, where black font is not. I know sometimes we get wrapped around the axle, everything's about the consent decree, but it really isn't. And then lastly is that the far right-hand column, as the council districts, that are impacted for those. And so as you are looking at this later in your leisure time or something, if you have any questions you want to ask me about something, I don't recognize that project in my district, just drop me an email, and we'll get somebody hooked up with you to enlighten you. Specific projects. In the green section, you see a lot of red and a lot of them that have RMP behind them. And we got 11 RMP projects or remedial measures projects done in the last six months. And so big dollar projects that we're getting now in our rearview mirror. I'm going to have you go ahead and bring the picture up because I want to jump down into the yellow now as far as project number 38. A little bit difficult to see. Do we have the pointer? There it is. this is a this is a picture of the town branch uh wet weather storage tank under construction i got a couple of guys that are standing in here doing some work here they're preparing this overall slab for pouring concrete the people that are in this give it some scale over here in the dark kind of there's a front end loader piece of machinery this is a 260 foot slab that is getting ready to be poured. It will be a continuous pour of concrete that's supposed to start here at the end of June. It's the biggest RMP project we have done to date, roughly about $20 million worth. We'll be coming out of the ground in August. Maybe sometime we might do something unique and have one of the committee meetings and we go on a field trip to Town Branch. That might be interesting. I'm going to jump back up to project number 37 because there's been a lot of discussion about 37. This is West Hickman Trunk A sewer project. Some folks have noticed that the contractor has stopped working in the Veterans Park area. We're in the process of having somewhat of a dispute as far as meeting the conditions of the contract. That's really all I can say about it right now. We're meeting with the contractor tomorrow looking to try to find a resolution so we can get that one back underway. Moving on down to number 42, which is the lower Cane Run wet weather storage tank. I distributed an email to all of the council members giving you an update on where we stand with the design of that tank and also the potential for amenities with that tank since it's adjacent to the legacy trail. Again, the schedule would be is that when you get back from your summer break, that we'll be coming forward with the council, not only with the contract to award to begin construction of the tank, similar to what we saw in the picture, but also an amenities recommendation of which that the council can then react to. Moving on to the next, to the back page on the salmon, I just wanted to note two projects that are, there's number 105, which is the East Hickman Pump Station. That is a next project that's coming down the pike. It's down in the Buckhorn Alumni Drive area. Another storage tank. That one should be interesting because we are very close to residential properties down there. So we're going to have to work really hard on trying to get that one squared away. And then lastly, 107, which is the Rogers Road. I know the chair is familiar with that one in particular. What I was told that we are just about ready to bid that. I signed the clear site certificate for it this morning, which means we have all the easements, which that puts us in a green light situation. Hopefully we'll see dirt flying by this fall. With that, whatever questions we have. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it, Charlie. Committee members, any questions on any of the outstanding projects? All right. None. You're off the hook easy. Oh, actually, we got one. Vice Mayor Kay. I couldn't log in. Charlie, thanks for the update. on the storage tank that you showed us the work on. Can you tell us a little bit about the design question which has been being worked on and what stage it's at and what's going to happen going forward in terms of the external appearance of that tank? You're referencing number 42, which the picture is actually Town Branch. This is just an example. But you wanted to ask about number 42, which is the lower Cane Run wet weather storage tank, which is adjacent to Legacy Trail. I see. I've got the wrong. Okay. Yes. Yes. You would. Thank you. As I said, that was in an email that I distributed to everybody. But to paraphrase what I said in the email is that originally we started down a path where we were engaging stakeholders, the bicycle community, business owners out in that area. two of the council members whose district is either in this, either the tank is in their district or it's adjacent to it, trying to invite various people to have a role in making a decision of what this tank may or may not look like. We kind of got bogged down by winter and things like that. Matter of fact, we were supposed to have a stakeholder meeting the day that we had the very first 10-inch snow. So just to give you an indication, we kind of got snowmageddoned by all this. But long story short is that we then made the decision that we were going to uncouple the design of the tank itself, the physical tank, from the amenities thing so we didn't blow our schedule with EPA. We have to have the tank in service by a certain time. Then that would allow the amenities decisions to be vetted more carefully instead of rushed because of an EPA schedule. Well, in May, we had another meeting with the stakeholders, fairly well attended. They looked at three different alternatives that have been prepared by Scape, who is working as a subconsultant with the primary engineer, HDR. I believe I had distributed that in the email that I had sent out to all the council members. We've kind of digested that right now, and I left the meeting with the feeling that there was not a clear, that's the one. It was more of kind of, I like this, but I don't like this, kind of a hybrid type of thing. So my team, along with Parks and Recreation, are trying to put together what we think the hybrid is, what we thought everybody liked or didn't like, try to put that into a presentation that we would then come to the council and say, this is what we think we ought to do, and then allow the council to have some participation in whether or not you like it, you don't like it, you want to see something more, you want to see something less. But basically give you a staff recommendation to react to. That's where it stands. Okay, that's helpful. I have, I guess it's not a question, it's really a comment. I think from what I understand, there's some differences of opinion about whether this ought to be an attraction or not, whether this is an opportunity to actually create something special for the community and to recognize that that will mean there will be maintenance costs, there will be other kinds of costs associated with it if it's something that we really want to bring people to, as opposed to having it be something that people might want to notice or look at but not actually visit. So can you comment on it? I guess I do have a question. Can you comment on it? I can only comment because I can give you my opinion of it, and I'm not so sure that is what it is. One thing I've learned is there's a whole variety of opinions in this. There certainly have been. And we've tried to listen to all those opinions, But at some point in time, we've got to have to kind of distill it down and then bring it to the decision makers, which is the council, because ultimately this is going to have to be paid for by, you know, somebody, by our, your constituents and my customers money. So, you know, my personal feeling of it is I started this is I didn't want to have the Florence y'all tank sitting out by the interstate. I just did not want that. I felt like most all of you would agree with that. And so what do we do to make what is going to be a big tank that has to be there be in something that is more of an icon instead of an eyesore? And so that's where the whole thing started. And there's a lot of ideas and a lot of people that are a lot smarter than I am about how to do those things. And we've tried to invite them to be part of the discussion. But in part of that discussion is that it starts getting to a point to how much money are you willing to spend, not only in the initial part of it, but also the long-term maintenance. And I keep using the example of any of you that have seen the show, I think it's on the lifetime table, say yes to the dress. And this is where, you know, couples go, if somebody's wanting to buy a wedding dress and you go in with great ideas of what you can, But when you get this into the price point, then you have to make decisions about based on what you can afford, as opposed to what your desires are. I have my opinion, but ultimately it's your all opinions, the one that counts the most. Well, let me just comment, and then my time's up. But the comment would be that I would hate to see us miss an opportunity to create something special there. And I would encourage council members to think about that as we go forward. It's not simply about design. It's about the possibility of creating an amenity that would really be very different and special for the community. So thank you, Chair. If I may comment to that, you're not alone in that thought. I'm sorry, but I did not get it. I just wanted to make sure that, you know, based on the participation that we've had from the, a lot of people share that opinion. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Maybe we'll see a blue horse filled with waste, so to speak. Councilmember Akers. That sounds horrible. Thank you, Chair. There have been a lot of good ideas and some not so great ideas. Believe me, there's been no shortage of ideas. Yeah, so I just wanted to follow up on what Charlie was saying, that it is a large group that has been meeting the stakeholders group, probably 40 people at least, a lot of staff members from different divisions in the city, council member Lane and myself or his representative, parks folks, community foundation people, legacy trail people. And yeah, it's not easy to come to consensus when you have 40 opinions in the room or more. But so I wanted to ask Charlie, and maybe I should have asked our consultant who's supposed to be facilitating the group, but following that meeting, we were all asked to submit ideas or whatever, because there were varying opinions. And so I did that. Did you receive those notes from everyone's? And that's what we're using to try to distill this. Now it was in the hands of staff to make the final recommendation of design. I don't know if it's to us to make the final recommendation. Recommendation is not necessarily a good word, but it's the best I could come up here with right now. As you recall from our first meeting, we didn't have anything to react to. And I'm trying to put together what this did. But then we did. The last meeting we had three different designs. And so Scape is not going back and redoing those three designs, or they are? Yes, they are. They are. Okay. I wanted to make sure it was them and not our parks department. No, no, it's not. They're getting input from us. We actually have a conference call with them on Thursday for that very thing. But like I said, I've tried to take down what I felt like was the important points. Parks had their opinion about the important points. We've shared that with Scape. Scape says, you know, I think you missed some of the important points, and that's what we're talking about on Thursday. Okay, that's great. Thank you. Council Member Maloney, and welcome. Charlie, what I want to make a statement on, and I appreciate what you want to do or what we ever decide to do with those tanks, and I don't want you to waste a lot of calories. I'm worried about that. I think that's something that we have another group that does that, and I really feel you need to keep on going the pace that you're going to make sure we get this stuff done because we want to stay in compliance with the EPA So do not let this drag you down. But I think it goes back to where we have an opportunity. And I'm going to be honest with you. I think it's great. I'm not going to be an expert on being on this committee. But I've seen that either we put the art committee together, some other people, and like you all said, and put an organization together and have a committee to just, because this is just the beginning. There's going to be a lot more of these. So I think, to me, instead of him worrying about the calories, worrying about what we're going to put there, I would recommend that, I don't know if it comes out of this committee or come out of the council, that we put a committee together and let them deal with this kind of issues and let Charlie continue to do on what he's got to do because the last thing we need to do is just tie it up and let you do something that you're not, you're like a general doctor. But when you've got a heart problem, we're going to go see a heart specialist. We've got a heart problem, we're going to go see an heart specialist. So in my opinion, we need to put this into the hands of what the people that can do this, and you continue to do what you're good at. And I think it's a great partnership if we get this right committee. So I want you to continue to go on down the road that you will require. Now, the committee here, I don't know if we want to make the motion out of your committee, because it eventually will have to come back or go to the council as a whole and ask Council Member Kaye to put a committee together to look into this and try to put the right people on there to solve his problem, what he's concerned about. Because I know that's what you can put committees together, and I don't know if there's a place that you'd rather recommend that to this committee or do you rather recommend to council as a whole that you come back with a committee to put something together to look at this issue. Is that a comment or a question? Both comment and question. If it is a comment, and I think we should go that way, where do we make that do we make it out of this committee or do we make it out of the council as a whole so he can put a committee together to look into this and put the right people on there i'll just kind of respond off the top of my head but my sense is that there's been a committee that's that's been working on this set of issues along with staff and that it would be appropriate for their don't call them recommendations their options their thoughts whatever it is to come to this committee for further conversation and discussion and then i think we can make a determination if we think if we think it needs further vetting and that there's a different way to do it than bringing it forward to council we ought to do that but i would not interrupt the process and i since i've not been a part of that committee um i'm kind of uninclined to kind of undermine their work and so i uh councilmember acres maybe you want to respond as well I don't know what other council members have been on that. Council Member Lane came early on, and yes, we have been meeting over six months. I don't know how long, Charlie, a year? Yeah, since last fall. Yeah. So we've been meeting for a long time, just about that particular water tank, though. I don't know that every water tank is going to have art amenities, or I'm pretty sure they don't. So this one in particular was someone had the idea to make it an art or park amenity or whatever along the trail because it is visible from I-75, because it's on the corridor of Newtown Pike, because it sits on the Legacy Trail. So for those reasons, this one in particular had its own stakeholder group formed and has been meeting, and we're almost finished. So council is getting ready to see what the design proposal is. Thank you. Council Member Lang. Thank you. I was just going to say that there has been a large committee. I didn't make the last meeting, but my aide sort of briefed me on it. And essentially the options were to have some kind of graphic art that you could see from the interstate. But as I understand it, there's an issue about visibility from the interstate because there's foliage growing in between there, which means we could, I guess, clear that. But, I mean, an idea could be to have a blue horse on it, you know. But the other idea was to have it tie into the trail up to the horse park and make a rest station there or have, you know, an art exhibit. I mean, there's a whole lot of different ideas that came out. I don't think that anybody has really definitively come up, and I think Charlie's point was well made. There were a lot of different ideas, but nothing seemed to mesh together from what I understand. Thank you. But I think the idea would be to have that committee continue and then bring it back to this committee. Pastor Maloney, do you have any final comments? The thing that I'm hearing and you're all working on it, I think it's great what you're doing, but we've got a lot more of these to do. And it goes back to when we do any kind of project in park for art or anything, we have to go through a process and make sure that everybody's on board with the right people in there. I see this as an opportunity to do the same thing because we've got tons of more of these. You've got Richmond Road, which is going to be a prime road right there for advertisement when we build that one. I mean, I just think we need to put policies and procedures in any kind of these things, and we need a group to go through. And the last thing I want to do, I mean, I commend what you're doing, but I don't want to – I'm not going to make those decisions because I'm not an expert on this. And I'm going to be honest with you. I'm not an expert on what kind of art or marketing or anything like that. So what I'm wanting to see is we do the same thing we do with anything we do in our parks. Put some group together that's the expert and let them handle the situation and let us stay completely out of this. That's what I recommend. Vice Markay. Well, I guess there's no opportunity for us to stay completely out since we'll have to make some decisions. But I understand the point. So, again, without having given it a lot of thought at this point, my sense is that we have had a committee that's been working on this particular one. Let's see what happens with that. And if it makes sense, if there are other facilities that are going to be built that have visibility or where there's an opportunity to use them as an attraction rather than simply a big structure, that we ought to be looking at that. but that I would wait until we get this one kind of taken more care of. And I'd solicit, Charlie, your thought about other structures that would benefit from the same process. Are we going to have more of those? Maybe, but like I said, right now this one was the one at hand. And its proximity of being plopped in the middle of an open field next to the Legacy Trail really drove this. You know, you're talking 200 plus feet in diameter, sidewall of more than 50 feet high. I mean, so it's a big thing sticking in the middle of what is basically a trail and a field. We have uncoupled this. And so in Council Member Maloney's concern, yeah, we're not letting this hold up the completion of the tank. By doing the amenities package evaluation separately, that keeps us on track. We've tried to invite the artist community, the trail community. There was a trail arts plan. That's not the correct terminology, but there was a plan put together when the Legacy Trail was developed. We tried to include them. I would be in concurrence with the thought is that let's come forward with what we have. If we did it wrong, okay, you're right, I'm not an artist. I didn't do well in art when I was in high school. That's how I became an engineer. But let's see what we've got here, and then we can react to that accordingly. It will not upset the schedule or create an unnecessary risk. So if I can maybe have a final comment, at least on my side. I take your point seriously. As it happens, just coincidentally, for the last few days, we've had a visit from the program officer from the Knight Foundation, which is interested in connectivity with trails and other kinds of facilities that a city puts together. And they bring resources to the table. So the ongoing question, I think, is when we're doing these kinds of projects and similar projects, is there an opportunity to tie it in and make it part of the rails, trails, public amenities, public spaces, work that we're doing more generally. So I think we complete this work as much as possible, but we kind of maintain our interest in making sure that we don't overlook any other opportunities for anything else that we're doing in terms of infrastructure to make it a part of the amenity for all of the people in the community. So hopefully going forward we can do that. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Anything else on item number four on our agenda? All right, CNN. Thank you, Charlie. Last item on our agenda is items referred to committee on page 95 in your packet. If we could go through these quickly, committee, and have motions, we can clean this up significantly. The first item is the waste management funding options. I'll be ready to speak about that in August to the committee. Next, we have consolidated Greenway's responsibility. I believe we covered that back in April. Is there a motion to remove? So moved. Motion by Vice Mayor Kay, second by Council Member Gibbs. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, we'll remove that. Empower Lexington, Vice Mayor. That's an annual report, and I guess what we need to do is get with the environmental quality folks and see when they might be ready to bring that forward. Very good. What about the distillery update? Do you want to keep that or remove it at this time? I believe we got the answer to the question about what's possible in the distillery district at the last meeting. I would move to remove it. Motion and a second by Council Member Brown to remove it. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that's removed. Urban Forestry Management Plan, I think that will come to as late this summer. Is that right? Let's just leave it. That's when I inherit it. I need to do some research on it. Very good, thank you. Just leaving the committee. Retention, detention, maintenance, and enforcement. councilman massadi we're keeping that in here for the fall um it's not an issue anymore in my district that's why i wanted to bring it forward but i think councilman lane um his aide had spoken to me about it i don't know if he would like to keep this in committee or not we want to keep that committee councilman lane did you hear that we want to keep it yeah okay we'll keep that hopefully you have some resolution this fall private streets do we want to keep that councilman rosati yes okay snow and ice plan will come back to us here in august septemberish the fiber optic technology councilman farmer would like to keep that in there street lights councilman rosati do we need to hear that again or can that be removed i think it can be removed do i have a second second a motion a second by councilman evans All in favor of removal, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that's gone. Todd's Road widening. Council Member Evans? I think we can remove that for purposes of updates for the committee. It's underway and hopefully will remain on schedule. So I move to remove. Move to remove it. All right, there's a motion. Do I have a second? Second. All right, second by Council Member Brown, Fred Brown. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Safe Rouse to School, I know we've done that. Is there a motion to remove that? Or do we need to... Motion by Council Member Fred Brown. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Council Member Gibbs. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Pavement management will come back to us once the new system is completed this fall. Lexington, keep Lexington beautiful annual report. That's an annual update. I need a motion to remove the traffic signal system. So moved. Motion by Vice Mayor Kay. Second by Council Member Gibbs. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Changing signals and intersections to four-way stops. I think we disposed of that last Thursday night. Need a motion. I moved and removed that from the list. Second. Second by Council Member Sadi. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. That's removed. Council Member Maloney, Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Do we want to keep that in here for further discussion? Did you all approve? I wasn't here. I'm sorry. how they could not get the mail. We didn't take any action. We just heard a report out. Do you all the reason why I brought this is because the reason I brought this up and met with all these people because first of the year everybody was concerned about how we're going to put four-way stops in and how we're going to do streets, I mean speed limits and all that and we want from what I'm sorry I'm going to repeat a lot of stuff you probably already talked about. We still let them do the study when the problem comes back and when they don't agree that it should be done right that way in the neighborhood. That's why we put this program together so they can do the petition. They can do all that. And that was the main reason. So we don't have council members bringing things up and get caught in the middle. So at least we have a process in place. And that was the main reason. So I was hoping that's what came out of this meeting that you all had stopped the process. Why don't we leave it in there because we didn't endorse the process. I think there may be more discussion. Okay. We'll keep it in, and if we need to endorse it, we will. Reduction of speed limit on Jewett Creek. That's actually being reported out today, so I'll have a motion to remove. If somebody will make that for me. So moved. Motion by Council Member Gibbs and a second by Council Member Lane. All in favor, say aye. Any opposed? All right, and the last name was just placed in the committee last week, and hopefully we'll get to that this fall. Do I have any other business before the committee? All right, motion to adjourn. So moved. Move and second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. We're adjourned. Thank you.